HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 03-03; Robertson Ranch; Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Final); 2006-11-14Final
Environmental Impact Report
Volume I
Master Plan
City of Carlsbad
April 2006
Final
Program Environmental Impact Report
For the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan
(EIR 03-03)
Volume I
State Clearinghouse # 2004051 039
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday A venue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
BRG Consulting, Inc.
304 Ivy Street
San Diego, CA 92101
April2006
City Council Resolution 2006-324
November 14, 2006
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Bound separately in Volume IB)
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Legal Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 1-2
1 .2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-3
1 .2.1 Notice of Preparation and Seeping Meetings ................................................................ 1-3
1 .2.2 History of Project .................................................................................................................. 1-4
1 .3 A vail ability of Reports ......................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.4 Public Review of Draft EIR .................................................................................................................. 1-4
1.5 Structure of this EIR .............................................................................................................................. 1-4
1.5.1 Volume 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5.2 Volumes lA, IB, IC, II. Ill, and IV ........................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Project Description Summary ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Potential Areas of Controversy ......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Altematives to the Proposed Project ............................................................................................... 2-5
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ : ......................................... 3-1
3.1 Site Location and Description ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.3.1 Master Plan Land Use Summary ........................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.2 Supporting Public Services and Utilities .......................................................................... 3-14
3.3.3 Vehicular Circulation and Roadway Improvements ................................................... 3-1 5
3.3.4 Scenic Corridor Guidelines ............................................................................................... 3-16
3.3.5 Pedestrian Circulation ....................................................................................................... 3-16
3.3.6 Habitat Management Plan Open Space ...................................................................... 3-16
3.3.7 Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................................ 3-16
3.3.8 Phasing ................................................................................................................................ 3-21
3.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 3-21
3.5 Intended Uses of the EIR .................................................................................................................. 3-22
3.5.1 Discretionary Actions and Approvals by the City of Carlsbad ................................... 3-23
3.5.2 Discretionary Actions and Approvals by Other Agencies ........................................... 3-26
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................. 4-1
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR April2006
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................... 5.1-1
5.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 5.1-1
5.1.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5.1-1
5.1 .2 Threshold for Determining Significance ....................................................................... 5.1-1 0
5.1.3 Environmentallmpact .................................................................................................... 5.1-1 0
5.1 .4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.1-21
5.1.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.1-21
5.2 Traffic/Circulation ............................................................................................................................ 5.2-1
5.2.1 Environmental Setting .......................................... ." ........................................................... 5.2-1
5.2.2 Threshold for Determining Significance ......................................................................... 5.2-6
5.2.3 Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................... 5.2-6
5.2.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.2-37
5.2.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.2-40
5.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 5.3-1
5.3.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 5.3-1
5.3.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance ..................................................................... 5.3-11
5.3.3 Environmentallmpact .................................................................................................... 5.3-13
5.3.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.3-23
5.3.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.3-25
5.4 Noise .................................................................................................................................................. 5.4-1
5.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.4-1
5.4.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance ....................................................................... 5.4-7
5.4.3 Environmentallmpact ...................................................................................................... 5.4-8
5.4.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.4-15
5.4.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.4-17
5.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 5.5-1
5.5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.5-1
5.5.2 Threshold for Determining Significance ....................................................................... 5.5-20
5.5.3 Environmentallmpact .................................................................................................... 5.5-20
5.5.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.5-40
5.5.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.5-48
5.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 5.6-1
5.6.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.6-1
5.6.2 Threshold for Determining Significance ......................................................................... 5.6-3
5.6.3 Environmentallmpact ...................................................................................................... 5.6-4
5.6.4 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 5.6-4
5.6.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................... 5.6-6
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR April2006
Table of Contents
Section
5.7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Geology/Soils .................................................................................................................................... 5.7-1
5.7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.7-1
5.7.2 Threshold for Determining Significance ......................................................................... 5.7-9
5.7.3 Environmentallmpact ...................................................................................................... 5.7-9
5.7.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.7-11
5.7.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.7-12
5.8 Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................................. 5.8-1
5.8.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.8-1
5.8.2 Threshold for Determining Significance ........................................................................ .5.8-1
5.8.3 Environmental Impact ...................................................................................................... 5.8-1
5.8.4 Mitigation Measures ...................... ~ .................................................................................. 5.8-2
5.8.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................... 5.8-3
5.9 Agricultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 5.9-1
5.9.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5.9-1
5.9.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance ....................................................................... 5.9-9
5.9.3 Environmentallmpact ...................................................................................................... 5.9-9
5.9 .4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.9-12
5.9.5 Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.9-12
5.1 0 Hazardous Materials and Hazards .............................................................................................. 5.1 0-1
5.1 0.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5.1 0-1
5.1 0.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance ..................................................................... 5.1 0-5
5.1 0.3 Environmental Impact .................................................................................................... 5.1 0-6
5.1 0.4 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.1 0-8
5.1 0.5 Impact After Mitigation ............................................................................................... 5.1 0-13
5.11 Grading and Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 5.11-1
5.11.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5.11-1
5.11.2
5.11.3
5.11.4
5.11.5
Thresholds for Determining Significance ..................................................................... 5.11-9
Environmental Impact .................................................................................................... 5.11-9
Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.1 1-31
Impact After Mitigation ............................................................................................... 5.11-32
5.12 Hydrology/Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 5.12-1
5.12.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5.12-1
5.12.2
5.12.3
5.12.4
5.12.5
Thresholds for Determining Significance ................................................................... 5.12-1 6
Environmental Impact .................................................................................................. 5.12-16
Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.12-35
Impact After Mitigation ............................................................................................... 5.12-38
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR iii April2006
Table of Contents
Section
5.13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Population/Housing ....................................................................................................................... 5.13-1
5.13.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5.13-1
5.13.2 Threshold for Determining Significance ....................................................................... 5.13-2
5.13.3
5.13.4
5.13.5
Environmentallmpact .................................................................................................... 5.13-3
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................... 5.13-5
Impact After Mitigation ................................................................................................. 5.13-5
5.14 Public Services and Utilities ........................................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.14.1 City Administrative Facilities .......................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.14.2 Library Facilities ................................................................................................................ 5.14-3
5.14.3
5.14.4
5.14.5
5.14.6
5.14.7
5.14.8
Wastewater Facilities ....................................................... : .............................................. 5.14-4
Park Facilities .................................................................................................................... 5.14-6
Drainage Facilities ........................................................................................................ 5.14-1 0
Fire Facilities ................................................................................................................... 5.14-14
Open Space .................................................................................................................. 5.14-15
School Facilities ............................................................................................................. 5.14-16
5.14.9 Sewer Facilities .............................................................................................................. 5.14-20
5.14.1 0 Water Facilities .............................................................................................................. 5.14-23
5.14.11 Solid Waste ..................................................................................................................... 5.14-28
5.14.12 Police .............................................................................................................................. 5.14-29
5.14.13 Dry Utilities ...................................................................................................................... 5.14-31
6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 No Project/Existing General Plan ...................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative ........................................................................................ 6-9
6.3 Reduced Scale Project Alternative ............................................................................................... 6-15
6.4 PA 22 Senior Housing Alternative .................................................................................................... 6-20
6.5 PA 22 Fire Station Alternative .......................................................................................................... 6-24
6.6 PA 1 & 2 Residential Alternative ..................................................................................................... 6-28
7.0 ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 The SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecasts .............................................................. 7-1
7.1 .2 Specific Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................ .7 -3
7.1.3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ ?-7
7.1.4 Traffic/Circulation ...... : ......................................................................................................... 7-8
7.1.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 0
7.1.6 Noise ................................................................................................................................... .7-1 0
7.1.7 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... .l-1 0
7.1 .8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ .7 -11
7.1 . 9 Geology /Soils ..................................................................................................................... .7 -11
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR iv April2006
Table of Contents
Section
7.1.10
7.1.11
7.1.12
7.1.13
7.1.14
7.1.15
7.1.16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................... 7-11
Agricultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 7-12
Hazardous Materials and Hazards .................................................................................. 7-12
Grading and Aesthetics ................................................................................................... 7-12
Hydrology/Water Quality .................................................................................................. 7-12
Population/Housing ........................................................................................................... 7 -13
Public Services and Utilities ............................................................................................... 7-13
7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................................... 7-13
7.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................................................... 7-14
7.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmentallmpacts ........................................................................ .l-14
7.5 Effects Not Found to be Significant .............................................................................................. .7-15
8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 Persons Responsible for Preparation of this EIR .............................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Persons and Organizations Contacted ........................................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Documents .......................................................................................................................................... 8-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 2-7
3-1 Master Plan Land Use Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3-9
5.1-1 General Plan Roadway Setbacks .............................................................................................................. 5.1-20
5.2-1 Existing Street Segment Levels of Service .................................................................................................... 5.2-2
5.2-2 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Method) ................................................................. 5.2-8
5.2-3 Project Trip Generation With School ............................................................................................................ 5.2-7
5.2-4 Project Trip Generation Without School ...................................................................................................... 5.2-8
5.2-5 Existing + Project Street Segment Levels of Service ................................................................................. 5.2-12
5.2-6 Existing + Project With/Without Project Comparison of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ... 5.2-13
5.2-7 Year 201 0 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service ...................................................................... 5.2-16
5.2-8 Year 201 0 With/Without Project Comparison Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service Without
Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................................... 5.2-17
5.2-9 Year 201 0 With/Without Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service With Mitigation ............... 5.2-19
5.2-1 0 Year 2030 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service ...................................................................... 5.2-22
5.2-11 Year 2030 With/Without Project Comparison of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ............... 5.2-25
5.2-12 Year 2030 With/Without Project Intersection Peak Hours Levels of Service With Mitigation ............. 5.2-29
5.2-13 Traffic Impact Summary Table .................................................................................................................... 5.2-31
5.3-1 California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................ 5.3-5
5.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Summary ....................................................................................................................... 5.3-8
5.3-3 Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality lmpacts ................................................................................... 5.3-12
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR v April2006
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Page
5.3-4 Construction Equipment Emissions ............................................................................................................. 5.3-17
5.3-5 SCREEN3 Predicted Diesel-Fired Emission Concentrations ..................................................................... 5.3-19
5.3-6 Projected Mobile Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 5.3-20
5.4-1 Existing Ambient Noise Levels ....................................................................................................................... 5.4-5
5.4-2 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......................................................................................................... 5.4-8
5.4-3a Year 2010 Projected Noise Comparisons .................................................................................................. 5.4-11
5.4-3b Year 2030 Projected Noise Comparisons .................................................................................................. 5.4-12
5.5-1 Acreage of Existing Vegetation Communities On-site ............................................................................. 5.5-1
5.5-2 ACOE and CDFG Non-Wetland Waters/Unvegetated Streambed and Wetlands/Riparian
5.5-3
5.5-4
5.5-5
5.5-6
5.5-7
5.5-8
5.5-9
5.5-10
5.5-11
5.6-1
5.7-1
5.9-1
5.9-2
5.9-3
5.9-4
5.9-5
5.9-6
5.11-1
5.11-2
5.11-3
5.12-1
5.12-2
5.12-3
5.13-1
5.13-2
5.14-1
5.14-2
5.14-3
5.14-4
Vegetation by Drainage ............................................................................................................................. 5.5-10
ACOE and CDFG Wetland/Riparian Vegetation-Vegetation Type by Drainage ........................... 5.5-10
Special Status Floral Species Observed On-site ....................................................................................... 5.5-14
Special Status Faunal Species Observed On-site .................................................................................... 5.5-15
Vegetation Community Impacts ............................................................................................................... 5.5-21
HMP Mitigation Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 5.5-22
Impacts to ACOE Wetland and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S .......................................................... 5.5-27
ACOE Wetland Impacts by Vegetation Type .......................................................................................... 5.5-27
CDFG Unvegetated Streambed and Riparian Vegetation Impacts ................................................... 5.5-28
CDFG Riparian Vegetation Impacts by Vegetation Type ...................................................... : .............. 5.5-30
Archaeological Resources Identified Within the Project Site ................................................................... 5.6-2
Expansion Index Testing Results .................................................................................................................... 5.7-8
Department of Conservation Important Farmlands On-Site ................................................................... 5.9-2
San Diego County Change in Agricultural Land Use Summary (2000-2002) ......................................... 5.9-5
Soil Capability Classes .................................................................................................................................... 5.9-5
Storie Index Ratings ........................................................................................................................................ 5.9-6
Soil Suitability .................................................................................................................................................... 5.9-8
LESA Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................................ 5.9-1 0
Proposed Project Grading Quantities ..................................................................................................... 5.11-17
General Plan Roadway Structural and Landscape Setbacks ............................................................. 5.11-27
Robertson Ranch West Village El Camino Real (ECR) Scenic Corridor Analysis-Proposed
Justification for Deviation from Standards .............................................................................................. 5.11-28
Existing 1 00-Year Storm Event Flow Rate ................................................................................................... 5.12-5
Beneficial Uses of Project Effected Surface Water and Groundwater ................................................ 5.12-8
Proposed Project Hydrology 100-Year Storm Event Flow Rate ............................................................ 5.12-25
Zone 14 Residential Buildout Projections ................................................................................................... 5.13-2
Zone 14 Residential Phasing Projections ................................................................................................... 5.13-3
Encino WPCF Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5.14-5
Park District 2 Inventory of Existing Park Facilities ..................................................................................... 5.14-9
Park District 2 Inventory of Build out Park Facilities .................................................................................... 5.14-9
Existing Drainage Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 5.14-11
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR vi April2006
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Page
5.14-5 Trunk Drainage Improvements ................................................................................................................. 5.14-13
5.14-6 Open Space Supply /Demand ................................................................................................................. 5.14-16
5.14-7 CUSD Student Generation Rate ............................................................................................................... 5.14-18
5.14-8 Estimated Student Generation ................................................................................................................. 5.14-19
5.14-9 Zone 14 Buildout Sewer Flow Projections ................................................................................................ 5.14-21
5.14-10 Trunk Sewage lmprovements .................................................................................................................... 5.14-23
5.14-11 Project LFMP Zone 14 Build out Demand ................................................................................................. 5.14-24
5.14-12 Fire Flow Requirements for Zone 14 .......................................................................................................... 5.14-25
5.14-13 CMWD Water Storage Capacity ............................................................................................................. 5.14-26
5.14-14 Estimated Solid Waste Generation of the Proposed Project ............................................................... 5.14-29
5.14-15 Police Average Response Times (2004) ................................................................................................... 5.14-30
6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives Impacts to Proposed Project Impacts ............................................. 6-2
6-2 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Statistical Summary ............................................................. 6-3
6-3 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative Statistical Summary .................................................................. 6-1 0
6-4 Reduced Scale Alternative Statistical Summary ........................................................................................ 6-16
7-1 Citywide Cumulative Buildout Assumptions (Year 2030) ............................................................................. 7-3
7-2 Cumulative Buildout Subregional Area (Year 2030) ..................................................................................... 7-3
Figure
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
4-1
5.1-1
5.1-2
5.1-3
5.1-4
5.1-5
5.1-6
5.1-7
5.2-1
5.2-2
5.2-3
5.2-4
5.2-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Regional Vicinity ................................................................................................................................................ 3-2
Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-3
Master Plan Land Use Plan ............................................................................................................................... 3-5
East Village Master Tentative Map ................................................................................................................. 3-7
Interim Land Use Overlay ................................................................................................................................ 3-13
HMP Hardline Map ........................................................................................................................................... 3-17
Conceptual Grading Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3-19
On-Site and Surrounding Land Use Map ........................................................................................................ 4-3
Existing General Plan Land Uses ................................................................................................................... 5.1-3
Official Open Space and Conservation Map ......................................................................................... 5.1-11
PA 22 Conceptual Layout ........................................................................................................................... 5.1-14
Courtyard Homes Rancho Carlsbad Transition Detail ............................................................................ 5.1-15
Proposed General Plan Land Uses ............................................................................................................. 5.1-16
Open Space and Recreation Plan ............................................................................................................ 5.1-23
Concept Pedestrian Circulation Plan ........................................................................................................ 5.1-25
Existing Average Daily Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 5.2-3
Intersection Number Key ................................................................................................................... : ........... 5.2-5
Project Only Average Daily Traffic For Existing Conditions ..................................................................... 5.2-14
Existing + Project Only Average Daily Traffic ............................................................................................ 5.2-19
Year 2010 +Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 5.2-21
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR vii April2006
Table of Contents
Figure
5.2-6
5.2-7
5.3-1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5.4-1
5.4-2
5.5-1
5.5-2
5.5-3
5.5-4
5.5-5
5.5-6
5.5-7
5.7-1
5.7-2
5.9-1
5.9-2
5.10-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Year 2030 Project Only Average Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 5.2-23
Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 5.2-24
Air District Boundaries ..................................................................................................................................... 5.3-3
Air Quality Monitoring Station Locations ..................................................................................................... 5.3-7
Rock Blasting and Rock Crushing Areas ................................................................................................... 5.3-15
Ambient Noise Monitoring Location Map ................................................................................................... 5.4-6
Noise Barrier Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 5.4-2
Biological Resources, Impact Areas, and Restoration .Areas ................................................................... 5.5-3
On-site Drainages and ACOE/CDFG Jurisdictional Impacts ................................................................... 5.5-7
Extension of Kelly Dr.-Entry to PA 1 ............................................................................................................. 5.5-9
HMP Focus Planning Areas .......................................................................................................................... 5.5-17
Conservation Components Map ............................................................................................................... 5.5-18
Upland Habitat Restoration Plan ................................................................................................................ 5.5-23
Proposed Panhandle (PA 23E) Land Uses and Restoration ................................................................... 5.5-29
Geologic Units on the Project Site ................................................................................................................ 5.7-3
Location of Regional Active Faults .............................................................................................................. 5.7-6
Important Farmlands Map ............................................................................................................................ 5.9-3
Project Site Soil Types ...................................................................................................................................... 5.9-7
Fuel Modification Plan .................................................................................................................................. 5.1 0-9
5.1 0-2a Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections {Sections A-C) .......................................................................... 5.1 0-11
5.1 0-2b Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections (Sections D-F) ........................................................................... 5.1 0-12
5.11-1 Existing Topography ...................................................................................................................................... 5.11-2
5.11-2 Steep Slope Map .......................................................................................................................................... 5.11-4
5.11-3
5.11-4
5.11-5
5.11-6
5.11-7
5.11-8
Conceptual Grading Plan ......................................................................................................................... 5.11-11
Preliminary Grading at Glasgow Dr. & Edinburgh Dr ............................................................................ 5.11-13
Preliminary Grading at Glasgow Dr. & Edinburgh Dr.-Retaining Wall Alternative ......................... 5.11-15
Photosimulation View Locations ............................................................................................................... 5.11-18
Existing View -Planning Area 1 ................................................................................................................ 5.11-19
Proposed View-Planning Area 1 ............................................................................................................ 5.11-20
5.11-9 Existing View-Planning Areas 7 and 11 ................................................................................................. 5.11-21
5.11-1 0 Proposed View-Planning Areas 7 and 11 ............................................................................................. 5.11-22
5.11-11 Existing View-Planning Area 22 .............................................................................................................. 5.11-23
5.11-12 Proposed View-Planning Area 22 .......................................................................................................... 5.11-24
5.11-13 Illustrated Park Plan-Lighting Study Initial Spill Light Maximum Footcandles ................................... 5.11-33
5.11-14 Lighting Study-Cross Sections Initial Spill Light Maximum Footcandles ............................................ 5.11-35
5.12-1 Drainage Basin Map ..................................................................................................................................... 5.12-2
5.12-2 Existing Project Site Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 5.12-3
5.12-3 Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan-Zone 14 ............................................................................................. 5.12-13
5.12-4 Proposed Project Site Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 5.12-17
5.12-5 84" Storm Drain Plan ................................................................................................................................... 5.12-19
5.12-6 Calavera Creek Post Development Floodplain ..................................................................................... 5.12-21
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR viii April2006
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
5.12-7 Summary SW MP & SWPPP-East Village ................................................................................................. 5.12-31
5.12-8 Summary SWMP-West Village ................................................................................................................. 5.12-33
5.14-1 Local Facilities Management Zone Location Map ................................................................................. 5.14-2
5.14-2 Park Districts ................................................................................................................................................... 5.14-7
5.14-3 Park District 2 Existing and Proposed Park Facilities ................................................................................. 5.14-8
5.14-4 Drainage Facilities -Zone 14 ..................................................................................................................... 5.14-12
5.14-5 School Locations and District Boundaries ............................................................................................... 5.14-17
5.14-6 Master Sewer Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 5.14-22
5.14-7 Master Water Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 5.14-27
6-1 Existing General Plan Alternative .................................................................................................................... 6-5
6-2 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative ..................................................................................................... 6-11
6-3 Reduced Scale Project Alternative .............................................................................................................. 6-17
6-4 PA 22 Senior Housing Alternative ................................................................................................................... 6-21
6-5 PA 22 Fire Station Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 6-25
7-1 SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecasts Subregional Map .................................................................... 7-2
7-2 Cumulative Projects Map ................................................................................................................................. 7-5
LIST OF APPENDICES
(Bound with Final PEIR-Volume lA):
• Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Responses to the Notice of Preparation. Public seeping
meeting written comments.
(Bound in Volume /B):
• Response to Comments (RTC)
(Bound in Volume /C):
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
(Bound in Volume II):
Appendix B: Traffic Analysis
Prepared by: Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
(Bound in Technical Appendices-Volume Ill):
AppendixC: Air Quality Analysis
Prepared by: Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR ix April2006
Table of Contents
TECHNICAL APPENDICES (cont'd)
Appendix D: Noise Analysis
Prepared by: Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc.
Appendix E: Biological Resources Report
Prepared by: Merkel and Associates
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared by: Glen Lukos Associates
Appendix F: Cultural Resources Report
Prepared by: Brion Smith and Associates, Inc.
AppendixG: Geotechnical Evaluation
Prepared by: GeoSoi/s, Inc.
(Bound In Technical Appendices-Volume IV):
Appendix H:
Appendix 1:
Appendix J:
Hazardous Materials Reports
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Robertson Ranch-Parcell (East Village)
Prepared by: GeoSoi/s, Inc.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Robertson Ranch-Parcel2 (West Village)
Prepared by: GeoSoi/s, Inc.
Report for Removal and Placement of Pesticide Affected Soil During Construction of a
Segment of College Boulevard, Robertson Ranch -Parcel 1
Prepared by: GeoSoils, Inc.
• Hazardous Waste Report Robertson Ranch (Pacific Trans Environmental Services, Inc.)
Prepared by: Pacific Trans Environmental Services, Inc.
Drainage Study/Stormwater Management Plan
Prepared by: O'Day Consultants, Inc.
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Analysis
Prepared by: Planning Systems
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR X April2006
Chapter 1 .0-Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental effects associated
with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan and associated
actions. The EIR is intended to provide information to the City of Carlsbad, public and quasi-public
agencies and groups, and the general public regarding the environmental impacts of the project.
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations,
and implementation programs intended to ensure the orderly development of the project site, and the
conservation of open space areas in accordance with the City's General Plan, amended Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 14, the City's Habitat Management Plan, and applicable policies and
regulations. The proposed Master Plan defines the allowable types and intensity of land use, provides
detailed development and design standards and criteria for the development of the site. and describes
the method by which the Robertson Ranch Master Plan will be implemented.
The Master Plan proposes a variety of land uses including a mixture of residential uses, a village center with
a local shopping center and community facility use, a public school site, a public community park,
recreational vehicle storage, trails, private recreation areas, water quality treatment facilities, and open
space. Infrastructure will be provided to support the proposed land uses including circulation
improvements, drainage and flood control. wet and dry utilities, water quality treatment facilities, trails, and
other recreational areas. The Master Plan would allow for the construction of up to a maximum of 1,383
residential dwelling units of varying densities.1 Additionally, approximately 175,000 square feet of
commercial and/or community facility uses is proposed. Other non-residential building square footage on
the project site would include school buildings and recreational facilities (e.g., recreation center).
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site is located in the northeastern quadrant of the City
of Carlsbad, within Local Facilities Management Zone 14. A majority of the 398-acre site is located on the
north side of El Camino Real between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road; however, the project site also
includes 39.7 acres of land north of College Boulevard and 9.5 acres south of Cannon Road.
The project site is owned by the Robertson Family Trust and Calavera Hills II, LLC. For master planning
purposes, the site is divided into two villages, the boundaries of which correspond to the ownership of the
property.
East Village. The East Village is owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC and comprises 178.6 acres of land. Land
uses proposed in the East Village include a mixture of residential uses, a portion of the school site,
recreation, and open space. Primary local access to the East Village will be provided by Cannon Road.
1 A total of 1,176 residential units are proposed by the project Applicant as the proposed project. However, the Master
Plan provides for alternative land uses if the school site (Planning Areas 13 and 14) is not purchased by the Carlsbad
Unified School District and developed with a school. If the alternative land uses for Planning Areas 13 and 14 are
developed with the alternative multi-family use, then a maximum total of 1 ,383 residential units could be constructed
under the proposed Master Plan (See Section 3.0 Project Description).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1-1 April2006
Chapter 1 .0 -Introduction
West Village. The West Village is owned by the Robertson Family Trust and comprises 219.4 acres of land.
Land uses proposed in the West Village include a mixture of residential uses, village center (commercial
and community facilities), community park, a portion of the school site, recreational vehicle storage,
recreation, and open space. Primary access to the West Village will be provided via El Camino Real, with
local access also proposed via Tamarack Avenue and the proposed extensions of Glasgow Drive and
Edinburgh Drive.
The proposed project involves the approval of a Master Plan (MP 02-03), General Plan Amendment (GPA
02-04), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 14 (LFMP 14(B)), Tentative Map East Village
(CT 02-16), Hillside Development Permit East Village (HOP 02-07), and Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP 02-
05} by the City of Carlsbad. The current application includes subdivision maps for the East Village only.
The project will also require the approval of permits from various public regulatory agencies with statutory
responsibility over the project. These permits will include a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit
or Nationwide Permit 39 and California Department of Fish and Gdme 1602 Permit for wetland impacts that
will occur within the West Village (no wetland impacts will occur within the East Village), and Regional
Water Quality Control Board Section 401 certification.
1 . 1 Legal Requirements
The City of Carlsbad is the lead agency for the preparation of this Program EIR as defined by CEQA (Public
Resources Code Section 21067 as amended).
This Program EIR was prepared in accordance with the current guidelines for the preparation of EIRs issued
by the City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 19) and complies with all criteria, standards and
procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.); and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA Guidelines) published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (California
Administrative Code Sections 15000 et. seq.).
This Program EIR is intended to provide information to public agencies, the general public, and decision
makers, regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Under the provisions of CEQA:
"The purpose of the environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a
project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the
manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." (Public Resources
Code Section 21002.1 (a))."
According to Section 151 68 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as logical parts in
the chain of contemplated actions in connection with issuance of rules, regulations or plans. The Program
EIR allows for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1-2 April2006
Chapter 1 .0-Introduction
on separate individual actions, and ensures consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted on
a case-by-case basis. The Program EIR also addresses subsequent discretionary approvals of the project at
a project-level of analysis in accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, including
actions such as tentative subdivision maps, planned development permits, site development permits and
other related implem.enting actions. When future discretionary actions related to the Master Plan are
proposed, the City will examine the action to determine whether the effects were fully analyzed in the
Program EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
1.2 Project Background
1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meetings
The City of Carlsbad issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report for the proposed project on May 7, 2004. The NOP was mailed to city, county, and state and
federal agencies, other public agencies, and various interested private organizations and individuals. The
purpose of the NOP was to identity public agency and public concerns regarding the potential impacts of
the proposed project, and the scope and content of environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR.
Comment letters in response to the NOP were received from the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department
of Fish and Game (joint letter), Department of Toxic Substances Control, San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG), California Department of Transportation (CaiTrans), San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians, Native American Heritage Commission, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego County
Archaeological Society, Inc., California Department of Conservation, and San Diego Gas and Electric.
The City of Carlsbad held two EIR seeping meetings with the public for the project. The first EIR seeping
meeting was held on Tuesday, May 18, 2004. Public notice of this seeping meeting was provided by the
City via the following methods: 1) large meeting notice signs were posted at two highly visible locations on
the project site. These locations included the intersection of El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue and the
intersection of El Camino Real/Cannon Road; 2) a newspaper notice was published in the North County
Times on May 7, 2004; and, 3) the City mailed a meeting notice to all residents and property owners within
a 600-foot radius of the project site boundary. The second EIR seeping meeting was held on Wednesday,
May 26, 2004 at the request of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community. This meeting was a
focused seeping meeting for the residents of the Rancho Carlsbad community only. Each of the seeping
meetings was well attended, with a combined estimate of 360-380 participants.
At each of these meetings members of the public were invited to ask questions regarding the proposed
project and environmental review process, and to comment in writing on the scope and content of the EIR.
Written comments received during the 30-day review period for the NOP as well as during and following
the two public seeping meetings are included as Appendix A of this EIR.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1-3 April2006
Chapter 1 .0-Introduction
1.2.2 History of Project
The project site has been planned for residential, commercial and school uses since the adoption of the
City's General Plan update in 1994. The underlying zoning of the project site was Limited Control (L-C}. In
2003, the City formally initiated the master plan process for the property through approval of a zone
change from L-C to Planned Community (P-C}. The P-C zone requires a master plan process for the
property, and is intended to ensure development of the site compatible with the underlying General Plan
designations.
1.3 Availability of Reports
This Final Program EIR is available for public review at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Copies are available to the public upon payment of a
charge for reproduction. Copies are also available for review at the following locations: 1) City Clerk's
Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive; 2) Georgina Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive; and, 3) Carlsbad
Main Library, 1775 Dove Lane. Documents at these locations may be reviewed during regular business
hours. The Final EIR is also posted on the City of Carlsbad's official website at www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us.
1.4 Public Review of Draft EIR
A 60-day public review period for the Draft EIR began on October 3, 2005; comments were invited from all
public agencies, organizations, and individuals until December 1, 2005. The Draft EIR was available for
review at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, the City Clerk's Office, Carlsbad Main Library, and
Georgina Cole Library. Following the review period, the City responded in writing to all written comments
received on the Draft EIR. The written comments and City responses to those comments have been
incorporated into this Final EIR. The responses to comments are provided in Volume IB of this EIR. The City
will certify the Final EIR at the time the project is considered for approval.
1.5 Structure of this EIR
1.5.1 Volume I
The structure of the EIR is identified in the Table of Contents. Volume I of this EIR is organized into eight
sections.
Section 1.0 Introduction provides a brief introduction of the project, legal requirements, and purpose of
an EIR, project background, availability of reports, and comments received on the Draft EIR.
Section 2.0 Executive Summary provides a summary of the proposed project, including a summary of
project impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives.
Section 3.0 Project Description provides a detailed description of the proposed project including on-
and off-site improvements, development characteristics, land uses, and discretionary actions.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1-4 April2006
Chapter 1.0-Introduction
Section 4.0 Environmental Setting provides a general description of the environmental setting of the
project. A more detailed description of the environmental setting is provided within each
environmental issue discussion located within Section 5.0.
Section 5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures provides a detailed analysis of
project impacts and identifies mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts.
Section 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project provides a description of, and analysis of alternatives to
the proposed project.
Section 7.0 Analysis of Long-Term Effects discusses the cumulative impacts, significant irreversible
environmental changes, unavoidable significant environmental impacts, and areas of no significant
impact.
Section 8.0 References lists the references and persons responsible for preparation of the EIR.
1.5.2 Volumes lA, IB, IC, II, Ill and IV
EIR Volumes lA, IB, IC, II, Ill, and IV have the following content.
Volume lA contains the Appendix A. Appendix A includes the Notice of Preparation, Responses to the
Notice of Preparation, and written comments from the public scoping meeting.
Volume 18 contains letters comments received on the Draft EIR. Comment letters were received from
federal, state, and local agencies as well as organizations and individuals. The responses to comments
are also contained in this volume.
Volume IC contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [MMRP) for the proposed
project.
Volume II contains Appendix B, the technical report for traffic.
Volume Ill contains Appendices C-G. These appendices include the technical reports for air quality,
noise, biology, cultural resources, and geology.
Volume IV contains Appendices H-J. These appendices include the technical reports for hazardous
materials, hydrology/water quality, and the agriculture LESA analysis.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1-5 April2006
Chapter 1 .0-Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 1-6 April2006
Chapter 2.0-Executive Summary
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Project Location
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site consists of 398 acres of undeveloped and
agricultural lands located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. within Local Facilities
Management Zone 14. The majority of the project site is located north of El Camino Real between
Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road; however. the project site also includes 39.7 acres of land north of
College Boulevard and 9.5 acres south of Cannon Road. The northern project site boundary is generally
defined by an existing single-family residential neighborhood (The Colony), and the Calavera Hills II
development.
2.2 Project Description Summary
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan is envisioned as a balanced master planned community
integrating residential, commercial, community facilities, educational, recreational and open space land
uses. as well as supporting infrastructure and utilities.
The proposed Master Plan contains extensive design guidelines and implementation standards intended to
ensure high quality development and recognizable community identities. while providing the architectural
and landscape design flexibility necessary to accommodate future market demands. The project design
incorporates requirements of the City's Livable Neighborhood Policy and Livable Streets Ordinance and
reflects smart growth elements. as exemplified by the Ahwahnee Principles.
The Master Plan project site is owned by the Calavera Hills II, LLC and the Robertson Family Trust. The Master
Plan would create two distinct villages following the ownership of the property. A total of 1,383 dwelling
units are proposedl. These dwelling units would include a range of housing product types. densities and
prices. including multi-family neighborhoods and dwelling units provided as required by the City's
lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Additionally, a total of 175,000 square feet of community commercial and
community facility uses would be provided within the Village Center. Other non-residential building square
footage on the project site would include school buildings and recreational facilities (e.g .. recreation
center).
East Village. The East Village is owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC and comprises 178.6 acres of land. Land
uses proposed in the East Village include a mixture of residential uses, a portion of the school site.
recreation. and open space. Primary local access to the East Village will be provided by Cannon Road.
1 A total of 1.176 residential units are proposed under the proposed project; however, the Master Plan allows alternative
uses, which if implemented, would allow a maximum of 1,383 residential units (See Section 3.0 Project Description).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-1 April2006
Chapter 2.0-Executive Summary
West Village. The West Village is owned by the Robertson Family Trust and comprises 219.4 acres of land.
Land uses proposed in the West Village include a mixture of residential uses, village center [commercial
and community facilities), community park, a portion of the school site, recreational vehicle storage,
recreation, and open space. Primary access to the West Village will be provided via El Camino Real, with
local access also proposed via Tamarack Avenue and the proposed extensions of Glasgow Drive and
Edinburgh Drive.
The Master Plan project site lies within Zone 14 of the City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan.
The public services needed to serve the proposed project are addressed in the proposed amendment to
the Zone 14 LFMP and include city administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage,
circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer and water. Additionally, the Robertson Ranch Master Plan will
accommodate and implement elements of the regional transportation system, including improvements to
El Camino Real, Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Proposed roadway improvements include the
construction of El Camino Real to its ultimate width of a 63-foot right-of-way, as well as providing setbacks,
walls and landscaping as required by the City Landscape Manual, El Camino Real Corridor development
standards, and Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan will also be responsible for
completing College Boulevard and Cannon Road by constructing the outside lanes, landscaping medians,
and ultimate project landscaping components.
Access to the individual residential neighborhoods in both the East and West Villages will be provided by
collector and local streets constructed in accordance with the City's Livable Streets Policy. Additionally,
internal streets in the East Village have been designed in a grid pattern to achieve maximum circulation
connectivity in accordance with the City's Livable Streets Policy and the Ahwahnee Principles.
A primary feature of the proposed project is the proposed open space plan. The project site is located
within a "Standards Area" in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan [HMP). The Master Plan would
preserve approximately ~143.4 acres of open space which would include re-vegetated manufactured
slopes, water quality treatment facilities, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, and riparian and wetland
habitats. In accordance with the standards for the project site contained in the City's HMP, the proposed
Master Plan would permanently preserve more than 70.4% of the existing 71.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub habitat on the site, and would establish a permanent HMP Hardline Map in accordance with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Agency requirements. The proposed HMP Hardline would create a wildlife corridor through the
project site. The California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service have
determined that the proposed project complies with the City's HMP and establishes an acceptable
hardline for resource protection under the HMP. This determination was reached during extensive
consultation with the Wildlife Agencies as required under the HMP as a prerequisite to preparing and
submitting the Master Plan. Appendix E of this EIR provides the February 11, 2005 wildlife agency
concurrence letter for the proposed hardline design.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-2 April2006
Chapter 2.0-Executive Summary
2.3 Environmental Impacts
The City of Carlsbad has determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR} is required pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. The environmental issue areas
examined in this Program EIR are land use. traffic/circulation. air quality, noise. biological resources. cultural
resources. geology/soils, paleontological resources, agricultural resources. hazardous materials and
hazards. grading and aesthetics. hydrology/water quality, population/housing and public services and
utilities.
Table 2-1, at the end of this section. provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts. mitigation
measures to reduce potential significant impacts associated with the proposed project, and the level of
significance of each impact after the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. The table is
provided in a hierarchy of impacts with three overall impact categories. These impact categories are:
Category I -Significant and Unavoidable Impacts; Category II -Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less Than
Significant; and, Category Ill-Less Than Significant Impacts.
As identified in Table 2-1. the following impacts have been identified associated with the proposed project:
Category I-Significant, Unavoidable Impacts
Based on the data and conclusions of this Program EIR. the City of Carlsbad finds that the project will result
in significant unavoidable impacts to the following resource areas:
Traffic/Circulation
• Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions)
Implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures will reduce the potential impact to these resources to the
extent feasible; however. the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. If the City of Carlsbad
chooses to approve the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Project. it must adopt a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" pursuant to Sections 15093 and 15126(b} of the CEQA Guidelines.
Category II-Impacts Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant
Implementation of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan Project will result in significant impacts as a
result of future construction and operation activities that will occur within the project site. Significant
impacts have been identified to the following environmental issue areas:
Air Quality (Short-term Construction)
Noise
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology /Soils
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-3 April2006
Chapter 2.0-Executive Summary
• Paleontological Resources
• Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Grading and Aesthetics
Hydrology/Water Quality
Public Services and Utilities
Implementation of proposed mitigation measures identified in this Program EIR will reduce the impact to
these resource areas to a level less than significant.
Category Ill-Less than Significant Impacts
Impacts were determined to be less than significant for the following areas:
Land Use
Agricultural Resources
Population/Housing
2.4 Potential Areas Of Controversy
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires the identification of areas of controversy known to
the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. The following are identified as the
primary areas of controversy:
Proposed Land Use for Planning Area 22. Planning Area 22 is located on the southeastern side of
Cannon Road adjacent to the existing Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community. Significant
comments were received during the scoping process regarding the proposed Courtyard Home use
for this area.
Traffic. The proposed project's potential to generate additional traffic on surrounding roadways and
the effect on the circulation system. This includes the project's proposed connection to the existing
Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive residential streets, which currently terminate at the project's
northern boundary.
Biological Resources. The proposed project's potential to result in an impact to sensitive biological
resources on-site including coastal sage scrub and wetland habitats. Issues raised by the public also
include the viability of proposed wildlife corridors and wildlife crossings.
Air Quality. The proposed project's potential to degrade air quality as a result of construction and
operation of the project.
Noise. The proposed project's potential to increase noise as a result of construction and operation of
the project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-4 April2006
Chapter 2.0-Executive Summary
Hydrology/Water Quality. The proposed project's potential effects on hydrology and potential
effects on water quality within the Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek watersheds, which
are tributary to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b) (3) also requires a discussion of issues to be resolved including
a choice of alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. Table 2-1 identifies the
proposed mitigation measures for significant effects identified (i.e., how to mitigate the significant effects).
The following identifies the alternatives under consideration for the proposed project.
2.5 Alternatives To The Proposed Project
The following alternatives have been evaluated and discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Alternatives, in this
Program EIR:
No Project/Existing General Plan. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan, as proposed, would not be implemented. Under the No Project/Existing
General Plan Alternative, the Project Area would be developed pursuant to the specifics of the existing
General Plan land use designations. Under this scenario, development of the project site would be
primarily a series of single-family residential subdivisions (residential low-medium density) approximating 3 to
4 dwelling units per acre. Open space areas, similar to the HMP open space configuration proposed as
part of the Master Plan, would be maintained. Single-family subdivisions would be developed on the west
side of College Boulevard and both sides of Cannon Road. Multi-family housing at an average of 6
dwelling units per acre would be developed around the riparian habitat at the lower elevations of the
south-east corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue (PA 1 and PA2). The total number of residential
units across the site would be 652 units, 580 of which would be single-family detached product.
Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative assumes
avoidance of all existing native habitat on the project site. Areas of the project site that do not currently
contain native habitats would be developed with the same land uses (with the exception of the
community park) as identified for the proposed project. This alternative assumes the development of 724
multi-family dwelling units, 461 single-family dwelling units, a 1 0-acre village center site, a 1 0-acre school
site, and 151 acres of open space.
Reduced Scale Project. This alternative assumes the Open Space (OS) configuration required by the
Wildlife Agencies for implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP); however, the only
residential use identified is single family, which is proposed over a majority of the proposed site, and multi-
family residential use at the corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue (consistent with the existing
General Plan). The overall number of dwelling units ( 612) would be reduced by approximately 50% from
the proposed project. Also, the commercial use would be eliminated. The circulation system would be the
same as the proposed project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-5 April2006
Chapter 2.0-Executive Summary
PA 22 Senior Housing Alternative. This alternative assumes PA 22 would be developed with a total of 75
senior housing units instead of 20 multi-family courtyard homes as is proposed under the proposed project.
PA 22 Fire Station Alternative. This alternative assumes PA 22 would be developed with a fire station
instead of 20 multi-family courtyard homes as is proposed under the proposed project.
PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative. This alternative assumes that PA 1 would be developed with a
church use and PA 2 would be used for recreational vehicle storage, as is proposed under the proposed
project. A church use would be allowed within PA 1 subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
PA 1 comprises approximately 9.3 gross acres, but only 4.6 net acres due to existing constraints. Total
building area would be approximately 45,000 -50,000 square feet. As with the proposed project, site
access would taken from Tamarack Avenue and the Kelly Drive/EI Camino Real intersection.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-6 April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
1. Intersection #3: College Boulevard/Plaza Drive
The PM peak hour is at LOS "F" in the Year 2010 projections
with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the
increase in intersection delay resulting from project traffic is
less than two seconds the direct impacts resulting from the
project are less than significant. The cumulative impacts,
however. are significant.
Year 2010
2. Intersection #23: Cannon Road/EI Camino Real
The PM peak hour is at LOS "E" in the Year 2010 projections
with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the
intersection delay resulting from project traffic is more than
two seconds, both direct and cumulative impacts resulting
from the project are considered significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM T -1: Widening of southbound College Boulevard to provide a third southbound thru-lane
and widen westbound Plaza Drive to provide an additional left-turn lane. The changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of
Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements
and there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction.
Due to the fact that the subject-impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and
regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and
unmitigable.
MM T-2: The developer of the West Village shall re-stripe northbound El Camino Real after
frontage improvements have been installed along the West Village (as part of the
development of the West Village) to allow for a shared thru/right turn lane. Implementation
of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City engineer prior to
the recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
2-7
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
The changes or
alterations are within
the responsibility
jurisdiction of the
City of Oceanside.
The City of
Oceanside does not
appear to have
adopted a program
to construct such
improvements and
there does not
appear to be a
program to accept
payments in lieu of
construction. Due
the fact that the
subject impacted
intersection is
located outside the
jurisdiction and
regulatory authority
of the City of
Carlsbad, these
impacts are
considered
significant and
I
less Than
Significant
Apri/2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s} Recommended Mitigation Measure(s} Significance of
lmpact(s} After
Mitigation
Year2010 MM T-3: The West Village developer shall add a third southbound lane on El Camino Real less Than
3. Intersection #28: West Village Driveway/EI Camino from Tamarack Ave. to Cannon Rd. This improvement shall be funded by the developer of Significant
Real/Lisa Street the West Village and may be subject to reimbursement through formation of a financing
The Year 2010 AM peak hour level of service would be at district or other public improvement funding mechanism. Implementation of this measure
LOS "F" with project traffic added. Both direct and shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the
cumulative impacts as a result of project traffic would be first master final map for the West Village.
significant.
Proposed Project Improvement: MM T-4: The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Real northbound to N/A
1. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue provide three thru-lanes and a separate right-turn lane. This improvement shall also include
construction of a southbound shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Ave. which is
expected to be accomplished through re-striping. These improvements shall be funded by
the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and
secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map
for the West VillaQe.
Proposed Project Improvement: MM T -5: The developer of the West Village shall widen northbound El Camino Real to N/A
2. El Camino Real-Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road provide a right-turn only lane at Tamarack Ave .. and a third northbound thru-lane along the
entire project frontage, and re-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack/EI
Camino Real intersection to allow for a transition from three to two lanes as required. These
improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this
measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to
recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
Proposed Project Improvement: MM T-6: The developer of the West Village shall install a signal and provide a northbound N/A
3. Intersection #28: El Camino Real/West Village Driveway/ separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and the West Village Driveway
Lisa Street entrance. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by
the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
Proposed Project Improvement: MM T-7: The developer of the West Village shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection N/A
4. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive and construct a third northbound lane and the PA 1
driveway and construction of a shared third southbound shared thru-right turn lane. These
improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this
measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to
recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
Proposed Project Improvement: MM T -8: The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both N/A
5. Cannon Road -El Camino Real to College Boulevard sides of Cannon Road and install traffic signals at the time directed by the City Engineer at
new intersections (intersections #29, and #30). These improvements shall be funded by the
developer of the East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and
secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map
for the East Village.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-8 April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Proposed Project Improvement:
6. College Boulevard
Year2030
1. Intersection #1 Vista Way/College Boulevard
The PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030
with or without the addition of project traffic. Since the
increase in intersection delay resulting from the project
traffic is less than two seconds, the direct impacts resulting
from the project are less than significant. The cumulative
impacts: however. are considered significant.
Year2030
2. Intersection #4 College Boulevard/Lake Avenue
The PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F' in the Year 2030
with or without the project traffic added only if Marron
Road is extended westerly to connect with El Camino Real.
If Marron Road is not extended. 2030 projections conclude
an acceptable LOS at this intersection. Direct impacts of
the project on this intersection are considered significant.
The cumulative impacts also are significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM T-9: The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both
sides of College Boulevard. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the
East Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved
by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village.
MM T-10: The mitigation would be to widen the College Boulevard/Vista Way intersection.
The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of
Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to
construct such improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept
payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject impacted intersection is
located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad. these
impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
MM T-11: The mitigation would be to widen the College Boulevard/Lake Avenue
intersection. The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to
construct such improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept
payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject impacted intersection is
located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad. these
impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
2-9
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
N/A
The changes or
alterations are
within the
responsibility and
jurisdiction of the
City of Oceanside.
The City of
Oceanside does
not appear to
have adopted a
program to
construct such
improvements and
there does not
appear to be a
program to accept
payments in lieu of
construction. Due
to the fact that the
subject impacted
intersection is
located outside
the jurisdiction and
regulatory
authority of the
City of Carlsbad,
these impacts are
considered
significant and
unmitigable.
The changes or
alterations are
within the
responsibility and
jurisdiction of the
City of Oceanside.
The City of
Oceanside does
not appear to
have adopted a
program to
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Year2030
3. Intersection #14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue
The AM and PM peak hour level of service is projected to
be at LOS "F" or "E" during the Year 2030, without intersection
improvements with or without the project. Direct impacts of
the project on this intersection are considered significant.
The cumulative impacts are also significant.
Year2030
4. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive
The AM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS
"F" and the PM at LOS "E" during the Year 2030 without
intersection improvements beyond those described for Year
2010. Direct and cumulative impacts of the project on this
intersection are considered significant.
Year2030
5. Intersection #23: El Camino Real/Cannon Road
The PM peak hour is at LOS "F" in the 2030 projection with or
without the project traffic added only if Cannon Road
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3 and T-5.
MM T-12: The developers of the West Village shall make their fair share contribution through
the TIF program toward construction of a separate right-turn lane from northbound El
Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road. This improvement shall be installed by the City of
Carlsbad or their designee and funded through the TIF program. when determined by the
City to be needed. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
2-10
SignHicance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
construct such
improvements and
there does not
appear to be a
program to accept
payments in lieu of
construction. Due
to the fact that the
subject impacted
intersection is
located outside
the jurisdiction and
regulatory
authority of the
City of Carlsbad.
these impacts are
considered
significant and
unmitigable.
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
The identified
improvements
mitigate this
intersection to a
level of less than
significant.
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Reach 4 is extended easterly to connect with Cannon Road
in Oceanside. If Reach 4 is not extended, 2030 projections
conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection. Direct
impacts of the project on this intersection are considered
significant. The cumulative impacts are also significant.
Year2030
6. Intersection #15: El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue
The AM peak hour would be at LOS "E" and the PM peak
hour level of service in Year 2030 would be at LOS "F."
Direct and cumulative impacts would be considered
significant.
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West
Village.
Also, the developer of the West Village shall construct a second southbound left turn lane
for southbound El Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road at the time that the West
Village El Camino Real frontage improvements and third northbound lane ore constructed.
It is anticipated that this improvement con be accomplished through re-striping of the
standard right-of-way section. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and
secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final mop
for the West Village.
MM T -13: The developers of the East and West Villages shall make their fair share
contribution toward construction of a westbound right-turn only lone and re-striping in the
eastbound direction of a single left-turn lone. one thru lane. one shared thru/right-turn lane,
and a separate right-turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue,
all of which shall be installed by the City of Carlsbad or their designee when determined by
the City to be needed. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first master final map for the
East and West Villages, respectively.
2-11
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
The applicant's
contribution of their
fair share through
payment of TIF fees
represents their fair
share and mitigates
these impacts to a
level of
insignificance. The
City is in the process
of updating their TIF
program. If this
project is not
included for funding
in the TIF program,
then the impact is
significant and
unmitigated in 2030.
If sufficient funds are
not made available
for the separate
right-turn lane and
added southbound
left turn lane. and if
Cannon Road
Reach 4 is
extended, the
project's direct and
cumulative impacts
to this intersection
will remain
significant and
unmitigated in 2030.
The applicant's
contribution of
their fair share
through payment
of TIF fees
represents their fair
share and
mitigates these
impacts to a level
of insignificance.
The City is in the
process of
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Year2030
7. Intersection #33: Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive
The AM and PM peak hour levels of service would be at LOS
'"E" in the 2030 projection with or without the addition of
project traffic. Since the increase in intersection delay
resulting from the project traffic is less than two seconds. the
direct impacts resulting from the project are less than
significant. The cumulative impacts; however. are
significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM T -14: The developers of the East and West Village shall make their fair share contribution
toward construction of a fourth northbound thru-lane. a separate eastbound right-tum only
lane and dual southbound right-turn only lanes at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road
and Melrose Avenue. This project may be funded through the TIF program. Implementation
of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to
recordation of the first master final map for the East and West Villages. respectively.
2-12
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
updating their TIF
program. If this
project is included
in the TIF program
prior to issuance of
building permits for
the East and West
Villages then the
impact is
considered
mitigated to a
level less than
significant. If the
project is not
included for
funding in the TIF
program. then the
impact is
significant and
unmitigated in
2030.
The applicant's
contribution of their
fair share through
payment of TIF fees
represents their fair
share and mitigates
these impacts to a
level of
insignificance. The
City is in the process
of updating their TIF
program. If this
project is included in
the TIF program prior
to issuance of
building permits for
the East and West
Villages then the
impact is considered
mitigated to a level
less than significant.
If the project is not
included for funding
in the TIF program,
then the impact is
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Air emissions are generated during construction activities
associated with the development of a project including
rough grading, underground utility construction. and
paving activities. During site grading. tailpipe emissions are
generated by construction related vehicles such as
graders. bulldozers, water trucks, backhoes. rollers. loaders.
rock crushing equipment. and construction worker's
vehicles. Emissions are also generated in the form of dust
and PM10 as a result of soil disturbance. blasting to
excavate granitic material within the East Village portion of
the project site, and subsequent rock crushing activity on-
site.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM AQ-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a construction dust abatement
management program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for
approval. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department on establishment of the program. and periodic inspection during
grading.
Off-Road Mobile Source PM1o Emission Reduction
• At a minimum. water active sites twice daily.
• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
paved roads (recommended water sweepers with reclaimed water).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM 1o) Emission Reduction
In disturbed areas. replace ground cover as quickly as possible.
Enclose. cover. water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders according to
manufactures' specification to exposed piles (i.e .. gravel. sand. and dirt) with five
percent silt content.
During construction. use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle
movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum. this
should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed
for the day. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the winds exceed
15 mph. Reclaimed water shall be used, as feasible.
Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 mph.
Builders and/or contractors shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and to order increased watering. as necessary, to prevent transport of
dust offsite. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
Air Pollution Control District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use
clearance for finish grading for the structure.
Paved Roads
• At a minimum. sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent streets.
• All trucks hauling dirt. sand. soil. or other loose materials are to be covered or should
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e .. minimum vertical distance between top of
the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California
Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
• Gravel pads (construction entrances) must be installed at all access points to prevent
tracking of mud onto public streets.
2-13
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Unpaved Roads . Apply water a minimum of three times daily to all unpaved roads, parking and staging
areas. . Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less .
MM AQ-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits. an off-road and on-road mobile source
emission reduction program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for
approval. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department on establishment of the program. and periodic inspection during
construction of the project.
Off-Road Mobile Source NO. Emission Reduction . Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with
federally mandated "clean" diesel engines) should be utilized wherever feasible. . The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size . . The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized
through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical numbers
are operating at any one time. . Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer's
specifications. . Construction equipment operating onsite shall be equipped with two to four degree
engine timing retard or precombustion chamber engines. . Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment. if feasible . . Diesel catalytic converters shall be installed, if available . . Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power
generators.
On-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction . Trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ratio (AVR) for construction
employees. By encouraging an AVR of 1.5. the criteria pollutant emissions identified
would effectively be reduced by roughly 33 percent. . Construction worker trips should be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing
for lunch onsite.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-14 April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
The combined pollutant emission levels from the East and
West Villages are projected to exceed the thresholds
established by the SDAPCD by 1,141.2 pounds/day for CO,
205.7 pounds/day for NOx, and 11.4 pounds/day for ROGs.
Therefore, daily mobile source emissions associated from
the proposed project at buildout would be considered
significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM AQ-3: Prior to approval of site development plans for PA 11, the City shall assure that all
of the operational mitigation measures identified below are identified and included as part
of the project development plans, as applicable. These measures shall be implemented by
the project applicant of each individual project when development plans are proposed,
and shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
• The City shall recommended that the proposed surrounding commercial facilities which
incorporate gas stations utilize pumps dispensing oxygenated gasoline (especially during
winter months, typically taken as November through February inclusive) in an effort to
reduce overall CO emissions within the air basin due to traffic traveling to and from the
project site. In addition, the City shall recommend that workers at surrounding
commercial facilities participate in ride-share programs and or seek alternate forms of
transportation to the site.
• Future onsite commercial land uses shall implement shuttle services for their employees
and patrons, as applicable.
• Future project specific developments shall implement design measures that promote the
use of alternative modes of transportation, such as:
-Mixed-use development (combine residential, retail, employment, and commercial).
-Sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings; showers and locker rooms; sheltered
transit stops; theft-proof well-lighted bicycle storage facilities with convenient access
to building entrance; carpools and vanpools.
-Onsite services to reduce need for offsite travel such as: child care; telecommute
center; retail stores; postal machines; and automatic teller machines.
-Commercial and retail businesses should schedule operations during off-peak travel
times; adjust business hours; and allow alternative work schedules, telecommuting.
-Provide preferential parking for caroool/vanpool vehicles.
-Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs. benches, shelters. etc.
-Provide direct. safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and
adjacent development.
• Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements.
• Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked
vehicles.
• Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting, and built-in energy
efficient appliances.
• Use double-paned windows.
• Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights.
MM AQ-4: Gas-burning "fireplaces," which would not be subject to the NSPS particulate
emission requirements shall be required for residential units that have fireplaces. This
requirement shall be shown on building plans and verified prior to the issuance of building
2-15
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Paints used for architectural coatings within the oroposed
Master Plan development have the potential to emit VOCs.
Future development within the proposed Master Plan could
be exposed to noise levels in excess of the established 60
dBA CNEL exterior standard.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
permits. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Building
and Planning Departments.
MM AQ-5: Zero emission VOC paints shall be utilized for all architectural coatings within the
proposed Master Plan development.
MM N-1: Prior to determining that a discretionary review application is complete, a site-
specific (e.g., per Planning Area) acoustical assessment shall be prepared for future
proposed residential projects in the East and West Village Planning Areas that front
Tamarack Avenue. El Camino Real. Cannon Road, and/or College Boulevard (PA's 1. 7, 15,
17, 18, 21. and 22) and non-residential uses in PA's 11. 13, 14. and 22. This shall occur at the
time specific grading and site plans are available, in order to determine the specific
mitigation requirements for exterior and interior noise level compliance. The site-specific
acoustical mitigation shall be identified on, and included as part of the project
development plans.
Mitigation based on the site-specific acoustical assessments may include installation of noise
barriers greater than 12 feet in height (with respect to the finished pad vs. final roadway
elevation) along portions of Tamarack Avenue. Cannon Road. College Boulevard, and El
Camino Real to achieve a noise reduction of up to 18 dB, which is necessary in order to
achieve attainment of the City of Carlsbad exterior and interior noise limits. City policy
dictates that walls greater than six feet in height are not allowed. The recommended barrier
height could include a combination of berm, wall (not to exceed six feet in height).
plexiglass and/or elevational differential between the noise source and receptor.
Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department
in conjunction with review of grading plans.
MM N-2: For residential uses within PA 's 1. 7. 15. 17. 18. 21. and 22 and non-residential uses in
PA' s 11. 13, 14, and 22, architectural features needed to achieve the interior noise standard
shall be noted on the building plans. A statement certifying that the required architectural
features have been incorporated into the building plans, signed by the acoustical
analyst/acoustician shall be located on the building plans. The architect shall also include
his registration stamp in addition to the required signature. All noise level reduction
architectural components shall be shown on the architectural building plans. and shall be
approved. This measure shall be implemented prior to the issuance of building permits for
residential projects located within PA's 1. 7, 15, 17, 18, 21. and 22) and non-residential uses in
PA's 11. 13, 14, and 22 and verified by the City of Carlsbad Building and Planning
2-16
SignHicance of
lmpact(s) After
MHigation
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA). The NINA
includes a three-mile radius, where 90 percent of all
overflight noise related complaints are received. The noise
in this area typically occurs an an irregular basis, and
although not generally considered a health or safety issue,
it may be a nuisance.
Upland habitats impacted by the proposed project include
Diegan coastal sage scrub (21.22 acres) and chamise
chaparral (0.14 acre). The HMP provides conservation
goals for LFMP Zone 14 that include, "no net loss of
wetlands and conserve through preservation, restoration. or
enhancement. of 67% of Coastal Sage Scrub." As
proposed the Master Plan will preserve more than 70% of
the existing coastal sage scrub habitat an-site. However.
the impact to Diegan coastal sage scrub and chamise
chaparral is considered significant. Table 5.5-7 identifies the
HMP mitigation ratio/requirement and required mitigation
for each vegetation community.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM N-3: New residents within the McClellan-Palomar Noise Impact Notification Area as
defined by the CLUP shall be notified as part of the sales disclosure package and through
CC&Rs that the project area is outside the 65 db(A) CNEL airport noise impact area. but still
subject to intermittent single-event noise impacts. sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport. This measure shall be implemented concurrent with the sales
disclosure package and prior to approval of CC&Rs. The City of Carlsbad Planning
Department shall be responsible for verification of implementation of this measure.
MM N-4: The following condition of approval shall be placed on all projects within the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Impact Notification Area:
"Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map, or the issuance of the building
permits. whichever occurs first. the Developer shall prepare and record a notice that the
property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-
Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney.
(See Noise Form #2. on file in the Planning Department)"
B-1: The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the HMP is the
conservation and management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP
also states, "In addition, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act requirements that
the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable. measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citywide on a project level
basis."
This measure requires that the development configuration depicted on the Master Tentative
Map for the East and West Villages include a minimum of 70% total of the on-site coastal
sage scrub for preservation. A conservation easement shall be established for the proposed
open space conservation areas.
As a condition of project approval, the applicant must comply with the requirements of all
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of
the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65871
and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, Section 20.04.140, the applicant shall
grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish,
wildlife. native plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of
certain species thereof. in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan.
2-17
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
MHigation
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s}
As such. prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first. the project applicant shall take the following actions to the
satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(sh
The Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Gamel shall review and approve the conservation entity. Property Analysis Record. and
conservation easement:
a. Select a conservation entity. subject to approval by the City, that possesses the
necessary qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for
conservation purposes.
b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for
estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in
perpetuity.
c. Based on the results of the PAR. provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial
mechanism acceptable to the Planning DirectQ[ and Wildlife Agencies. to the selected
conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open
space lot(s) in perpetuity.
d. The PAR analysis for the open space preserve shall account for all of the monitoring and
management items identified for all Carlsbad covered species, including the monitoring
strategy identified in MHCP Volume Ill (see Appendix A.3l.
e. Prior to issuance of a Concurrent with grading permit or recordation of the first final map
for each ~Phase, provide evidence of transfer of fee title or easement over the
open space lot(s) (for each respective ¥ille§ePhase) to the selected conservation entity.
Timing of Open Space Dedication:
East Village -PA 230 and 23E. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be
recorded over PA 23D and PA 23E with the first final map (master final map) for the East
Village. At that time. title to the land and/or beneficiary of the easement shall be
transferred to the conservation entity or other management body acceptable to the City of
Carlsbad. The developer shall continue to hold maintenance responsibility for restored or
revegetated areas within these planning areas until the success criteria for the restored or
revegetated areas has been met. and maintenance responsibility has been transferred. An
easement for an area of coastal sage scrub restoration located within the habitat corridor
on the West Village (which is the responsibility of the East Village developer) shall also be
provided with the first final map (master final map) for the East Village.
West Village -PA 23C. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be recorded
over PA 2d>"•. Pl'. 2d8 and PA 23C with the first final map (master final mop) for the West
2-18
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Village. The timing of this dedication is reguired with the West Village due to the coastal
sage scrub restoration Qrogram that will be imQiemented uQon exQiration of the Parkwal":
Nurserl": lease, within PA 23C. At that time, title to the land and/or beneficiary of the
easement shall be transferred to the conservation entity or other management body
acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. The developer shall continue to hold maintenance
responsibility for restored or revegetated areas within these planning areas until the success
criteria for the restored or revegetated areas has been met, and maintenance responsibility
has been transferred.
West Village -PAs 23A and 238. An oQen sQace andLor conservation easement shall be
recorded over PA 23A and PA 23B with the first final maQ (master final maQ) for the West
Village. At that time, title to the land andLor beneficiarl": of the easement shall be
transferred to the conservation entitl": or other management bodi: acceQtable to the Citl": of
Carlsbad. The develoQer shall continue to hold maintenance resQonsibilitl": for restored or
revegetated areas within these Qlanning areas until the success criteria for the restored or
revegetated areas has be§n met, and maintenance resQonsibilitl": has been transferred.
MM B-2: Development and preservation areas shall be as shown on the exhibit labeled
"HMP Hardline Map" dated September 15, 2004 (as shown on Figure 3-6 of this EIR). No fuel
modification is permitted within the "hardline" open space areas depicted on Figure 3-7
(fuel modification is limited to those areas shown on Figures 5.10-1 and 5.1 0-2 only).
A coastal sage scrub restoration program shall be implemented as shown on Figure 5.5-6.
Restoration is proposed under two separate restoration plans as follows:
All slopes within the wildlife corridor (East and West Villages) that are graded as part of the
proposed project shall be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation. The restoration
program shall be subject to a five-year maintenance and monitoring program, with a
requirement to meet agency-approved success criteria. This restoration program shall be
approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading
associated with implementation of the proposed project (East and West Villages). The
restoration program shall include site preparation guidelines, implementation monitoring,
performance standards, long-term maintenance and monitoring methodology, and
contingency measures with a commitment to funding. Such measure shall also be
applicable to the ten ( 1 0) acres of additional coastal sage scrub restoration Calavera Hills II
LLC will implement within the preserve areas of the project.
The revegetation of Area A (MMRP Table A, as Qrovided in AQQendix D to the MMRP) will be
accomQiished by: the develoQer of the East Village and will be initiated Qrior to ani: clearing
or grading of existing CSS for the Robertson Ranch develoQment.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-19 April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
The revegetation of Area B lin Table A as provided in Appendix D to this MMRPl shall occur
once grading to an approximate 5:1 slope gradient has been completed. This grading will
be initiated upon expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease and vacation of the property by
the Nursery operation.
West Village-PA 23C. A separate restoration plan shall be prepared and implemented for
the portions of the project site within the habitat corridor currently subject to agricultural
activity and the Parkway Nursery lease. The restoration program shall be subject to a five-
year maintenance and monitoring program, with a requirement to meet agency-approved
success criteria. This restoration program shall be approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to
the commencement of any clearing or grading associated with implementation of the
proposed West Village. The restoration program shall include site preparation guidelines,
implementation monitoring, performance standards. long-term maintenance and
monitoring methodology, and contingency measures with a commitment to funding.
However, this component of the restoration plan would be less extensive than that identified
above (restored slopes and 1 0-acre restoration area), consisting primarily of hydroseeding,
and with limited plantings, with the goal to re-introduce native vegetation into these areas.
This program would be implemented upon the expiration of the Parkway Lease (which
expires in August 2006 and which will not be renewed).
Upon the expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease, the entire habitat corridor along the
SDG&E easement will be subject to a conservation easement and managed as open
space, except for those specific activities SDG&E undertakes within its utility easement
consistent with SDG&E's operation and maintenance requirements. Management of the
corridor is anticipated to be performed by an independent private or public conservation
entity experienced in management of biological resource areas. The amount of funds
required to manage and ensure long-term biological integrity of the habitat corridor will be
determined by a property analysis record (PAR) based on the specific requirements and
potential for urban stress on the corridor. Standard protocol for funding of such corridors
dictates that a non-wasting account (endowment) be set up by the owner of each portion
of the property (East Village, West Village) for their respective portion of corridor to be
managed.
The re-introduction of coastal sage scrub vegetation to Area C (in Table A as provided in
Appendix D to this MMRPl will commence upon completion of grading within the corridor.
The Future West Village Revegetation (re-introduction of coastal sage scrub at PA3/EI
Camino Reali shall occur at the time that grading for the future residential street between
PA8/l1 and PA 10 in the West Village is completed.
2-20
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM B-3: Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit. whichever
occurs first. the applicant shall contribute an In-lieu Mitigation Fee (Category F) consistent
with Section E.6 of the City's Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No.
2000-223 as follows:
• Non-Native Vegetation Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.76 acre; West Village = G,.GG0.52
acre (balance on Opt.ion Parcel)
• Eucalyptus Woodland Mitigation Fee: East Village= 0.00 acre; West Village = 1.88 acre
• Agricultural Lands Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.00 acre; West Village= 8.47 acre
• Agricultural Lands Mitigation Fee: East Village = 84.50 acre: West Village = 135.50 acre
MM B-4: To avoid impacts to adjacent open space habitats during construction all impact-
open space interfaces will require construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge
of the approved limits of grading and clearing and environmentally sensitive areas beyond.
This fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction activity. Implementation of
this measure shall be verified by the project Biological Monitor and reported to the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department concurrent with construction.
• The project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers) the limits of project
impacts (including construction staging areas and access routes! to prevent additional
habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent
habitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact
habitats to be avoided. The applicant shall submit to the Service for approvaL at least
seven days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initial
clearing and grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans shall include
photographs that show the fenced limits of impact and all areas (including
riparian/wetland or CSS) to be impacted or avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced
or demarcated limits of impact. all work shall cease until the problem has been
remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts that occur
beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary
construction fencing shall be removed upon project completion.
MM B-5: A Wildlife Agency-approved biological monitor shall be present to monitor clearing,
grading, and construction activities in the vicinity of biological open space areas. The
biological monitor shall have the authority to stop construction and require additional
precautions or conservation measures to protect the proposed open space preserve areas,
including the wildlife movement corridor. as necessary. Implementation of this measure shall
be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department prior to and concurrent with
construction.
2-21
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
shall be undertaken by a professional management entity (e.g., Center for Natural Lands
Management) with experience in managing biological open space in the Southern
California region. An area specific management plan shall be developed and a non-
wasting endowment or other financial guarantee shall be established (based upon a
Property Analysis Record) by the developer to fund the management of the preserve
except where other management funds become available. The designated management
entity would ensure compliance with the HMP conditions of coverage for HMP species
through implementation of the approved area specific management plan. Specifically,
suitable riparian habitat for least Bell's vireo and yellow-breasted chat and suitable upland
habitats for California gnatcatcher and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow within
the open space will be managed to meet the conditions of coverage for these species. if
present.
In order to provide for the cost of the long-term maintenance and biological monitoring
program for the preserve. a long-term management program shall be defined and funded.
The criteria for trail development (e.g., fencing, signage) shall be included in the
management program. The property owner/on-site environmental manager will initially
propose a scope of work for the long-term management program. The scope of work shall
then be subject to review by the City and Wildlife Agencies. Based upon the scope of work
and associated costs agreed to by the developer or their successors and the City, a funding
mechanism for the long-term maintenance can be a non-wasting endowment or other
financial guarantee acceptable to the City. The long-term maintenance program shall be
a separate agreement between the City and the property owner.
I~ tl:le Git•f is ~:~Reele te Feeei¥e eeRe~:~FFeRee ~FeR=~ Gl:JSQ te MM I 6: I~ eeRStF~:~etieR e~ 9 tFeill:lees is FJFeFJeSes >t,<iti:liR tl:le "FJ9RR9Rsle" (12A ;l;lej, tl:le
iRstell e Fe€JieRel tFeill:lees eR tl:le Gl:JSQ FJFeFJeFty esjeeeRt ~elle~t,<iR€1 6FiteFi9 SR911 9FJFJI'f. +l:le tFeill:lees sl:lell: II ee sesi€jRes ~eF Re FfleFe H'l9R teA 69FS;
te tl:le FJFeje6t site, e tFeill:lees eRs FJesestFieR tFeilliR~ te tl:le ;ljee le6etes et leest IGG ~eet ~F9Ffl RFJ9R9R,lwetleRs ~'e€jetetieR; ;ljee leEetes et leest eGG
Gele¥eFe 1-!ills se,.,<eF eeseA=~eRt tFeil is iseRti~ies witl:liR tl:le ~eet 9>t,<9'f ~FeFfl tl:le weti9RS Ffliti€jetieR 9Fee; 4j ee ~eR6es 9RS €j9tes 9RS FJeStes witl:l
se~:~tt:leFR FJeFtieR e~ tl:le FJSRReRElle, eElje6eRt te tl:le 8d8 I:IS9€Je FestFietieRs; ej ee I:IRFJ9¥es witR Re li€jRtiR€j; 9RS, ~~ 6eRStF~:J6teEl e~ 9 teA'IFJ9F9Pf
seteRtieR S9SiR. +!:lis tFEJiiReEJS ~t,<e~:JIS FJFe><ise Re €jFeeteF Elesi€JR wt:liER 6e~:~IEl ee FeleEeteEl. +i:le EleteRtieR eesiR Will Ret ee Ffl9iRt9iRes, ¥e€jetetieR iR
tReR teA FJ9F~iR€J SFJ96eS, 9RS ti:le FJeteRtiel feF El tFeil liR~ tl:le EleteRtieR eesiR sl:lell ee A'IEl*iA'Iii!es, 9RS tl:le iRiet sl:lell ee 6leeReEl ElS Reeses.
96Fess tl:le Gale~•eFe GFee~ FiFJSFiEJR 6eFFiseF te tl:le e*istiR€1 Miti€jetieR feF iA'IFJSEts esseEieteEl ,,,itt:l tt:le FJSF~iR€1 let st:lell e661:1F eR site. +i:le 6Fee~ 6FeSSiR€j
SeweF eeSeFfleRt tFeil. +t:lis tFeilt:leeEl le6etieR ASS seeR SREJII iFfiFJ96t less tREJR G.;le 96Fe e~ leAs 9RS we~:~ls eRteil 9 13Fis€je tl:let SFJElRS tl:le I 00 'fe9F
iEleRtifieEl ee691:1Se it ~:~tilii!eS tt:le e*istiR€1 8d8 seteRtieR S9SiR fleeEl le•~el. Altl:le~:~€JR tt:le tFeilt:lees is FJFSFJeseEl es e seFJeFete Gity FJFejeE*. tt:le iA'IFJ96ts sl:lell
Ffl9iRteR9R6e 966eSS FeeEl eREl it is le6etes witl:liR tl:le ee Ffliti€jeteEl 13~· tt:le ReeeFtSeR R9R6R eest ¥ille€je FJFeFJeFty e>,o,<ReF es ~elle,.,•s: II FesteFe eR
e*iStiR€J 9€JFi6~:Jit~:JF91 9REl EleteRtieR S9SiR 9Fe9S 9RS tRI:JS e*istiR€1 siFt tFeil witRiR tl:le FJ9RR9Rsle 9FeEJ te eeestel S9€je S6FI:IS (es SReWR 9R tt:le d~:~Re IQ,
sees Ret iA=~FJed seRsitive Fese~:~F6es. ~le l:laeitet FeFfle"el ;1004 e*Rieitj eREl, ;lj 6Feete I ;l,OOG sq~:~me feet e~ wetleREl t:leeitet iR tt:le FJSRReRsle me e.
h I f~r in ~f +h~ +r. .
Project impacts will also occur to wetland/riparian habitats. MM B-7: This measure requires that "no net loss" of wetlands will occur with development of
The wetland/riparian habitats that will be impacted by the the proposed project. The development configuration of the Master Tentative Map for the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-22
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
bess Ti=leR
Si€JRificeRt
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
proposed project are coastal valley freshwater marsh (0.22
acre) and southern willow scrub (0.61 acre).
Based on the Master Plan design, approximately 0.57 acres
of wetlands and 0.29 acre of non-wetlands will be
impacted. These impacts to ACOE jurisdictional areas are
considered significant.
Based on the Master Plan design, approximately 1.05 acres
of riparian vegetation and 0.27 acre· of unvegetated
streambed will be impacted. · These impacts to CDFG
jurisdictional areas are considered significant.
There is a potential for an indirect impact to the
gnatcatcher as a result of noise generated during
construction on the project site. This potential indirect
impact is considered potentially significant. Compliance
with the gnatcatcher habitat seasonal clearing restrictions
would also reduce impacts to any nesting Loggerhead
Shrikes to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
East Village shall include the proposed on-site restoration area. unless prior to this time some
offsetting mitigation credit is given by the Wildlife Agencies for biological enhancement
within the West Village. A minimum of 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh and
0.61 acre of southern willow scrub shall be provided. (Refer to EIR Table 5.5-7 provided in
Appendix E of this MMRP!.
A 100-foot buffer from wetland vegetation shall be provided where feasible. Any proposed
reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall require sufficient information to determine
that a buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resources. Such information shall
include, but is not limited to. the size and type of the development and/or proposed
mitigation (such as planting of vegetation or the construction of fencing) that will also
achieve the purposes of the buffer. The California Department of Fish and Game, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff shall be consulted in such buffer determinations.
Notwithstanding that all wetlands and riparian impacts (0.83 ac.) are a result of the West
Village development; the mitigation site is located within the boundaries of the East Village
(within the panhandle, adjacent to the existing Co/avera Hills mitigation project). or within
the on-site habitat corridor in a location approved by the Resource agencies. As proposed,
the restoration areas on the project site (PA 23E) contains sufficient area so as to exceed
normal mitigation requirements. Figure 5.5-7 depicts the location of future on-site
wetlands/riparian restoration areas. Also, prior to approval of a grading permit for the West
Village, the Planning Director shall confirm that a wetlands/riparian restoration plan has
been prepared and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Further, enhancement or restoration within the Drainage A
riparian corridor (between PA 1 and PA 2) can also constitute mitigation credit for wetlands
impacts.
MM B-8: This measure requires, per the HMP, no clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitat or
construction that would result in direct impacts to sage scrub or which occurs within 300 feet
of occupied sage scrub shall take place between February 15 and August 31 '' unless
authorized by the Wildlife Agencies after consultation. Since the project's focused
gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in 2001 , updated protocol-level surveys shall be
performed no longer than one year before the initiation of project construction for the East
Village, and subsequently, no longer than one year before the initiation of project
construction for the West Village, to provide an accurate mapping of current occupied
habitat. Surveys for loggerhead shrike shall also be conducted concurrently with
gnatcatcher surveys.
If clearing and construction cannot be restricted to outside of the breeding season
appropriate conservation measures shall be implemented, subject to the approval of the
2-23
SignHicance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Apri/2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Wildlife Agencies. to ensure that no impact to this species occurs. Avoidance of noise-
related impacts to occupied habitat can be assured through implementation of noise
reduction methods (e.g .. a noise barrier or wall) to reduce noise within occupied habitat to
a level below 60 dBA and/or as allowed by the Wildlife Agencies. If construction can be
restricted to outside of the breeding season. kept to a minimum of 300 feet away from
suitable habitat. or if construction noise is less than 60 dBA within suitable habitat, updated
focused surveys are not expected to be necessary. Implementation of this measure shall be
verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department concurrent with construction.
MM 8-17: A monitoring biologist aQQroved b~ the Service shall be on site during initial
clearing and grubbing of habitat, which should occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding
season, or as allowed Qursuant to Mitigation Measure B-8.
The monitoring biologist shall Qerform a minimum of three focused surve~s, on seQarate
da~s, to determine the Qresence of gnatcatchers in the Qroject imQact footQrint outside the
gnatcatcher breeding season. Surve~s shall begin a maximum of seven da~s Qrior to
Qerforming vegetation clearingLgrubbing and one surve~ shall be condu~ted the da~
immediate!~ Qrior to the initiation of remaining work. If an~ gnatcatchers are found within
the Qroject imQact footQrint, the biologist shall direct construction Qersonnel to begin
vegetation clearingLgrubbing in an area awa~ from the gnatcatchers. In addition, the
biologist shall walk ahead of clearingLgrubbing eguiQment to flush birds towards areas of
CSS to be avoided. It shall be the resQonsii;lilit~ of the biologist to ensure that gnatcatchers
shall not be injured or killed b~ vegetation clearingLgrubbing.
The biologist shall also record the number and location of gnatcatchers disturbed b~
vegetation clearingLgrubbing. The aQQiicant shall notif~ the Service at least seven da~s
Qrior to vegetation clearingLgrubbing to allow the Service to coordinate with the biologist
on bird flushing activities.
MM 8-18: For subseguent construction work Qerformed during the gnatcatcher breeding
season, a monitoring biologist shall be on site during significant noise-generating Qroject
construction activities (e.g., including but not necessaril~ limited to grading, drilling, blasting,
etc.) within 300 feet of Qreserved habitat to ensure comQiiance with all conservation
measures. The biologist shall be knowledgeable of uQiand biolog~ and ecolog~. The
aQQiicant shall submit the biologists name, address, teleQhone number, and work schedule
on the Qroject to the Service at least 30 da~s Qrior to initiating Qroject imQacts. The biologist
shall Qerform the following duties:
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-24 April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) SlgnHicance of
lmpact(s) After
MHigatlon
• The Qroject biologist shall determine the Qresence of gnatcatchers, nest building activities,
egg incubation activities, or brood rearing activities within 300 feet of the Qroject imQact
limits within the gnatcatcher breeding season. The aQQiicant shall notify the Service within
24 hours of locating any gnatcatchers. If a nest is found in or within 300 feet of initial
vegetation clearingLgrubbing or Qroject construction, work shall be QOStQoned within 500
feet of the nest. The aQQiicant shall contact the Service to discuss: 11 the best aQQroach
to avoidLminimize imQacts to nesting birds (e.g., sound wallsL and 21 a nest monitoring
Qrogram. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days, Qrior to vegetation
clearingLgrubbing or Qroject construction and one survey shall be conducted the day
immediately Qrior to the initiation of work;
• Work may be initiated subject to imQiementation of the avoidance andLor minimization
measures and nest monitoring Qrogram aQQroved by the Service. Nest success or failure
shall be established by regular and freguent triQs to the site, as determined by the biologist
and through a schedule aQQroved by the Service. The biologist shall determine whether
bird activity is being disruQted. If the biologist determines that bird activity is being
disruQted, the aQQiicant shall stoQ work and coordinate with the Service to review the
avoidanceLminimization aQQroach. Coordination between the aQQiicant and Service to
review the avoidanceLminimization aQQroach shall occur within 48 hours. UQon
agreement as to the necessaey: revisions to the avoidanceLminimization aQQroach, work
may resume subject to the revisions and continued nest monitoring. Nest monitoring shall
continue until fledglings have disQersed or the nest has been determined to be a failure,
as aQQroved by the Service;
• lnsQect the fencing and erosion control measures within or UQ-sloQe of all restoratiQn
andLor Qreservation areas a minimum of once Qer week and daily during all rain events to
ensure that any breaks in the fence or erQsion control measures are reQaired immediately;
• Train all contractors and construction Qersonnel on the biological resources associated
with this Qroject and ensure that training is imQiemented by construction Qersonnel. At a
minimum, training shall include: 11 the QUrQose for resource Qrotection; 21 a descriQtion of
the gnatcatcher and its habitat; 31 the conservation measures given in the draft
subseguent EIR that shall be imQiemented during Qroject construction, including strictly
limiting activities, vehicles, eguiQment, and construction materials to the fenced Qroject
footQrint to avoid sensitive resource areas in the field (i.e.; avoided areas delineated Qn
maQs or on the Qroject site by fencing); 41 environmentally resQonsible construction
Qractices as outlined in measure 8; 51 the Qrotocol to resolve conflicts that may arise at
any time during the construction Qrocess; and, 61 the general Qrovisions of the
Endangered SQecies Act, the need to adhere to the Qrovisions of the Endangered SQecies
Act the penalties associated with violatina the Endanaered Species Act·
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-25 Apri12006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
• Halt work, if necessa[y and confer with the Service to ensure the QroQer imQiementation of
SQecies and habitat Qrotection measures. The biologist shall reQort an~ violation to the
Service within 24 hours of its occurrence;
• Submit weeki~ letter reQorts {including QhotograQhs of imQact areas) to the Service during
clearing of habitat and{or Qroject construction within 300 feet of avoided habitat. The
weeki~ reQorts shall document that authorized imQacts were not exceeded, work did not
occur within ·the 300-foot setback exceQt as aQQroved · b~ the Service, and general
comQiiance with all conditions. The reQorts shall also outline the duration of gnatcatcher
monitoring, the location of construction activities, the t~Qe of construction which
occurred, and eguiQment used. These reQorts shall SQecif~ numbers, locations, and sex of
gnatcatchers {if Qresent). observed gnatcatcher behavior {esQeciall~ in relation to
construction activities). and remedial measures emQio~ed to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate imQacts to gnatcatchers. Raw field notes shall be available UQOn reguest b~ the
Service; and,
• The biological monitor shall submit a final reQort to the Service within 60 da~s of Qroject
comQietion that includes: as-built construction drawings with an overla~ of habitat that
was imQacted and avoided, QhotograQhs of habitat areas that were to be avoided, and
other relevant summa[y information documenting that authorized imQacts were not
exceeded and that general comQiiance with all mitigation measures in the EIR was
achieved.
If sensitive nesting birds (e.g .. least Bell's vireo or MM B-9: This measure requires that if sensitive nesting birds (e.g., least Bell's vireo or Less Than
southwestern willow flycatcher) are located outside of the southwestern willow flycatcher) are located outside of the project footprint. but within 300 Significant
project footprint. but within 300 feet of the proposed work feet of the proposed work area, noise reduction measures (e.g., noise barrier/wall) shall be
area, noise reduction measures (e.g., noise barrier/wall) implemented to prevent noise impacts within occupied habitat during the breeding season
shall be implemented to prevent noise impacts within (April 15 through July 31). Focused surveys for the vireo and flycatcher were conducted in
occupied habitat during the breeding season (April 15 2001. If work is proposed within 300 feet of suitable habitat during the breeding season,
through July 31). updated surveys are required to ensure that current occupied habitat is identified and
appropriate noise reduction measures are implemented as necessary. Noise reduction
measures would need to meet the minimum standard of reducing noise levels to below 60
dBA within occupied habitat. unless otherwise agreed upon by the Wildlife Agencies. If
construction within 300 feet of riparian scrub or woodland habitat is not proposed during the
breeding season, updated surveys are not required. Implementation of this measure shall
be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-26 April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Burrowing owl was not detected on-site during Winter 2005
surveys, but this site may in the future be utilized by
wintering, or less likely, a resident breeding pair(s) as it is
known from the region and suitable habitat exists on-site.
These owls burrow and nest in abandoned rodent holes.
This species would be impacted in the event occupied
burrows were covered during grading activity. The
potential for grading activity to impact the burrowing owl is
considered significant.
Raptors may nest on-site in large eucalyptus trees or other
suitable nesting areas. The impact to raptors would be
considered significant if active nests are observed during
construction.
Project design features identified above will ensure that the
project maintains a corridor connection for Linkage B as
envisioned in the HMP. Mitigation Measure B-12 will ensure
compliance these standards.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM B-1 0: This measure requires, per the HMP, that protocol surveys for burrowing owl shall
be conducted in all Standards Areas and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas
that contain suitable habitat. Winter surveys were conducted in 2005 and pre-grading
surveys shall be conducted prior to any construction. The surveys would serve to identify owl
burrow locations for the purposes of avoidance (where practicable) or passive relocation.
Specifically, if burrowing owls are identified on-site, the following HMP mitigation measures
would be implemented:
• Development shall avoid direct impacts to the nest site to the maximum extent
practicable. If impacts are unavoidable, any impacted individuals shall be relocated to
a conserved area of suitable size and characteristics, using passive or active
methodologies approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department.
MM B-11: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the East Village, and subsequently the
West Village, a biological survey shall be conducted of the project area (if grading is
proposed during the breeding season). If active raptor and/or migratory bird nests are
observed during the construction phase of both the East Village and subsequently the West
Village, a buffer area of adequate width (typically 500 feet). as determined by the
monitoring biologist. shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so
that nesting activities are not interrupted. To avoid potential impacts. trees should be
removed outside of the breeding season of local raptor species (trees should be removed
between September through January). Noise attenuation and buffer (if required) shall
remain in place until the construction activities are completed or the nest is no longer
active. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department.
MM B-12: This measure requires avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts associated with
roadways (within Linkage B), additional measures (e.g., fencing, lighting restrictions) shall be
required to encourage the continued use of the corridor and use of the two under crossings.
It should be noted that only the first of these criteria (i.e .. the fencing) is a direct responsibility
of the Robertson Ranch project relative to the College Boulevard undercrossing. The wildlife
undercrossing design shall be shown on the Master Tentative Map. The required measures
are described below:
• Where roads cross the corridor (Linkage B) a substantial fence shall be erected to funnel
wildlife toward appropriate underpasses. (Note: wildlife undercrossing locations shown in
Appendix C of the MMRP!. These fences shall be buried at least one foot underground
so animals cannot readily diQ underneath. As stated previously, fencinQ is not proposed
2-27
SignHicance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) SlgnHicance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
along El Camino Real. where it would occur on one side of the road only and could trap
wildlife on the roadway. The ultimate design and specific location of the fencing will be
decided in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Also, natural vegetative cover shalf
be established and maintained at either end of the wildlife underpasses. Concrete V-
ditches should be eliminated to allow for natural stream flows, and any water drainage
area in the base of each culvert should be as narrow as possible and placed to the side,
rather than the center. . Installation of a 6-foot high (measured from the ground up) wing fencing on both sides of
the culvert. The fencing should have mesh that is smaller than 10 centimeters by 15
centimeters. . Noise within the culverts should not exceed 60 dBA Leq . This could be accomplished by
the use of sound wolfs. . No artificial light should stray within the culvert openings . . Use of skylight openings within the underpass (on any new underpass) to allow for
vegetation cover within the underpass. . All undercrossings shalf be surrounded by native vegetation .
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and
Engineering Departments at the time specific plans for the proposed undercrossings are
prepared and submitted to the City for review. The QrOQOSed wildlife corridor design shall
be reviewed b~ a gualified biologist.
The potential indirect effects (artificial night lighting within MM B-13: This measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each less Than
wildlife habitat, harassment, and invasive plants) are development shall be inspected by the City's Parks and Planning and B~o~ilding Departments Significant
considered significant impacts to the open space areas to determine that the lighting restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife
within and adjacent to the project site. Agencies will avoid excess illumination of open space areas within 100 feet of open space
areas through repositioning, redirecting (shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low
sodium lighting. The sports park lighting, and an~ QeriQhect lighting (including low-sodium
lights! adjacent to the wildlife habitat corridor shall be designed so that there is no
measurable (shalf not exceed +G-;i.footcandles) light spillover into the habitat corridor. and
a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of slope to buffer the
wildlife corridor. In areas where SQilfover exceeding 3-footcandles cannot be avoided, trees
shall be located near the light standards to filter the light SQilfover into the OQen SQace. The
following measures shalf be imQiemented:
~ Maximum light SQillover shall not exceed 3 footcandles
~ Use of full cut-off lighting fixtures . Limit hours of OQeration to 1 0:00 Q.m. (Qark use l -
~ Additional trees shall be Qlanted between the OQen SQace and residential areas and the
future soorts field liaht standards.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-28 April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensure that
light spillover has been appropriately attenuated.
MM B-14: To ensure continued use of Linkage Band all areas of biological open space by a
variety of HMP species, efforts to reduce detrimental edge effects shall be undertaken. Any
linear vegetation feature has an increased amount of edge relative to a large vegetation
patch. If this increased amount of edge is bordered by development or disturbed habitat
the potential for detrimental edge effects is high. To combat these effects the following
measures are required:
• Residents whose lots back onto the Linkage lands, should be apprised through the
developments CC&R's of the sensitivity of the adjacent lands via signage and informed
of penalties for illegal intrusion (via uncontrolled access points or expansion of
landscaping, etc.), and/or illegal dumping (materials into biological open space).
• Fencing shall be installed to deter open access to the biological open space where the
open space lies adjacent to residential development. ancillary facilities, or a roadway.
Fencing should also preclude (to the extent feasible) access of the open space by
domestic pets. Access points to the biological open space should be carefully
controlled to reduce habitat degradation.
MM B-15: Two noxious plant species: giant cane (arundo donax) and pampas grass
(cortaderia jubata) shall be eliminated from all areas of the property to be retained in open
space. If identified, additional significant noxious plant species currently growing within
Linkage B, shall be flagged by a trained biologist and carefully removed (if such a removal
can practically be achieved) so that seeds are not dispersed.
In addition, the use of invasive exotic plants within landscaping areas adjacent to the
proposed open space areas shall be prohibited through the application of Covenants.
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The list of invasives shall be those identified on List A
and List B of the California Exotic Plant Council's List of Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological
Concern in California, as of October, 1999, and updated if applicable. Implementation of
this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department during review of
proposed landscape plans.
MM B-19: The applicant shall ensure that the following conditions are implemented during
project construction:
vehicles, equipment and construction
2-29
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
MHigation
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
• To avoid attracting predators of the gnatcatcher, the project site shall be kept as clean
of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers
and regularly removed from the site:
• Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on the project site:
• Disposal or temporarv placement of excess fill. brush or other debris shall not be allowed
in waters of the United States or their banks:
• All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel. oil. coolant. or any other
such activities shall occur in designated areas outside of waters of the United States
within the fenced project impact limits and in such a manner as to prevent any runoff
from entering waters of the United States. and shall be shown on the construction plans.
Fueling of equipment shall take place within existing paved areas greater than 1 00 feet
from waters of the United States. Contractor equipment shall be checked for leaks prior
to operation and repaired as necessarv. "No-fueling zones" shall be designated on
construction plans:
• Night lighting, if any, of construction staging areas shall be of the lowest illumination
necessarv for human safety, selectively placed. shielded. and directed away from
natural habitats: ·
• The project applicant shall temporarily fence lwith silt barriers) the limits of project
impacts (including construction staging areas and access routes! to prevent additional
habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent
habitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact
habitats to be avoided. The applicant shall submit to the Service for approval. at least
seven days prior to initiating project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initial
clearing and grubbing of habitat and project construction. These final plans shall include
photographs that show the fenced limits of impact and all areas (including
riparian/wetland or CSSl to be impacted or avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced
or demarcated limits of impact. all work shall cease until the problem has been
remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts that occur
beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporarv
construction fencing shall be removed upon project completion:
• Landscaping shall not use plants. that require intensive irrigation. fertilizers. or pesticides
adjacent to preserve areas and water runoff from landscaped areas shall be directed
away from the biological conservation easement area and contained and/or treated
within the development footprint. where feasible. The applicant shall submit a draft list of
species to be included in the landscaping to the Service for approval at least 30 days
prior to initiating project impacts. The applicant shall submit to the Service the final list of
species to be included in the landscaping within 30 days of receiving approval of the
draft species list.
2-30
SignHicance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
. The San Diego County Invasive Ornamental Plant Guide shall be used in develoQing the
landscaQe Qlan for the QroQosed Qroject. . Restrictions on the use of invasive Qlant SQecies shall be included in the Qroject CC&R's . . Coyote Roller devices shall be installed on fences that interface with the Qerimeter of
moQosed oQen mace meserve areas. to the extent feasible.
MM B-23: ProQosed trails sQecifically allowed within the QroQosed Master Plan OQen SQace
Qlanning areas shall be managed by the City of Carlsbad or by a conservation
management entity with familiarity with the SQecific Recreation and Public Access measures
identified in MHCP Volume I. The Robertson Ranch 0Qen SQace management Qrogram
shall be consistent with these measures, including Qrovision Qf litter control, limiting use
during the breeding season, discouraging tresQass off of the trail, Qrohibiting eguestrian uses
on the trail, erosion control, Qrovision of signage, lighting restrictions, limitations on biking,
and establishment of Qatrols to monitor.
Due to the location of the vernal QOOIS and their MM B-20: The following vernal QOOI management actions shall be incorQorated into the
toQograQhical and geograQhical relationshiQ to the Qreserve management of P A 23E:
QroQosed Robertson Ranch develoQment, no runoff from
QrOQosed ROQ!ilrt~on Ranch develoQment is anticiQated to . Fencing around the vernal QOOI areas shall be installed to Qrevent Qotential imQacts from
imQact the vernal Qools located within PA 23E. PA 23E is foot traffic and to Qrevent collection of an:x:: flowering Qlants or tadQoles, Qarticularly in
QroQosed for OQen SQace. Additionally, from a hydrological light of the QOOis' location immediately down sloQe from an offsite residential,
standQoint, PA 23E is seQarated from the remainder of the landscaQed area.
Qroject site as the area is located north of Robertson Ranch
develoQment areas, and is also seQarated by College . Pool hydroloav is likely to be effected by summer runoff from the off-site, uQsloQe
Boulevard. develoQment. Changes in drainage Qatterns and the Qossible addition of fertilizer or
herbicide runoff from the UQSIOQe landscaQing may transform QOOIS into more
Qermanent wetlands or transform the vegetative comQonents of the Qools by favoring
invasive SQecies. The Qreserve manager shall work closely with the adjacent Calavera
Hills homeowners association and their landscaQe maintenance contractor to avoid
aQQiication of excess drainage, herbicides and Qesticides UQSIOQe from the existing
vernaiQools. . Exotic Qlant invasion shall be Qrevented through the use of selective weeding,
appropriate herbicide application or desianed arazina.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-31
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
If seasonal QreciQitation exceeds 1 0 inches, there is the MM 8·21: East Village. Additional focused surveys for the Brodiaea filifolia shall be Less Than
Qotential for thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) to conducted within the clay soil regions of the East Village (clay soils ore located only in Significant
be Qresent on the Qroject site. locations south of Cannon Road) Qrior to grading only if winter into SQring 2005-2006 rainfall
exceeds 10 inches. If rainfall exceeds 10 inches in the season Qrior to grading, and if a new
Brodiaea filifolia is necessa[Y, and if Brodiaea filifolia is found, Qer HMP narrow endemic
conservation standards (HMP, Qages D-89 and D-90) it would be subject to reguired
Qreservation of 80~ of any newly discovered QOQulation. If grecigitation is less than 10
inches, the results of the 2003 surveys shall be considered the best available assessment of
this SQecies QresenceLabsence status on-site and no further action related to this sgecies is
necessa[Y.
West Village. If sufficient grecigitation (greater than 10 inches) occurs grior to grading of the
West Village, surveys shall be conducted to grovide an oggortunity to identify Brodiaea
filifolia under geak emergence conditions. Surveys for the West Village shall not necessarily
be conducted immediatel'i grior to ground disturbance. The survey timing shall be Qictated
by OQtimal emergence conditions. If grecigitation of greater than 1 0 inches does not occur
grior to grading for the West Village, then the results of the 2003 surve'iS shall be utilized to
assess imQacts to this sgecies.
~oroiect to C< HMP MM B-22: The Qroject shall comgly with all aQQiicable conditions of coverage for Carlsbad LP.SS rhan
animal sgecies, there is the Qotential to significantly imQact HMP covered sensitive animal SQecies observed on the groject site, as identified in the Significant
sensitive animal SQ~cies. MHCP Volume II, including:
a) CooQer's hawk
b) Least Bell's vireo
c) Yellow-breasted chgt
,'"""'"-~·· I:.~·:.·::, ; . :·· . ~ t.: x~.,.y .. ,,.;:.-..·· :•if,{~~~tl;:'.:o~ .•. , ••. %:!'~·;:'!~~· •1.} '; ,~:::.~t;;\. :> ... , • :'
There are five significant prehistoric sites within the project MM CR·l: A phased data recovery system shall be completed for the significant Less Than
site. These sites have been evaluated as significant archaeological sites impacted by the proposed project in compliance with the City of Significant
resources based on the research potential represented in Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data
the cultural deposits at the sites. Archaeological sites Recovery Program Phase Ill (City of Carlsbad, 1990). This phased data recovery approach
identified as significant that would be impacted by the shall be employed to ensure that the scope of proposed sampling is valid with respect to
proposed project are: SDI-10,609, SDI-10,610, SDI-10,611, SDI-research questions that address data gaps of impact and interest. Data recovery provides
16,135, and SDI-16, 138. The project's impact to these for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special
archaeological resources is considered significant due to studies (i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a
the potential of these sites to expand the understanding of report of findings which addresses the important research questions. A research design shall
the subsistence patterns of the late prehistoric Luiser'io be prepared prior to data recovery, subject to peer review, prior to initiation of data
people in the Carlsbad area. recovery.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-32 April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
In addition, monitoring of brushing, grading, and trenching shall be required during the
construction of the project in order to identify any significant components of each
archaeological site that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoring
will also focus on any potential to discover sites that were not identified in the previous
surveys due to the resources being buried or masked from view. In the event that any
previously unrecorded sites are discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching, a
significance evaluation shall be performed, and, if found to be important, mitigation applied
before grading can resume at the location of the discovery. All archaeological resources.
unless otherwise required by law and other than burial-related artifacts, that are excavated
or removed from prehistoric or historic sites during testing. data recovery projects and all
associated project data, including but not limited to field notes, photos, catalogues and
final reports will be permanently curated at a qualified repository as defined by the "State of
California Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections." Owner (project
developer) agrees additionally to execute a release of title form and to pay such fees as
required for curation that are in effect at such qualified repository at the time of curation. All
curation shall be accomplished within six (6) months from completion of project.
The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified archaeologist and/or archaeological
monitor has been retained to implement the archaeological construction monitoring and
data recovery programs. Verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant
and the archaeologist/archaeological monitor to the City.
MM CR-2: As a means of mitigating cultural concerns of the Luiseno people, monitoring of
grading in the archaeological site locations shall be performed by either knowledgeable
Luisenos or archaeologists. The field monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt
grading and to examine prehistoric resources if they are encountered. Prior to the
commencement of grading for the East and West Villages. respectively, the Construction
Contractor shall meet with Archaeological Monitor to determine when grading and
archaeological monitoring would take place in proximity to archaeological sites.
MM CR-3: Prior to commencement of grading of the East and West Villages. the developer
shall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with a representative of the San Luis Rey Bond
of Mission Indians. The purpose of the agreement will be to formalize procedures for the
treatment of Native American human remains, burial. ceremonial or cultural sites that may
be uncovered during any ground disturbance activity.
In the event archaeological features are discovered, the archaeological monitor shall be
empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time as a
data recovery plan can be developed and implemented. Work outside the area of the find
shall proceed alonq with the continuation of archaeological monitoring.
2-33
SignHicance of
lmpact(s) After
MHigatlon
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact{s)
According to the geotechn the site is
generally suitable for grading and development in
accordance with the land uses proposed in the Master
Plan. Earth materials on the project site that are identified
as unsuitable for the support of settlement sensitive
improvements. and/or compacted fill consist of
undocumented stockpile, existing undocumented fill.
surficial slump deposits. colluvial soil. alluvium. and near-
surface highly weathered formational earth materials (i.e.,
sedimentary and/or igneous bedrock). Removal and
partial removal of these materials will be required to
properly prepare the site for the proposed development.
These soils are not considered suitable for foundation
and/or fill support unless the materials are removed,
moisture conditioned, and placed as properly compacted
fill. This is considered a
Liquefaction potential
areas of the project site. The geotechnical analysis
indicates that damaging deformations that result from
liquefaction should not adversely affect proposed
development provided that a minimum 10 to 15 foot layers
of non-liquefiable material (i.e .. compacted fill plus alluvium
above the water table) is provided beneath any proposed
structure. According to the proposed grading concept. a
minimum of 1 0 to 15 feet of compacted alluvial materials, in
addition to fill. with be provided in all alluvial areas within
the
Implementation of the proposed project will require
earthwork that will occur within quaternary (Pleistocene
age) and the Santiago Formation. These formations have a
high paleontological resource sensitivity. Because the
proposed project will disturb these geological formations.
the potential impact to paleontological resources is
considered significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure{s)
MM GS-1: All future grading and construction of the project site shall comply with the
geotechnical recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. This report identifies
specific measures for mitigating geotechnical conditions on the project site, and addresses
soils earthwork, corrosion and expansion potential. subsurface waters, slope stability,
liquefaction stability, and regional seismicity and faulting.
MM GS-2: A minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (i.e ..
plus alluvium above the groundwater table) shall be provided beneath any structure.
groundwater table rises above its current level, then new design and construction measures
will need to be included into the proposed project to reduce any potential liquefaction
impacts.
MM PR-1: Prior to site grading, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an
appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with
an MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontology procedures and
techniques.)
• The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult
with grading and excavation contractors.
• A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed Santiago Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
In the event that fossils are discovered, it may be necessary to increase the per/day in
time. if fossils are not
2-34
Significance of
lmpact{s) After
MHigation
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
s materials currently on the project site
include above ground storage tanks, discarded and
current storage drums and buckets. building materials
containing asbestos and lead-based paint. and
miscellaneous trash and debris.
East Village
The Master Plan proposes residentiaL a portion of the school
site. and open space land uses within the East Village. The
presence. and in some cases the potential presence of
hazardous materials within the East Village. as described
above. will require that specific mitigation measures be
implemented prior to and during construction to ensure
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
should be reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor
shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
• When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover
them. In most cases. this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time.
However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may
require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct. divert. or halt grading to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the
recovery of small fossil remains. such as isolated mammal teeth. it may be necessary in
certain instances. to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
• Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation
program shall be cleaned. repaired. sorted. and cataloged.
• Prepared fossils. along with copies of all pertinent field notes. photos. and maps, shall
either be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent
paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or retained by
the City and displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as City Hall.
• A final summary report shall be completed and retained on file at the City that outlines
the results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods
used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed. fossils collected. and significance of recovered
fossils.
MM HM-1: Prior to site grading, in any areas containing stained soiL the stained soil shall be
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
removed and properly disposed of in accordance with federaL state and local Significant
requirements in order to eliminate this potential health hazard from the project site. A
hazardous materials specialist shall verify that materials have been properly disposed of prior
to site grading. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
Planning and 81:1ilding Engineering Departments.
2-35 April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s}
proper disposal and remediation (if necessary). The impact
associated with existing potentially hazardous materials on-
site is considered significant.
West Village
The Master Plan proposes residential. a portion of the school
site, village center (commercial and community facilities),
park, and open space land uses within the West Village. As
with the East Village, the presence. and in some cases the
potential presence of hazardous materials within the West
Village will require that specific mitigation measures be
implemented prior to and during construction to ensure
proper disposal and remediation (if necessary). Measures
are required to ensure the proper removal and disposal of
hazardous materials during construction of the West Village.
The impact associated with existing potentially hazardous
materials on-site is considered significant.
Localized areas of trash/debris have been observed within
the East Village and West Village. Improper cleanup and
disposal of this debris. has the potential to harm the public
and the environment, which would be considered a
significant environmental impact.
No soils testing has been conducted for the West Village.
Due to this portion of the project site's history of agricultural
usage, it is possible that soils contaminated with
unacceptable levels of toxics as a result of the application
of pesticides and herbicides exist. Soil testing would be
required to determine levels of taxies within soils on the West
Village, and to identify the appropriate remediation
measures, if necessary.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s}
MM HM-2: Prior to demolition of the Connor Ranch House, located on the West Village, an
asbestos investigation shall be conducted and mitigation report prepared. The mitigation
report shall identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid
releasing asbestos into the air. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of
Carlsbad Planning and Building Departments.
MM HM-3: All trash and debris within the project site shall be disposed of off-site. in
accordance with current. local. state. and federal disposal regulations. Any buried
trash/debris encountered shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant
prior to removal. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
Planning and 0 • Enaineerina Departments.
MM HM-4: Prior to approval of the tentative map for the West Village, a detailed agricultural
chemical residue survey will be required to fulfill the requirement of the City of Carlsbad's
Standard Agricultural Area Mitigation Condition (for agricultural sites). As part of the
mitigation condition, a report shall be presented to the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health Site Assessment (DEH) Voluntary Assistance Program and Regional
Water Quality Control Board for review and comment prior to receipt of a grading permit.
The residue survey shall include surficial soil sampling from depths of 1/2 foot and 1 1 /2 feet
within areas planned for grading, as well as within current storage and mixing areas. The
County DEH will recommend a representative sampling of earth materials within the subject
parcel. to consist of collection from two locations within each one-acre grid. Soil samples
collected should be tested for Chlorinated Pesticides and PCB's (EPA test method 8081).
Organophosphorous Pesticides (EPA test method 8141), and Chlorinated Herbicides (EPA
test method 8151). Soils shall be remediated to a level deemed acceptable for residential
uses according to federal, state. and local guidelines and standards.
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and
Building Engineering Departments and in consultation with the County Department of
Environmental Health.
2-36
SignHicance of
lmpact(s} After
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
A retaining wall is also proposed along the north side of El
Camino Real within a portion of PA 23A and south of PA 3.
The proposed retaining wall also considered a deviation
from the hillside development standards. The proposed
retaining wall would be required to incorporate features so
as to soften the visual appearance of the wall and ensure
that the appearance of the wall is compatible with the
scenic quality of the corridor. The potential aesthetic
I Of the wall is Considered <ir,nifiorr,nt
With respect to the proposed project. PA 12 is located
adjacent to PA 23C. a portion of the proposed HMP open
space corridor. The Master Plan proposed special design
criteria to address the potential for spillover light from the
park onto this proposed HMP open space area.
Specifically, the Master Plan states that, "Lighting for the
fields and facilities adjacent to the Open Space areas (P A
23C) and/or adjacent to Cannon Road shall be selectively
placed, shielded, and directed away from conserved
habitat."
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
MM GA-l: The proposed retaining wall adjacent to the north side of El Camino Real (within
PA 23A) shall be constructed of a natural bluff face appearance so as to blend into the
existing topography and minimize the visual impact along this corridor. Plans for the
construction of the retaining wall shall be provided to the City concurrent with development
applications for the West Village. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City
of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments.
MM GA-2: This measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits. each
development shall be inspected by the City's Building and Parks and Planning Departments
to determine that the lighting restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife
Agencies will avoid excess illumination of open space areas within 100 feet of open space
areas through repositioning. redirecting (shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low
sodium lighting. The sports park lighting. and any peripherv lighting !including low-sodium
lights! adjacent to the wildlife habitat corridor shall be designed so that there is no
measurable (shall not exceed +G-J_footcandles) light spillover into the habitat corridor. and
a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of slope to buffer the
wildlife corridor. In areas where spillover exceeding 3 footcandles cannot be avoided. trees
shall be located near the light standards to filter the light spillover into the open space. The
following measures shall be implemented:
• Maximum light spillover shall not exceed 3 footcandles
• Use of full cut-off lighting fixtures
• Limit hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. !park use)
• Additional trees shall be planted between the open space and residential areas
and the future sports field light standards.
The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for
the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensure that
I has been attenuated.
2-37
Significance of
lmpacl(s) After
Mitigation
Significant
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
East Village would not contribute stormwater runoff that
would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned
stormwater drainage system. Potential drainage and flood
control issues are considered significant. However.
mitigation is proposed to ensure that drainage and flood
control improvements are constructed concurrent with
proposed development. and in accordance with City
standards.
Development of the West Village would alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site but would not alter offsite
drainage patterns. With implementation of proposed flood
control and drainage improvements, development of the
West Village would not contribute stormwater runoff that
would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned
stormwater drainage system. Potential drainage and flood
control issues are considered significant.
Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon will
receive stormwater runoff from the project site. Because
grading activities have the potential to increase the level of
sedimentation/siltation that enters Agua Hedionda Lagoon
on a short-term basis during construction, the impact is
considered significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
City Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm drain facilities as required
by the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, LFMP and Drainage
Study. The required storm drain facilities include but are not limited to:
• 84-inch RCP from BJB detention basin
• Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.14-4)
MM H-2: This measure requires that consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP) and Drainage Study, drainage facilities shall be provided concurrent with future
development of the West Village. Prior to approval of grading permits for development
within the West Village. the City Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite
storm drain facilities as required by the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality
Management Plan, LFMP and Drainage Study. The required storm drain facilities include but
are not limited to:
• Facility BFB
• Facility BF 1
• Detention basins in Planning Areas 1, 2, 7, and 11
• Facility BFA
• Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.12-6)
WQ-1: This measure requires that erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related
pollutants shall be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the
County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge
Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871 ). General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order
No. 99-08, NPDES CAS000002) and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No.
2001-01. NPDES CAS0108758). In compliance with the General Construction Stormwater
Permit. a SWPPP shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading permits.
The owner/developer shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMPs
identified below on a weekly basis. In addition. prior to approval of the grading permit for
the respective village. the City Engineer must determine that project plans have
incorporated temporary desilting basins of adequate number and size in the East Village
and permanent detention basins of adequate number and size in the West Village.
Some of the BMPs that shall be used during construction include. but are not limited to:
• Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms
• Check dams
• Street Sweeping and vacuuming
• Strom drain inlet protection
• Stabilized construction entrance/exit
2-38
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2 -Executive Summary
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
lmpact(s)
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is located downstream of
the project site will receive stormwater runoff from the
project site and is identified on the Clean Water Act.
Section 303(d} list of impaired water bodies for
sedimentation/siltation. In the post-development condition,
the project site has the potential to discharge sediment and
other pollutants to Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda
Creek, which are tributaries to Agua Hedionda Lagoon;
therefore this issue is considered a significant impact.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
• Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling
• Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch
• Material delivery and storage
• Stockpile management
• Spill prevention and control
• Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous and sanitary waste, contaminated soil
• Concrete waste management
WQ-2: This measure requires that pollutants be controlled through compliance with the City
of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP} required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater
Management. and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871), and the General
Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01. NPDES CAS0108758). Prior to approval of
grading permits for development within the East Village, the City Engineer must determine
that the proposed project has incorporated the post-development water quality pollution
control measures identified below into project design to the maximum extent practicable.
• Installation of the vegetated swale located south of Cannon Road
• Site Design BMPs
• Source Control BMPs
• Structural Treatment Control BMPs
Proposed BMPs include:
-Street Sweeping
-Inlet Basin Labeling
-Storm Drain Inlet Baskets with Hydrocarbon Absorption
-Vortex Separator(s)
-Vegetative Drainage Course
-Existing Detention Basin BJB
-Dog Waste Bag Dispensers
-HOA shall provide information to homeowners and residents regarding the requirements
of pet waste disposal.
City Standard Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Mitigation Measures identified above, the project will be required to
comply with the following City standard Conditions of Approval:
• In conjunction with the implementation of any tentative subdivision map, the project
engineer will install or cause to be installed, an underground drainage system network
and curbs and gutters that capture and direct storm water flows. Such improvements
shall be developed in substantial conformance with the Master Drainage Plan provided
in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan document (2005) and shall be designed by a
2-39
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
April2006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
lmpact(s)
Source: BRG Inc .• 2006.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Recommended Mitigation Measure(s)
registered civil engineer and meet all regulatory standards.
• The drainage area fee established in the current Drainage Master Plan for any specific
sub-drainage area within the proposed project, shall be paid or credit given for master
drainage facility installation costs or assured through an agreement.
• The construction of storm drain facilities in substantial conformance with those provided
for within the propose Zone 14 LFMP Amendment shall be paid or assured through a
financial guarantee for that development phase within the Robertson Ranch in which
the improvement is necessary.
• Development conducted under the auspices of the Proposed Project shall comply with
all requirements of State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 90-42 (NPDES
Permit No. CA0108758) and the most current order. In accordance with such permits a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Monitoring Program Plan shall be
developed. and a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the
SWRCB meeting all regulatory standards.
• A copy of the acknowledgment from the SWRCB that an NOI has been received for the
proposed project shall be filed with the City when received. A copy of the completed
NOI from the SWRCB showing the construction permit number for the proposed project
also shall be filed with the when received.
2-40
Significance of
lmpact(s) After
Mitigation
Apri12006
Chapter 2-Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 2-32 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Location And Description
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site (project site) consists of 398 acres of undeveloped
and agricultural lands located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County.
Carlsbad is a coastal city located 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. The City is bordered to the north
by the City of Oceanside, to the south by the City of Encinitas, to the east by the cities of Vista and San
Marcos, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The project site is located approximately 1 .5 miles east of
Interstate 5 and 2 miles south of State Route 78. Figure 3-1 depicts the location of the project site in a
regional perspective.
The majority of the project site is located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, west of
Cannon Road and south of College Boulevard; however, the project site also includes 39.7 acres of land
immediately north of College Boulevard. The northern site boundary is generally defined by The Colony, an
existing single-family residential development and the Calavera Hills II development. Existing access to the
project site is available from numerous locations including a private road that extends onto the site from El
Camino ReaL as well as dirt roads and informal trails throughout the site. Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, depicts
the project site in the context of the local circulation system.
The majority of the project site (approximately 283 acres) is currently used for agricultural purposes,
including cultivation of field crops, flowers, and operation of a wholesale palm tree nursery. On-site
structures include one single-family residence located in the southeastern portion of the site, agricultural
outbuildings, and agricultural-related irrigation infrastructure. Wetland restoration activities are underway
within the portion of the project site located north of College Boulevard and adjacent to Calavera Creek.
In addition, the site is traversed by two SDG&E utility easements which contain high voltage electrical
transmission lines, poles and access roads.
Portions of the project site. primarily where steep slopes and drainages are located, are undeveloped and
contain a variety of native and non-native vegetation. Calavera Creek. an intermittent tributary of Agua
Hedionda Creek, runs north to south in the eastern portion of the project site and where it merges with
Agua Hedionda Creek. flows through an existing box culvert under College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
A variety of land uses surround the project site and include residential uses to the west. open space and
undeveloped agricultural land to the east, the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park to the southeast,
residentiaL commercial and open space to the south. and residentiaL the Calavera Hills II residential
development (under construction) and open space to the north.
The project site is currently designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM); Residential Medium (RM); Local
Shopping Center (L), and Elementary School (E) pursuant to the City of Carlsbad General Plan.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-1 April2006
MEXICO
SOURCE: SANDAG and BRG Consulting, Inc., 2004 7/11/05
·ffi·ffi-ffi·
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Regional Vicinity 3-1
,-·III~IL'Jiil!·~---
3-2
SOURCE· Rand McNally, 2005
·ffm·
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Vicinity Map
,-5n!lliliEII._
3-3
/
(
\,
I
7 !2D/05
FIGURE
3-2
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
3.2 Project Background
The project site has been designated by the City's General Plan for residential low-medium, residential
medium, and elementary school uses since 1994. In 2002, the City amended the General Plan to include
the local shopping center designation on the site. The elementary school and local shopping center
designations are referred to as "floating" designations. These designations are not considered specific to a
particular parcel, but rather indicate the general vicinity where the use could occur at a location within the
residential low-medium designated portion of the site. The Master Plan proposes alternative land uses for
the proposed school site should the Carlsbad Unified School District not proceed with the acquisition of the
site.
The majority of the project site was rezoned in 2003 from L-C (Limited Control) to P-C (Planned Community).
The purpose of the previous L-C zone designation was to provide an interim zone for areas where planning
for future land uses has not been completed. This zone allowed for only those uses permitted for the E-A
(Exclusive Agricultural) zone, which are agricultural-related uses. The intent and purpose of the P-C zone
includes, among others, to provide for and encourage the orderly implementation of the City's General
Plan by providing a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative planning of coordinated
communities. The P-C zone requires that a Master Plan be adopted for the property prior to approval of
any permits for development on the property.
3.3 Project Characteristics
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan is envisioned as a balanced master planned community which
integrates residential, commercial, educational, recreational and open space land uses. The land use plan
is intended to provide residents with the opportunity to live, shop and enjoy open space and active
recreational facilities within their own community. The Master Plan defines two distinct villages -the East
Village and the West Village, which will be defined by a distinct set of land uses and linked by a pedestrian
circulation system as well as thematically linked through the implementation of landscape design and
related architecture.
In accordance with the intent and purpose of the P-C zone, the Master Plan contains extensive design
guidelines and implementation standards to ensure high quality development and recognizable
community identities, while providing the architectural and landscape design flexibility necessary to
accommodate future market demands. In addition, the project design has incorporated the requirements
of the City's Architectural Design Guidelines for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods (Policy 44),
and Principles for the Development for Livable Neighborhoods (Policy 66) and reflects smart growth
elements, as exemplified by the Ahwahnee Principles.
3.3.1 Master Plan Land Use Summary
Figure 3-3 depicts the proposed Master Plan land uses for the project site. Figure 3-4 depicts the proposed
East Village Master Tentative Map. Table 3-1 provides the Master Plan land use statistical summary,
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-4 April2006
--·-~---··-------------------------
MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL UNIT ALLOCATION
[3 l.imltsof H.mJiine M.tp Bouml.tty
~ Brush M.1nagcn1t.>nt par HMP Hafdlinc Map
1. Acttl<ll numbN-of .Ufordabk-units that will 00 prll\lldcd within thl-Mudlifamlty Rl':'ddr.ntidl ~t~,~~:~~1tu:;;:!~~~ k,~(;:~.~~~~~~~hto Ml~ter l>lan will b~! no It:~;~ thom 15~ of tht' total number
2. tndaK'/!s 12.8 .teres "' Cannon Ro,\d and Collegt' 8lvd.
3. Net M.res exdudcs bru~h ~ll.ll(f!mPnL -1. If Planning Area 1115 notdeo.elopcd as a Multifamily sift>, then all ora portion of the site may~ t"U'~L~li~g ~::.~\~'f; not dv.VPiopNJ "~ Caurtyrlfd Residential. then d~e silt:-may be develop«f
ol5 a GDVf'rnmt•nt F.Killtlcs loc.uJon. 6. Mir1inmm lot silc of .J,SOU s.f. is pcrmlltr.d only for lol!i-which o1hut C.llnnon Road. 7. Sl':'t' lon<.! 14UMP forNf~Con•.1rilini!OAnt'olge5·
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005
PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROJECT PROJECT WITH
PA 13
ALTERNATIVE USE**
554 554
829 691
1,383 1,245
PROPOSED
PROJECT WITH
PA22
ALTERNATIVE
UsE
534
829
1,363
PROPOSED
PROJECT WITH
BOTH AI. TERNATIVE
USES
534
691
1,225
'~
l141!bo2 A.C.
II ~NetA.C. . 0 /A.C.
7T.S fhors
PA J3 Alternative Use
Robertson Ranch Masster Plan Program EIR.
Master Plan L<and Use Plan
I 11 n-:·-1'1·n·n· ~n7~1·~.,......----rr,-r~,~r-"1'1 ..,.....,.,.1 1,..1 "-T.,...., .. ·rr. ··c--T,-,-,II,""':r .,...,.,rrr.....,....,,ll'T' llr!!' :-""·~----..,"-1!"11 ""11..,,1-"'rl"''l->rrrr'l""''~'·lr"~--..,...,.,'l'r'i----~~-~~-~-~ I ! ~ I I I ' I ! I i j I ' I I i ' :
II ',I I II II i I I! I II
PA22 Alternative Use
25~,~~fc. upen Space
•• 0' 150' 300' 600'~ i:l~ r--..r--1 ~
5/l/06
FIGURE
3-3
3-5
~~!:~~~r.;:T~~::~;~·~
·-~~-.... '-·~......4: ...... ,,:<'·
··.·:
SOURCE: O'DayC~o=ns=u=lt=a=nt=s,=2=0=04==========================================================================================================================~ 4/4/06
Robertson Ranch Mas;"ter Plan Program EIR
,'II
:;i
1980-2005
-~-~-~-East Village Master Tentative Map '
FIGURE
3-4
3-7
Chapter 3.0 Project Description
TABLE 3-1
Master Plan Land Use Summary
Medium Density 0.0 0
(0-4 dulac) min.
Single Family 6,000 sf 0.0 0
min. lot
RM Single Family 6,000 sf 0.0 0
Residential min. lot
Medium Density Family 5.000 sf
(4-8 du/ac) Min. lot
Courtyard Homes 20
RMH Courtyard Homes 84
Residential Medium
High Density
Multi-Family· 3.9 23.3 27.2 71 396
{3.5) {18.9) {22.4)
4853 6913
L/CF
Local Shopping
Center/
Comm. Rec.s 1.7 1.1 2.8
'Density on estimated acreage.
2 Affordable units will be provided within each village, in conformance with the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance.
3 Unit distribution may change if units are transferred between Planning Areas or Villages. in accordance with Master Plan Section II.F.
•if PA 22 is developed with an alternative use (Fire Station) the Master Plan unit total would be decreased by 20 dwelling units.
45 0.0 3.5
61 0.0 3.9
82 0.0 4.4
365 4.8 6.7
47 6.3 5.9
84 12.0 0.0
467 20.3 20.9
11764 6.2 7.9
s Community Recreation total is approximately 2.8 acres. Additional recreation facilities will be provided within each residential planning area pursuant to the Master Plan and Planned
Development Ordinance.
3.5
3.9
4.4
5.0
6.0
12.0
20.8
7.1
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-9 April2006
Chapter 3.0 Project Description
TABLE 3-1
Master Plan Land Use Summary
(Cont'd.)
School 3.6 6.8 10.4
City Park 13.9 13.9
Foe. 2.9 2.9
178.6 219.4 398.0
6 If not developed as a school site. PA 14 could be developed with a maximum 69 multi-family units.
'If not developed as a school site, PA 13 could be developed with a maximum 138 multi-family units.
8 Includes 12.8 acres of College Boulevard and Cannon Road constructed on-site as part of Calavera Hills II.
(69)6 (138)7
2.711 3.1 11
9 In accordance with Master Plan Sections II.F and VI.E, acreage totals and unit distribution may be modified if the 5.7 acre Option Parcel located between Planning Areas 22 and 23F is
incorporated into the Master Plan through a Focused Master Plan Amendment. Total Master Plan acreage would increase to 403.7.
•o In accordance with Master Plan Section II.D.6. alternative land uses may be implemented if the School site is developed with multi-family housing. This would increase the number
of units to 1.383.
11 Overall total densities calculated on gross acreage.
3.011
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-10 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
including a summary of land uses proposed within both the East Village and West Village. As shown in
Table 3-1, a total of 1.176 dwelling units are proposed within the Master Plan project site. These dwelling
units would include a range of housing types and densities. including multi-family neighborhoods and
dwelling units required by the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Additionally, a total of 175,000 square
feet of community commercial and community facility uses on a 13-acre (net) site would be provided
within the proposed Village Center. Other non-residential building square footage would also be
constructed associated with the school and park uses.
3.3. 1.1 East Village Land Uses
The East Village comprises a total of 1 78.6-acres. Within the East Village, a total of 485 dwelling units are
proposed. The East Village will contain residential, recreation, school. open space, and public utility uses.
The majority of the East Village single-family neighborhoods will utilize a grid-pattern of streets. This is
intended to provide a high degree of internal connectivity, in conformance with the Ahwahnee Principles.
Residential Planning Areas. Three single-family residential neighborhoods are proposed within Planning
Areas (PA's) 16, 17 and 18. These PA's will be comprised of a total310 dwelling units on 5,000 square-foot
lots.
Two planning areas are proposed for courtyard homes totaling 104 units (PA's 21 and 22). As an alternative
use for PA 22, this area would be developed with a government facilities use (e.g., fire station).
PA 15 is a multi-family planning area consisting of 71 multi-family dwelling units, which will be used to satisfy
the inclusionary housing requirement for the East Village. The Master Plan would also allow a maximum unit
transfer of 15% between villages and/or planning areas, subject to approval of a minor Amendment to the
Master Plan.
Recreational Planning Area. PA 19 comprises 1.7 net acres and is proposed as a centralized community
recreation area for the East Village. Three mini-parks are also proposed within each of the single-family
planning areas of the East Village (PA 16, 17 and 18). Multi-family planning areas will also include common
recreation facilities.
School Planning Area. PA 14 includes 3.6 acres for a portion of the proposed elementary school site. In the
event that the Carlsbad Unified School District does not purchase this site, an alternative use for the
elementary school within PA 14 would allow 69 multi-family dwelling units. The Master Plan provides that
units constructed in P A 14 may be transferred from any other Planning Area within the Master Plan or may
be allocated from the City's excess dwelling Unit Bank consistent with City Council Policy 43.
Open Space ·Planning Areas. PA 's 230 and 23E, are proposed for natural open space areas in
conformance with the proposed HMP hardline. PA's 230 and 23E comprise a total of 70.1 gross acres. This
acreage is mostly located within the open space wildlife corridor, but also includes recreation and
circulation trails to encourage alternative transportation methods. PA 23F is also proposed for open space,
and comprises 2.3 gross acres. This PAis located between Cannon Road and Rancho Carlsbad.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-11 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
Water Quality Treatment Facility. PA 20 is proposed as a water quality treatment facility (e.g .. vegetated
basin).
A. East Village Alternative Land Uses (PA's 14 and 22)
As discussed in the preceding text, alternative land uses are proposed within PA 14 and PA 22 of the East
Village. PA 14 would be developed with 69 multi-family residential dwelling units if this PA is not purchased
by the school district and constructed with a school. PA 22 could be constructed with a civic facility use. if
it is not developed with the proposed 20 courtyard homes.
3.3.1.2 West Village Land Uses
The West Village comprises 219.4 acres. Development of the West Village is not anticipated to begin for
approximately 3 to 10 years after Master Plan adoption; therefore. planning for the West Village includes
both "Interim Land Uses" and "Final Land Uses" as described below.
A. Interim Land Uses
Figure 3-5 depicts the Interim Land Use Overlay for the West Village. The purpose of this overlay is to restrict
uses in the West Village as delineated by the overlay, to open space and agricultural uses until a Focused
Master Plan Amendment for the West Village (refer to Section 3.5.1) has been approved by the City
Council. This Interim Overlay is required to accommodate the differences in development timing between
the West Village and the East Village.
B. Final Land Uses
Figure 3-3 depicts the final land uses proposed for the West Village. These are the land uses proposed to be
developed subsequent to the approval of a Focused Master Plan Amendment for the West Village, when
the Interim Land Use Overlay is replaced. The West Village Final Land Uses include a total of 691 residential
dwelling units. The West Village will contain residential, recreation, school, village center, recreational
vehicle storage, and open space land uses.
Residential Planning Areas. Five single-family residential neighborhoods are proposed within PA's 3, 5, 6, 9,
and 10. These PA's will be comprised of a total of 268 dwelling units on lot sizes ranging between 5,000 and
10,000 square feet (depending on the PA). Single-family neighborhoods include PA 5 (25 units on 10,000
square-foot minimum lots). PA 9 (45 units on 7,500 square-foot minimum lots), PA's 3 and 6 (143 units on
6,000 square-foot minimum lots). and PA 10 (55 units on 5,000 square-foot minimum lots).
Three planning areas are proposed for multi-family neighborhoods totaling 423 units (PA's 1, 7, and 8). The
three multi-family neighborhoods consist of PA 1 (27 units), PA 7 (201 units), and PA 8 ( 195 units). The Master
Plan also allows a maximum unit transfer of 10% between villages and/or planning areas with approval of a
minor Amendment to the Master Plan.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-12 April2006
LEGEND
Interim Land Use -Agricultural/Open Space 119.6 ± Acres
\
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Interim Land Use Overlay
,---1 I \
I \ I \
I )
II :
I ~~!-I I I
I I
I I I
4/4/06
FIGURE
3-5
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
Recreational Planning Areas. PA 4 comprises 1.1 gross acres and is proposed as a community recreation
area. Mini-parks will also be provided within PA 's 3, 6, and 10 within the West Village. PA 12 comprises 13.9
gross acres and is proposed as a public community park.
School Planning Area. PA 13 includes 6.8 acres for a portion of the proposed elementary school site. In the
event that PA 13 is not developed as an elementary school site, this PA may alternatively be constructed as
an extension of the park within Planning Area 12 or with a maximum 138 multi-family residences, using units
that have been allocated to the West Village or through an allocation of units from the City's excess
dwelling Unit Bank, consistent with City Council Policy 43. In the event that units are transferred between
Villages, then the affordable obligation for each Village would be revised accordingly.
Village Center Planning Area. PA 11 comprises a total of 15.1 gross acres ( 13.0 net acres) and is proposed
as a Village Center. This planning area will accommodate 175,000 square feet of commercial uses and the
project's 5-acre community facilities requirement.
Recreational Vehicle Storage Area. PA 2 comprises 3.3 acres and is proposed for recreational vehicle
storage, which will meet the Master Plan's Recreational Vehicle Storage requirements for both the East and
the West Villages, as well as provide additional RV parking for public use.
Open Space Planning Areas. PA's 23A, 23B, and 23C are proposed for open space in conformance with
the proposed HMP hardline. These areas comprise a total of approximately 73.9 acres of open space,
mostly located within the open space wildlife corridor, but also includes recreation and circulation trails to
encourage alternative transportation methods.
C. West Village Alternative Land Uses (PA 13)
As discussed in the preceding text, alternative land uses are proposed within PA 13. PA 13 would be
constructed as an extension of the park or developed with 138 multi-family residential dwelling units if this
P A is not purchased by the school district and constructed with a school.
3.3.2 Supporting Public Services and Utilities
The Master Plan project site lies within Zone 14 of the City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan.
The City's Growth Management Plan requires the preparation of a Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP) for Zone 14 to provide details on how the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate
development within Zone 14 will be provided as required in a manner required by the City's Growth
Management Ordinance. The public services addressed in the Zone 14 LFMP include city administration,
library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer and water.
With the exception of roadway improvements identified below, implementation of the proposed Master
Plan will not require other off-site improvements.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-14 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
3.3.3 Vehicular Circulation and Roadway Improvements
East Village Circulation and Access. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan will be responsible for completing
College Boulevard and Cannon Road by constructing the outside lanes, landscaping medians, and
ultimate project landscaping components. The environmental analysis for the construction of the portions
of College Boulevard and Cannon Road within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan area is part of the
previously certified EIR prepared for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment/B&TD #4 (EIR 98-02}. This
document is on file at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA.
Primary access to the East Village will be provided by internal project roadway Street "A" off of Cannon
Road. Street "A" includes a landscaped roundabout with the purpose of slowing vehicular traffic,
providing an attractive scenic vista for motorists passing by on Cannon Road, and identifying the
boulevard as a focal point within the community. Secondary access to the East Village will be provided via
internal roadway Street "0", which will extend northward from Cannon Road into the project site.
Access to the individual residential neighborhoods in both the East and West Villages are provided by
collector and local streets constructed in accordance with the City's Livable Streets General Plan Policies.
Additionally, internal streets in the East Village are designed in a grid pattern to achieve maximum
circulation connectivity in accordance with the City's Livable Neighborhoods Policy and the Ahwahnee
Principles.
West Village Circulation and Access. Ultimate development of the West Village requires construction of El
Camino Real to its ultimate width as well as providing setbacks, walls and landscaping as required by the
City Landscape Manual and Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The phasing of improvements is identified in
Section 5.2 Traffic/Circulation.
Primary access to the West Village from El Camino Real will be provided by a Modified Secondary Arterial
street design; comprised of a 116-foot wide formally landscaped boulevard, consisting of 96 feet of right-of-
way, comprised of 60 feet of travel pavement, a 16-foot wide landscaped center median, and a curb and
gutter, plus 1 0-foot wide landscape parkway on each side of the roadway. An additional 1 0-foot
landscape zone located on each side just outside of the right-of-way will allow for a greater landscape
framing of the roadway. This additional 1 0-foot zone will include a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk
surrounded by landscaping, on each side of this entry drive. This short boulevard will terminate at the
community focal point at the junction of PA 7, 8 and 11. At this location, proposed multi-family,
commercial and community facility land uses are proposed to be clustered around a central landscaped
plaza. Access to PA 1 will be provided via a new entry off of Tamarack Avenue directly across from La
Portalada Drive and a new entry at the existing intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive.
Secondary local access will also be provided directly to PA 's 5 and 9 via the extensions of Glasgow Drive
and Edinburgh Drive, respectively. These roadways will be constructed as local residential streets.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-15 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
3.3.4 Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The Master Plan will accommodate the landscape and structural setback requirements contained in the
City's Planned Development Ordinance and the Scenic Corridor Policies. Proposed minimum structural and
landscape setbacks from the applicable circulation element roadways are depicted in Table 5.1-1 General
Plan Roadway Setbacks (see Section 5.1 Land Use).
3.3.5 Pedestrian Circulation
The Master Plan proposes a pedestrian trail system intended to provide alternative transportation links for
residents of both villages to Cannon Road, College Boulevard and El Camino Real, as well as through the
proposed open space, providing access to parks, schools, the proposed commercial center, and other
land uses. The trail system is proposed to permit future connections with adjacent off-site unpaved
recreational trails as well as circulation trails and sidewalks in accordance with the Citywide Trails Program.
3.3.6 Habitat Management Plan Open Space
A key consideration in the proposed Master Plan land use plan is the accommodation of wildlife corridors
pursuant to the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The project site is located within a "Standards
Area" in the HMP. The project site comprises a significant portion of "Zone 14" of the HMP, which is
considered an important component of the overall open space preserve system primarily because it
contains "Link B," a critical wildlife movement corridor between the habitat located in "Core Areas" 2, 3,
and 4 of the HMP.
The proposed Master Plan would preserve approximately 140.5 acres of open space (PA's 23A, 23B, 23C,
23D, 23E, and 23F). PA's 23A, 23B, 23C, 23D, and 23E (comprising 138.2 acres) are part of the proposed
HMP hardline for the project site. These areas include re-vegetated manufactured slopes, detention
basins, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, and riparian and wetland habitats. In accordance with the
standards for the project site contained in the HMP, the Master Plan would permanently preserve and
protect 70.4% of the existing 71.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat existing on the site, and would
establish a permanent habitat linkage/corridor in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's adopted HMP
and as concurred with by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game
requirements. Figure 3-6, labeled HMP Hardline Map, depicts the proposed configuration of development
and open space.
Pursuant to the HMP, the City will be required to adopt HMP Consistency Findings, determining that the
project is consistent with HMP requirements.
3.3.7 Conceptual Grading Plan
Figure 3-7 depicts the proposed Conceptual Grading Plan for the project. Grading will occur as two
distinct phases, consistent with the timing of development of the East and West villages, respectively. All
development within the Master Plan will comply with the standards contained within the City's Hillside
Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 in the City's Municipal Code), unless otherwise approved by the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-16 April2006
l
EL CAMINO REAL GRADING
(SLOPE RESTORED TO DCSS)
City of Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan -Zone 14
HMP Hardline Map -September 15, 2004
DOD~DT~ON RONCO
SOURCE: City of Carlsbad and T & B Planning Consultants, 2004
i9so-2oos
·~·m·m·
~ CiJT'" 'It)
CULVERT/
UNDERCROSSING
(12'HX 12''vV)
Robertson Ranch Masterr Plan Program EIR
HMP Hardline Map
II I IIi :1 I I Ill 1: II
:··oi&gaii'cOii'Silrsa'QeslilimmliY"i! i Total CSS: 71.6 AC. i Impacts: 212 AC. (29.6%))
1 Prese<Ved: 50.4 AC (70.4~) ,1
\Revegetation Areas: ~.:1·1
' Non-DCSS: 10.6 AC. l Revegetated Slopes: 21.4 AAC. j\
. To~.~=.~~~·?~.?: ............... , ............ , ....... ,, ..... .i)
I
I m ::~.~~~!n Space I
,/'.,,,/ Hardllne
./\,/ Lmi1s of Disturbance
-HMP Open Space ""*""~··q ...... .,..._.~«:" ... ......,._ • ......................... _ ... ""'"'-... --Brush M1N9tMMI
~Open Space (Non.HMP)
CJ Park 1 School Site
! CJo'"'"bpment,... .. R Dlegan CoaSial Sage ScM Lt;Q ~~S R._ollon,... ..
•tC'Ntn~etld:liSpal!efloppl,.,.d!-fflt~lllf
• • ~-G&£....,~<.•~,~~n•-!)ot• stY.'..\£, .. ,....._..
11 II! I
9/26/05
FIGURE
3-6
3-17
i' I ~ II ' I il' 'I i
SOURCE: O'Day Consultants, 2005 9/26/os
1980~2005
·m·m·~· Robertson Ranch Mastetr Plan Program EIR
Conceptual Grrading Plan
FIGURE
3-7
,#J!U!m•,tn-...
3-19
nrrn~Trn
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
City of Carlsbad. Accordingly, prior to development on portions of the property with existing slopes of 15
percent or more and an elevation differential greater than 15 feet, a Hillside Development Permit is
required and shall be obtained in conjunction with the development entitlements package for the
particular Planning Area or Planning Areas. In addition, and as indicated on Figure 3-7, grading for the
portion of Planning Area 23C adjacent to Planning Area 11 shall consist of a 5:1 revegetated
manufactured slope, in accordance with Resource Agency requirements. A retaining wall is proposed to
be constructed on the north side of El Camino Real along the project boundary south of PA 3.
3.3.8 Phasing
The project is expected to be constructed over a period of approximately 1 0-20 years, in response to
market demands. Two development phases may occur and it is anticipated that the East Village Will be
developed as Phase I. The West Village, or a portion thereof, may remain in agricultural production in the
interim, which is anticipated to be 3 to 1 0 years. A recordable agreement for dedication of the park site
(and dedication of the park prior to the first final map) and a binding agreement for purchase and transfer
of the school site property, and re-vegetation of the majority of the central wildlife corridor as depicted on
Figure 5.5-6 (see Section 5.5-Biological Resources), would be required with Phase I.
The Zone 14 LFMP was prepared pursuant to Section 21 .90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The LFMP
requires that a financing program guaranteeing the construction of required facilities must be approved
prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a building or grading permit, whichever occurs first in
the Master Plan Area. The finance plan will link specific development facility improvements (e.g.'s
roadways and public facilities) to the Planning Area requiring those facilities for development.
Together the required Zone 14 LFMP and Finance Plan will: ( 1) demonstrate how and when each required
facility improvement will be constructed to accommodate development within the Master Plan, and (2)
provide a complete description of how each facility and improvement will be financed when mitigation is
necessary. In addition, prior to recordation of a final map, issuance of grading or building permit for each
planning area, the applicant shall assure the adequacy and availability of public services and facilities.
3.4 Project Objectives
The following statements represent objectives of .the project proponent. These objectives also provide a
basis for identification of alternatives evaluated in the EIR.
The purpose of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan is to provide a long-range comprehensive
planning approach to the development of the project site with consideration of the City's General Plan,
Growth Management Plan, Zone 14 LFMP, Hillside Development Ordinance, Planned Development
Ordinance, Livable Communities Policies (Council Policy Nos. 44 and 66), Ahwahnee Principles, and HMP.
Implement the applicable portions of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code;
Implement the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan, as amended;
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-21 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
Furnish a plan for development that implements the policies and achieves the goals of the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for this portion of the City, pursuant to agreements with the Resource
Agencies;
Provide for compatible and complimentary adjacent land uses and facilities;
Implement ·a plan which is sensitive to the environment and aesthetically pleasing;
Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee
Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the
presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age
groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular
circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan
boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for
recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources;
• Establish a project-wide circulation system which is responsive to regional and local transportation
needs, and which accommodates a variety of transportation modes;
Provide for the recreational and open space needs of project residents and the City at large, by
incorporating recreational land uses including a City park site, community recreation facilities,
pocket parks, school playgrounds, a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and substantial areas
of permanently preserved natural open space;
• Develop a community identity for the project through control of project design elements such as
architecture, clustering of development. landscaping, color treatment, paving, walls, fencing,
signage, and entry treatments;
• Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family residential lot sizes in
traditional subdivision layouts and courtyard neighborhoods;
• Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing
opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial. recreational
and community facilities; and,
3.5
Provide flexibility in the Master Plan amendment process by allowing amendments to either the East
or West Villages of the Master Plan to be processed without initiating review of the other Village.
Intended Uses of the EIR
According to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as logical parts in
the chain of contemplated actions in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, or plans. This Program
EIR describes the discretionary actions by the City, associated with the approval of the Master Plan, as well
as anticipated subsequent discretionary approvals for the project, such as tentative subdivision maps and
planned development permits.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-22 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
3.5.1 Discretionary Actions and Approvals by the City of
Carlsbad
In conformance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Carlsbad has
been designated the "lead agency," which is defined as, "the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." The following identifies the discretionary actions and
approvals by the City of Carlsbad for the proposed project.
1. Master Plan (MP 02-03). The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Plan that will allow for the
phased development of the East and West Villages. The land uses, habitat preserve areas, open
space, and supporting infrastructure will be established as part of the Master Plan.
2. General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04). An amendment to the City's General Plan is required in
order to designate the various types of development and to designate the proposed open space
preservation areas. The GPA is also required in order to cluster the allowable project density
provided for by the existing General Plan onto the developable portions of the site and to preserve
the HMP "hardline" as open space. The General Plan Land Use designations within the project site
will be amended to be consistent with the land uses proposed by the Master Plan document.
The project site has General Plan designations of "RM" (Medium Density, 4 to 8 dulac), and "RLM"
(Low Medium Density, less than 4 dulac), as well as two "floating" designations, "L" (Local Shopping
Center) and "E" (Elementary School). The redistribution of land uses proposed by the General Plan
Amendment would include the following designations: "OS" (Open Space), "RLM", "RM," "RMH"
(Medium High Density, 8-14 dulac), "RH" (High Density, 15 to 23 dulac), "E," "CF" (Community
Facilities) and "L."
3. Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 14 (LFMP 14(8). Pursuant to the requirements
of the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Program, Title 2L Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal
Code, an amendment to LFMP Zone 14 is proposed in conjunction with the proposed project. The
amended LFMP will describe all public facilities requirements and set forth the timing of installation
and financing for all public facilities within the East and West Villages.
4. Tentative Map (CT 02-16). The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (TM)
for the East Village. A subsequent TM will be required for the West Village. A TM is required for the
implementation of the proposed initial phase of development by the California Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code §66426 et seq), as the initial step in subdividing the proposed project into
separate development parcels.
5. Tentative Map for Residential Subdivision (CT 04-26). A Tentative Subdivision Map has been
submitted for the East Village (Phase 1). Although this application may be processed concurrently
with the Master Plan, it is anticipated that it will not go forward to Planning Commission and City
Council until after the Master Plan is approved.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-23 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
6. Site Development Plan. A Site Development Plan will be required for the affordable housing
components and will be required to be processed concurrently with any residential subdivisions.
7. Planned Development Permit (PUD 02-08). A Planned Development Permit will be required for any
condominium or small-lot planned developments and will need to be processed concurrently with
any residential subdivisions.
8. Hillside Development Permit (HDP 02-07). Grading within the proposed project is controlled by the
City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Because grading within the project site would disturb some
natural slopes with gradients of 15 percent or greater and elevation differentials greater than 15 feet,
Hillside Development Permits are required. The purpose of these permits is to regulate grading
conformance with the City's Hillside Development Ordinance (Municipal Code §21.95.010) standards
and policies. The Hillside Permit application currently under review for this project is for the East
Village only. The West Village Hillside Permit will follow at the time the West Village proceeds with a
development application.
9. Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit. Scenic Corridors, as designated within the City of Carlsbad
Scenic Corridor Guidelines, consist of selected arterial streets which the City has determined are
worthy of special treatment in order to improve or protect scenic viewscapes and traffic safety.
Although segments of three scenic corridors lie within or adjacent to the proposed project
boundaries, currently the City has only finalized scenic corridor standards for El Camino Real. As a
condition of project approval, a Scenic Corridor Special Use Permit would be required for
development within the project site adjacent to El Camino Real to ensure project consistency with
City scenic corridor adopted standards.
JO. Floodplain Special Use Permits (SUP 02-05). A Floodplain Special Use Permit is required before
construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, flood-related erosion
hazards or mudslide hazards, as established in §21.11 0.070 of the City Municipal Code. Floodplain
Special Use Permits would be required for portions of the project site where grading and/or
development is proposed within the 1 00-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Construction of proposed drainage improvements in the project site,
including the 84" storm drain in Cannon Road, will modify existing floodplain boundaries. Therefore, it
will not be necessary to process special use permits for those future projects that are taken out of the
floodplain by construction of the proposed Master Plan drainage improvements.
J J. Conditional Use Permit. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed RV storage
site in PA 2.
12. HMP Consistency Findings. The City will adopt HMP Consistency Findings, as the project will result in
an impact to coastal sage scrub. With the adoption of the HMP, HMP consistency findings are
required of all projects affecting coastal sage scrub or other sensitive biological resources.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-24 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
3.5.1.1 Subsequent/Concurrent Entitlements to Implement the Master Plan
A variety of entitlement actions and discretionary permits will be required to implement the components of
the plan, subsequent to Master Plan adoption and as development begins to occur on the project site.
The following entitlements are anticipated to be required for the implementation of one or more aspects of
the Master Plan:
Tentative Map
Grading Plan for each planning area and roadway
Hillside Development Permit
Special Use Permit (Scenic Corridor)
Special Use Permit (flood plain)
Affordable Housing Agreement
Planned Development Permit
Condominium Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Building Permits
Site Development Plan
Focused Master Plan Amendment
3.5.1.2 Master Plan Amendments
Subsequent actions by the City may also involve approvals of Master Plan Amendments pursuant to
Section VI. Master Plan Administration of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Three types of amendments
are allowed pursuant to this Master Plan.
1. Minor Master Plan Amendment. A Master Plan Amendment request shall be determined to be minor
if the amendment does not change the densities or the boundaries of the subject property or involve
an addition of a new use or group of uses not shown on the original master plan or the
rearrangement of uses within the master plan. Such determination shall be made by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Chapter 21.38.120 of the CMC. Alternative Uses specifically identified in the
Master Plan will be determined to be Minor Master Plan Amendments.
2. Focused Master Plan Amendment. The purpose of the Focused Master Plan Amendment process is
to allow removal of the Interim Land Use Overlay designation from one or more of the affected
planning areas within the West Village, so that the final land uses depicted on Figure 3-3 Master Plan
Land Use Plan can be permitted. The Focused Master Plan Amendment will necessitate review and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-25 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; however the issue under review will only
involve the removal of the Interim Land Use Overlay designation(s). No other aspects of the Master
Plan are open for review during this process. The application processing fee for a Focused Master
Plan Amendment shall be the same as for a Minor Master Plan Amendment.
3. MaJor Master Plan Amendment. All other Master Plan Amendments shall be determined to be Major.
Major Master Plan Amendments shall be approved through a public hearing before the Planning
Commission and City Council pursuant to Chapter 21. 38.120 of the CMC. The applicant shall be
required submit a completed application with graphics, statements, or other information as may be
required to support the proposed Amendment. An application for a Major Master Plan Amendment
shall be processed, heard, and determined in accordance with the terms of Chapter 21.38
applicable to the adoption of a master plan. Inclusion of adjacent lands into the Master Plan, such
as the "Option Parcel" (if the Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners' Association (RCHOA) purchase does
not go through), or the modification to land uses not presently identified in the Master Plan, would be
considered Major Master Plan Amendments.
3.5.2 Discretionary Actions and Approvals by Other Agencies
Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions
involved with development of the proposed project site. Trustee Agencies are state agencies that have
discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. As described in
the preceding section, these agencies may include, but are not limited to the following:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has jurisdiction over dredge and fill
activities affecting navigable waters of the United States, pursuant to two federal laws: The Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1889 and the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. Projects that involve dredge or fill to
the "waters of the U.S." (including wetlands) are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. All
permits issued by the ACOE are subject to consultation and/or review by the USFWS and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Under the "Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act," the ACOE also is required to
consult with the USFWS and give "full consideration" to its views on fish and wildlife matters before issuing a
Section 404 permit.
California Department of Fish and Game. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has the
authority to reach an agreement with an agency or private party proposing to affect intermittent or
permanent wetlands habitat, pursuant to Section 1602 (streambed alteration agreement) of the Fish and
Game Code. In accordance with its policy of "no net loss of wetland habitats," CDFG requires mitigation
for all impacts to any wetlands, regardless of acreage. Where a state-listed threatened or endangered
species occurs on a project site, the CDFG also would be responsible for the issuance of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to ensure conservation, enhancement, protection and restoration of state-listed
threatened or endangered species and their habitats. A Section 404 Permit would be required for ACOE
jurisdictional impacts in the West Village. No wetland impacts are proposed in the East Village.
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 3-26 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is authorized under the
Endangered Species Act of 1972 (ESA) to establish lists of endangered and threatened plants and animals
and to identify critical habitats for listed species. With respect to the proposed project, the project has
been reviewed by the wildlife agencies and an HMP hardline boundary has been established for the
project site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would consult with USFWS as part of issuance of a Clean
Water Act Section 404 Permit for impacts to jurisdictional waters in the West Village. The USFWS would also
review the proposed revegetation plan for the proposed project.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB) is one of nine regional boards under the California "State Water Resources Control Board"
(SWRCB). Under the direction of the SWRCB, the SDRWQCB exercises authority under the Federal Clean
Water Act and correlative state statutes to regulate the discharge of "waste" into waters of the United
States within its San Diego region of influence. The federal act authorizes states to assume responsibility for
administering the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) including establishing effluent
limits and water quality standards in connection with issuance of permits for projects, and for providing
water quality regulation for dredge and fill activities through the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
process.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-27 April2006
Chapter 3.0-Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 3-28 April2006
Chapter 4.0-Environmental Setting
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following provides a general description of the environmental setting of the proposed project area.
Please refer to Sections 5.1 through 5.14 for a detailed description of the environmental setting as it relates
to each environmental topic analyzed in the Program EIR.
The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site comprises 398 acres of land located in the
northeastern quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Figure 4-1 depicts an aerial photograph of the project site
and surrounding land uses. The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 14. The site
is generally located on the north side of El Camino Real between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road;
however. PA 23E is located north of College Boulevard. and PAs 20, 22. and 23F are located southeast of
Cannon Road. El Camino Real is designated as a "Primary Arterial" in the General Plan Circulation Element
and as a "Community Theme" Corridor in the City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines. College Boulevard and
Cannon Road are designated "Major Arterial" roadways by the General Plan Circulation Element. and as
"Community Scenic Corridors" in the City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Tamarack Avenue is designated as
a "Secondary Arterial" in the General Plan Circulation Element.
The site presently contains two residential and two non-residential General Plan designations. as follows:
Residential Low-Medium (RLM); Residential Medium (RM); Local Shopping Center (L). and Elementary
School (E).
The majority of the project site (approximately 283 acres) is currently used for agricultural purposes.
including the cultivation of field crops and flowers and the operation of a wholesale palm tree nursery.
Structures on the site include one single-family residence, several agricultural outbuildings and irrigation
infrastructure. Wetland restoration activities are also underway within the portion of the project site located
north of College Boulevard and adjacent to Calavera Creek. The project site is also traversed by two
SDG&E utility easements containing high voltage electrical transmission lines, poles and associated access
roads.
In addition to agricultural cropland. the site contains a variety of native vegetation including chamise
chaparral and Diegan coastal sage communities located on the higher slopes and canyons of the site.
with riparian habitat located within the natural drainages. Calavera Creek, an intermittent tributary of
Agua Hedionda Creek. runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the site within PA 23E and
through an existing box culvert under College Boulevard and Cannon Road. A variety of mammalian.
reptilian and avian species occur in the habitat of the site.
Topographically, the site varies considerably and ranges in elevation from approximately 40 feet to 225 feet
above mean sea level. Figure 5.11-1 (see Section 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics) depicts the existing
topography of the project site. The topography is dominated by high terraces and canyons crosscut by
drainages and is underlain by sedimentary layers of the Eocene-aged Santiago Formation and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 4-1 April2006
Chapter 4.0-Environmental Setting
metavolcanic bedrock. No active faults are known to exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity
of the project site.
Land uses surrounding the project site vary considerably and include undeveloped/agricultural land to the
south and east, established residential subdivisions located to the north. west and south. and the Rancho
Carlsbad mobile home subdivision located along the Master Plan southeast property line. The Calavera
Hills II residential development is under construction adjacent to the eastern portion of the projects'
northern boundary. Directly to the east of the site is an undeveloped parcel which is owned by the
Carlsbad Unified School District. To the northeast is an undeveloped parcel under the ownership of the
State of California. which is part of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 4-2 April2006
9/28/05
Robertson Ranch Mmster Plan Program EIR FIGURE
On-Site and Surrournding Land Use Map 4-1
4-3
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
5.1 Land Use
5.1 .1 Existing Conditions
5. 1. 1. 1 On-Site Land Uses
The majority of the project site is currently used for agricultural purposes, including the cultivation of field
crops and flowers and the operation of a wholesale palm tree nursery. The palm tree nursery is located
within a portion of PA 23C and PA 12.
There are several structures located on the project site including a single-family residence, several
agricultural outbuildings and irrigation infrastructure. The single-family residence on-site is located within PA
12. A second residence, referred to as the Robertson Ranch House, is located immediately off-site, within
the option parcel.
Until recently, a temporary aggregate material processing operation was located in the eastern portion of
the project site at the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road (PA 18). Wetland restoration
activities are also underway within the portion of the project site located north of College Boulevard and
adjacent to Calavera Creek (PA 23E). In addition, the project site is traversed by two SDG&E utility
easements. These easements contain high voltage electrical transmission lines, poles and access roads.
The portions of the site that are not used for agriculture or otherwise developed contain a variety of native
and non-native vegetation. Calavera Creek, an intermittent tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek, runs north
to south along the eastern boundary of the site and through an existing box culvert under College
Boulevard and Cannon Road.
5.1.1.2 Off-Site Land Uses
A variety of land uses surround the project site. To the west of PA's 1 and 2 (west of Tamarack Avenue) is
single-family residential development and attached condominiums. Also to the west of PA23A (west of
Tamarack Avenue) is single-family residential and open space.
To the east of PA 23E is open space preserve and undeveloped agricultural land, which includes property
owned by the Carlsbad Unified School District. Further east are properties associated with the recently
approved Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs Developments. These future developments include residential
land uses, open space, and supporting infrastructure. To the southeast of PA's 20. 22, and 23F is the
Rancho Carlsbad community.
Land uses to the north of the site include residential and open space. Single-family residential
development is located to the north of PA 's 23B and 9. Recently constructed single-family homes
associated with the Calavera Hills II residential development is located to the north of PA 230 (as well as
west of PA 23E). Open space is located north of PA 23E, and includes the Lake Calavera City Mitigation
Bank, Calavera Heights Mitigation Site, and Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
Land uses to the south of the project site include single-family and multi-family residential. commercial,
agriculture, manufactured housing, vacant land, and open space associated with Calavera Creek.
Located to the south of PA 1 (across El Camino Real) are multi-family residential (condominiums) and
single-family residences located along Kelly Drive. The commercial (The Country Store), agriculture, and
mobile homes are located to the south of PA's 23A and 7. Vacant land is located to the south of PA 11.
and open space is located to the south of PA 23C.
5. 1.1.3 Existing Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations
The following describes the land use plans, policies and regulations that are applicable to implementation
of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan. These include the City of Carlsbad. General Plan, City of
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Development Regulations, Floodplain Management Regulations,
Growth Management, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), lnclusionary Housing Ordinance,
Scenic Corridor Guidelines, Landscape Manual, Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-
Palomar Airport, Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, and City of Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan.
A. City of Carlsbad General Plan
Eight elements comprise the City of Carlsbad General Plan. These elements are: Land Use; Circulation;
Noise; Housing; Open Space & Conservation; Public Safety; Parks & Recreation; and Arts. Together, these
elements satisfy the seven mandatory general plan elements as established in the California Government
Code. Goals, objectives, and implementing policies and actions programs have been established for
each of the elements.
Figure 5.1-1 depicts the existing City of Carlsbad General Plan designations for the project site and
surrounding area. The site presently contains two residential General Plan designations -Residential Low-
Medium fRLM) and Residential Medium fRM) and two "floating" non-residential General Plan designations-
Local Shopping Center (L) and Elementary School (E). The RLM designation anticipates development of
urban low-medium density areas characterized by single-family homes and planned residential
development at 0-4 dwelling units with a Growth Management Control Point of 3.2 dwelling units per net
developable acre. The RM designation anticipates development of urban medium density residential
areas characterized by small lot single-family homes or town homes, duplexes, triplexes and low-density
apartment developments at 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management Control Point of 6
dwelling units per net developable acre. Under the City's Growth Management Plan and the Zone 14
LFMP, approximately %+983 dwelling units could be constructed within Zone 14.
General Plan Land Use designations surrounding the project site include RLM, RM, Open Space (OS) and
High School (H).
B. City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance
The City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance provides the physical land use planning criteria for development
within the City. The project site is zoned Planned Community (P-C); however, the 5.7 acre option parcel
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-2 April2006
U!GI!NO
•lEI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
•!HI HIGH SCHOOL
•!HCJ CONTINUATION SCHOOL
•IJJ JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
•IPI PRIVATESCHOOL
-JP!I PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
•IGI GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES
-IOSJ OPEN SPACE
(OS] OPEN SPACE ·PARK
~~ UNPLANNEDAREAS
• [TCJ TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
lUI PUBliC UTiliTIES
•ICFI C~NITY FACILITIES
Source: City of Carlsbad (09·20-QS)
'1 ~
ft I!IIIDI!NTIAL
(RL] LOW DENSITY (IHS ddloc)
!RLMJ LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (0_. ckJfac)
'" IRMJ MEDIUM DENSITY (4-a du'ac)
'''·(RMHJ MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (8·15 dulac)
-If! H) HIGH DENSITY ( IS-23 doJioc)
COMMERCIAL
IRJ REGIOIW. COWERCIAL
Ill LOCAL SHOPPINil CENTER
[T -Rj TRAVEURECREATION COMMERCIAL
•101 OFfiCE & REI.ATED COMMERCIAL
•MVII.LAGE
ftOAOII
/'.., Primo M<ri~
••••• loll.,ot.Atterilll
./•"¥.• SeoondiiFY AMM
.(to/ COII<Id"' su ...
~\..~
ROBERTSON
RANCH
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005 and the City of Carlsbad, 2005
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing General Plan Land Uses
~\.."' ~'v~ ~ ,,, "~
• f#~·v • • • •
9/26/05
FIGURE
5.1-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
(labeled as N.A.P on Figure 3-3) is designated as RMHP-Residential Mobile Home Park to accommodate the
relocation of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park RV storage and garden area.
The P-C zone generally provides a method to encourage comprehensively planned development in
accordance with an adopted master plan and provides a framework for the phased development of an
approved master plan. The RMHP zone generally provides for mobile home parks, mobile home accessory
structures. and buildings which are incidental to the mobile home parks.
C. Hillside Development Regulations
Due to the steep slope topography on portions of the project site. the proposed project is subject to the
Hillside Development Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter
21.95) were established to "preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and
manufactured slopes by designing projects which relate to the slope of the land. minimizing the amount of
project grading. and incorporating contour grading or other approved alternative such as berming or
landform planting into manufactured slopes which are located in highly visible public locations. In
addition. the Hillside Development Regulations are in place to "assure that the alteration of natural hillsides
will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner whereby lagoons and riparian ecosystems will be
protected from increased erosion and no substantial impacts to natural resource areas. wildlife habitats or
native vegetation areas will occur." Further discussion of the City's Hillside Development Regulations is
provided in Section 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics of this EIR.
D. Floodplain Management Regulations
The project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance
because portions of the site are currently located within the 1 00-year floodplain. The purpose of the
Floodplain Management Regulations is to promote health, safety and general welfare and to minimize
public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. The Floodplain Management
Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Zoning Ordinance) apply to all areas of special flood hazards. areas of
flood-related erosion hazards. and areas of mudslide hazards within the City. These regulations apply to all
portions of the project site subject to flooding hazards. The existing portions of the project site currently
subject to these regulations will be modified after the proposed master drainage improvements and
project grading are constructed. A more detailed discussion of Floodplain Management Regulations is
provided in Section 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality of this EIR.
E. Growth Management Program/Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
The Growth Management Chapter of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance is generally intended to
provide a balanced community, ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan, and prevent
growth unless adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical fashion.
This chapter of the Zoning Ordinance generally provides that General Plan, zone changes and specific
plan amendments that would increase the density or development intensity of that established by the
General Plan are required to amend the applicable local facilities management plan [LFMP) prior to
project approval. The project site is located within Zone 14 of the City Growth Management Plan. LFMP.
The purpose of the LFMP is to " ... provide a plan for identifying the public facilities that will be needed to
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-4 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
accommodate development within Zone 14." Section 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities identifies the
public services and utility phasing required for project implementation.
Pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program and Chapter 21.90 of the City's Municipal Code, the
City is organized into 25 zones. The Growth Management Plan requires the preparation of LFMPs for the 25
different management zones within the City. The LFMPs implement the provisions of the City's Growth
Management Program (GMP} by phasing all development and public facility needs in accordance with
the adopted GMP performance standards. Individual projects must comply with the provisions of the LFMP
in which they are located, as well as implement the provisions of the City-wide plan. The proposed project
is located within LFMP 14. Figure 5.14-1 in Section 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities of this EIR depicts the
project site in relation to the local facilities management zones (LFMZs} in the City.
The GMP establishes performance standards for 11 different public facilities. These include city
administration, library, wastewater treatment. parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer
collection and water distribution. The GMP requires these public facilities to be available in conformance
with the adopted performance standards in any area where new development occurs. Unless each of
these 11 public facility standards has been complied with, no new development can occur within the
particular zone.
City Council Policy 43
City Council Policy 43 is the established policy for the number and allocation of Proposition E (Growth
Management} "Excess" Dwelling Units. Policy 43 establishes the City's policy regarding the number and the
criteria for allocation of "Excess" dwelling units which have become available as a result of residential
projects being approved and constructed with less dwelling units than would have been allowed by the
density control points of the Growth Management Plan as approved by the votes on November 4, 1986, as
Proposition E.
Under City policy, "Excess" dwelling units may be allocated to projects located in any quadrant of the City
as long as the number of residential units constructed in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit
limitations established by Proposition E.
In order to qualify for an allocation of excess units, a project shall have one or more of the following
characteristics:
1 . A project that includes a request for a density bonus made pursuant to and in compliance with
state density bonus law.
2. Housing units made affordable to lower or moderate income households.
3. Senior citizen housing.
4. Housing located in the Village Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-5 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
5. Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased residential density is being
placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities and commercial
support services.
6. Projects approved for a land use change from non-residential to residential or projects containing
a mix of residential and non-residential.
7. The property has a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or Residential Low-
Medium Density (RLM) and the base zone of the property would permit a slightly higher yield of
units than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation; provided, the proposed
density does not exceed the maximum density of the RL or RLM density range by more than an
additional25 percent.
8. The growth management control point (GMCP) density for the property results in a unit yield that
includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater. In this circumstance, a fraction of a unit may be granted
in order to achieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the maximum density of the
applicable General Plan land use designation is not exceeded.
F. lnclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City has adopted an lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, which implements an objective of the City, as
established by the City's General Plan Housing Element, to ensure that all residential development,
including all master planned and specific planned communities and all residential subdivisions, provide a
range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including
households of lower and moderate income. The lnclusionary Housing Ordinance requires the following:
Require that a minimum of 15 percent ( 15%) of all approved residential development be restricted
to, and affordable to, lower-income households; subject to adjustment based on the granting of
certain incentives;
Require that for those developments that provide ten or more units affordable to lower-income
households, at least 10 percent ( 1 0%) of the lower-income units shall have three or more
bedrooms;
Under certain conditions, allow alternatives to on-site construction as a means of providing
affordable units; and,
In specific cases, allow inclusionary requirements to be satisfied through the payment of an in lieu
fee as an alternative to requiring inclusionary units to be constructed.
G. Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines identifies streets within the City as scenic corridors and
identifies ways to preserve and enhance the character of the streets. The Guidelines also provide design
criteria for landscaping and setbacks along the scenic corridors.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-6 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
El Camino Real serves as the southern boundary of the project site and is designated as a Community
Theme Corridor. El Camino Real has a specific Q-overlay which establishes development standards for the
corridor. Cannon Road and College Boulevard are identified as Community Scenic Corridors.
El Camino Real. The following goals apply to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor:
Enhance the historical heritage of the street by creating a "California-Spanish-Mission" theme for
the corridor;
Enhance the visual quality of the street by encouraging theme oriented landscaping and street
furniture within the corridor;
Emphasize the theme along the corridor by using predominant them trees throughout the length of
the corridor;
Create identifiable and visually pleasing intersections at points where scenic corridors cross;
Emphasize the importance of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards;
Encourage special landscaped setbacks.
Cannon Road and College Boulevard. The following goals apply to the Cannon Road and College
Boulevard Community Scenic Corridors:
Create identifiable and visually pleasing intersections at points where scenic corridors cross;
Create a unique identity for individual corridors by selecting a predominant theme tree to be used
throughout the length of each corridor;
Encourage Community Scenic Corridor consistency with any "theme" areas which may be
designated in the Architectural Standards through appropriate landscaping and street furniture;
Preserve distant views of the ocean, lagoons, and back country from Scenic Corridors;
Encourage special landscaped setbacks.
H. Landscape Manual
The policies, programs and requirements of the Landscape Manual apply to all public and private
development requiring discretionary permits or submittal of landscape plans for development permits. The
Landscape Manual contains policies and requirements associated with:
Planting • Water Conservation Slope Revegetation/Erosion Control
Irrigation Streetscape Fire Protection
The policies and requirements within the landscape Manual are minimum standards and projects ore
encouraged to exceed the standards whenever possible. However, variances may be granted from the
policies and requirements of the manual if undue hardships or special circumstances make a variance
request necessary.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
I. Comprehensive Land Use Plan {CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport
The McClellan-Palomar Airport is a general aviation publicly owned airport facility located to the southeast
of the project site. The currently adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) prepared by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport is a state-required long-
range land use compatibility plan that analyzes anticipated growth of the airport and the surrounding area
over at least the next twenty years. The intent of the CLUP is " ... to provide for the orderly growth of each
public airport and ... safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and
the public in general" (Section 21675, Public Utility Code). The CLUP identifies "areas likely to be impacted
by the noise and flight activity created by aircraft operations at the airport." The Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) reviews all land use and zoning designation changes within the boundaries of the
airport influence area to determine whether the project complies with the provisions of the CLUP. The
project area is located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AlA) identified by the CLUP,
although aircraft overflight of the project site occurs on a daily basis.
The project site is; however, located within the Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA} required by the CLUP.
The NINA includes a three-mile radius where 90 percent of all noise and overflight related complaints are
received. The noise in this area typically occurs on an irregular basis, and although not generally
considered a health or safety issue, may be a nuisance. All new residential projects located within the
NINA shall be required to record a notice concerning aircraft environmental impacts, clarifying that the
property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from the McClellan-Palomar Airport.
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority has recently prepared a draft revision to the existing CLUP
in the form of the March 2005 McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). In the
current version the project site is identified as being located within Compatibility Zone E of the draft ALUCP.
As proposed, Compatibility Zone E would allow all uses that are proposed within the Robertson Ranch
Master Plan.
J. Open Space Conservation and Resource Management Plan
The City's Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan is a vital component of the
implementation program for the City's Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The
main objective of the plan is to protect the open space resources and landscape identity of the City of
Carlsbad while allowing for growth opportunities. The plan defines an open space program incorporating:
Open space for the preservation of natural resources, wetlands and other valuable habitat;
Open space for the managed production of resources such as agricultural lands;
Open space for outdoor recreation, including parks and other recreation areas;
Open space for aesthetics, cultural and educational purposes, including key scenic and cultural
resources;
Open space for public health and safety, such as floodways; and,
Open space for the Carlsbad Trail System.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
Figure 5.1-2 depicts the open space categories for the project site. As shown, the project site contains land
identified as "Constrained Open Space." A component of the Carlsbad Trail System also traverses the site.
The following findings must be made in order to adjust the boundaries of the Official Open Space and
Conservation Map depicted on Figure 5.1-2:
The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open
Space and Conservation Map;
The proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that depicted
on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map; and,
The proposed adjustment to open space as depicted on the Official Open Space and
Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the Open
Space and Conservation Map.
Boundaries may also be adjusted to mitigate significant environmental impacts of a proposed project if the
boundary modification preserves open space at a 2:1 ratio (proposed acreage to existing acreage) and is
within close proximity to the original area of open space. Additionally, public rights-of-way can be
exempted from the boundary adjustment procedures. However, proper environmental analysis must be
performed and significant impacts to the open space system must be identified. As discussed in the
impacts section, the proposed project will not impact the official open space map, rather, the project will
add open space to the existing official open space map.
K. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
The HMP in the City of Carlsbad is a long-range plan for conserving wildlife habitat while still allowing for
additional development to occur in the City. The Plan establishes a wildlife preserve system consisting of
approximately 5.750 acres of existing and proposed open space. The HMP is an adopted subarea plan
within the proposed North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan is
identified within a "Standards Area" in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (see Figure
5.5-5 in Section 5.5-Biological Resources of this EIR). The HMP identifies the project site as comprising a
significant portion of "Zone 14" of the HMP. Zone 14 is considered an important component of the overall
open space preserve system primarily because it contains "Link B," a critical wildlife movement corridor
between the habitat located in "Core Areas" 2, 3, and 4. ·
The proposed project is "covered" under the HMP and has submitted a proposed hardline preserve area
design to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion in the HMP and preserve system. The
proposed hardline preserve area on the project area will obtain the same conservation status as the
existing hardline areas under the HMP, and the City's General Plan will be amended to designate the area
as open space. Under the HMP, take of habitat will be authorized for the remaining impacted portions of
the project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
5.1.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant land use impact would occur if the project would:
5.1.3
5. 1.3.1
Create incompatibilities of land use on site or with adjacent land uses;
Physically divide on established community;
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation including the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan, Hillside Development Ordinance,
Floodplain Management Regulations, lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, Growth Management,
Landscape Manual, Open Space Conservation and Resource Management Plan, and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan Palomar Airport; or
Conflict with the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Environmental Impact
Compatibility with On-Site Land Uses
As proposed, the Robertson Ranch Master Plan land use configuration would provide two distinct villages
with a variety of land uses. Compatibility of proposed land uses will be ensured through the
implementation of Master Plan proposed guidelines, regulations. policies, and development standards that
will guide the development of proposed on-site land uses and ensure that land uses developed on-site on
site are compatible with each other. Master Plan development regulations address building setback and
height requirements. fencing and landscaping, and circulation/pedestrian access.
The Theme elements proposed in the Master Plan provide for transition between land uses, as well as
blending of neighborhoods within the community. No impact associated with on-site land use
compatibility is anticipated.
As described in Section 3.0 -Project Description, an Interim Zoning Overlay will be placed on the West
Village which will allow agricultural uses to continue on portions of the West Village on an interim basis until
a Master Plan Amendment is approved for this portion of the Master Plan. As shown on Figure 3-5, PAs 1. 3,
5, 6, 9, and 10 are proposed for the interim agricultural use overlay. Therefore. it is possible that East Village
land uses will be developed and occupied while the West Village is still utilized for agricultural operations.
However, no significant land use compatibility impact is anticipated between new residential and existing
agricultural operations that would continue on the West Village. The agricultural operations would not be
in immediate proximity of East Village residential uses. Agricultural operations are also allowed "by right"
within the A-E zone.
5.1.3.2 Off-Site Land Uses
Proposed Master Plan land uses are generally compatible with existing and planned land uses surrounding
the project site. Existing single-family residential land uses are located on the northern boundary of the
Master Plan (PA's 238, 23C. PA9. and PA 230). PA's 238, 23C and 230 are proposed to be maintained in
natural open space. which will also serve as a buffer between existing and planned residential uses. and no
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-10 April2006
Pacific Ocean
IHi!!:'i!li;;j Existing I Approved Open Space
~Z~ Constrained Open Space
~ ..
........ -:..._...... Carlsbad Trail System
0 500 1000 2000
..!... SOURCE· City of Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, 1992 7/21/05
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
·m·m·m· Official Open Space and Conservation Map 5.1-2
,.UBili·~
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
land use conflict is anticipated. PA 9 is proposed as single-family residential. with 7.500 square foot
minimum lot size. The residential lots in this planning area will back up to the existing backyards of
residences located along Gateshead Road. The single-family residential uses and minimum lot sizes
proposed in PA 9 would be compatible with the existing single-family residences located to the north of this
Master Plan planning area.
PA 23E is proposed as open space. This planning area is bordered by single-family residential (under
construction) and open space on the west, natural open space to the north and east. and the
undeveloped CUSD parcel. The proposed open space of PA 23E will be compatible with existing and
planned land uses surrounding this planning area.
Proposed land uses located southeast of Cannon Road include open space (PA 's 20 and 23F) and
courtyard homes within PA 22. Figure 5.1-3 depicts a conceptual layout for the courtyard homes. Figure
5.1-4 depicts a cross section of the proposed transition detail between the courtyard homes and Rancho
Carlsbad. This landscape treatment is proposed in order to screen views from the Rancho Carlsbad
Mobilehome Park onto PA 22. The proposed physical buffer would consist of a five to six-foot high block
wall, Calavera Creek and the existing block wall marking the boundary of the mobile home park.
To the south of the project site. El Camino Real fronts PAs 20. 23C. 7, 23A, and 1. El Camino Real provides a
physical separation, with an approximately 126-foot right of way. Additionally, El Camino Real will be
improved to include an 18-foot landscaped center median and with provision for a 5-foot sidewalk and 5-
foot minimum landscaped parkway. No land use conflict between existing land uses to the south and
proposed Master Plan land uses is anticipated.
The western boundary of the Master Plan fronts Tamarack Avenue. which provides a physical separation of
approximately 84-feet between proposed Master Plan land uses and the existing residential uses located to
the west. Also, the majority of the Master Plan's frontage along Tamarack Avenue is PA 23A, which is
proposed to be retained as open space. As proposed. a solid block wall and dense landscape would be
installed along the frontage of PA 2 (proposed for R.V. storage), in order to provide visual blockage to this
area from Tamarack Avenue.
5. 1.3.3 Existing Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations
A. City of Carlsbad General Plan
An amendment to the General Plan is required in order to designate the various types of development and
to designate the open space preservation areas. The GPA is also required in order to cluster the allowable
density provided for by the existing General Plan onto the developable portions of the project site and to
preserve the HMP "hardline" open space in accordance with the City's Habitat Management Plan.
Figure 5.1-5 depicts the proposed General Plan designations for the project area under the proposed
Master Plan. As part of the proposed project, a General Plan Amendment has been filed which will amend
the General Plan Land Use designations within the project site to be consistent with the land uses proposed
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-13 April2006
0 2& SO 100 200FT
ffi ~ ...... ~--,
NORTH
Vicin;ty Map
No Scale
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005 9/26/05
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
PA 22 Conceptual Layout 5.1-3
6' HIGH SOLID
BLOCK WALL
RESIDENTIAL
t:OURTYAHD HOMES
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2004
BUFFERTREES PROJECT
/BOUNDARY
I I I I I i
EXISTING WALL
(HEIGHT AND LOCATION
APPROXIMATE)
EXISTING RANCHO CARLSBAD
SEWER EASEMENT/
ACCESS ROAD
5' UNDSCAPE
&'SOLID BLOEK WALL ON
MIN. 2' HT. BERM
OI'I'ION PAREEL
SETBACK/BUFFER · (POTENTIAL REDO~ RV STORm RELOC~TION SITE)
7/28/05
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
·m·m·m· Courtyard Homes Rancho Carlsbad 5.1-4 Transition Detail
..-~~~~~~II;JI·-..
5.1-15
LEGEND
• lEI ElEMENTARY SCHOOL
• JHI HIGH SCHOOL
•JHCJ CONTINUATION SCHOOL
•JJJ JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOl
•JPJ PRIVATESCHOOL
-JPIJ PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
•IGJ GOVERNMENTAl FACILITIES
•lOS( OPEN SPACE
(OS( OPEN SPACE ·PARK
(UA( UNPLANNED AREAS
•(TCJ TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
(UJ PUBLIC UTILITIES
-ICFJ COMMUNITY FACIUTIES
@ COMMUNITY FACILITIES
(RL(LOWDENSITY (0.1.5dulao)
(RLMJ LOW.r.IEDIUM DEN~TY (0--1 du4oc)
"'" (RMJ MEDIUM DENSITY (4-!1 duloc)
"., (RMHJ MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (8·15 dulac)
• (RHJ HIGH DENSITY (15-23 dulac)
COMMERCIAl
IRI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
Ill LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
(T ·RI TRA\IEIJRECREATION COMMERCIAL
•tol OFfiCE & RELATED COMMERCIAL
•M VILLAGE
ROADS "'"" ...... .., .....
• • • • • Major Arlena!
./· .... ·'"Secondary Ar1enill
~C-51<001
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
-~·m·m· Proposed General Plan Land Uses
,.flliljJ:I:"
11[.!1 to m:!C* ~
9/26/05
FIGURE
5.1-5
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
by the Master Plan document. The project site has General Plan designations of "RM" (Medium Density. 4
to 8 dulac). "RLM" (Low Medium Density, less than 4 dulac), "L" (Local Shopping Center) and "E"
(Elementary School). The redistribution of land uses proposed by the amendment would include the
following designations: "OS" (Open Space). "RM." "RMH" (Medium-High Density, 8-15 dulac). "RH" (High
Density, 15 to 23 dulac), "E." and "L." No significant impact associated with the proposed general plan
amendment is anticipated.
B. City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance
The project site is currently zoned P-C. which provides a method to encourage comprehensively planned
development in accordance with an adopted master plan and provides a framework for the phased
development of an approved master plan. No zone change is proposed. No significant impact related to
the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance is anticipated.
C. Hillside Development Regulations
The project's consistency with the City's Hillside Development Regulations is evaluated in Section 5.11 -
Grading and Aesthetics. As discussed. the project will comply with the City's Hillside Development
Regulations.
D. Floodplain Management Regulations
The project is in compliance with the City's Floodplain Management Regulations. and no deviations from
these regulations are proposed. Issuance of a Floodplain Special Use Permit will be required for project
implementation. Portions of the project site where grading and/or development is proposed within the
1 00-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would require
approval of a Floodplain Special Use Permit. These regulations would apply to PA's 12. 20. 22 and 23C.
However, with the implementation of storm drain improvements. including the proposed 84" storm drain
discussed in Section 5.12 -Hydrology/Water Quality, in conjunction with the proposed grading plan. the
proposed development portions of these areas would be removed from the 1 00-year floodplain.
E. Growth Management Program/Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP}
The Growth Management Program was adopted in 1986 with the intent to ensure that proposed
development contributes to provision of a balanced community, and to disallow such development unless
adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a phased and logical fashion to serve the
growth associated with the proposed development. The Growth Management policy dictates that a Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) be prepared to analyze public facility demand of a proposed project
(in conjunction with the demand of existing and other proposed projects). in relation to the anticipated
supply of such public facilities. This LFMP is reviewed concurrently with the entitlement package for a
proposed project.
The project site is located within LFMP Zone 14. Project approval will necessitate approval of an
amendment to the Zone 14 LFMP which addresses the proposed amended land uses of the project. In
accordance with Growth Management provisions, the amended LFMP identifies the public facilities (City
administration, libraries. wastewater treatment. parks and special use areas. drainage facilities. traffic
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-17 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
circulation facilities, fire stations, open spaces, schools, sewer and water facilities) that will be needed to
accommodate the phased development within Zone 14. Section 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities
identifies the public services and utility phasing required for project implementation.
The Growth Management Program also provided a maximum cap on residential units within each of the
four quadrants of the city, and thus, the City of Carlsbad as a whole. As part of the Zone 14 LFMP analysis,
the buildout unit count proposed for the Robertson Ranch property is addressed~ Utilizing a "constraints
analysis" the buildout unit count for Robertson Ranch totals %+-983 dwelling units. This number of units is ~
193 units less than the 1,17 6 units proposed in the Master Plan.
The City of Carlsbad has created on "Excess Dwelling Unit Bank," which tabulates units accrued from
residential projects within the city which have developed to less than their "constraints analysis" potential.
City policy allows that these units may be transferred to other properties, subject to priority limitations
adopted by the City in Council Policy #43, as discussed previously in the Environmental Setting section of
this section. As of June 2005, this Excess Dwelling Unit Bank has approximately 3,134 "excess" units, which
are available for re-allocation, in compliance with the Growth Management Program. The Robertson
Ranch proposed project is requesting up to ~193 units (~00 if alternative uses for PA's 13 and 14 are
implemented) from this Bank for the provision of high density and moderate-priced housing. These units
would be allocated to the West Village, in the high-density planning areas (PA 7 and 8). City Council
approval is required of both the allocation of units from the Bank, and the public facility adequacy analysis
addressed in the Zone 14 LFMP Amendment.
F. lnclusionary Housing Ordinance
The proposed project will comply with the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements on-site. The
project will provide a range of housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the
population, including households of lower and moderate income. As required by the lnclusionary Housing
Ordinance, a minimum of fifteen percent ( 15%) of all approved residential development will be restricted
to, and affordable to, lower-income households. The East Village and West Village developers will comply
with their lnclusionary Housing requirement separately. At least ten percent ( 1 0%) of these lower-income
units will have three or more bedrooms.
In addition, high-density (~ 20 dulac) development is proposed on Planning Areas 7, 8 and 15. Residential
products at this density are considered to comply with the adopted regional goals for moderate and
affordable housing.
In addition to the obligations of the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, the West Village developer will meet
additional affordability goals in exchange for the allocation of units from the "Excess Dwelling Unit Bank." As
part of the high-density development, approximately 56 units within the West Village will be price-regulated
to rates (rental or sale) affordable to moderate income families. Age restricted (senior housing as defined
by City policy) units may also be used to satisfy this requirement. In order to meet the goal of affordability,
multi-family neighborhoods are provided in varying areas throughout the project. which provide the
opportunities for the development of varying densities of apartments, townhomes, and condominiums.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-18 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
Overall, approximately 232 multi-family units of the project will be restricted to sale or rent at rates
affordable to moderate or lower income levels.
G. Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The project design accommodates the landscape and structural setback requirements contained in the
Planned Development Ordinance and the Scenic Corridor Policies. Structural and landscape setbacks
from the various General Plan roadways are depicted in Table 5.1-1, General Plan Roadway Setbacks. The
project will comply with the City's Scenic Corridor Policies. Please refer to Section 5.11 -Grading and
Aesthetics for a more detailed analysis of the project's compliance with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines.
H. Landscape Manual
The policies, programs and requirements of the Landscape Manual apply to all public and private
development requiring discretionary permits or submittal of landscape plans for development permits. The
proposed project is required to comply with the provisions of the landscape manual with respect to
planting, irrigation, water conservation, streetscape, slope revegetation/erosion control, and fire
protection. The proposed project landscape concept meets the requirements of the landscape manual.
Furthermore, the City will review detailed landscape construction plans at the time permits are applied for
as part of the subsequent development of individual Planning Areas. No impact associated with the
landscape manual is anticipated.
I. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport
The project site is located within the Noise Impact Notification Area {NINA) required by the existing,
adopted McClellan-Palomar Airport CLUP. As required by the CLUP, all new residential projects located
within the NINA shall be required to record a notice concerning aircraft environmental impacts, clarifying
that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. Noise within the NINA is not considered adverse to public health or safety. Mitigation Measures N-3
and N-4 in Section 5.4-Noise require buyer notification of airport noise in accordance with the CLUP. No
significant land use impact associated with the adopted CLUP is anticipated.·
Based on an analysis of Compatibility Zone E requirements, structures located within the project site could
not exceed 1 00-feet in height. No structure exceeding this height limitation is proposed; therefore, no
significant land use impact associated with the draft March 2005 ALUCP is anticipated.
J. Open Space Conservation and Resource Management Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the Open Space Conservation and Resource Management Plan
because the project provides open space for the preservation of natural resources, wetlands and other
valuable habitat; outdoor recreation, including parks and other recreation areas; open space for public
health and safety, such as floodways; and, open space for the Carlsbad Trail System.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-19 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
TABLE 5.1-1
General Plan Roadway Setbacks
1. Upslope (PA 7) 40 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
top of slope,
whichever is
2. Downslope (PA 1) 45 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
toe of slope,
whichever is
2.
1. Upslope 45 feet from right of 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet
way or 15 feet from
top of slope,
whichever is
2. Downslope 55 feet from right of 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet
way or 15 feet from
toe of slope,
whichever is
45 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 1 5 feet from
top of slope,
whichever is
2. Downslope (N/A) 55 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
toe of slope,
whichever is
30 Feet 30 Feet 15 Feet 15 Feet
Notes: N/A =Not Applicable to the proposed project.
Source: Planning Systems, 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-20 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
The project satisfies the required findings for an adjustment to the boundaries of the Official Open Space
and Conservation Map (as depicted on Figure 5.1-2). The proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan open
space area is greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map (refer to
Figures 5.1-2 and 5.1-6, 5.1-7). The proposed open space area is also of environmental quality equal to or
greater than that depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. The proposed Master Plan
will conserve areas of wetland habitats and native upland vegetation that are not depicted on the Official
Open Space and Conservation Map. Additionally, the proposed adjustment to open space as depicted
on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous or within close proximity to open space
as shown on the Open Space and Conservation Map.
K. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) identifies the project site as comprising a significant
portion of "Zone 14" of the HMP. Zone 14 is considered an important component of the overall open
space preserve system primarily because it contains "Link B." a critical wildlife movement corridor between
the habitat located in "Core Areas" 2, 3, and 4. The Master Plan preserves approximately 138.2 acres of
open space, including re-vegetated manufactured slopes, detention basins, Diegan coastal sage scrub
habitat. and riparian and wetland habitats.
In accordance with the standards for the project site contained in the HMP, the Master Plan permanently
preserves and protects more than 70.4% of the existing 71.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat
existing on the site, and establishes a permanent habitat/linkage corridor (Figure 4), the configuration of
which has received the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish
and Game (see Wildlife Agency HMP concurrence letter. dated February 11. 2005, provided in Appendix
E). The open space and development areas are depicted on an "HMP Hardline Map." This Hardline Map
establishes a boundary beyond which open space will not be disturbed by project grading and fuel
management. In addition to providing for the permanent conservation of "Link B" as a 500 to 600-foot
wide Wildlife Corridor, the project exceeds the HMP requirements by providing a 400 to 500-foot wide east-
west wildlife corridor, utilizing an existing 12' wide by 6' high arched culvert under-crossing of College
Boulevard, which was not envisioned by the draft HMP, as approved by the Resource Agencies. In
accordance with the City-wide Trails Program. portions of this open space are made accessible by a trail
system consisting of both paved circulation trails and unpaved recreation trails, which encourage the
movement of pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the project. The Master Plan would preserve
approximately 138.2 acres of open space (PA 's 23A. 23B, 23C, 230, and 23E) including re-vegetated
manufactured slopes, detention basins. Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. and riparian and wetland
habitats.
5.1.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measure is proposed, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.1.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant land use and planning impact.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-21 April2006
, I
il
1
'1 ,j
il
! '
LEGEND
Notes:
Open Space
Park
Community Recreation
.Areas to be Developed
1. Pocket Parks (minimum 1 o,ooo S.F.) locatecd within each Single Family and Multifamily Planning Areas
where condominium units are proposed.
2. Community Recreation areas (minimum 10,000 S.F.) located with each Multifamily Planning Area where
apartments are proposed.
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2004
1980-2005
·m·m·m·
~
--------------~--
PAS 9.8 Cross AC. ~~~'B~e· to.~~~.5Lotll
\
Robertson Ranch Masster Plan Program EIR
Open Space an~ Recreation Plan
PA 23F 23' Gro.>s AC. Open Space
II I 1111 I 1 I
4/4/06
FIGURE
5.1-6
5.1-22
Legend
~ Open Space Trail
cs:;:] Development Trail
~ Roadway Trail
Community Trail Nodes
Robertson Ranch Boundary
SDG&E Service Roads
to Overhead Towers
+N 0' 1200'
Jt' E _L~~iiiiiiiiiii .. ~~~~ ;,w 600'
s SCALE: 1" = 600' I
I I ,
)--l
I ' I ' I \
I
I
\ I
SOURCE: Planning $_-'::y::::st=e=m=s=, ::::2::::00=5==============;:~~;:::::;::;:;;~==t~===::iC::::::~~~========:::;::;;:;:::=======================--::::;;;::;;::;:::;:;:;;:;2;:'2'~o6
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGO RE
Concept Pedestrian Circulation Plan 5.1-7
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 -Land Use
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.1-24 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
5.2 Traffic/Circulation
The traffic analysis provided in this section is summarized from the traffic technical report titled,
"Transportation Analysis for Robertson Ranch" (Urban Systems Associates, Inc., September 1, 2005),
provided in Volume II, Appendix B of this EIR.
The methodology used in preparation of the traffic analysis is provided in Appendix B. The analysis was
prepared following the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Congestion Management
Program (CMP) Guidelines and the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan Guidelines.
Computer travel forecasts used for the analysis of year 2010 and buildout conditions were prepared by the
City of Carlsbad and SANDAG. The SANDAG Cities/County Combined North County Year 2030
Transportation Forecast was used for evaluation of Year 2030 conditions.
To determine future intersection peak hour Levels of Service (LOS). and for Congestion Management
Program evaluation purposes, intersection levels of service were calculated using the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) computer software methodology. Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
were determined using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method, since that method was used for
the existing conditions evaluation in the latest (Year 2004) City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan
traffic monitoring report.
5.2.1 Environmental Setting
This section evaluates existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on study area street segments (between
intersections) and at intersections during AM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes are based on recent daily
roadway traffic counts and peak period manual traffic counts at intersections.
5.2.1. 1 Street Segments
Figure 5.2-1 shows existing average daily traffic volumes on street segments within the study area. (Refer to
Appendix B-Figure 3-2 for existing roadway classifications.) Table 5.2-1 includes existing street segment
levels of service based on the highest peak hour flow per lane, taken from intersection peak hour traffic
counts, and a per lane capacity of 1 ,800 Vehicles Per Hour Per Lane (VPHPL). As shown, all street segments
currently operate at an acceptable level of service.
5.2.1.2 Intersections
Figure 5.2-2 shows the key to study area intersections, by number. (Refer to Appendix B -Figures 3-4, 3-5
and 3-6 for existing intersection lane configurations. and existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes.)
Table 5.2-2 includes the results of the intersection level of service evaluation for existing conditions. The
study area intersections are shown to be operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better LOS)
for existing conditions, except at the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection, which is at level of
service "E" during the PM peak hour and Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive at level of service "E" during
the AM peak hour. However, planned roadway improvements such as the Faraday A venue construction to
complete the east-west link between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive would provide alternative routes,
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-1 April2006
212
LEGEND
• • • • • • • • -= Future Street
SOURCE
SANDAG Year 2002 Traffic Flow Map,
City of Carlsbad Year 2004, Traffic Monitoring Report
Caltrans 2003, Volumes Shown In Thousands
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
.. ... .... .. • • • • I
I . . • • • 26
-m-~rn-Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing Average Daily Traffic
,.~SIIIglil!~~
5.2-2
19
* NO SCALE ~-
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-1
Existing Street Segment Levels of Service
''" ··,' ' \~i'l''1k "j,' ~~ · .. :·"·"' ·'Location
Cannon Road
1-5-Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte-Lego Dr.
Lego Dr.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-El Camino Real
El Camino Real-College Blvd.
ColleQe Blvd.-East City Limit
East City Limit-Melrose Dr.
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd. -El Camino Real
El Camino Real-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad VillaQe Dr.-Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd.-SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78-Marron Rd.
Marron Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad Village Dr.-Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave.-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-ColleQe Blvd.
College Blvd.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-Palomar Airport Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real-Carlsbad Village Dr.
El Camino Real-Highland Dr.
Notes: 6PA = 6-lane primary arterial
4MA = 4-lane major arterial
4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
2MA = 2-lane major arterial
VPHPL =Vehicles per hour per lane
CPL = Capacity per lane @ 1,800 VPH
LOS = Level of service
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
. 'dti's'sift~'titi~~ ':;;;: •• l>e
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
2M A
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
4PA
4PA
SPA
6PA
6PA
4SA
4SA
5.2-3
0 . . . . (i,Lt'!'"!i'HI,:\ 'i;<. '-~,, rTi: 'A~erage Peak 'Peak' LOS,
DCIIlyVolume VPHPL VHPL/
'. •' CPL ..
22,000 892 0.50 A
19,000 713 0.40 A
11,000 413 0.23 A
8,000 413 0.23 A
10,000 946 0.53 A
-Not Built-
14,000 320 0.18 A
13,000 560 0.31 A
-Not Built-
10,000 946 0.53 A
+4,GOO 15 000 488 0.27 A
+&,G004 9 000 492 0.27 AC
40,000 630 0.35 A
34,000 702 0.39 A
27,000 922 0.51 A
33,000 980 0.54 A
28,000 1,154 0.64 B
26,000 748 0.42 A
33,000 716 0.40 A
10,000 220 0.12 A
7+,00G7 ,000 175 0.10 A
April2006
---------=Future Street *
LEGEND
NO SCALE ~-
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005 9/27/05
-rn-'rn·m·
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Intersection Number Key 5.2-2
,-sunmlir""-
5.2-4
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-2
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Method)
* .. ··••:'!,· ':•: lnteJ~~tr~it;·· '': "·-;:", ·• .~~~l~·T
'', ,1::; ,': ; ""~'
1 College Blvd. I Vista Way
2 College Blvd. I SR-78 EB Ramps
3 Colle,g_e Blvd. I Plaza Dr.
4 College Blvd./ Lake Blvd.
5 Plaza Dr. I SR-78 EB Ramps
6 College Blvd./ Carlsbad Village Dr.
7 College Blvd. I Cannon Rd. (1)
8 College Blvd. I El Camino Real
9 El Camino Real I SR-78 WB Ramps
10 El Camino Real/ SR-78 EB Ramps
11 El Camino Real/ Plaza Dr.
12 El Camino Real I Marron Rd.
13 El Camino Real I Carlsbad Village Dr.
14 El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave.
15 El Camino Real/ Faraday Ave.
16 El Camino Real I Palomar Airport Rd.
17 Palomar Airport Rd. I El Fuerte St.
18 Cannon Rd. I 1-5 SB Ramps
19 Cannon Rd. I 1-5 NB Ramps
20 Cannon Rd. I Paseo Del Norte
21 Cannon Rd. I Lego Drive
22 Cannon Rd./ Faraday Ave.
23 Cannon Rd. I El Camino Real
24 Faraday Ave. I College Blvd.
25 El Camino Real I Kelly Dr.
26 Cannon Rd. I Melrose Dr.
27 Carlsbad Village Dr./ Tamarack Ave.
28 El Camino Real/ Future West Village
31 Palomar Airport Rd. I Loker Ave. West
32 W. Vista Way I SR-78 WB on-off Ramps
33 Palomar Airport Rd. I Melrose Dr.
34 Tamarack Ave. I La Portalada Dr. (2)
Notes: (1) =No traffic control devices currently installed.
(2) = Stop sign control on minor street.
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc., 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
(1)
r···· .
5.2-5
... <.: / A:l~~ .. ""·rtfi::::~)'£:: ':'": I,. . . .. .•• ,. ... ~: •. :::·. ·······:·:;.·· ····•.u; . .. · • ea our: r ,. ·,. PM Peak Hour ·.··
...... ·: ::•:·· ... ... .. ;:. ·' .. ICU LOS td.l .· ."LOS
0.61 B 0.79 c
0.49 A 0.60 A
0.52 A 0.68 B
0.43 A 0.59 A
0.47 A 0.60 A
0.60 A 0.54 A
NA NA NA NA
0.55 A 0.54 A
0.59 A 0.70 B
0.43 A 0.60 A
0.51 A 0.66 B
0.53 A 0.56 A
0.60 A 0.70 B
0.74 AC 0.53 A
0.66 B 0.79 c
0.69 B 0.93 E
0.76 B 0.68 B
0.55 A 0.43 A
0.61 B 0.54 A
0.68 B 0.51 A
0.49 A 0.46 A
0.58 A 0.63 B
0.57 A 0.67 B
0.41 A 0.44 A
0.63 B 0.57 A
0.38 A 0.44 A
0.27 A 0.28 A
0.59 A 0.60 A
NA NA NA NA
0.56 A 0.63 B
0.92 E 0.79 c
NA B NA B
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
diverting traffic from Palomar Airport Road. These roadway segments should be completed before traffic
from the Robertson Ranch project is added to existing conditions.
5.2.1.3 Ramp Meters
The ramp meter analysis indicates that the current ramp meter queues can be accommodated on the
existing ramps and adjacent surface streets. (Refer to Appendix B -Table 3-3, which shows the existing
ramp meter rates and queues at the existing ramp meters at I-S/Cannon Road, SR-78/EI Camino Real, and
Plaza Drive/eastbound SR-78 ramps.)
5.2.2 Threshold for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
5.2.3
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); or,
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
Environmental Impacts
Project traffic impacts to study area intersections are based on Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the
San Diego Region, SANTEC/ITE final draft March 2, 2000. However, at roadway segments, the threshold of
significance is an allowable increase in volume to capacity ratio during the peak hour so that a level of
service "D" is not exceeded as included in the City's Growth Management Program Circulation
Performance Standards. At intersections, the threshold of significance is an increase in delay of more than
two seconds at signalized intersections, only for intersections at LOS "E" or "F'', with LOS "D" being
acceptable, so that the threshold of significance of more than two seconds of additional delay does not
apply at LOS "D" locations.
5.2.3.1 Trip Generation
The project will consist of 404 acres and includes 578 single-family detached, 598 multi-family attached
dwelling units, an elementary school, park, community facilities, and an 8.0 acre community commercial
site. Two trip generation tables are provided as the Master Plan would allow the development of multi-
family uses in PAs 13 and 14 if these planning areas are not constructed with a school.
Table 5.2-3 includes the vehicle trip generation expected from the site with the school use assumed for PA 's
13 and 14. The project with the school is expected to generate 17,254 average daily trips (ADT) with 1 ,425
trips occurring in the AM peak hour (split 578 inbound and 847 outbound) and 1,678 occurring in the PM
peak hour (split 1.021 inbound and 657 outbound). Table 5.2-4 includes the vehicle trip generation
expected from the site without the school, and with multi-family residential units included on the school site.
The project without the school is expected to generate 17,596 ADT with 1 ,236 trips occurring in the AM peak
hour (split 425 inbound and 811 outbound) and 1.701 occurring in the PM peak hour (split 1,063 inbound
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-6 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-3
Project Trip Generation With School
·.',' ,I, I' . '''~at~ ,, :;~~} ~'~"' .,.,;,.; .. •' "'' "':~,,.-,'>"' >~' ' 1,:'/'' , ~, ;':--~-"~·' -"':I~' 'i ',, \,; ,""-, .,
PA Use AMY. cADY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK.HOUR;<
% # Split In Out % # spltt l In Out
Access From El Camino Real & Tamarack Avenue
1 Multi Family 27 DU 8/DU 216 8 17 2:8 3 14 10 22 7:3 15 6
2 RV Storage 2.3AC 30/AC 69 6 4 5:5 2 2 9 6 5:5 3 3
3 Single Family 82 DU 10 /DU 820 8 66 3: 7 20 46 10 82 7:3 57 25
4 Community Recreation l.OAC 50/AC 50 13 7 5:5 3 4 9 5 5:5 3 2
5 Single Famil)l 25 DU 10/DU 250 8 20 3:7 6 14 10 25 7:3 18 8
6 Sinale Family 61 DU 10/DU 610 8 49 3:7 15 34 10 61 7:3 43 18
7 Multi-Family 201 DU 6/DU 1.206 8 96 2:8 19 77 9 109 7:3 76 33
8 Multi-Family 195 DU 6/DU 1.170 8 94 2:8 19 75 9 105 7:3 74 31
9 Single Family 45 DU 10 /DU 450 8 36 3: 7 11 25 10 45 7:3 32 13
10 Single Family 55 DU 10 /DU 550 8 44 3: 7 13 31 10 55 7:3 39 16
]]I Comm. Commercial 8.0AC 700 /DU 5.600 4 224 6:4 134 90 10 560 5:5 280 280
]]I Community Facilities 5.0AC 50/AC 250 13 33 5:5 16 17 9 23 5:5 12 11
Subtotal 11.241 690 261 429 1.098 652 446
Access From Cannon Road
12 Park 13.5AC 50/AC 675 13 88 5:5 44 44 9 61 5:5 31 30
13 School 6.7 AC 90/AC 603 32 193 6:4 116 77 9 54 4:6 21 33
14 School 3.3AC 90/AC 297 32 95 6:4 57 38 9 27 4:6 11 16
15 Multi-Family 71 DU 6/DU 426 8 34 2:8 7 27 9 38 7:3 27 11
16 Single Family 100 DU 10 /DU 1.000 8 80 3:7 24 56 10 100 7:3 70 30
17 Single Family 110 DU 10 /DU 1,100 8 88 3:7 26 62 10 110 7:3 77 33
18 Single Famil')'_ 100 DU 10 /DU 1,000 8 80 3:7 24 56 10 100 7:3 70 30
19 Community Recreation 1.6AC 50/AC 80 13 10 5:5 5 5 9 7 5:5 4 3
21 Courtyard Homes 84DU 8/DU 672 8 54 2:8 11 43 10 67 7:3 47 20
22 Courtyard Homes 20DU 8/DU 160 8 13 2:8 3 10 10 16 7:3 11 5
Subtotal 6.013 735 317 418 580 364 211
Total 17.254 1.425 578 847 1,678 1.021 657
Notes: 1 ; Planning Area 11 is designated for dual use with a minimum of 5.0 acres of community facilities.
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc .. 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 -Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-4
Project Trip Generation Without School
"i;,'i",'J':' 2E-f _, ·'':>,:i•j' 'AMT. ·'·
,, 0 • ,,,,.,,." ~,I>!?";,,,, ;·' AM PEAK HOUR ·. • . '· ' -'~' ~ 7 \;-:?--':"\'f}f;,fWJf1::'/d,/i/'"' ti''''N{7:;0 ,_ ,.,
PA Use Rat~ \ ADT . PM PEAK HOUR! .
% # Split In Out % # Split In• ... Out
Access From El Camino Real & Tamarack Avenue
1 Mulli Family 27 Du 8/DU 216 8 17 2:8 3 14 10 22 7:3 15 6
2 RV Storaae 2.3AC 30/AC 69 6 4 5:5 2 2 9 6 5:5 3 3
3 Sinale Family 82DU 10/DU 820 8 66 3:7 20 46 10 82 7:3 57 25
4 Community Recreation 1.0AC 50/AC 50 13 7 5:5 3 4 9 5 5:5 3 2
5 Single Family 25DU 10/DU 250 8 20 3:7 6 14 10 25 7:3 18 8
6 Sinale Family 61 DU 10/DU 610 8 49 3:7 15 34 10 61 7:3 43 18
7 Multi-Family 201 DU 6/DU 1.206 8 96 2:8 19 77 9 109 7:3 76 33
8 Multi-Family 195DU 6/DU 1,170 8 94 2:8 19 75 9 105 7:3 74 31
9 Sinale Family 45 DU 10/DU 450 8 36 3:7 11 25 10 45 7:3 32 13
10 Single Family 55 DU 10/DU 550 8 44 3:7 13 31 10 55 7:3 39 16
11 1 Comm. Commercial 8.0AC 700/DU 5.600 4 224 6:4 134 90 10 560 5:5 280 280
11' Community Facilities 5.0AC 50/AC 250 13 33 5:5 16 17 9 23 5:5 12 11
Subtotal 11,241 690 261 429 1.098 652 446
Access From Cannon Road
12 Park 13.5 AC 50/AC 675 13 88 5:5 44 44 9 61 5:5 31 30
13 Multi-Family 138DU 6/DU 828 8 66 2:8 13 53 9 75 7:3 53 22
14 Multi Family 69 DU 6/DU 414 8 33 2:8 7 26 9 37 7:3 26 11
15 Multi-Family 71 DU 6/DU 426 8 34 2:8 7 27 9 38 7:3 27 11
16 Single Family 100DU 10 /DU 1.000 8 80 3:7 24 56 10 100 7:3 70 30
17 Sinale Family 110DU 10 /DU 1.100 8 88 3:7 26 62 10 110 7:3 77 33
18 Sinale Family 100DU 10/DU 1,000 8 80 3:7 24 56 10 100 7:3 70 30
19 Community Recreation 1.6 AC 50/AC 80 13 10 5:5 5 5 9 7 5:5 4 3
21 Courtyard Homes 84 DU 8/DU 672 8 54 2:8 11 43 10 67 7:3 47 20
22 Courtyard Homes 20 DU 8/DU 160 8 13 2:8 3 10 10 16 7:3 11 5
Subtotal 6,355 546 164 382 603 411 192
Total 17,596 1.236 425 811 1.701 1,063 638
Notes: 1 = Planning Area II Is designated for dual use with o minimum of 5.0 acres of community facilities.
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc .. 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
and 638 outbound). The higher average daily traffic from the "Without School" alternative was used. and
the peak hour flow that is the highest from each table was used in the evaluation of project traffic impacts
so that both alternatives were adequately evaluated. Although no public transit trip reduction credit has
been factored into the traffic analysis. the North County Transit District (NCTDl indicates that the proposed
project will be well served by public transit. with Route 309 providing service every 30 minutes up and down
El Camino Real and Route 419 providing peak hour service between Plaza Camino Real and the Carlsbad
Business Parks. In addition. Route 309 provides connections to other regional and local transit services at
the Encinitas Coaster Station and at the Town Center North shopping center in Oceanside.
5.2.3.2 Project Plus Existing Conditions
This section includes an evaluation of existing average daily traffic and peak hour traffic volumes at study
area street segments and intersections with project only traffic added. The existing street system was
assumed with no off-site future improvements. (Refer to Appendix B-Figure 5-1 which shows the project
only directional distribution onto the existing street system.)
A. Street Segments
Figure 5.2-3 shows project only traffic volumes to be used for "Existing Plus Project Conditions." Figure 5.2-4
shows existing average daily traffic volumes with project only traffic added at study area street segments.
Table 5.2-5 shows street segment levels of service with project traffic added to existing volumes on these
segments. Since all study area street segments are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service
(no worse than level of service "D" during peak hours). no project related off-site roadway segment
improvements would be needed. Frontage improvements along El Camino Real will be required as a map
condition when the West Village develops. The completion of Cannon Road and College Boulevard along
the East Village frontage will be required as a map condition when the East Village and park site develop.
B. Intersections
Table 5.2-6 shows existing plus project intersection peak hour levels of service. (Refer to Appendix B-Figures
5-4 through 5-7 which show project only AM and PM peak hour traffic at the study area intersections of the
existing street system and the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic at the study area intersections with
project traffic added.) Compared to existing conditions. no direct project impacts are expected. except
at the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection, which is currently at level of service "E" in the PM
peak hour. However. the construction of parallel roadway segments now planned or under construction
(Faraday Avenue and the Poinsettia Lane segment are under construction) should be completed before
the proposed project will add traffic to the existing roadways. These parallel routes would divert traffic from
Palomar Airport Road, thereby improving the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection level of
service. As shown in Table 5.2-6. all other study area intersections are expected to be at least at level of
service "D" during the peak hours. as required by the City's Growth Management Program, so no other
significant project impact is identified.
C. Ramp Meters
The additional ramp meter queue lengths due to project only traffic are expected to be minimal and could
be accommodated on existing ramps and surface streets without blocking through traffic lanes. (Refer to
Appendix B -Table 5-3 which shows the effect to ramp meter queues with project traffic added to existing
conditions.)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-9 April2006
LEGEND
• • • • • • • • • ... Future Streets
.. ........ -......... .... .... ..........
~ ~ ' ' • .. • I
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
·ffi·'W-'ffi·
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Project Only Average Daily Traffic
For Existing Conditions ,.!'l'l'iliE!Iilllll
5.2-10
968
~ NO SCALE ~-
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-3
....
213
LEGEND
-• • • • • • ·-= Future Streets
... ---.... ..............
,* ,*
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
·m·Mffi·
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing + Project Only Average Daily Traffic
(Volumes Shown in Thousands) ,-!~migli11!.__
5.2-11
19
~ NO SCALE
I·
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-4
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-5
Existing + Project Street Segment Levels of Service
,' '"'''"''' ,, ~_,_~"~, 'J :/\<it'~}"' ''< <!,;;;;;' Locatton
', '
Cannon Road
1-5-Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte-Lege Dr.
Lege Dr.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-El Camino Real
El Camino Real-College Blvd.
College Blvd.-East City Limit
East City Limit-Melrose Dr.
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd.-El Camino Real
El Camino Real-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad Village Dr.-Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd. -SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 Marron Rd.
Marron Rd.-Carlsbad Villag_e Dr.
Carlsbad Villaqe Dr.-Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave.-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-College Blvd.
College Blvd.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-Palomar Airport Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real-Carlsbad Villaqe Dr.
El Camino Real-Highland Dr.
Palomar Airport Road
El Camino Real-El Fuerte St.
El Fuerte St.-Melrose Dr.
Noles: 6PA = 6-lane primary arterial
4MA = 4-lane major arterial
4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
2MA = 2-lane major arterial
VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per lane
CPL = Capacity per lane @ 1,800 VPH
LOS = Level of service
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
>', ; ciciisliicatlon
'.,.','
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
2M A
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
4PA
4PA
4PA
6PA
6PA
4SA
4C
6PA
6PA
5.2-12
,< '< ', ' ',, ,,~t~k,'i ':~fijk 'tSs'''" Average :,/£,
!)ally Volume VPHP(' VHPL/
CPL ,;,',
~24000 915 0.51 A
21.000 360 0.20 A
13,000 330 0.18 A
11,000 200 0.11 A
16,000 1,000 0.56 A
-Not Built-
14,000 320 0.18 A
16,000 570 0.32 A
-Not Built-
11,000 1,000 0.56 A
+&,.GOO 1 7 000 650 0.36 A
++-,G0051 000 NA NA NA
e~,GGG42,000 760 0.42 A
U;OOG37,000 615 0.34 A
30,000 620 0.34 A
u,G0042,000 645 0.36 A
33,000 630 0.35 B
30,000 685 0.38 A
d4;00G36 000 525 0.29 A
g.,QOO 13,000 255 0.14 A
9,000 205 0.11 A
e8,G0057,000 1,145 0.64 B
e8,G0057,000 1,145 0.64 B
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-6
Existing + Project With/Without Project
Comparison of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
(Intersection Capacity Utilization Methodology)
# ~~~~ ~ ,, ' " '~t ~, intersecWO'n~ c;;~ e ~~~ ' ' :;,'< ' AM 'P$ok'ii6ur ~ ~ ~ ~ \n: ',','::1 :3i':, ,M: ~':~L, >, j''~;::l~~:~:!:l~f PM Peak; Hour , ) ''1:;''
Wlfhout ' ',, ,, '< with ~ ' ~,With, ,, , Without
ICU LOS ~~;' ~ ~ ICU ~ 1, (os, , ,;rcu LOS ICU ... , ;tos'
1 College Blvd./ Vista Way 0.61 B 0.61 B 0.79 sc 0.79 c
2 Colle_ge Blvd. I SR-78 EB Ramps 0.49 A 0.50 A 0.60 A 0.62 B
3 College Blvd. I Plaza Dr. 0.52 A 0.54 A 0.68 B 0.69 B
4 College Blvd. I Lake Blvd. 0.43 A 0.45 A 0.59 A 0.60 A
5 Plaza Dr. I SR-78 EB Ramps 0.47 A 0.48 A 0.60 A 0.61 B
6 College Blvd. I Carlsbad Village Dr. 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.54 A 0.55 A
7 College Blvd. I Cannon Rd. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
8 College Blvd. I El Camino Real 0.55 A 0.61 B 0.54 A 0.61 B
9 El Camino Real I SR-78 WB Ramps 0.59 A 0.61 B 0.70 B 0.71 c
10 El Camino Real/ SR-78 EB Ramps 0.43 A 0.43 A 0.60 A 0.60 A
11 El Camino Real/ Plaza Dr. 0.51 A 0.51 A 0.66 B 0.67 B
12 El Camino Real/ Marron Rd. 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.56 A 0.58 A
13 El Camino Real/ Carlsbad Village Dr. 0.60 A 0.62 B 0.70 B 0.72 c
14 El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 0.74 c 0.86 D 0.53 A 0.75 c
15 El Camino Real I Faraday Ave. 0.66 B 0.68 B 0.79 c 0.82 D
16 El Camino Real I Palomar Airport Rd. 0.69 B 0.75 c 0.93 E 0.97 E
17 Palomar Airport Rd./ El Fuerte St. 0.76 c 0.79 c 0.68 B 0.69 B
18 Cannon Rd. /l-5 SB Ramps 0.55 A 0.58 A 0.43 A 0.45 A
19 Cannon Rd./1-5 NB Ramps 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.54 A 0.58 A
20 Cannon Rd. I Paseo Del Norte 0.68 B 0.71 c 0.51 A 0.56 A
21 Cannon Rd. I Lego Drive 0.49 A 0.51 A 0.46 A 0.48 A
22 Cannon Rd./ Faraday Ave. 0.58 A 0.59 A 0.63 B 0.70 B
23 Cannon Rd. I El Camino Real 0.57 A 0.65 B 0.67 B 0.88 D
24 Faraday Ave./ College Blvd. 0.41 A 0.42 A 0.44 A 0.46 A
25 El Camino Real/ Kelly Dr. 0.63 B 0.69 B 0.57 A 0.65 AB
26 Cannon Rd. I Melrose Dr. 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.44 A 0.44 A
27 Carlsbad Village Dr./ Tamarack Ave. 0.27 A 0.31 A 0.28 A 0.31 A
28 El Camino Real I Future West Village 0.68 B 0.85 D 0.62 B 0.76 c
29 East Village Dwy.(w)ICannon Rd. --0.59 A --0.48 A
30 East Village Dwy.(e)ICannon Rd. --0.54 A --0.41 A
31 Palomar Airport Rd. I Loker Ave. West NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
32 W. Vista Way I SR-78 WB on-off Ramps 0.56 A 0.58 A 0.63 B 0.64 B
33 Palomar Airport Rd. I Melrose Dr. 0.92 E 0.93 E 0.79 c 0.83 D
34 Tamarack Ave. I La Portalada Dr. (1) NA B NA c NA B NA D
Notes: ( 1} -Stop s1gn control on m1nor streetc
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc c. 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5c2-13 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
5.2 .3.3 Year 20 10 Conditions
A. Street Segments
Figure 5.2-5 shows Year 2010 average daily traffic volumes for study area street segments with project traffic
included. As shown, College Boulevard between Cannon Road and El Camino Real is included in this
scenario, but Cannon Road Reach 4 (connecting to Vista) was not assumed for Year 201 0 in that traffic
forecast at the direction of the City Engineer. Table 5.2-7 shows street segment levels of service for Year
2010. As shown, all segments evaluated are expected to meet the Growth Management Program criteria
of not exceeding level of service "D" during peak hours, so no significant project traffic impacts are
expected in Year 2010.
B. Intersections
Table 5.2-8 shows Year 2010 intersection levels of service with and without project traffic. (Refer to
Appendix B -Figures 6-3 through 6-6 which show the project only AM and PM peak hour volumes at study
area intersections expected in Year 2010, and the AM and PM peak hour volumes and lane configurations,
at study area intersections expected in Year 201 0.) All lane configurations are existing conditions, or
planned and soon to be constructed by other development projects or through the City of Carlsbad Traffic
Impact Fee Program.
As shown in Table 5.2-8, most of the evaluated intersections are expected to operate at least at level of
service "D" during peak hours as required by the City's Growth Management Program. Only two
intersections in Carlsbad are at LOS "E" or "F." One intersection in Oceanside is at LOS "F." At all other
locations the intersection significance threshold of no more than two additional seconds of delay at
intersections does not apply. Therefore, project traffic impacts are expected to be less than significant at
study area intersections with levels of service "D" or better (LOS A, B, or C). The following intersections would
require mitigation in order to provide acceptable peak hour operation:
INTERSECTION #3: COLLEGE BOULEVARD/PLAZA DRIVE
Level of Service: The PM peak hour is at LOS "F" in the Year 2010 projections with or without the addition of
project traffic.
Significance: Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from project traffic is less than two seconds,
the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant. The cumulative impacts, however,
are significant.
Mitigation: Since direct impacts associated with the proposed project are not significant, no project-only
mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would be required for the cumulative
report. Mitigation for cumulative impacts to the College Boulevard/Plaza Drive intersection would be to
widen College Boulevard in the southbound direction to provide a third southbound through lane at the
intersection. Additional mitigation would be to widen Plaza Drive in the westbound direction to provide an
additional left turn lane for westbound to southbound left turns. Due to the fact that the significant
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-14 April2006
LEGEND
-·······-=Future Street
SOURCE
. SANDAG Carlsbad/Cities/County Forecast
Year 2010 Alt 2, Dated April6, 2000
Volumes Shown In Thousands
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
·rn·m·m· Year 201 0 + Project Average Daily
Traffic Volumes ,.~UBI~~i~!ifi" .
5.2-15
~ NO SCALE
I·
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-5
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-7
Year 2010 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service
~.~·· : •• ~'1 ,,~~\, i~~~tlon ,, c • ~·.t''"'>·•·. ''''i ''"
.,, ,'f
Cannon Road
1-S-Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte-Lege Dr.
Lege Dr.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-El Camino Real
El Camino Real-College Blvd.
College Blvd.-East City Limit
East City Limit-Melrose Dr.
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd. -El Camino Real
El Camino Real-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad VillaQe Dr.-Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd.-SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78-Marron Rd.
Marron Rd. -Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad Village Dr.-Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave.-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-College Blvd.
College Blvd.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-Palomar Airport Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Notes: 6PA = 6-lane primary arterial
5PA = 5-lane primary arterial
4MA = 4-lane major arterial
4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per lane
CPL = Capacity per lane @ 1.800 VPH
LOS = Level of service
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc .• 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
,,
',• ' classlffctJtion
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
SPA
SPA
6PA
6PA
4SA
5.2-16
.,, ,,,,. ,,".'"'''•'''!'Y' <':rl:,<l. 12~: ~);, ' .. : ·ro$": Average Peak, •·, •Pe~k
Daily Volume VPHPL VHPL/
CPL
18,000 36S 0.20 A
11,000 4SO 0.2S A
1S,OOO 3SO 0.19 A
1S,OOO 3SO 0.19 A
11,000 330 0.18 A
--- -
14,000 0.21 A
18,000 480 0.27 A
18,000 490 --
22,000 480 0.27 A
33,000 S3S 0.30 A
38,000 S10 0.28 A
3S,OOO 840 0.47 A
32,000 S8S 0.33 A
30,000 40S 0.23 A
43,000 940 O.S2 A
36,000 1,0SO O.S8 A
46,000 70S 0.39 A
41,000 63S 0.3S A
10,000 300 0.17 A
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-8
Year 201 0 With/Without Project Comparison
of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service Without Mitigation
(Congestion Management Plan Methodology)
# l•r rrr;r ··.·;•.]•!/':;",, -''·' '':~G'CC'C',''? ,, '''.':111'\'\M'U' ,, ' • P~Cl';,\:
I • .:. With x r . ·.•.· Without With .
••• Delay ' Lo.s fii.r\~~:·r' ;f\~I~Y:. LOS r LOS' . ..
· .. ····· .···
.. I f1 > I 1 > r i•':···~1:}l'··~:li. . ··· f ·
1 College Blvd. I Vista Way 39.0 D 40.2 D
2 College Blvd. I SR-78 EB Ramps 21.3 c 21.3 c
3 College Blvd. I Plaza Dr. 32.4 c 33.5 c
4 Colleqe Blvd. I Lake Blvd. 37.8 D 38.5 D
5 Plaza Dr. I SR-78 EB Ramps 31.1 c 32.8 c
6 College Blvd. I Carlsbad Village Dr. 26.4 c 29.6 c
7 College Blvd. I Cannon Rd. 25.1 c 26.2 c
8 College Blvd. I El Camino Real 36.2 D 37.8 D
9 El Camino Real I SR-78 WB Ramps 25.8 c 26.3 c
10 El Camino Real I SR-78 EB Ramps 13.9 B 14.1 B
11 El Camino Real I Plaza Dr. 33.7 c 34.8 c
12 El Camino Real I Marron Rd. 28.3 c 30.1 c
13 El Camino Real I Carlsbad VillaQe Dr. 36.3 D 39.3 D
14 El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 29.5 c 36.6 D
15 El Camino Real I Faraday Ave. 45.4 D 47.4 D
16 El Camino Real I Palomar Airport Rd. 37.7 D 38.1 D
17 Palomar Airport Rd. 1 El Fuerte St. 51.1 D 52.2 D
18 Cannon Rd. I 1-5 SB Ramps 33.3 c 33.3 c
19 Cannon Rd. I 1-5 NB Ramps 14.9 B 15.4 B
20 Cannon Rd. I Paseo Del Norte 32.8 c 37.8 GD
21 Cannon Rd. I Lego Drive 27.3 c 28.7 c
22 Cannon Rd. I Faraday Ave. 33.7 c 35.2 D
23 Cannon Rd. I El Camino Real 40.4 D 46.9 D
24 Faraday Ave. I College Blvd. 43.5 D 43.6 D
25 El Camino Real I Kelly Dr. 34.3 c 38.0 D
26 Cannon Rd. I Melrose Dr. NA NA NA NA
27 Carlsbad Village Dr. I Tamarack Ave. 36.5 D 36.6 D
28 El Camino Real I West Village Driveway 30.6 c 161.9 F
29 East Village Dwy.(w)ICannon Rd. NA NA 18.5 B
30 East Village Dwy.(e)ICannon Rd. NA NA 16.1 B
31 Palomar Airport Rd. I Loker Ave. West 50.0 D 51.3 D
32 W. Vista Way I SR-78 WB on-off Ramps 39.1 D 39.6 D
33 Palomar Airport Rd. I Melrose Dr. 53.9 D 54.1 D
34 Tamarack Ave. I La Portalada Dr. (2) 13.8 B 13.8 B . . .. Note: S1gn1flcance thresh0ld of more than 2.0 seconds of additional delay only applies at LOS E or F .
(1) =Delay: Total control delay per vehicle (seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
(2) =Stop sign control on minor street.
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc .. 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-17
42.5 D 46.2 D
23.5 c 23.6 c
126.2 F 131.1 F
40.9 D 41.8 D
40.4 D 43.7 D
14.2 B 18.1 B
26.0 c 26.2 c
36.2 D 44.1 D
28.7 c 29.0 c
18.8 B 19.5 B
38.7 D 39.5 D
31.1 c 32.9 D
38.9 D 39.0 D
33.4 c 48.6 D
44.5 D 50.7 D
47.0 D 48.6 D
51.8 D 53.6 D
32.4 c 33.3 c
23.1 c 24.1 c
33.0 c 34.8 c
28.9 c 30.7 c
40.6 D 45.3 D
56.1 E 77.4 E
49.8 D 49.8 D
14.2 B 14.3 B
NA NA NA NA
34.8 c 35.8 D
2.9 A 43.6 D
NA NA 17.8 B
NA NA 6.8 A
36.7 D 38.8 D
39.4 D 39.8 D
48.2 D 45.8 D
14.7 B 16.1 c
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be
responsible for these improvements.
Significance After Mitigation: The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to
construct necessary improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in
lieu of construction. There is no guarantee that the City of Oceanside will accept a fair share contribution
or that adequate funding for the mitigation will be available in Year 2010. Therefore, if sufficient funds are
not made available for the mitigation, the projects' contribution to the cumulative impacts to this
intersection would remain significant and unmitigated in Year 201 0 and Year 2030.
INTERSECTION #23: CANNON ROAD/EL CAMINO REAL
Level of Service: The PM peak hour is at LOS "E" in the Year 2010 projections with or without the addition of
project traffic.
Significance: Since the intersection delay resulting from project traffic is more than two seconds, both direct
and cumulative impacts resulting from the project are considered significant.
Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-2 is required for the project-level and cumulative
impact at this intersection. The developer of the West Village shall re-stripe northbound El Camino Real
after frontage improvements have been installed along the West Village (as part of the development of
the West Village) to allow for a shared thru/right turn lane. Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the first master final
map for the West Village.
Significance After Mitigation: The PM peak hour would operate at LOS "D" so that project impacts, direct
and cumulative would be less than significant after mitigation.
INTERSECTION #28: WEST VILLAGE DRIVEWAY /EL CAMINO REAL/LISA STREET
Level of Service: The Year 2010 AM peak hour level of service would be at LOS "F" with project traffic
added.
Significance: Both direct and cumulative impacts as a result of project traffic would be significant.
Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3 is required for the project-level and cumulative
impact at this intersection. The West Village developer shall add a third southbound lane on El Camino
Real from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road. This improvement shall be funded by the developer of the
West Village and may be subject to reimbursement through formation of a financing district or other public
improvement funding mechanism. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as
approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-18 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
Significance After Mitigation: The intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS "D" in the AM peak
hour with project traffic added, so that the projects direct and cumulative impacts would be mitigated to
below significant.
Table 5.2-9 shows Year 2010 intersection levels of service with the mitigation described above. As shown,
with mitigation, all intersections would operate acceptably.
TABLE 5.2-9
Year 2010 With/Without Project Intersection Peak Hour
Levels of Service With Mitigation
23 Cannon Rd./EI Camino Real
28 West Village Dwy./EI Camino
Real
Source: Urban Systems Inc., 2005.
36.5 D
4.1 A
C. Robertson Ranch Mitigation/Improvements
D
49.0 D 2.8 A 42.1
D
D
In addition to the mitigation listed above, the Robertson Ranch improvements needed in Year 2010 are
listed below:
INTERSECTION #14: EL CAMINO REAL/TAMARACK AVENUE
The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Real northbound to provide three thru-lanes and a
separate right-turn lane. This improvement shall also include construction of a southbound shared
thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Avenue which is expected to be accomplished through re-striping. These
improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall
be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final
map for the West Village. This improvement is required by Mitigation Measure T-4.
EL CAMINO REAL-TAMARACK AVENUE TO CANNON ROAD
The developer of the West Village shall widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn only lane
at Tamarack Avenue, and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project frontage, and re-stripe
northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack/EI Camino Real intersection to allow for a transition from
three to two lanes as required. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village.
Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to
recordation of the first master final map for the West Village. This improvement is required by Mitigation
Measure T-5.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-19 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
INTERSECTION #28: EL CAMINO REAL/WEST VILLAGE DRIVEWAY/LISA STREET
The developer of the West Village shall install a signal and provide a northbound separate right-turn lane at
the intersection of El Camino Real and the West Village Driveway entrance. Implementation of this
measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the West Village. This improvement is required by Mitigation Measure T-6.
INTERSECTION #25: EL CAMINO REAL/KELLY DRIVE
The developer of the West Village shall modify the traffic signal and construct a third northbound lane and
the PA 1 driveway and construction of a shared third southbound shared thru-right turn lane. These
improvements shall be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall
be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final
map for the West Village. This improvement is required by Mitigation Measure T-7.
CANNON ROAD • EL CAMINO REAL TO COLLEGE BOULEVARD
The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of Cannon Road
and install traffic signals at the time directed by the City Engineer at new intersections (intersections #29,
and #30). These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of
this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the
first master final map for the East Village. This improvement is required by Mitigation Measure T-8.
COLLEGE BOULEVARD-NORTH PROJET BOUNDARY TO CANNON ROAD
The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of College
Boulevard. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village. Implementation of
this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the
first master final map for the East Village. This improvement is required by Mitigation Measure T-9.
Other intersections shown with lane configurations different than existing conditions have been assumed to
be modified by other approved projects as a condition of development and constructed before-
Robertson Ranch. These locations and improvements are listed below.
#31 Palomar Airport Road/Loker Avenue West: install traffic signal by adjacent projects.
# 1 7 Palomar Airport Road/EI Fuerte Street: Add dual left turn westbound, complete south leg, add
eastbound right turn only lane, by adjacent project.
#33 Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive: Add north leg, add westbound third through and right
turn only lane, add eastbound right turn only lane, by adjacent projects.
(See Appendix B -Figure 6-7 which shows mitigated lane configurations at the significantly impacted
intersections.)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-20 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
D. Ramp Meters
The additional ramp meter queue lengths due to project only traffic are expected to be minimal and could
be accommodated on existing ramps and surface streets. (See Appendix B-Table 6-4A and 6-4B which
shows ramp meter queues with project only traffic added to Year 2010 conditions.)
5.2.3.4 Buildout (Year 2030) Conditions
A. Street Segments
Table 5.2-10 shows. street segment levels of service for Year 2030. As shown, all segments evaluated are
expected to meet the Growth Management Program criteria of not exceeding level of service "D" during
peak hours, so no significant project traffic impacts are expected in Year 2030. (See Appendix B-Figure 7-
1 which shows Year 2030 project only trip distribution percentages.) Figure 5.2-6 shows Year 2030 project
only average daily traffic volumes for study area street segments. Figure 5.2-7 shows Year 2030 average
daily traffic volumes with project traffic included.
B. Intersections
Table 5.2-11 shows Year 2030 intersection levels of service with and without project traffic. A majority of the
study area intersections are expected to operate at least at level of service "D" during peak hours as
required by the City's Growth Management Program. No significant project traffic impact is anticipated in
Year 2030 at these locations.
The following seven intersections are expected to operate at levels of service "E" or "F" without mitigation:
INTERSECTION #J VISTA WAY/COLLEGE BOULEVARD
Level of Service. The PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030 with or without the addition of
project traffic.
Significance. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from the project traffic is less than two
seconds, the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant. The cumulative impacts;
however, are considered significant.
Mitigation. Since direct impacts associated with the proposed project are not significant, no project-only
mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure T-10 would be required for the cumulative impact. The City of
Oceanside has the responsibility for any improvements to this intersection, and mitigation would be to
widen this intersection. However, mitigation for cumulative impacts to the Vista Way/College Boulevard
intersection is considered infeasible due to the fact that the expansion of right of way or addition of lanes is
restricted by the SR-78 freeway improvements to the south, and existing development to the north. The City
of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and there
does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-21 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-10
Year 2030 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service
I···' < ' .. ·.•·.• .c ' ~>>~
. ·.. • <.~: ,.>., .<;~;~ '
Cannon Road
1-5-Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte-Lego Dr.
Lego Dr.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-El Camino Real
El Camino Real-College Blvd.
College Blvd.-East City Limit
East City Limit-Melrose Dr.
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd.-El Camino Real
El Camino Real-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad VillaQe Dr. -Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd.-SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 -Marron Rd.
Marron Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad Village Dr.-Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave.-Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd.-College Blvd.
College Blvd.-Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave.-Palomar Airport Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real-Carlsbad Village Dr.
Notes: 6PA = 6-lane primary arterial
4MA = 4-lane major arterial
4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per lane
CPL = Capacity per lane @ 1,800 VPH
LOS = Level of service
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc .• 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
· c..s;mdidla•~iliik'' :• .·· ~~\ . . ·. · ..... · ... . .. . . ... ·. CPL· .....
4MA 34,000 1,025 0.58 A
4MA 20,000 755 0.42 A
4MA 22,000 595 0.33 A
4MA 23,000 595 0.33 A
4MA 19,000 570 0.32 A
4MA 30,000 650 0.36 A
4MA 33,000 810 0.45 A
4MA 29,000 595 0.33 A
4MA 42,000 595 0.33 A
4MA 31,000 650 0.36 A
4MA 46,000 1,055 0.59 A
6PA 64,000 865 0.48 A
6PA 43,000 775 0.43 A
6PA 34,000 615 0.34 A
6PA 35,000 575 0.32 A
6PA 49,000 790 0.44 A
6PA 42,000 705 0.54 A
6PA 58,000 975 0.49 A
6PA 52,000 885 0.49 A
4SA 13,000 380 0.21 A
5.2-22 April2006
SOURCE· Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
••• ,.5d'llqj;£tf"'
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Year 2030 Project Only Average Daily
Traffic Volumes
5.2-23
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-6
SOURCE
SANDAG 2030 Combined North County Model
Dated July 1, 2004
Volumes Shown In Thousands
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
-m:rn:m.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
,-8Siili!E.._
5.2-24
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-7
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-11
Year 2030 With/Without Project Comparison of
Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
(Congestion Management Plan Methodology)
#' '' ~~'''' ' ' '., ··,,' ':'!:'!!~+ . ,';' ~hihh; :' ~~':!,'>;~' ;:;;;c, . ,,,,,,,,,~' '' 'AM Peak'Hour 'hfrM'"~';QkHour ·~~~·,~•,,,,. I ,, .......... "";.,.,""'"
· wlthouf " .'/ 'With · ., Without 'i''"ll
Delay LOS rieiay ·,, LOS t Delay LOS I I''' 1
' ,,.' (1} 'hi,; ; '~ ~'
1 College Blvd. I Vista Way 47.7 D 48.9 D
2 College Blvd. I SR-78 EB Ramps 21.9 c 21.9 c
3 College Blvd. I Plaza Dr. 37.7 D 39.4 D
4 ColleQe Blvd. I Lake Blvd. 42.4 D 44.1 D
5 Plaza Dr. I SR-78 EB Ramps 44.0 D 45.7 D
6 ColleQe Blvd. I Carlsbad VillaQe Dr. 20.7 c 21.6 c
7 College Blvd. I Cannon Rd. 37.7 D 40.3 D
8 College Blvd. I El Camino Real 45.6 D 52.4 D
9 El Camino Real I SR-78 WB Ramps 39.8 D 41.2 D
10 El Camino Real I SR-78 EB Ramps 16.1 B 16.3 B
11 El Camino Real I Plaza Dr. 28.8 c 30.4 c
12 El Camino Real I Marron Rd. 27.8 c 28.2 c
13 El Camino Real I Carlsbad Village Dr. 46.9 D 52.0 D
14 El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 107.1 F 118.1 F
15 El Camino Real I Faraday Ave. 55.1 E 57.1 E
16 El Camino Real I Palomar Airport Rd. 52.8 D 54.3 D
17 Palomar Airport Rd. I El Fuerte St. 53.4 D 54.7 D
18 Cannon Rd. I 1-5 SB Ramps 32.6 c 33.6 c
19 Cannon Rd. I 1-5 NB Ramps 21.8 B 23.6 c
20 Cannon Rd. I Paseo Del Norte 27.1 c 27.2 c
21 Cannon Rd. I Lego Drive 12.8 B 13.1 B
22 Cannon Rd. I Faraday Ave. 35.3 D 38.1 D
23 Cannon Rd. I El Camino Real 38.4 D 49.5 D
24 Faraday Ave. I College Blvd. 45.7 D 48.3 D
25 El Camino Real I KeiiJ' Dr. 154.3 F 153.8 F
26 Cannon Rd. I Melrose Dr. 45.6 D 47.3 D
27 Carlsbad VillaQe Dr. I Tamarack Ave. 40.7 D 40.7 D
28 El Camino Real I West Village Driveway 4.0 A 49.8 D
29 East Village Dwy.(w)ICannon Rd. NA NA 21.5 c
30 East VillaQe Dwy.(e)ICannon Rd. NA NA 21.2 c
31 Palomar Airport Rd. I Loker Ave. West 52.0 D 54.8 D
32 W. Vista Way I SR-78 WB on-off Ramps 35.1 D 35.2 D
33 Palomar Airport Rd. I Melrose Dr. 77.7 E 78.0 E
34 Tamarack Ave. I La Portalada Dr. (2) 15.6 c 15.7 c .. .. Note: S1gn1flcance threshold of more than 2.0 seconds of addlt1onal delay only applies at LOS E or F.
(11 =Delay: Total control delay per vehicle lsecondsl per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
(2) =Stop sign control on minor street.
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc., 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-25
rn,·'
92.7 F
25.1 c
44.3 D
154.3 F
42.9 D
42.4 D
34.8 c
46.2 D
36.1 D
20.5 c
47.7 D
41.3 D
35.5 D
50.6 D
101.2 F
49.1 D
44.6 D
40.5 D
42.0 D
47.0 D
18.7 B
41.2 D
38.7 D
44.4 D
26.0 c
47.8 D
26.0 c
4.6 A
NA NA
NA NA
52.0 D
50.4 D
63.1 E
15.7 c
' ., '·' Wltll'«>
oeiay LOS
. (1) ··;,'
94.3 F
25.1 c
47.6 D
162.2 F
43.5 D
47.9 D
37.0 D
52.5 D
36.5 D
21.9 c
52.3 D
46.1 D
36.6 D
79.2 E
105.8 F
51.4 D
46.4 D
44.4 D
49.4 D
54.0 D
25.9 c
46.8 D
90.0 F
46.5 D
73.0 E
48.4 D
29.0 c
51.7 D
31.4 c
10.3 B
54.9 D
50.7 D
64.2 E
17.6 c
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
Significance After Mitigation. No feasible mitigation measure has been identified. Due to the infeasibility of
physical improvements, cumulative impacts to the Vista Way/College Boulevard intersection will remain
significant and unmitigated in 2030.
INTERSECTION #4 COLLEGE BOULEVARD/LAKE AVENUE
Level of Service. The PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030 with or without the project
traffic added only if Marron Road is extended westerly to connect with El Camino Real. If Marron Road is
not extended, 2030 projections conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection.
Significance. Direct impacts of the project on this intersection are considered significant. The cumulative
impacts also are significant.
Mitigation. Necessary improvements would be to widen the College Boulevard/Lake Avenue intersection.
The changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of
Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and there does
not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure T -11 would be required for the project specific and cumulative impact. Due to the fact that the
significant impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic and the unknown extension of Marron
Road, the City of Oceanside has the responsibility for providing the construction of a third southbound
through lane at the intersection of College Boulevard and Lake Avenue.
Significance After Mitigation. There is no guarantee that adequate funding for the construction of the third
southbound through lane at the intersection of College Boulevard and Lake A venue will be available in
2030 in the event that Marron Road is extended. Therefore, if sufficient funds are not made available for
the third southbound through lane, and if Marron Road is extended, the projects direct and cumulative
impacts to this intersection will remain significant and unmitigated in 2030.
INTERSECTION #14: EL CAMINO REAL/TAMARACK AVENUE
Level of Service. The AM and PM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS "F" or "E" during the
Year 2030, without intersection improvements with or without the project.
Significance. Direct impacts of the project on this intersection are considered significant. The cumulative
impacts are also significant.
Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5 as described previously.
Significance After Mitigation. Project level and cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less than
significant with improvements required by Mitigation Measure T-5.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-26 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
INTERSECTION #25: EL CAMINO REAL/KELLY DRIVE
Level of Service. The AM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS "F" and the PM at LOS "E"
during the Year 2030 without intersection improvements beyond those described for Year 2010.
Significance. Direct and cumulative impacts of the project on this intersection are considered significant.
Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3 and T-5 as described previously.
Significance After Mitigation. Project direct and cumulative impacts would be mitigated to less than
significant with the improvements required by Mitigation Measures T-3 and T-5.
INTERSECTION #23: EL CAMINO REAL/CANNON ROAD
Level of Service. The PM peak how is at LOS "F" in the 2030 projection with or without the project traffic
added only if Cannon Road Reach 4 is extended easterly to connect with Cannon Road in Oceanside. If
Reach 4 is not extended, 2030 projections conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection.
Significance. Direct impacts of the project on this intersection are considered significant. The cumulative
impacts are also significant.
Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-12 is required for project level and cumulative impacts.
The developers of the West Village shall make their fair share contribution through the Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) program toward construction of a separate right-turn lane from northbound El Camino Real to
eastbound Cannon Road. This improvement shall be installed by the City of Carlsbad or their designee
and funded through the TIF program. when determined by the City to be needed. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the West Village.
Also, the developer of the West Village shall construct a second southbound left turn lane for southbound El
Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road at the time that the West Village El Camino Real frontage
improvements and third northbound lane are constructed. It is anticipated that this improvement can be
accomplished through re-striping of the standard right-of-way section. Implementation of this measure
shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master
final map for the West Village.
Significance After Mitigation. The City is in the process of updating their TIF program. If this project is
included in the TIF program prior to issuance of building permits for the West Village then the impact is
considered mitigated to a level of insignificance. If the project is not include.d for funding in the TIF
program, then the impact is significant and unmitigated in 2030.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-27 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
INTERSECTION 4#15: EL CAMINO REAL/FARADAY AVENUE
Level of Service. The AM peak hour would be at LOS "E" and the PM peak hour level of service in Year 2030
would be at LOS "F."
Significance. Direct and cumulative impacts would be considered significant.
Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-13 is required for project level and cumulative impacts.
The developers of the East and West Villages shall make their fair share contribution toward construction of
a westbound right-turn only lane and re-striping in the eastbound direction of a single left-turn lane, one
thru lane, one shared thru/right-turn lane, and a separate right-turn lane, all of which shall be installed by
the City of Carlsbad or their designee when determined by the City to be needed. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first
master final m~p for the East and West Villages, respectively.
Significance After Mitigation. The City is in the process of updating their TIF program. If this project is
included in the TIF program prior to issuance of building permits for the East and West Villages then the
impact is considered mitigated to a level of insignificance. If the project is not included for funding in the
TIF program, then the impact is significant and unmitigated in 2030.
INTERSECTION 4#33: PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD/MELROSE DRIVE
Level of Service. The PM peak hour levels of service would be at LOS "E" in the 2030 projection with or
without the addition of project traffic.
Significance. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from the project traffic is less than two
seconds, the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant. The cumulative impacts,
however, are significant.
Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-14 is required for the cumulative impact. The
developers of the East and West Village shall make their fair share contribution toward construction of a
fourth northbound thru-lane, a separate eastbound right-turn only lane and dual southbound right-turn only
lanes. This project may be funded through the TIF program. The City is in the process of updating their TIF
program. If this project is included in the TIF program prior to issuance of building permits for the East and
West Villages then the impact is considered mitigated to a level of insignificance. If the project .is not
included for funding in the TIF program, then the impact is significant and unmitigated in 2030.
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to
recordation of the first master final map for the East and West Villages, respectively.
Since direct impacts associated with the proposed project are not significant, no project-only mitigation is
required. Mitigation for cumulative impacts to the Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive intersection involves
the addition of a fourth northbound through lane on Melrose Drive, and a second southbound right turn
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-28 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
only lane. Other projects are responsible for the construction of the fourth northbound through lane and
the second southbound right turn lane on Melrose Drive.
Significance After Mitigation. There is no guarantee that adequate funding will be provided for the
construction of the fourth northbound through lane and second right turn lane on Melrose Drive. Therefore,
if unfunded, cumulative impacts to this intersection will remain significant and unmitigated in 2030.
Other Robertson Ranch mitigation only includes installing traffic signals at project access roadways as
warranted, and frontage improvements along El Camino Real, Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
Table 5.2-12 shows intersection levels of service after mitigation at these seven locations. (See Appendix B -
Figures 7-4 through 7-7 which show the AM and PM project only peak hour volumes, at study area
intersections, expected in Year 2030 and the AM and PM peak hour volumes with project traffic included.)
The lane configurations shown in these figures are the same as existing conditions, without mitigation,
except for #3, #23, and #28 which include mitigation needed for Year 2010, improvements by other
approved projects, or Robertson Ranch frontage and access improvements.
TABLE 5.2-12
Year 2030 With/Without Project Intersection
Peak Hour Levels of Service With Mitigation
# '.:':' :' ~.~ .';:· int~~se~tloll''•' '1:iH~:'>" · •• ~· ·' ;•A.~"P.ak•·~-t~~r ·~'" ··t.: ,.,;. PM Peak H~tr't •' :/' ·· ,c ,.
Without ··'wltit'·····.· ·, Without ',, With
1
" Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
\ (1} (1) (1 );
4 College Blvd. I Lake Blvd. 39.9 D 40.6 D 42.5
14 El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 42.5 D 51.6 D 35.0
15 El Camino Real I Faraday Ave. 49.7 D 53.3 D 46.8
23 Cannon Rd. I El Camino Real 34.4 c 38.5 D 37.8
25 El Camino Real I Kelly Dr. 37.0 D 36.8 D 26.0
33 Palomar Airport Rd. I Melrose Dr. 50.5 D 50.9 D 48.8
Notes: Significance threshold of more than 2.0 seconds of additional delay only applies at LOS E or F.
( 1) = Delay: Total control delay per vehicle (seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc .• 2005.
C. Ramp Meters
LOS, ·Delay
..• : ,(1)
D 45.9
c 46.3
D 52.3
D 47.2
c 26.2
D 49.3
LOS
D
D
D
D
c
D
The ramp meter analysis indicates that the additional ramp meter queue lengths due to project only traffic
are expected to be minimal and could be accommodated on existing ramps and surface streets. (See
Appendix B -Table 7-4 which shows ramp meter queues with project only traffic added to Year 2030
conditions).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-29 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
5.2.3.5 Congestion Management Program (CMP)
As required by State of California Law (Proposition 111, June 1990, Congestion Management Program), an
analysis of the Regionally Significant Arterials (RSA) in the study area is required. El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road are listed as RSA 's through the study area, and have been evaluated in the
preceding sections. The ramp intersections with the I-S/Cannon Road interchange, with the College
Boulevard/SR-78 interchange, and Plaza Drive/SR-78 eastbound ramps have also been evaluated.
Freeway ramp intersections, surface-street segments and intersections along El Camino Real and Palomar
Airport Road within the project study area are expected to operate at least at LOS "D", and; therefore,
comply with CMP Regional Guidelines for Year 2030.
A. Freeway Segments Evaluation
State Route 78 and 1-S freeway main lanes have been evaluated and project direct impacts have been
determined to be less than significant. The project peak hour addition of traffic to freeway mainlanes is no
more than one percent of the capacity per lane on 1-S, and slightly more than one percent on SR-78 east
of College Boulevard in Year 2010 without Cannon Road extended to Melrose Drive. However, at Buildout
project contribution to mainlanes is less than one percent of capacity. Freeway interchange ramp
intersections have been evaluated and project direct impacts have been determined to be less than
significant.
B. Intersections
Study area intersections were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual software. As shown
previously in Table S.2-11. all CMP intersections along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road comply
with CMP requirements using this methodology.
C. Ramp Meter Evaluation
During Year 2030, the project contribution to both AM and PM ramp meter queue lengths is expected tci
be minimal. Vehicle storage appears to be available within the existing streets so that these additional
vehicles will be accommodated and therefore project impacts are expected to be less than significant at
these locations. Additional ramp meter queue lengths increases due to project only traffic at the I-
S/Cannon Road, El Camino Reai/SR-78 and Plaza Drive/SR-78 eastbound on-ramp ramp meters are
expected to be minimal and would be accommodated on existing surface streets without causing
additional congestion.
5.2.3.6 Summary of Impacts
Table S.2-13 provides a summary of the significant impacts associated with the implementation of the
proposed project in the 2010 and 2030 scenarios, and mitigation requirements for each of the identified
impacts. The following provides a brief summary of the conclusions of the traffic analysis.
A. Existing Conditions
Street segments and intersections within the study area currently operate acceptably within the Carlsbad
Growth Management Program circulation performance standard of at least level of service "D" during
peak hours, except at the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-30 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-13
Traffic Impact Summary Table
Int. Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Projed Impacts Mitigation Summary SlgnHicance after Mitigation .
#
2010-Non-projed Improvements -Impacted Intersections
#3 College/Plaza Oceanside LOS Fin PM in Project: Less T -1: Widening of southbound College The changes or alterations are within the
2010with or than significant Boulevard to provide a third southbound responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of
without project thru-lane and widen westbound Plaza Drive Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not
Cumulative: to provide an additional left-turn lane. appear to have adopted a program to
Significant construct such improvements and there
does not appear to be a program to accept
payments in lieu of construction. Due to the
fact that the subject-impacted intersection
is located outside the jurisdiction and
regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad,
these impacts are considered significant
and unmitigable.
#23 ECR/Cannon Carlsbad LOSE in PM in Project: T-2: The developer of the West Village shall The identified improvements mitigate this
2010with or Significant re-stripe northbound El Camino Real after intersection to a level of less than significant.
without project frontage improvements have been installed
Cumulative: along the West Village (as part of the
Significant development of the West Village) to allow
for a shared thru/right turn lane.
Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the
City engineer prior to the recordation of the
first master final map for the West Village.
#28 West Village/ECR Carlsbad LOS Fin AM in Project: T-3: The West Village developer shall add a The identified improvements mitigate this
2010with Significant third southbound lane on El Camino Real intersection to a level of less than significant.
project from Tamarack Ave. to Cannon Rd. This
Cumulative: improvement shall be funded by the
Significant developer of the West Village and may be
subject to reimbursement through formation
of a financing district or other public
improvement funding mechanism.
Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the West Village.
Assumed 2010 Projed-Related Improvements-Not environmental impacts
#14 ECR/Tamarack Carlsbad T -4: The developer of the West Village shall
widen El Camino Real northbound to
provide three thru-lanes and a separate
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-31 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
Int.· lntersecHon JurlsdlcHon ·. . LOS Project Impacts Mitigation Summary SlgJ11ffcance aftet MHigafiori
#
right-tum lane. This improvement shall also
include construction of a southbound
shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Ave.
which is expected to be accomplished
through re-striping. These improvements
shall be funded by the developer of the
West Village. Implementation of this
measure shall be designed and secured as
approved by the City Engineer prior to
recordation of the first master final map for
the West Village.
ECR Widening Carlsbad T-5: The developer of the West Village shall
widen northbound El Camino Real to
provide a right-tum only lane at Tamarack
Ave., and a third northbound thru-lane
along the entire project frontage, and re-
stripe northbound El Camino Real north of
the Tamarack/EI Camino Real intersection to
allow for a transition from three to two lanes
as required. These improvements shall be
funded by the developer of the West
Village. Implementation of this measure shall
be designed and secured as approved by
the City Engineer prior to recordation of the
first master final map for the West Village.
#28 West Village/ECR Carlsbad T -6: The developer of the West Village shall
install a signal and provide a northbound
separate right-tum lane at the intersection of
El Camino Real and the West Village
Driveway entrance. Implementation of this
measure shall be designed and secured as
approved by the City Engineer prior to
recordation of the first master final map for
the West Village.
#25 ECR/Kelly Carlsbad T-7: The developer of the West Village shall
modify the traffic signal and construct a third
northbound lane and the PA 1 driveway and
construction of a shared third southbound
shared thru-right turn lane. These
improvements shall be funded by the
developer of the West Village.
Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the West Village.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-32 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis
Int.
#
Intersection Jurisdiction
Cannon Carlsbad
Widening
College Widening Carlsbad
2030 -Impacted Intersections
# 1 College/Vista Oceanside
Way
#4 College/Lake Oceanside
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
LOS
LOS Fin PM in
2030with or
without project
LOS Fin PM in
2030with or
without project
only if Marron is
extended
Project Impacts
Project: Less
than
significant.
Cumulative:
Significant
Project:
Significant
Cumulative:
Significant
Mitigation Summary
T -8: The developer of the East Village shall
provide frontage improvements along both
sides of Cannon Road and install traffic
signals at the time directed by the City
Engineer at new intersections (intersections
#29. and #30). These improvements shall be
funded by the developer of the East Village.
Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the East Village.
T -9: The developer of the East Village shall
provide frontage improvements along both
sides of College Boulevard. These
improvements shall be funded by the
developer of the East Village.
Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the East Village.
T -10: The mitigation would be to widen the
College Boulevard/Vista Way intersection.
T -11: The mitigation would be to widen the
College Boulevard/Lake Avenue
intersection.
5.2-33
5.2 -Traffic/Circulation
SignHicance after Mitigation
The changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of
Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not
appear to have adopted a program to
construct such improvements and there
does not appear to be a program to accept
payments in lieu of construction. Due to the
fact that the subject-impacted intersection
is located outside the jurisdiction and
regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad.
these impacts are considered significant
and unmitigable.
The changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of
Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not
appear to have adopted a program to
construct such improvements and there
does not appear to be a program to accept
payments in lieu of construction. Due to the
fact that the subject-impacted intersection
is located outside the jurisdiction and
regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad.
these impacts are considered significant
and unmitigable.
April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
Int. Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Project Impacts Mitigation Summary SignHicance after Mitigation
f
#14 ECR/Tamarack Carlsbad LOS F or LOS E in Project: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5 as The identified improvements mitigate this
AM and PM in Significant described above. intersection to a level of less than significant.
2030with or
without project Cumulative:
Significant
#25 ECR/Kelly Carlsbad LOS F in AM and Project: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5 as The identified improvements mitigate this
LOSE in PM in Significant described above. intersection to a level of less than significant.
2030 without
intersection Cumulative:
improvements Significant
#23 ECR/Cannon Carlsbad LOSE in PM in Project: T -12: The developers of the West Village The identified improvements mitigate this
2010with Significant shall make their fair share contribution intersection to a level of less than significant.
project, and through the TIF program toward construction
LOS Fin PM in Cumulative: of a separate right-turn lane from The applicant's contribution of their fair
2030with or Significant northbound El Camino Real to eastbound share through payment of TIF fees represents
without project Cannon Road. This improvement shall be their fair share and mitigates these impacts
only if Cannon installed by the City of Carlsbad or their to a level of insignificance. The City is in the
Reach 4 is designee and funded through the TIF process of updating their TIF program. If this
extended program, when determined by the City to project is not included for funding in the TIF
be needed. Implementation of this measure program. then the impact is significant and
shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad unmitigated in 2030. If sufficient funds are
Engineering Department prior to recordation not made available for the separate right-
of the first master final map for the West turn lane and added southbound left turn
Village. lane. and if Cannon Road Reach 4 is
extended. the project's direct and
Also. the developer of the West Village shall cumulative impacts to this intersection will
construct a second southbound left turn remain significant and unmitigated in 2030.
lane for southbound El Camino Real to
eastbound Cannon Road at the time that
the West Village El Camino Real frontage
improvements and third northbound lane
are constructed. It is anticipated that this
improvement can be accomplished through
re-striping of the standard right-of-way
section. Implementation of this measure
shall be designed and secured as approved
by the City Engineer prior to recordation of
the first master final map for the West Village.
#15 ECR/Faraday Carlsbad LOS E in AM and Project: T T -13: The developers of the East and West The applicant's contribution of their fair
F in PM in 2030 Significant Villages shall make their fair share share through payment of TIF fees represents
with or without contribution toward construction of a their fair share and mitigates these impacts
project Cumulative: westbound right-turn only lane and re-to a level of insignificance. The City is in the
Significant striping in the eastbound direction of a single process of updating their TIF program. If this
left-turn lane, one thru lane. one shared project is included in the TIF program prior to
thru/right-turn lane, and a separate right-turn issuance of buildinQ permits for the East and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-34 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 -Traffic/Circulation
Int. Intersection · ··· Jurls~lction LOS· · '.c · •.• ProJect lt1'Jpacts MHigatiort Summory SlgnHiconce after Mitigation
# ·• .
lane, all of which shall be installed by the West Villages then the impact is considered
City of Carlsbad or their designee when mitigated to a level less than significant. If
determined by the City to be needed. the project is not included for funding in the
Implementation of this measure shall be TIF program, then the impact is significant
verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering and unmitigated in 2030.
Department prior to recordation of the first
master final map for the East and West
Villages, respectively.
#33 PAR/Melrose Carlsbad LOSE in PM in Project: Less T -14: The developers of the East and West The applicant's contribution of their fair
2030 with or than significant Village shall make their fair share share through payment of TIF fees represents
without project contribution toward construction of a fourth their fair share and mitigates these impacts
Cumulative: northbound thru-lane, a separate to a level of insignificance. The City is in the
Significant eastbound right-tum only lane and dual process of updating their TIF program. If this
southbound right-turn only lanes. This project project is included in the TIF program prior to
may be funded through the TIF program. issuance of building permits for the East and
Implementation of this measure shall be West Villages then the impact is considered
verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering mitigated to a level less than significant. If
Department prior to recordation of the first the project is not included for funding in the
master final map for the East and West TIF program, then the impact is significant
Villages, respectively. and unmitigated in 2030.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-35 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
intersections. However, planned roadway improvements would mitigate these levels of service before the
project is developed.
B. Existing Plus Project Conditions
With project traffic added to existing traffic, street segments and intersections both would continue to
operate acceptably and within Growth Management Program circulation performance standards.
C. Year 2010 Conditions
An evaluation of Year 2010 conditions indicates that study area street segments would continue to operate
acceptably and within the Growth Management Program circulation performance standards, so no
mitigation beyond frontage improvements to El Camino Real and Cannon Road would be needed or is
recommended for the short term future. Most evaluated intersections are expected to operate at least at
level of service "D" during peak hours as required by the City's Growth Management Program. Only two
intersections in Carlsbad are at LOS "E" or "F." One intersection in Oceanside is at LOS "F." At all other
locations the intersection significance threshold of no more than two additional seconds of delay at
intersections does not apply. Therefore, project traffic impacts are expected to be less than significant at
study area intersections with levels of service "D" or better (A, B, or C). The following intersections would
require mitigation in order to provide acceptable peak hour operation:
1 . Intersection #3: College Boulevard/Plaza Drive
2. Intersection #23 Cannon Road/EI Camino Real
3. Intersection #28: West Village Driveway/EI Camino Real/Lisa Street
D. Buildout (Year 2030) Conditions
STREET SEGMENTS
All segments evaluated in the traffic analysis are expected to meet the Growth Management Program
criteria of not exceeding level of service "D" during peak hours. No significant project traffic impact is
anticipated in Year 2030 at these locations.
INTERSECTIONS
A majority of the study area intersections are expected to operate at least at level of service "D" during
peak hours as required by the City's Growth Management Program. No significant project traffic impact is
anticipated in Year 2030 at these locations.
The following seven intersections are expected to operate at levels of service "E" or "F" without mitigation:
1. Intersection #1 Vista Way/College Boulevard
2. Intersection #4 College Boulevard/Lake Avenue
3. Intersection # 14: El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-36 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
4. Intersection #25: El Camino Real/Kelly Drive
5. Intersection #23: El Camino Real/Cannon Road
6. Intersection # 15: El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue
7. Intersection #33: Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive
RAMP METERS
The additional ramp meter queue lengths due to project only traffic are expected to be minimal and could
be accommodated on existing ramps and surface streets.
The three lane approaches to the 1-5/Cannon Road, El Camino Reai/SR-78, and Plaza Drive/SR-78
eastbound on-ramp ramp meters provide a lane for ramp meter queues and two lanes for through traffic
so that ramp meter queues would not impede through traffic.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Interstate 5, SR-78, El Camino Real, and Palomar Airport Road are portions of the Regionally Significant
Arterial or Freeway Systems. A Congestion Management Program evaluation was conducted for the study
area street segments and intersections. Intersections and street segments in the study area are expected to
comply with CMP level of service requirements.
The project's addition of traffic to the freeway system has been evaluated according to Regional CMP
Guidelines. Project direct impacts to freeway main lanes and interchange intersection are expected to be
less than significant.
However, segments of 1-5 and SR-78 are expected to have unmitigated cumulative traffic impacts due to
regional growth.
Ramp meter queue lengths increases, due to project only traffic at the 1-5/Cannon Road and El Camino
Reai/SR-78, and Plaza Drive/SR-78 eastbound on-ramp, ramp meters are expected to be minimal and
would be accommodated on existing suiiace streets without causing additional congestion.
The three lane approaches to the 1-5/Cannon Road, El Camino Reai/SR-78, and Plaza Drive/SR-78
eastbound on-ramp ramp meters provide a. lane for ramp meter queues and two lanes for through traffic
so that ramp meter queues would not impede through traffic.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-37 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
5.2.4 Mitigation Measures
5.2.4.1 2010 Non-Project Improvements -Impacted Intersections
T-1 Widening of southbound College Boulevard to provide a third southbound thru-lane and widen
westbound Plaza Drive to provide an additional left-turn lane. The changes or alterations are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not
appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and there does not appear
to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject-
impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of
Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
T-2 The developer of the West Village shall re-stripe northbound El Camino Real after frontage
improvements have been installed along the West Village (as part of the development of the West
Village) to allow for a shared thru/right turn lane. Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the first master
final map for the West Village.
T-3 The West Village developer shall add a third southbound lane on El Camino Real from Tamarack
Avenue to Cannon Rd. This improvement shall be funded by the developer of the West Village
and may be subject to reimbursement through formation of a financing district or other public
improvement funding mechanism. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured
as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West
Village.
5.2 .4.2 Assumed 20 10 Project-Related Improvements-Required of Project
T-4 The developer of the West Village shall widen El Camino Real northbound to provide three thru-
lanes and a separate right-turn lane. This improvement shall also include construction of a
southbound shared thru/right-turn lane at Tamarack Avenue which is expected to be
accomplished through re-striping. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the
West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the
City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
T-5 The developer of the West Village shall widen northbound El Camino Real to provide a right-turn
only lane at Tamarack Avenue, and a third northbound thru-lane along the entire project
frontage, andre-stripe northbound El Camino Real north of the Tamarack Avenue/EI Camino Real
intersection to allow for a transition from three to two lanes as required. These improvements shall
be funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be
designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master
final map for the West Village.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-38 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
T-6 The developer of the West Village shall install a signal and provide a northbound separate right-
turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real and the West Village Driveway entrance.
Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer
prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
T-7 The developer of the West Village shall modify the traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino
Real and Kelly Drive and construct a third northbound lane and the PA 1 driveway and
construction of a shared third southbound shared thru-right turn lane. These improvements shall be
funded by the developer of the West Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed
and secured as approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for
the West Village.
T -8 The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of Cannon
Road and install traffic signals at the time directed by the City Engineer at new intersections
{intersections #29, and #30). These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East
Village. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City
Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village.
T ·9 The developer of the East Village shall provide frontage improvements along both sides of College
Boulevard. These improvements shall be funded by the developer of the East Village.
Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City Engineer
prior to recordation of the first master final map for the East Village.
5.2.4.3 2030 -Impacted Intersections
T-1 0 The mitigation would be to widen the College Boulevard/Vista Way intersection. The changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of
Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and
there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the
fact that the subject-impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory
authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
T -11 The mitigation would be to widen the College Boulevard/Lake A venue intersection. The changes
or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of
Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct such improvements and
there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the
fact that the subject-impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory
authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
T-12 The developers of the West Village shall make their fair share contribution through the TIF program
toward construction of a separate right-turn lane from northbound El Camino Real to eastbound
Cannon Road. This improvement shall be installed by the City of Carlsbad or their designee and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-39 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
funded through the TIF program, when determined by the City to be needed. Implementation of
this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation
of the first master final map for the West Village.
Also, the developer of the West Village shall construct a second southbound left turn lane for
southbound El Camino Real to eastbound Cannon Road at the time that the West Village El
Camino Real frontage improvements and third northbound lane are constructed. It is anticipated
that this improvement can be accomplished through re-striping of the standard right-of-way
section. Implementation of this measure shall be designed and secured as approved by the City
Engineer prior to recordation of the first master final map for the West Village.
T -13 The developers of the East and West Villages shall make their fair share contribution toward
construction of a westbound right-turn only lane and re-striping in the eastbound direction of a
single left-turn lane, one thru lane, one shared thru/right-turn lane, and a separate right-turn lane at
the intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday A venue, all of which shall be installed by the City
of Carlsbad or their designee when determined by the City to be needed. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of
the first master final map for the East and West Villages, respectively.
T -14 The developers of the East and West Village shall make their fair share contribution toward
construction of a fourth northbound thru-lane, a separate eastbound right-turn only lane and dual
southbound right-turn only lanes at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Avenue.
This project may be funded through the TIF program. Implementation of this measure shall be
verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department prior to recordation of the first master final
map for the East and West Villages, respectively.
5.2.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to roadway segments and ramp meter locations have been identified in the Year
2010 and 2030 scenarios.
5.2.5.1 20 10 Intersections
A majority of the study area intersections are expected to operate at least at level of service "D" during
peak hours as required by the City's Growth Management Program. No significant project traffic impact is
anticipated in Year 201 0 at these locations. A significant impact has been identified in the Year 201 0 to the
following three intersections:
College Boulevard/Plaza Drive (Intersection #3)
El Camino Real/Cannon Road (Intersection #23)
West Village Entrance/EI Camino Real (Intersection #28)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-40 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
Implementation of proposed mitigation will reduce the project-level and cumulative impact to these
intersections to a level less than significant; however, in the event that the City of Oceanside does not have
a well-funded program or otherwise refuses to accept a fair share contribution for the College
Boulevard/Plaza Drive intersection, then the intersection will be considered cumulatively significant and
unmitigated in 2010 and 2030.
5.2.5.2 2030 Intersections
A majority of the study area intersections are expected to operate at least at level of service "D" during
peak hours as required by the City's Growth Management Program. No significant project traffic impact is
anticipated in Year 2030 at these locations.
The following seven intersections are expected to operate at levels of service "E" or "F" without mitigation:
Vista Way/College Boulevard (Intersection #1)
College Boulevard/Lake Avenue (Intersection #4)
El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue (Intersection #14)
El Camino Real/Kelly Drive (Intersection #25)
El Camino Real/Cannon Road (Intersection #23)
El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue (Intersection # 15)
Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive {Intersection #33)
Implementation of proposed mitigation will reduce the project-level and cumulative impact to these
intersections to a level less than significant; however, the impacts to the following intersections are
anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable: in the event that the City of Oceanside does not have
a well-funded program or otherwise refuses to accept a fair share contribution for the improvement of the
College Boulevard/Vista Way intersection (Intersection # 1 J or the College Boulevard/Lake Boulevard
Intersection (Intersection #4), then the impact to the intersection will be considered significant and
unmitigated. With respect to Intersections # 15, #23, and #33, the City of Carlsbad is in the process of
updating their TIF program. If these projects are included in the TIF program prior to issuance of building
permits for the East and West Villages then the impacts are considered mitigated to a level of
insignificance. If the projects are not included for funding in the TIF program, then the impacts are
significant and unmitigated in 2030.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-41 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-42 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
5.3 Air Quality
The air quality analysis provided in this section is summarized from the air quality technical report titled "Air
Quality Conformity Assessment, Robertson Ranch East & West Village-Carlsbad CA. ISE Report #02-004b"
(ISE. August 12, 2005 [Revised]), provided in Volume Ill. Appendix C of this EIR.
5.3.1 Existing Conditions
5.3.1.1 Climate
The climate of San Diego County is characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters and is
dominated by a semi-permanent high-pressure cell located over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell
maintains clear skies over the air basin for much of the year.
Within the City of Carlsbad the minimum and maximum overage temperatures are 58 and 70 degrees
Fahrenheit, respectively. Precipitation in the area averages 12 inches annually, 90 percent of which falls
between November and April. Sunshine is common but night and morning cloudiness is common during
the spring and summer. Fog con occur occasionally during the winter.
Local wind and weather conditions on Robertson Ranch ore governed by the interaction of a dominant
onshore-offshore flow within the local terrain. Onshore flow comes up either Agua Hedionda or Batiquitos
Lagoon (or a combination of both) and drains seaward at night. The prevailing wind direction is from the
west-northwest. with on annual mean speed of 8 to l 0 miles per hour.
5.3.1.2 Inversion
The dominant semi-permanent high-pressure cell responsible for mostly clear skies in Son Diego is also
responsible for driving the onshore circulation that helps to create two types of temperature inversions,
subsidence and radiation, that contribute to local air quality degradation.
Subsidence inversions occur during the wormer months, as descending air associated with the Pacific high-
pressure cell comes into contact with cool marine air. This boundary between the two layers of air
represents a temperature inversion that traps pollutants below it. Radiation inversion typically develops on
winter nights. when air near the ground cools by radiation, and the air aloft remains worm. A shallow
inversion layer that con trap pollutants is formed between the two layers.
5.3.1.3 Major Air Pollutants
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the public's health and welfare. The subject pollutants, which ore
monitored by the EPA. ore Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (S02). Nitrogen Dioxide (N02). respirable
!O-micron particulate matter (PM10). sulfates, lead, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs), and visibility reducing particles.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-l April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
Examples of sources and effects of these pollutants are identified below:
1. Carbon Monoxide !COl -Carbon monoxide [CO) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless and toxic
gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO interferes with the blood's
ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO
is a criteria air pollutant.
2. Oxides of Sulfur ISOxl -Oxides of sulfur [SOx) typically are strong smelling, colorless gases that
are formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide [S02) and other sulfur oxides
contribute to the problem of acid deposition. S02 is a criteria pollutant.
3. Nitrogen Oxides INOxl -Nitrogen oxides [NOx) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide
[N02) and nitrous oxide [N20) and are formed when nitrogen [N2) combines with oxygen (02).
Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors
to smog formation and acid deposition. N02 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in
numerous adverse health effects.
4. Ozone (03)-Ozone (03) is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy.
Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere ozone layer as well as at the earth's surface. Ozone at
the earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a criteria air pollutant. It is a
major component of smog.
5. Particulate Matter less than 10 microns IPMwl -PMw is a major air pollutant consisting of tiny
solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles ( 10
microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they
may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PMw also causes visibility reduction and
is a criteria air pollutant.
6. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Reactive Organic Gases, IROGsl -Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are hydrocarbon compounds [any
compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the
ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic.
VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents
used in paints. ROG is similar to VOC and is also a precursor pollutant in forming 03. ROG
consists of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, which are typically the
result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and
NOx react in the presence of light.
5.3.1.4 Regional and Local Conditions
The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the San Diego Air Basin [SDAB). Figure 5.3-1 depicts
the SDAB boundaries within Southern California. The Basin has a transitional-attainment status of federal
standards for 03. The Basin is either in attainment or unclassified for federal standards of CO, S02,
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-2 April2006
Tulare County
Kern County Air
Pollution Control
District
Kern County
c=J Air District Boundaries
Great Basin Unified
Air Pollution Control District
lnyo County NEVADA
CALIFORNIA Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District
San Bernardino
County
Riverside County
San Diego County
Air Pollution Control
District
San Diego
County
Imperial County
Air Pollution Control
District
Imperial County
L ___ _l California County Boundaries
c=J State Boundaries
12.5 25 50
Miles
MEXICO
SOURCE· SanGIS and BRG Consulting Inc 2004 ' .,
-m-m:m.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Air District Boundaries
,-·!IIIIIU;~Urt.
5.3-3
7/ll/05
FIGURE
5.3-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
N02, PM10, and lead. The SDAB is also in attainment of state air quality standards for all pollutants with the
exception of 03 and PM10.
Motor vehicles are the major generators of air pollutant emissions in the vicinity of the project site. El
Camino Real, Cannon Road, College Boulevard, and Tamarack Avenue carry substantial local and
regional traffic emitting exhaust pollutants. Current vehicular emissions generated at the project site are
negligible.
A. Ambient Air Quality
The EPA (under the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, and amended in 1977) established ambient air quality
standards for specific pollutants. This standard is called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
( NAAQS). Individual states have the option to add additional pollutants, require more stringent
compliance, or include different exposure periods, then adopt changes as their own state standards. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) subsequently established the more stringent California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS). Table 5.3-1 compares the California and federal ambient air quality
standards. Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state
standard are considered to be in "non-attainment" status for that pollutant. as is the case in the SDAB for
03 and PM10.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring
stations across the state. Ambient air pollutant concentrations in the SDAB are measured at 10 air-
monitoring stations operated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).
The nearest air quality monitoring stations (Figure 5.3-2), with respect to the project site, are located north of
the City of Oceanside (Camp Pendleton W. B Street station-ARB Station ID 80198) approximately 7.3 miles
from the project site, and within the City of Escondido (East Valley Parkway station-ARB Station ID 80115)
approximately 12.8 miles from the project site. The Escondido station currently records CO, N02, 03, PM10,
PM2.s, outdoor temperature, wind direction, and horizontal wind speed, while the Camp Pendleton station
only measures N02, 03, outdoor temperature, wind direction, and horizontal speed.
In general, Carlsbad and the coastal area enjoy good air quality with the exception of occasional
exceedances of air quality standards for 03, CO, and PM10. Table 5.3-2 depicts the ambient air quality
summary for the Escondido and Camp Pendleton Monitoring Stations for 2002 through 2004. The Escondido
air-monitoring station reported exceedances of the state standards for 03 from 2002 through 2004. Federal
standards were also exceeded for 03 in 2004. The federal and state standards for CO were exceeded in
2003. the state standard for PM10 was exceeded in 2003 and 2004, while the federal standard was
exceeded in 2003. At the Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station, the state standard for 03 was exceeded in
2003 and 2004, and the federal standard was not exceeded. All other criteria pollutants were within both
the state and federal standards. Monitoring for lead was discontinued entirely in 1998.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-4 Apri12006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3 -Air Quality
TABLE 5.3-1
California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.s)
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(N02)
Leadi9J
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
8
8 Hour
Arithmetic
Mean
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
8 Hour
1 Hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
1 Hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
24 Hour
3 Hour
1 Hour
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
12 ugfm3
9.0 ppm (10 mgfm3)
20 ppm (23 mgfm3)
6 ppm (7 mgfm3)
Gravimetric or Bela
Attenuation
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
Non-dispersive Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Atomic Absorption
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
5.3-5
0.053 ppm
(100 ug/m3)
1.5 ugfm3
0.030 ppm
(80 ug/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
Same as Primary
Standard
None
Same as Primary
Standard
Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation and Gravimetic Analysis
Inertial Separation and Granvimetic Analysis
Non-dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR)
Gas Phase Chemiluminescence
High Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotmetry
(Pararosoaniline Method)
April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
Notes:
TABLE 5.3-1
California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (cont'd.)
(1) California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter-PM10, PM2.s, and
visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the
Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code at Regulations.
(2) National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter. and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a
year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10,
the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 hour standard concentration above 150 J.Jgfm3 is equal to or less than one.
For PM 2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S.
EPA for further classification and current federal policies.
(3) Concentrations expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25° C and a reference
pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25° C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers
to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
(4) Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
(5) National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
(6) National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
(7) Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used, but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method"
and must be approved by the EPA.
(8) New federal8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards were promulgated by U.S. EPA on July 18, 1997. Contact U.S. EPA for further classification and current
federal policies.
(9) The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the
implementations of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
Source: California Air Resources Board (7/9/03)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-6 Aplil2006
Pendleton-De Luz
Air Quality Monitoring
Locations
2.5 5 10
Miles
Riverside Count I L__, San Diego County
I I '--1
l_ __ _
i~
~~
-----,
Valley Center
,-
Lakeside
SOURCE· California Air Resources Board SANDAG and BRG Consulting Inc 2004 7!11/05 ' .,
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE -~·m·m· Air Quality Monitoring Station Locations 5.3-2
,-·Unii!Jilr·Ui.._
5.3-7
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis
TABLE 5.3-2
Ambient Air Quality Summary
Ozone
Carbon
Monoxide
Nitrogen
Dioxide
PM10
Ozone
Nitrogen
Dioxide
8 hr
1 hr
Daily
1 hr
8 hr
1 hr
9ppm 9 ppm
0.25 ppm N/A
50 ~-tg/m3 150
0.25 ppm N/A
Notes: Exceedances are bolded; N/A =Not Applicable
0.081
3.85 10.64 3.56
0.084 0.135 0.078
50 179 58.0
0.109 0.095 0.099
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB) ADAM Ambient Air Quality Inventory, 5/05.
B. Sensitive Receptors
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
5
0 0
5.3-Air Quality
N/A N/A
0 0
0
N/A N/A
0
N/A
2
0
N/A
0
0
1
N/A N/A N/A
High concentrations of air pollutants pose health hazards for the general population. but particularly for the
young, the elderly and the sick. Typical health problems attributed to smog include respiratory ailments,
eye and throat irritations, headaches, coughing, and chest discomfort. Currently, no sensitive receptors
such as schools, parks, hospitals, convalescent homes, or nursing homes are located within or in immediate
proximity to the project site. However, the Rancho Carlsbad community, a majority of which is occupied
by retired and/or elderly persons, is located immediately south of the site. Other land uses surrounding the
project site consist of Tamarack Avenue to the west, El Camino Real to the south, residential dwelling units
west of Tamarack Avenue and south of El Camino Real, residential dwelling units north of the project site,
and open space and agricultural uses to the east.
The project also proposes school and park uses, which are considered sensitive receptors. These uses will
be located within P A's 12, 13 and 14.
5.3.1.5 Regional Air Quality Strategy Plan
The continued violations of NAAQS in the SDAB, particularly for 03 in inland foothill areas, requires that a
plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San
Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS)
developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
A plan to meet the federal standard for 03 was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991
state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment
areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9 through 19 in
1994, and was forwarded to the EPA for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project is related to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. If a proposed project is consistent with the
applicable General Plan of the jurisdiction where the project is located, then the project presumably has
been anticipated within the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the
project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. If the relocation or change of vehicular
emission patterns from a proposed project would not create any further unacceptable microscale impacts
immediately adjacent to the proposed project area, then the project would have a less than significant air
quality impact.
5.3.1.6 City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Final Master EIR
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Final Master EIR identifies various air quality mitigation measures
(which are also General Plan policies) that should be applied to future land use planning phases and
construction phases of development projects within the City of Carlsbad. These mitigation measures are
derived from General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. The mitigation measures address six areas of
concern related to air quality planning: 1) Planned Land Use Pattern; 2) Transportation Planning; 3)
Alternate Modes of Transportation; 4) Regional Cooperation; 5) Energy Conservation; and 6) Construction-
Related Impacts. General Plan Master EIR mitigation measures that will be implemented through project
design and during construction of the proposed project are identified below. Given the project site
location and constraints, project design and construction has incorporated aspects of these measures as
feasible. In addition, many of these measures are policy level measures designed to provide land use
planning guidance for the entire City of Carlsbad, not just the proposed project.
A. Planned Land Use Pattern
Measure 1:
Measure 2:
Development applications should contribute to and extend existing systems of foot or
bicycle paths, equestrian trails, and the greenbelts provided for in the Circulation, Parks
and Recreation and Open Space Elements (Land Use Element, Overall land Use Pattern,
C.7.5.)
Development should provide for safe, easy pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby
community centers, parks, schools, points of interest, major transportation corridors,
neighborhood commercial centers, and the proposed Carlsbad Trail System. (Combined
from Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Pattern, C.7.7; Residential, C.12; Commercial
C.2.e.)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
Measure 3:
Measure 4:
Measure 6:
Measure 7:
Provide for a sufficient diversity of land uses so that schools, parks and recreational areas,
churches and neighborhood shopping centers are available in close proximity to each
resident of the City. [Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Pattern, C.6.)
Locate multi-family uses near commercial centers, employment centers, and major
transportation corridors. [Land Use Element, Residential, C.6.)
Require new master planned developments and residential specific plans of over 1 00
acres to provide usable acres to be designated for community facilities such as daycare,
worship, youth and senior citizen activities. [Land Use Element, Residential, C.13.)
Comprehensively design all commercial centers to be easily accessible by pedestrians,
bicyclists, and automobiles to nearby residential developments. [Land Use Element,
Commercial, C.3.)
B. Transportation Planning
Measure 19:
Measure 20:
Measure 21:
Measure 23:
Require new development to comply with the adopted [September 23, 1986) Growth
Management performance standards for circulation facilities. (Circulation Element, Streets
and Traffic Control. C.1.)
Minimize the number of access points to major and prime arterials to enhance the
functioning of these streets as throughways. [Circulation Element, Streets and Traffic
Control, C.4.)
Provide traffic control devices along all roadway segments and at intersections and
interconnect and synchronize the operation of traffic signals along arterial streets,
whenever feasible. [Circulation Element, Streets and Traffic Control, C.7 and C.11.)
Encourage the inclusion of onsite or nearby amenities such as day care facilities, dry
cleaners and convenience stores within residential and industrial projects to reduce
vehicular trips. [Circulation Element, Regional Circulation Considerations, C.2.)
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Measure 24:
Measure 25:
Encourage the construction of sidewalks along all public roadways with social emphasis
given to collectors, arterials, and areas with high pedestrian traffic generators such as
schools, commercial centers, transportation facilities, public buildings, beaches and parks.
[Circulation Element. Alternate Modes of Transportation, C.1.)
Encourage pedestrian circulation in commercial areas through the provision of convenient
parking facilities, increased sidewalk width, pedestrian-oriented building design,
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-10 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
Measure 26:
Measure 27:
landscaping, street lighting and street furniture. (Circulation Element, Alternate Mode of
Transportation, C.2.)
Design pedestrian spaces and circulation in relationship to land uses and available parking
for all new construction and redevelopment projects. (Circulation Element, Alternate
Modes of Transportation, C.3.)
Link public sidewalks to the network of public and private trail systems. (Circulation
Element, Alternate Modes of Transportation C.4.)
D. Energy Conservation
Measure 47: The City will continue to implement energy conservation measures in new housing
development through State Building Code, Title 24 regulations, and solar orientation of
major subdivisions through Title 20, Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. (Housing Element,
Program 5.1 .)
E. Construction-Related Impacts
Measure 48:
5.3.2
The City shall monitor all construction to ensure that proper steps are taken by developers
to reduce short-term construction related impacts to air resources. During clearing,
grading, earth moving or excavation developers shall:
Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust
preventive measures;
Maintain equipment engines in proper tune;
Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown;
Spread soil binders;
• Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated
soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind;
Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares;
• Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp
enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site;
Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment.
Thresholds For Determining Significance
For purposes of this EIR, a significant air quality impact would occur if implementation of the proposed
project would:
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-11 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
Conflict or obstruct the implementation of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or
applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP);
Result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation;
Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of Particulate Matter Less then 10 Microns (PM10)
or exceed quantitative thresholds for Ozone (03) precursor, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs), since San Diego County is presently in non-attainment for the
Federal and/or State Ambient Air Quality Standards for 03 and PM 10:
Expose sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers) to
substantia/ pollutant concentrations;
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantia/ number of people.
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District [SDAPCD) established screening level thresholds for air quality
emissions (Rules 20.1 et seq.). In the absence of Guidelines of Significance adopted by the County of San
Diego, these screening thresholds are considered CEQA Thresholds of Significance. Applicable standards
currently enforced by the County of San Diego are shown quantitatively in Table 5.3-3. No differentiation is
made between construction and operational emission thresholds. These standards are compatible with
those utilized elsewhere in the State (such as South Coast Air Quality Management District standards, etc.).
In addition, under the General Conformity Rule, the EPA has developed a set of thresholds for all proposed
federal actions in a non-attainment area for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts. It should be
noted that the State (i.e., SDAPCD) standards are equal or more stringent than the Federal Clean Air
standards. Development of the proposed project would therefore fall under the stricter SDA PCD
guidelines.
TABLE 5.3-3
Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts
Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs) 551 11/75121 50
250 50
100 100
Notes 1. Threshold for VOCs based on the threshold of significance for reactive organic gases from Chapter 6 of the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
2. Threshold for VOC's in the eastern portion of the County based on the threshold of significance for reactive organic gases
from Chapter 6 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook of the Southeast Desert Air Basin.
3. Thresholds are applicable for either construction or operational phases of a project action.
Source: SDAPCD Rule 1501. 20.2(d)(2), 1995; EPA 40CFR93. 1993.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-12 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
5.3.2.1 Diesel Toxic Risk Thresholds
There are inherent uncertainties in risk assessment with regard to the identification of compounds as
causing cancer or other health effects in humans, the cancer potencies and Reference Exposure Levels
(RELs) of compounds, and the exposure that individuals receive. It is common practice to use conservative
(health protective) assumptions with respect to uncertain parameters. The uncertainties and conservative
assumptions must be considered when evaluating the results of risk assessments.
There is debate as to the appropriate levels of risk assigned to diesel particulates. The USEPA has not yet
declared diesel particulates as a toxic air contaminant. The SDAPCD typically applies a risk level of one in
a million per microgram per cubic meter. For purposes of the air quality analysis for the project, and to be
consistent with the approaches used for other toxic pollutants, a functional comparison with an SDAPCD-
recommended level of one in a million per microgram per cubic meter (IJgfm3) of diesel pollutants has
been examined.
5.3.2.2 Fixed Source Emission Thresholds
In 1988, the EPA adopted New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for woodstoves and small wood
burning devices based upon Particulate Emission levels (the largest emitted criteria pollutant). It was noted
that fireplaces and woodstoves are not equivalent devices since a typical fireplace produces much more
particulate matter (PM10) per hour in a typical evening's use than a typical woodstove because of the
fireplace's higher burn rate (amount of wood burned per hour). The maximum allowable PM10 emission
levels (based upon SDAPCD Rule 1501, 20.2(d)(2), 1995 and EPA 40CFR93, 1993) for the Robertson Ranch
residential development due to combined fireplace operation within each of the 1 ,383 residential units is
100 pounds per day (Table 5.3-3).
5.3.3 Environmental Impact
The analysis criteria for air quality impacts are based upon the approach recommended by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook. The handbook establishes
aggregate emission calculations for determining the potential significance of a proposed action. Refer to
the Air Quality Conformity Assessment and Onsite Blasting Ground Vibration Assessment provided in
Appendix C (Volume Ill of this EIR) for a more detailed discussion of the analysis methodology.
5.3.3.1 Construction Impacts
Air emissions are generated during construction activities associated with the development of a project
including rough grading, underground utility construction, and paving activities. During site grading,
tailpipe emissions are generated by construction related vehicles such as graders, bulldozers, water trucks,
backhoes, rollers, loaders, rock crushing equipment, and construction worker's vehicles. Emissions are also
generated in the form of dust and PMw as a result of soil disturbance, blasting to excavate granitic material
within the East Village portion of the project site, and subsequent rock crushing activity on-site.
Construction emissions vary from day-to-day depending on the number of workers, number and types of
active heavy-duty vehicles and equipment, level of activity, the prevailing meteorological conditions, and
the length over which these activities occur.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-13 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
A. Grading and Site Preparation
The estimated construction equipment exhaust emissions are provided below in Table 5.3-4 for the typical
construction activities identified at the project site. The construction activities would roughly be divided
into three phases: Rough Grading, Underground Utility Construction and Surface Paving.
During the initial site-grading phase of project site development, blasting will be required at four locations,
primarily within the East Village and one area will be used for rock crushing to process the extracted
material. Figure 5.3-3 depicts the blasting locations and the area proposed for rock crushing. The closest
separation distance between any rock crushing activity and a sensitive receptor will be a minimum of 300
feet. There is approximately 30,000 cubic yards of granitic rock material within the East Village that would
require blasting in order to excavate the material. Between 1 0,000 and 15,000 cubic yards of granitic rock
could be excavated per blast. Therefore, the number of blasts would be minimal. As part of the blasting
process, blast control measures for ground motion would be in effect and would, by their nature, preclude
excessive airborne dust emissions. Therefore, blasting would not contribute substantially toward
construction-generated emissions of PM10. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptor is located
approximately 400 feet north of the blasting locations.
As shown in Table 5.3-4, the proposed project would result in a short-term impact to localized air quality as
a result of NOx exceedance of the SDAPCD threshold during the construction activities. Implementation of
Mitigations Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 will reduce this impact to a level less than significant. It should be
noted that the proposed Robertson Ranch development is a phased construction plan lasting up to 10
years and the specific construction activities would not occur simultaneously, but rather in an incremental
manner within each planning area.
The City's General Plan Master EIR identifies measures to minimize and reduce construction vehicle related
air pollutant emissions. As discussed earlier in this air quality section, these include maintaining equipment
engines in proper tune and using low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are consistent with, and implement these measures.
B. Earthwork Activities
Earthwork activities have the potential of generating fugitive dust (PM10) emissions during rough grading
and finish grading activities. These emissions of PM10 are in addition to the emission levels generated by
construction vehicles. During the rough grading and earthwork activities, the construction vehicles are
estimated to emit 26.74 pounds per day of PM10.
EAST VILLAGE
The Robertson Ranch East Village would have a total earthwork quantity of 1,007,500 tons of material
moved over the course of the proposed grading. Of the 1 ,007,500 tons of material to be moved, roughly
60 percent of the working weight is estimated to be capable of generating PM10, since the remaining
quantity is assumed to be composed of rocky material not capable of being reducible to particles small
enough to be of concern. Therefore, in the East Village, the working weight of earthwork material capable
of generating some amount of PM10 would be approximately 604,500 tons.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-14 April2006
I 'I I I 11!1 I! I I i
7/21/05
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE.
Rock Blasting and Rock Crushing Areas 5.3-3
5.3-15
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
TABLE 5.3-4
Construction Equipment Emissions
Dozer-DB Cat 96.00 140.80 12.80 6.40 19.20
Loader 24.30 35.64 3.24 1.62
Water Truck 33.60 2
24.00 24.00 2.40 1.20 3.60
110.88 15.12 10.08
26.74
327.34 ..
354.088
100.00 55.00
Yes No Yes No
Und Construction Emissions***
Track Backhoe 45.00 66.00 6.00 3.00 9.00
Loader 32.40 47.52 2.16 6.48
Concrete Truck 2.81 9.84 0.94 0.70 .94
Notes:
4.05 14.18 1.35 1.01 1.35
84.26 137.54 12.61 6.88 17.77
550.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 55.00
NO NO NO NO NO
Pavi Emissions****
20.25 70.88 6.75 5.06 75
2.94 9.66 0.84 0.42 0.42
8.82 25.20 2.52 1.26
32.01 105.74 10.11 6.74
550.00 250.00 100.00
No No No No No
• = Rough Grading Activities include clearing, grubbing, blasting and rock crushing, and general pad and road alignment
formation. This typically consists of three distinct phases: mobilization, scraper hauls/finishing, and additional site finishing
work. These emissions are for vehicle operations only.
•• = Please refer to the Earthwork Activities discussion provided in this section. This section provides a discussion of dust levels
(PM10) generated during surface grading in the West and East Villages. This analysis determined that 205.21 pounds per
day of PM10 would be generated in the West Village during surface grading and 122.13 pounds per day of PM10 would be
generated during surface grading in the East Village. These levels of PM1o are in addition to the levels of PM10 emitted by
construction vehicles during rough grading, underground utility construction. and paving. This results in a total PM10
emission level of 354.08 pounds per day during rough grading and earthwork activities.
'lltility Construction includes general trench-work, pipe laying with associated base material and cover. and ancillary
earthwork required to facilitate placement of sewer lift stations, manholes, etc. This is typically performed as a single
phase.
•••• =Paving Activities would include the movement of any remaining material as well as necessary curb and gutter work, road
base material placement and blacktop. This is typically performed as a single phase.
Source: ISE. 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-17 Apri12006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
The proposed earthwork operations on the East Village portion of the project site would occur over a total
of 1 SO working days. The average earthwork movement per day would be 604,SOO tons/1 SO working days
or 4,030 tons/day. The total amount of PM10 generation has been estimated at 98 pounds of PM10
generated per day, which is slightly below the 100 pounds per day threshold established by SDAPCD.
However, the emissions would exceed the significance threshold when combined with West Village
emissions as discussed below. Therefore, PM10 impacts associated with earthmoving activities for the East
Village would result in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would
reduce the impact to a level less than significant.
WEST VILLAGE
The West Village will have a total earthwork quantity of 1 ,S26,000 (1 ,983,800 tons) cubic-yards of material
moved over the course of the grading phase of development. Of the 1 ,S26,000 cubic yards of material to
be moved, it is estimated that roughly 60 percent of the working weight would be capable of generating
PM10 (the remaining quantity is assumed to be composed of rocky material not capable of being reducible
to particles small enough to be of concern). Therefore, the working weight of earthwork material capable
of generating some amount of PM10 would be 1,190,280 tons.
The proposed earthwork operations on the West Village site would occur over a total of 22S working days.
The average earthwork movement per day would be 1,190,280 tons/22S working days or S,290 tons/day.
The total amount of PM10 generation has been estimated at 128.76 pounds per day, which is above the 100
pounds per day threshold established by SDAPCD. Therefore, PM10 impacts associated with earthmoving
activities in the West Village would result in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the impact to a level less than significant.
Table S.3-4 summarizes the PM10 pollutant emissions estimated to be generated during rough grading and
earthwork activities on the project site. Total PM10 emissions estimated to be emitted during these activities
is 3S4.08 pounds per day (construction vehicles-26.74 pounds per day and fugitive dust emissions-327.34
pounds per day).
C. Diesel Related Toxic Emissions
The proposed Robertson Ranch has a maximum working area of roughly 398 acres. Based upon the
construction equipment emission levels identified in Table S.3-4, the expected diesel-fired construction
emission concentrations, based on the SCREEN3 modeling, are shown in Table S.3-S. The SCREEN3
methodology essentially applies to all of the diesel emissions over the project site and provides a worst-case
assessment of the potential impacts to sensitive receptors. Although all stable criteria pollutants are
provided, it should be noted that for cancer-risk potential, only PM10 is the single contributing factor. A
detailed modeling methodology is provided in Appendix C (Volume Ill of this EIR). Based upon the model
results, all criteria pollutants are estimated to be below the SDAPCD-recommended level of one in a million
per 1-1g/m3 (i.e., all risk levels less than 1.0). Therefore, no significant impact associated with diesel-related
toxic emissions is anticipated.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-18 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
TABLE 5.3-5
SCREEN3 Predicted Diesel-Fired Emission Concentrations
Notes: Diesel risk calculated using: Risk(%)= (300x10-• x MEFAC) x 100 = 300x1D-' x EMFAC, based upon ARB 1999 Staff Report from the
Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Diesel Taxies inhaled in a 70-year lifetime.
Conversion Factors !approximate):
Source: ISE. 2004.
CO: 1 ppm = 1,150 ug/m3 @ 25 deg-C STP
NOx: 1 ppm = 1,880 ug/m3 @ 25 deg-C STP
SOx: 1 ppm = 2,620 ug/m3 @ 25 deg-C STP
PM10: 1 ppm = 1 g/m3 (solid)
5.3.3.2 Operation Impacts
A. Vehicular Emission Levels
Motor vehicles are the primary source of air emissions associated with the proposed project. Typically,
residential, commercial. educational, recreational. and open space land uses do not emit significant point-
source levels of air pollutant emissions. Rather, vehicular trips generated by these land uses contribute the
majority of air pollutant emissions.
The project is estimated to have a total worst-case trip generation level of 17,596 average daily trips [Ao:Ts}
based upon the aggregate trip generation produced by the residential, commercial, community facility,
school and park uses. The project site is primarily undeveloped; although it contains two residences, and is
used for agricultural production. These existing uses generate minimal ADTs and associated vehicular
emissions. Table 5.3-6 provides the estimated vehicular pollutant emission levels at buildout of the
proposed project.
The combined pollutant emission levels from the East and West Villages are projected to exceed the
thresholds established by the SDAPCD by 1,141.2 pounds/day for CO, 205.7 pounds/day for NOx, and 11.4
pounds/day for ROGs. Therefore, daily mobile source emissions associated from the proposed project at
buildout would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 would
reduce the emission levels to the extent feasible. However the impact is considered significant and
unavoidable, based on current significance threshold standards and based on the current non-attainment
status of the San Diego Air Basin. It should also be noted that development of the proposed project will be
phased over an approximately 1 0-year period; therefore, these emission levels are projected to develop
incrementally.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-19 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis
Heavy Duty
Trucks
Buses
3,414
1,126
827
TABLE 5.3-6
Projected Mobile Emissions
366.5 59.2 0.3
100.9 32.7 0.2
124.1 220.9 2.6
0.0 0.0
Notes: Assumes a 10-mile trip distance per vehicle. SDAPCD air basin. Wintertime conditions (so• F).
Source: ISE, 2005
5.3-Air Quality
1.0 11.4
0.4 3.9
3.7 10.4
0.0
As discussed in Section 5.3.1 .6, the City's General Plan and General Plan Master EIR identify measures to
minimize and reduce vehicular air emissions. The proposed project also implements these previously
adopted mitigation measures. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan provides comprehensive trail linkages to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle transport between land uses (i.e., park and residential, residential and
commercial). As proposed, the trail system will connect with off-site trails planned as part of the Carlsbad
Trail System. The project is a "self-contained" community that provides employment. recreation,
community facilities, and shopping within close proximity to residential uses. The Robertson Ranch Master
Plan also proposes a community facility land use that would allow for daycare, church and community
center types of activities. The project proposes two access points to the primary arterial (EI Camino Real)
adjacent to the project site, which will serve to maintain the ongoing function of this throughway.
Continued implementation of the General Plan Master EIR air quality mitigation measures and
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 will reduce the impact of mobile emissions to the maximum
extent feasible. In addition, compliance with South Coast Air Quality management District (SCAQMD) Rule
2022 (on-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options) may also reduce vehicle emissions from planned
employment areas. However, the CO, NOx, and ROG mobile emissions estimated to be generated by the
proposed project are considered significant and unavoidable, as the emissions will exceed current
significance threshold standards and based on the current non-attainment status of the San Diego Air
Basin.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-20 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
B. CO "Hotspots"
Development of the proposed project has the potential to increase the exposure of sensitive receptors to
carbon monoxide (CO) levels in excess of state and federal standards and is considered to be a primary
concern. These hotspots typically occur in areas where vehicles idle and/or when wind speeds are low.
These hotspots occur mostly in the early morning hours when winds are stagnant, temperatures are
relatively low, and ambient CO concentrations are elevated.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District's California LINE Source Dispersion Model, version 4
(Coline 4) was used to predict CO concentrations from idling vehicles at 100 feet from the road centerline
of roadways that would serve the project site, during the predicted peak hour traffic volume for the
ultimate build out scenario. The results of the analysis indicate that no roadway segment would create a
CO "hotspot" above 2.2 ppm for the 1-hour concentration levels and 2.0 ppm for the 8-hour concentration
level. These emission levels are well below the 1-hour (20 ppm) and 8-hour (9 ppm) state standards.
Therefore, project generated traffic would not contribute toward a CO "hotspot" impact.
C. Odor
The inhalation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) causes smell sensations in humans. There are four
primary ways in which these odors can affect human health:
VOCs can produce toxicological effects;
• The odorant compounds can cause irritations in the eye, nose, and throat;
• VOCs can stimulate sensory nerves that can cause potentially harmful health effects; and,
• The exposure to perceived unpleasant odors can stimulate negative cognitive and emotional
responses based on previous experiences with such odors.
Development of the proposed project site could generate trace amounts (less than 1 1Jgfm3) of substances
that are known to produce odorous conditions. However, the sources of odor generation due to the
project (such as diesel emissions due to construction, roofing material application, etc.) are not expected
to be significant because the distance of sensitive receptors would be great enough to preclude the
detection of the produced odors. The nearest sensitive receptors are existing residential dwelling units
located approximately 150 feet north of Planning Area 9. Also, any odor generation would be intermittent,
would terminate upon completion of the construction phase of the project, and would occur incrementally
over the 1 0-year development phasing of the project. ;\s a result, no significant odor impacts would result
from tho implementation of the proposed project.lmplementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would
ensure no significant VOC impact would result from the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AQ-5
requires the use of zero emission VOC paints for all architectural coatings within the proposed Master Plan
development.
D. Fixed Source Emissions
Fixed source emissions within the project site would consist of fireplace emissions from the residential
dwellings and small residential uses, such as lawn mowers and barbeques, which would be classified as
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-21 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
non-significant emission sources. These sources have been quantified to the maximum extent possible with
impact potential assessed accordingly.
The average emission level, considered reasonable based upon the variation of wood types, material
combustion rates, and end-user heating requirements, was found to be approximately 53 grams of PMw
per hour for a normal fireplace utilization rate.
If all the wood-burning fireplaces within the project area were running simultaneously (a highly improbable,
but worst-case condition). and assuming the maximum 1 ,383 units are constructed, 73,299 grams (73.3
kilograms) or 161.3 pounds of PM10 would be generated per hour. A more probable 25 percent utilization
rate (345 homes) would still generate 40 pounds of PMw per hour and would exceed the allowable
threshold in a little over three hours. Therefore, the potential for PMw emissions generated from residential
wood-burning fireplaces, under worst-case circumstances, is considered a significant air quality impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 would reduce this impact to a level less than
significant.
5.3.3.3 Air Quality Management Plan
Section 15125(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. The
Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state
and federal ambient air quality standards. The CARB provides criteria for determining whether a project
conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the plan consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
Does the project incorporate all feasible and available air quality control measures?
The project area is located within the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a
regional air quality plan is being implemented. As required by Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4,
and as discussed in Section 5.3. 1 .6, all feasible mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the future
land use plans of the project site if a significant air quality impact has been identified. The project involves
a General Plan Amendment to rearrange land uses on-site; however, the project is consistent with the
growth assumptions of the City's General Plan Master Final EIR and Growth Management Plan. As such,
the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan. It is anticipated that the latest SANDAG forecast
(Series 9 or 2020) will be used as the basis for the next SIP Revision. If population grows at the rate
anticipated by SANDAG's growth forecasts and any future SIP Revision project attainment of air quality
standards, then no significant impact would occur.
5.3.3.4 Summary of Significant Impacts
The proposed project will result in a short-term construction related air quality impact. The impact is
considered significant and mitigation is required. The proposed project will also result in a long-term CO,
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-22 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
NOx, and ROG air quality impact, as a result of vehicular generated emissions. Mitigation is proposed
below to mitigate the impact to the extent feasible; however, the long-term air quality impact as a result of
mobile emissions is anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable.
5.3.4 Mitigation Measures
A. Construction Impacts
AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a construction dust abatement management program
shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department on establishment of the
program, and periodic inspection during grading.
Off-Road Mobile Source PM ro Emission Reduction
At a minimum, water active sites twice daily.
Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
paved roads (recommended water sweepers with reclaimed water}.
Fine Particulate Matter (PM ro) Emission Reduction
In disturbed areas, replace ground cover as quickly as possible.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders according to manufactures'
specification to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, and dirt} with five percent silt content.
• During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle
movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should
include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever the winds exceed 15 mph.
Reclaimed water shall be used, as feasible.
Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 25 mph.
• Builders and/or contractors shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control
District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish
grading for the structure.
Paved Roads
At a minimum, sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent streets.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain
at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-23 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Section 23114.
Gravel pads (construction entrances) must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking
of mud onto public streets.
Unpaved Roads
Apply water a minimum of three times daily to all unpaved roads, parking and staging areas.
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less.
AQ-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an off-road and on-road mobile source emission reduction
program shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad for approval. Implementation of
this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department on establishment of
the program, and periodic inspection during construction of the project.
Off-Road Mobile Source NOx Emission Reduction
Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally
mandated "clean" diesel engines) shall be utilized wherever feasible.
• The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size.
The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through
efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical numbers are operating
at any one time.
Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer's specifications.
Construction equipment operating onsite shall be equipped with two to four degree engine
timing retard or pre-combustion chamber engines.
Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment. if feasible.
Diesel catalytic converters shall be installed, if available.
Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators.
On-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction
Trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ratio (A VR) for construction employees.
By encouraging an A VR of 1 .5, the criteria pollutant emissions identified would effectively be
reduced by roughly 33 percent.
Construction worker trips shall be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch
onsite.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-24 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
B. Operational Impacts
AQ-3 Prior to approval of site development plans for PA ll, the City shall assure that all of the
operational mitigation measures identified below are identified and included as part of the project
development plans, as applicable. These measures shall be implemented by the project
applicant of each individual project when development plans are proposed, and shall be verified ·
by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
The City shall recommended that the proposed surrounding commercial facilities which
incorporate gas stations utilize pumps dispensing oxygenated gasoline (especially during
winter months, typically taken as November through February inclusive) in an effort to reduce
overall CO emissions within the air basin due to traffic traveling to and from the project site. In
addition, the City shall recommend that workers at surrounding commercial facilities
participate in ride-share programs and or seek alternate forms of transportation to the site.
Future onsite commercial land uses shall implement shuttle services for their employees and
patrons, as applicable.
Future project specific developments shall implement design measures that promote the use
of alternative modes of transportation, such as:
Mixed-use development (combine residential, retail, employment, and commercial).
Sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings; showers and locker rooms; sheltered transit
stops; theft-proof well-lighted bicycle storage facilities with convenient access to building
entrance; carpools and vanpools.
Onsite services to reduce need for offsite travel such as: child care; telecommute center;
retail stores; postal machines; and automatic teller machines.
Commercial and retail businesses shall schedule operations during off-peak travel times;
adjust business hours; and allow alternative work schedules, telecommuting.
Provide preferential parking for carpool/vanpool vehicles.
Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc.
Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and
adjacent development.
Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements.
• Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles.
Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting, and built-in energy efficient
appliances.
Use double-paned windows.
Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-25 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.3-Air Quality
AQ-4 Gas-burning "fireplaces," which would not be subject to the NSPS particulate emission requirements
shall be required for residential units that have fireplaces. This requirement shall be shown on
building plans and verified prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Building and Planning Departments.
AQ-5 Zero emission VOC paints shall be utilized for all architectural coatings within the proposed Master
Plan development.
5.3.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the short-term construction related
air quality impact to a level less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4, as well as previously identified General Plan Master
EIR mitigation measures, would reduce the proposed project's long-term CO, NOx, and ROG air quality
impact, as a result of vehicular generated emissions to the extent feasible; however, the CO, NOx, and
ROG air quality impact is anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-5 would ensure only zero emission VOC paints are used for
architectural coatings within the proposed Master Plan development thus no significant VOC emissions
would be released from the proposed project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.3-26 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
5.4 Noise
The noise analysis provided in this section is summarized from the technical report titled "Acoustical Site
Assessment, Robertson Ranch East & West Village-Carlsbad. CA. ISE Report #02-004c" (IS E. August 12, 2005
Revised), "Onsite Blasting Ground Vibration Assessment Robertson Ranch East & West Village-Carlsbad,
CA. ISE Report #02-004d" (ISE, May 4, Revised). and "Preliminary Wall Design Assessment Robertson Ranch
East & West Village-Carlsbad, CA. ISE Report #02-004e (ISE, August 19, 2005). These reports are provided in
Volume Ill, Appendix D of this EIR.
5.4.1 Existing Conditions
The standard unit of measurement of noise is the decibel (dB). The decibel measurement is logarithmic;
meaning each increase in one decibel is a tenfold increase in the level of noise. A sound level of zero "0"
dB is the threshold of human hearing. This level would be barely audible to a human of normal hearing
under extreme silent listening conditions. Typically, the quietest environmental conditions (rural areas with
extensive shielding) yield sound levels of approximately 20 dB. Normal speech has a sound level of
approximately 60 dB. Sound levels above 120 dB roughly correspond to the threshold of pain and would
be associated with sources such as jet engine noise or pneumatic equipment. The minimum change in
sound level that the human ear can detect is approximately 3 dB. A change in sound level of 10 dB is
usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the sounds loudness. A change in
sound level of 1 0 dB actually represents an approximate 90 percent change in the sound intensity, but only
about a 50 percent change in the perceived loudness.
Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent
rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The method commonly used to quantify
environmental sounds consists of determining all of the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting
system that reflects the nonlinear response characteristics of the human ear. This is called "A" weighting,
and the decibel level measured is called the A-weighted sound level (or dBA). In practice. the level of a
noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the
decibel curve.
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the A-weighted decibel. The City of Carlsbad uses the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) scale for land use/noise compatibility assessment. The CNEL is a
time-weighted noise measurement scale that represents the average noise level over a 24-hour period,
and is based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise occurring during
certain noise-sensitive time periods is given greater significance. In the calculation of CNEL, noise that
occurs during the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB and a 10 dB weighting during
the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).
The City of Carlsbad also uses the Leq scale to measure community noise levels. The Leq scale represents
the average energy noise level over a sample period of time. The Leq represents the decibel sound level
that would contain the same amount of energy, as a fluctuating sound level over the sample time period.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
5.4. 1. 1 City of Carlsbad General Plan-Noise Element
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element identifies and defines existing and future environmental
noise levels from sources of noise within or adjacent to the City of Carlsbad; establishes goals, objectives
and policies to address these impacts, and provides action programs to implement these goals, objectives
and policies. Goals, objectives and implementing policies and action programs applicable to the
proposed project include:
Land Use Goal
A City where land uses are not significantly impacted by noise.
A City which controls mobile sources of noise to help assure that mobile noise sources do not
substantially contribute to the noise environment.
Objective
To achieve noise compatibility between land uses through the land use planning/development
review process.
To actively control mobile noise violations.
Circulation Goal
To provide a roadway system that does not subject surrounding land uses to significantly adverse
noise levels.
Circulation Objective
To design and manage all roadways to maintain acceptable noise levels.
Airport Goal
City that achieves long-term compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses.
Airport Objective
To minimize impacts on City residents, the City has planned for non-residential land uses within the 65
dBA Noise Contour of McClellan-Palomar Airport.
5.4.1.2 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual
The following City of Carlsbad noise standards are applicable to the proposed project. These standards
are defined in the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual [City of Carlsbad, 1995).
A. Exterior and Interior Residential Noise Standards
Sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the acceptable exterior noise level to which residential uses must be mitigated,
except for areas impacted by the McClellan-Palomar Airport, which must be mitigated to a 65 dBA CNEL
exterior noise level.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-2 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
According to City standards, interior noise levels for all residential units must be mitigated to a 45 dBA CNEL
level when openings to the exterior of the residence are closed. If openings are required to be closed to
meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
B. Exterior and Interior Commercial/Industrial Noise Standards
Exterior CNEL levels between 65 and 75 dBA are considered "conditionally acceptable" for office, business
commercial, planned industrial and professional land uses. For general commercial and industrial uses, a
maximum interior noise level of 65 dBA is acceptable during the normal hours of operation and 55 dBA is
acceptable for general office and commercial land uses.
C. Exterior and Interior Community Facilities Noise Standards
A noise level of 60 to 65 dBA CNEL is considered "conditionally acceptable" for community facilities (as
defined in the Noise Guidelines Manual) such as schools, libraries, playgrounds, and neighborhood parks. A
maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA is acceptable for these uses.
D. Construction Noise Standards
Carlsbad City Ordinance 8.48.010 prohibits construction before 7 a.m. and after sunset, Monday through
Friday and 8 a.m. on Saturday. No construction is allowed on Sunday or city recognized holidays. No
construction noise threshold level (in dBA) has been established by the City of Carlsbad. However, for the
purposes of this EIR, a 75-dBA Leq-8h threshold has been applied. This standard is used by both the County
and City of San Diego.
E. State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, states that single-and multi-
family dwellings, hotels, and motels located where the CNEL exceeds 60 dBA, must obtain an acoustical
analysis showing that the proposed design will limit interior noise to less than 45 dBA CNEL. Worst-case noise
levels, either existing or future, must be used for this determination. Future noise levels must be predicted at
least ten years from the time of building permit application. The City of Carlsbad has adopted the CCR Title
24 standards.
5.4.1.3 City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Final Master EIR
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Final Master EIR identifies a series of noise mitigation measures
that should be applied to future land use planning phases and construction phases of development
projects within the City of Carlsbad. These mitigation measures are derived from General Plan goals,
policies, and objectives. General Plan Master EIR mitigation measures that will be implemented through
project design and during construction of the proposed project are identified below. Given the project site
location and constraints, project design and construction has incorporated aspects of these measures as
feasible. In addition, many of these measures are policy level measures designed to provide land use
planning guidance for the entire City of Carlsbad, not just the proposed project.
Measure 3: Continue to enforce building codes to ensure adequate sound insulation between
dwellings and to ensure adequate sound insulation of interior areas from loud external
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-3 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
Measure 5:
Measure 6:
Measure 7:
Measure 8:
Measure 9:
Measure 10:
noise sources. The City shall continue to enforce project conditions of approval related to
noise control. (Noise Element, General, C.4.)
Require the use of project design techniques, such as, increasing the distance between
the noise source and the receiver; placing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas,
maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; using non
sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source to
minimize noise impacts during any discretionary review of a residential or other noise
sensitive project. (Noise Element, Land Use, C.3.)
Enforce the policy of the City that sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all
residential units should be mitigated. Sixty-five (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 (easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice,
etc.) may be required of developers/sellers of noise impacted residential units.
For residential properties identified as requiring a noise study, a study shall be prepared by
an acoustical professional. This study shall document the projected exterior noise level
and mitigate the projected exterior noise level to a maximum allowable noise level as
identified above.
Interior noise levels should be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of
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. (Noise Element,
Land Use, C.5.)
Require that a noise study be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential
projects of five or more dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL
noise contour lines as shown on Map 2: Future Noise Exposure Contour Map (of the
General Plan Update Master Final EIR). (Noise Element, Roads, C.2.)
Consider noise impacts in the design of road systems and give special consideration to
those road corridors in scenic or noise sensitive areas. (Noise Element, Roads, C.3.)
Review traffic flow systems and synchronize signalization, wherever possible to avoid traffic
stops and starts, which produce excessive noise, and to adjust traffic flow to achieve noise
levels acceptable to surrounding areas. (Noise Element, Roads, C.3.)
Encourage the development of compatible land uses and restrict incompatible land uses
surrounding airport facilities (Noise Element, Airport, C.l.)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-4 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
5.4.1.4 Existing Noise Levels
The major source of existing noise in the vicinity of the project site is from vehicles traveling along Tamarack
A venue, College Boulevard, Cannon Road, and El Camino Real. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located
approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The project site is not located within the noise
contours, as defined in the McClellan-Palomar Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP); however, the site is
located within the Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA) as required by the CLUP. The NINA includes a
three-mile radius, where 90 percent of all overflight noise related complaints are received. The noise in this
area typically occurs on an irregular basis, and although not generally considered a health or safety issue,
it may be a nuisance. All new residential projects located within the NINA shall be required to record a
notice informing of the potential environmental impacts related to the aircraft, and that the property is
subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Currently,
the project site is primarily undeveloped; however, it contains one residence and is currently used for
agricultural production. These existing uses do not generate substantial mobile or stationary noise.
Ambient noise measurements were taken on and off the project site. Figure 5.4-1 depicts the locations
where noise monitoring measurements were recorded.
Table 5.4-1 provides the results of these measurements. A detailed description of noise level measuring
methodology can be found in the Acoustical Site Assessment (Vol. Ill, Appendix D) of this EIR.
TABLE 5.4-1
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
ML 1 59.1 68.5
ML2 49.2 60.0
ML3 55.3 69.5
ML4 50.3 59.0
West Villa Locations
ML5 71.1 85.0
M 1 68
ML 7 73.0 85.0
ML8 55.3 69.5
Notes: Measurements performed by ISE on March 14, 2002. Estimated Position Error (EPE) = 12 feet.
1 = See Figure 5.4-1 for ambient measurement location.
2 = East Village ambient noise measurements taken prior to opening of College/Cannon.
Source: ISE, 2004.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-5
43.0
40.0
42.5
42.5
49.0
43.0
46.5
42.5
April2006
e Ambient Site Monitoring Locations
500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Mll •
SOURCE: Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., and BRG Consulting, Inc., 2004
1 9 an -2 0 a··s Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
·rn·rn·rn· Ambient Noise Monitoring Location Map
r·!IIU~IIi~l·li"
/ /
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.4-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
Measurements collected during the monitoring periods were observed to be due to traffic noise generated
by adjacent major roadways as well as local surface street activity and, to a lesser extent, pedestrian
activity within existing adjacent residential communities. Background noise levels were found to be
considerably lower than existing ambient noise measurements, indicating that the majority of the time the
project site has low to moderate noise levels and only experiences traffic noise infrequently. Currently, the
portions of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real adjacent to the project site carry large volumes of traffic
resulting in noise levels of 70.4 dBA and 75.6 dBA, respectively, at a distance of 50-feet from the centerline
of the roadway. The hourly average sound levels (or Leq-h) recorded were found to be consistent with the
observed community setting. No unusual noise sources were present during the monitoring period. Existing
noise levels were found to be consistent with the proposed residential use plan.
5.4.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
Currently, no sensitive receptors such as schools, parks, hospitals, convalescent homes, or nursing homes
are located within or in proximity to the project site. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of
Tamarack Avenue to the west, El Camino Real and the Rancho Carlsbad mobile home park to the south,
residential dwelling units west of Tamarack Avenue and south of El Camino ReaL residential dwelling units
north of the project site, and open space and agricultural operations to the east. Residential dwelling units
are not typically identified as sensitive receptors.
The project also proposes school and community facility (including daycare) uses, which will be located in
PA 's 11, 13, and 14. These uses would be considered sensitive receptors.
5.4.2 Thresholds For Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project
would:
• Generate noise levels above the established City noise standards for the proposed uses or if
proposed /and uses are subjected to noise levels exceeding City standards established in the Noise
Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual;
Residential
o Exterior-60 dBA or less
o Interior-45 dBA or less
Commercial
o Interior-55 dBA for General Office and General Commercial
Pre-School, School, Church, Fire Station, Sleeping Quarters
o Interior-45 dBA
Increase noise levels by 3 dBA in areas that already exceed City or State standards;
• Produce a substantial permanent. temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above noise levels existing without the project; or
• Expose people residing or working within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport to excessive noise levels.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
5.4.3 Environmental Impact
5.4.3.1 Construction Noise
Construction of the proposed project will generate short-term noise from construction equipment, such as
water trucks, scrapers, graders. bulldozers backhoes, loaders, compactors and other miscellaneous
construction vehicles. As depicted in Table 5.4-2, anticipated noise levels from construction equipment
used during the rough grading, underground utility construction, and paving activities could range from 70
dBA to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source.
TABLE 5.4-2
Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Source: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, 12/31/71, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations"
Residential dwelling units have been identified approximately 400 feet from the project site and could be
exposed to construction noise levels identified in Table 5.4-2. However, based on standard construction
practices, it can be assumed that use of the construction equipment would not occur simultaneously. Also,
construction activities would adhere to the construction time periods and regulations for reducing
construction equipment noise (e.g .. maintaining properly equipped muffler system) as required by City of
Carlsbad Noise Ordinance 8.48.01 0. Therefore, noise generated during construction activities is not
considered significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
5.4.3.2 Blasting and Rock Crushing
During the initial site-grading phase of project site development, blasting will be required at four locations
primarily within the East Village. Additionally, a temporary rock crushing operation is proposed. Figure S.3-3
in the Air Quality Section of this EIR depicts the blasting locations and the area proposed for rock crushing
operations. There is approximately 30,000 cubic yards of granitic rock material within the East Village that
would require blasting in order to excavate the material. It is estimated that between 1 0,000 and 1S,OOO
cubic yards of granitic rock could be excavated per blast. Therefore, the number of blasts would be
minimal.
Based on a 1 0-foot detonation depth, the maximum noise level that could be generated during each of
the blasts could be 130.2 dB at SO feet from the detonation point. Because the sounds are below 100 Hertz,
a 26 dB correction is applied to the 130.2 dB sound level for a corrected "A" weighted noise level of 104.2
dB at SO feet from the detonation point. In addition, assuming that there are SOO holes shot per blast, the
hourly noise level will be approximately 77.S dBA at 400 feet from the detonation point, where the nearest
residential dwelling unit is located. When this sound level is averaged over an eight-hour period, the noise
level generated during blasting activities would be less than 7S dBA. Blasting activities will be conducted
between 7 a.m. and sunset as specified by the City of Carlsbad Noise Ordinance and will generate less
than a 7S dBA noise level over an eight hour period. Therefore, the impact associated with noise
generated during blasting activities will be less than significant.
Two separate field surveys were performed as part of two unrelated studies in order to quantify acoustical
emissions from rock crushing plants of similar size to that proposed for this project (source: SER Rock
Crushing Acoustical Study: Phase I and If -San Marcos, CA ISE Report #98-0 12, Village of La Costa
Residential Development Acoustical Study-Carlsbad CA ISE Report #98-026b). The acoustical emissions
from these plants would be deemed representative of the expected onsite emissions. The results of the
rock crusher sound level monitoring indicate that typical rock crushing operations were found to produce
noise levels of 90 to approximately 100 dBA at SO feet from the source with peak levels (e.g., during
loading) exceeding 120 dBA.
Assuming a point-source propagation rule (i.e., 6.0 dBA loss per doubling of distance between the source
and receiver) yields the following contour distances:
7S dBA Leq-8h Contour= 149 Feet
70 dBA Leq-8h Contour= 26S Feet
6S dBA Leq-8h Contour= 472 Feet
60 dBA Leq-8h Contour = 839 Feet
Based on these contours, under strict compliance with the City's applied construction noise ordinance, the
crushing unit would need to be placed at least 1SO-feet from any existing sensitive residential areas.
Because the crushing unit is proposed to be placed at a minimum of 300 feet from the closest sensitive
receptor, the anticipated unmitigated noise exposure level would be less than 70 dBA Leq-8h. The impact
would be less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
The potential for ground vibration as a result of blasting and rock crushing activity was also analyzed (see
Appendix D). Based on the analysis, the predicted ground motion levels would fall into the category of
being noticeable by humans but not a significant source of impact due to the infrequent nature of
proposed blasting operations. Further, ground motion due to rock crushing operations would generally not
be noticeable by humans based on the proposed location of rock crushing operations.
5.4.3.3 Noise !Biological Resources
Please refer to Section 5.5 -Biological Resources of this EIR for a discussion related to potential indirect noise
impacts on biological resources.
5.4.3.4 Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels
The project would be constructed adjacent to roadways, which currently generate significant levels of
noise. Also, implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicular traffic using surrounding
roadways. Consequently, this would increase noise levels along roadways, adjacent to and in the vicinity
of the project site. It should be noted that Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive are not arterial roadways;
therefore, these roadways are not subject to City Noise Policy.
Noise level increases along roadways affected by the proposed project are shown in Tables 5.4-3a and 5.4-
3b for the years 2010 and 2030 respectively. For each roadway segment affected by the proposed
project, the average daily traffic volume (ADT) is provided with the corresponding noise level at 50-feet
from the roadway centerline.
A significant noise impact to off-site land uses would occur if project generated vehicular noise contributed
toward a three dBA increase in roadway noise levels, in areas that already exceed City or State Standards.
This is the minimum change in sound level that the human ear can detect. According to Tables 5.4-3a and
5.4-3b, the largest increase in noise level due to project-related traffic would occur in the year 2010
scenario along Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard. The worst-case increase
would be 3.7 dBA, which is above the normally accepted impact threshold of three dBA. This is largely
related to the fact that the expected 201 0 traffic scenario without the proposed project has a decrease in
traffic volumes along this roadway segment. It should be noted that the increase as compared to the
existing conditions would be approximately 2.5 dBA, which is less than the accepted impact threshold of
three dBA. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to off-site roadway noise levels is not considered
a significant impact.
5.4.3.5 On-Site Noise Levels
Future development within the proposed Master Plan could be exposed to noise levels in excess of the
established 60 dBA CNEL exterior standard. As shown in Table 5.4-3a and Table 5.4-3b, the project site will
be exposed to roadway noise levels in exceedance of 60 dBA.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-10 Apri12006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
Table 5.4-3a
Year 2010 Projected Noise Comparisons
70.3 243 11.000 71.7
71.8 305 15.000 73.0
70.4 246 12.000 71.8 305
68.0 170 11.000 71.7
N/A
No
College No
Boulevard
El Camino No
Real
75.7 556 32.000 76.3 612 0.6 No
75.3 523 30.000 76.0 586 0.7 No
76.3 610 43.000 77.6 745 1.3 No
75.9 574 36,000 76.8 662 0.9 No
77.3 711 46,000 77.9 779 0.6 No
76.8 659 41.000 77.4 722 0.6 No
68.6 187 8.000 70.1 282 1.5 No
Notes: N/A =data is not available.
Contours assumed to be line-of-sight perpendicular distance.
• The increase as compared to the existing conditions would be approximately 2.0 dBA, which is less than the
accepted impact threshold of 3 dBA.
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc .. 7/18/05.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-11 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental impact Analysis
TABLE 5.4-3b
Year 2030 Projected Noise Comparisons
Tamarack
Avenue
16,832 73.3
19,480 73.9
12,840 72.1
30,000 75.8
62,328 79.1
40.888 77.2
31.448 76.0
31,832 76.0
71.3
. Notes: N/A =data is not available.
320
565
938
700
582
582
Contours assumed to be line-of-sight perpendicular distance.
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc .• 7/18/05.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-12
447
76.0
64.000 79.3 971
43.000 77.6 745
34,000 76.6 637
35,000 76.7 650
5.4-Noise
0.6 No
No
No
No
0.2 No
0.4 No
0.6 No
0.7 No
No
1.1
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
As shown in Table 5.4-3b, Year 2030 predictions for Cannon Road, College Boulevard, El Camino Real and
Tamarack Avenue, which are adjacent to the project site will generate roadway noise levels that range
from 72.4 dBA CNEL (Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real to Carlsbad Village Drive) to 78.9 dBA CNEL (EI
Camino Real, College Boulevard to Faraday Avenue) at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline. Future
residences located along portions of Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard
would need to be setback up to 432 feet from the roadway centerline to meet the City's exterior residential
noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL. Future residences located along portions of El Camino Real between
Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road would need to be setback 813 feet from the roadway center line to
meet the City's exterior residential noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL. Future residences located along
portions of College Boulevard between Cannon Road and Carlsbad Village Drive would need to be
setback 599 feet from the roadway center line to meet the City's exterior residential noise standard of 60
dBA CNEL. Future residences located along portions of Tamarack Avenue between El Camino Real and
Carlsbad Village Drive would need to be setback 336 feet from the roadway center line to meet the City's
exterior residential noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL.
In certain portions of the Master Plan area, implementing the setbacks described in the preceding
paragraph may not be feasible with respect to implementation of the project. Therefore, it is assumed that
the proposed residential dwelling units within East and West Village Planning Areas adjacent to Tamarack
Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and College Boulevard would be exposed to vehicular noise
levels above the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. An intervening noise barrier (wall, berm, plexiglass, or
combination there of) would need to be constructed between residential areas and these major
roadways. Figure 5.4-2 depicts the locations and maximum heights of the required noise barriers in order to
achieve acceptable noise levels and comply with City noise policy based on the preliminary wall design
assessment (Appendix D). City policy requires that no more than 6 feet of the noise barrier can be visible
wall face. The noise analysis and preliminary wall design assessment indicate that the maximum
intervening noise barrier height along El Camino Real at PA 1 would be 12 feet, which would consist of a
maximum 6-foot high wall, and 6-foot high berm. The noise barrier along Tamarack Avenue at PA 1 would
not exceed 8 feet as well as less traffic is forecasted for this roadway segment than El Camino Real. The
maximum intervening noise barrier height along El Camino Real at PA 7 would be 6 feet. The maximum
noise barrier height along Cannon Road at PA 22 would remain at the existing 5-foot high wall and
approximate 3-foot high berm. The noise analysis indicates that total maximum barrier height between PAs
17 and 18 would be 10 feet, depending on final pad elevations. This barrier height would include a
maximum wall height of 6 feet.
In addition to the residential exterior standard of 60 dBA or less, a maximum interior standard of 55 dBA for
proposed commercial uses and a maximum interior standard of 45 dBA for second floor areas of residential
units and any future pre-school, school, church, and fire station uses would need to be achieved. Interior
noise mitigation (i.e., architectural treatments) would be required.
The potential exposure of future residents and sensitive non-residential uses to arterial roadway noise is
considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 would reduce the
impact to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure N-1 requires, that a site-specific acoustical
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-13 April2006
Legend
5 foot barrier
6 foot barrier
7 foot barrier
8 foot barrier
1 0 foot barrier
12 foot barrier
-•• -•.-Project Boundary
••••• • •.. • East Village/ West Village Boundary
Open Space
I WEST VILLAGE 1 EAST VILLAGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Source: ISE (8/19/2005)
PA 16
Single Family
300'
I
I
I
I
I
0'
PA23E
Open Space
3oo·
' ' \
'
600'
1200'
SOURCE: Planning S~y=st::e::m::s::, ::20=0=5=======:::;;:==;:::::::::;~::;:;:;~~::;:;:~::::=:::~~~==::n;::;::::============Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
9/13/05
FIGURE 1980-2005
-~·~·m· Noise Barrier Plan 5.4-2
r l''''n/JN1;f:bf~ ,.
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
assessment shall be prepared for future proposed residential projects and proposed non-residential
development in PA's 11 (commercial), 13 and 14 (school), and 22 (alternative civic facility use) in the East
and West Village Planning Areas that front Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or
College Boulevard to determine the precise height and location of the noise barrier, and requires the
construction of the barrier. Compliance with this measure shall occur at the time specific grading and site
plans are available for each planning area, in order to determine the specific mitigation requirements for
exterior and interior noise level compliance. The site-specific acoustical mitigation shall be identified on,
and included as part of the project development plans. Mitigation Measure N-2 requires that for residential
and non-residential uses in PA 's 11, 13, 14, and 22, architectural features needed to achieve the interior
noise standard shall be noted on the building plans.
McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise
The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA). The
NINA includes a three-mile radius, where 90 percent of all overflight noise related complaints are received.
The noise in this area typically occurs on an irregular basis, and although not generally considered a health
or safety issue, it may be a nuisance. All new residential projects located within the NINA shall be required
to record a notice informing residents of the potential environmental impacts related to the aircraft, and
that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from the McClellan-Palomar
Airport. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 will reduce the impact associated with
intermittent airport noise to a level less than significant.
5.4.4 Mitigation Measures
N-1 Prior to determining that a discretionary review application is complete, a site-specific (e.g., per
Planning Area) acoustical assessment shall be prepared for future proposed residential projects in
the East and West Village Planning Areas that front Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real. Cannon
Road, and/or College Boulevard (PA's 1. 7, 15, 17, 18, 21. and 22) and non-residential uses in PA's
11 ,-13, 14, and 22. This shall occur at the time specific grading and site plans are available, in order
to determine the specific mitigation requirements for exterior and interior noise level compliance.
The site-specific acoustical mitigation shall be identified on, and included as part of the project
development plans.
Mitigation based on the site-specific acoustical assessments may include installation of noise
barriers greater than 12 feet in height (with respect to the finished pad vs. final roadway elevation)
along portions of Tamarack Avenue, Cannon Road, College Boulevard, and El Camino Real to
achieve a noise reduction of up to 18 dB, which is necessary in order to achieve attainment of the
City of Carlsbad exterior and interior noise limits. City policy dictates that walls greater than six feet
in height are not allowed. The recommended barrier height could include a combination of berm,
wall (not to exceed six feet in· height), plexiglass and/or elevational differential between the noise
source and receptor. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
P-lanning Department in conjunction with review of grading plans.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-15 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.4-Noise
N-2 For residential uses within PA's 1, 7, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 and non-residential uses in PA's 11, 13, 14,
and 22, architectural features needed to achieve the interior noise standard shall be noted on the
building plans. A statement certifying that the required architectural features have been
incorporated into the building plans, signed by the acoustical analyst/acoustician shall be located
on the building plans. The architect shall also include his registration stamp in addition to the
required signature. All noise level reduction architectural components shall be shown on the
architectural building plans, and shall be approved. This measure shall be implemented prior to
the issuance of building permits for residential projects located within PA's 1, 7, 15, 17, 18, 21, and
22} and non-residential uses in PA's 11, 13, 14, and 22 and verified by the City of Carlsbad Building
and Planning Departments.
N-3 New residents within the McClellan-Palomar Noise Impact Notification Area as defined by the
CLUP shall be notified as part of the sales disclosure package and through CC&Rs that the project
area is outside the 65 db(A} CNEL airport noise impact area, but still subject to intermittent single-
event noise impacts, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport. This
measure shall be implemented concurrent with the sales disclosure package and prior to approval
of CC&Rs. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department shall be responsible for verification of
implementation of this measure.
N-4 The following condition of approval shall be placed on all projects within the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Noise Impact Notification Area:
5.4.5
"Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel} map, or the issuance of the building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a notice that the property is subject
to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form
meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney. (See Noise Form #2, on file in the
Planning Department}"
This measure shall be implemented prior to the recordation of the first neighborhood final
(tract/parcel} map, or the issuance of building permits. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
shall be responsible for verification of implementation of this measure.
Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 will reduce the potential impact associated with on-
site roadway noise levels to below a level less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3
and N-4 will reduce the potential noise impact associated with intermittent single-event aircraft overflight
to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.4-16 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
5.5 Biological Resources
Information contained in this section is summarized from the Biological Resources Report for the Robertson
Ranch Project, Carlsbad, California (Merkel & Associates, Inc., October 5, 2004) and the Jurisdictional
Delineation for the Robertson Ranch Property, Located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California (Glenn Lukas Associates, August 18, 2004). These biological technical reports are provided in
Volume Ill Appendix E of this EIR.
5.5.1 Existing Conditions
5.5.1.1 Vegetation Communities
Twelve vegetation communities have been mapped on the project site based on the biological surveys:
sensitive upland habitats on-site include diegan coastal sage scrub and chemise chaparral;
wetland/riparian habitats on-site include coastal and valley freshwater marsh; emergent wetland, mule fat
scrub, southern willow scrub, and southern riparian forest; non-sensitive upland habitats on-site include non-
native vegetation, eucalyptus woodland, urban/developed, intensive agriculture, and extensive
agriculture. Table 5.5-1 identifies the acreage of each vegetation community. Figure 5.5-1 depicts the
distribution of the vegetation communities on-site.
TABLE 5.5-1
Acreage of Existing Vegetation Communities On-site
proposed project.
Source: Merkel & Associates, 2004; Planning Systems, 2005
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-1 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
A. Sensitive Upland Habitats
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
On-site Diegan coastal sage consists of 71.62 acres. Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs within the northern
portion of the site. a canyon located in the center of the project site, and along a relatively steep slope
facing Tamarack Avenue. Characteristic shrub species of the on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub include
California sagebrush, flat-top buckwheat. white sage, black sage, San Diego monkeyflower. and laurel
sumac. Also present here ore California encelia, broom baccharis, and a scattering of our lord's candle.
Examples of herbaceous plants typical of this habitat and present on the Robertson Ranch include
fascicled tarplant, lance-leaf dudleya, checkerbloom, common goldenstars. California everlasting, weed's
mariposa lily, and silver puffs.
Canopy height varies from approximately 2 to 5 feet and density ranges from fairly open on southern
exposures, to dense coverage in some areas of north-facing slope. Shrub diversity is relatively low
compared to other areas in the region, and the vegetation has been degraded in many places by
invasive non-native plant species. trash, litter. and off-road vehicle use. It is possible that this habitat has
been historically impacted by fire, heavy grazing, and/or brushing in the past since the floristic diversity is
abnormally low -yet there is no evidence that the area has been previously tilled for agricultural uses.
Chamise Chaparral
Chamise chaparral predominantly consisting of chamise occurs on 1.91 acres. This habitat occurs as
isolated stands within the Diegan coastal sage scrub near the northern boundary of the site. The under
story is poor. A few species, such as soap plant and bi-colored everlasting, occupy openings in this habitat.
B. Wetland/Riparian Habitats
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh occur on 2.18 acres in a drainage in the western portion [PA 1 and 2)
of the project which is fed by urban runoff from nearby existing development. Various species of cattails
and/or bulrush dominate the coastal and valley freshwater marsh. The stands present within the project
site are dominated by soft-flag cattail. These occur in association with the southern willow scrub located
along Calavera Creek, or intermixed with brackish water components near the intersection of El Camino
Real and Tamarack Avenue.
Emergent Wetland (includes Disturbed Emergent Wetland)
Emergent wetland occurs on 0.52 acre and generally consists of herbaceous plants that are not necessarily
marsh species such as cattails and bulrushes. Emergent wetland often, but not always, signifies areas of
disturbance. Several small areas of emergent wetland are found on the Robertson Ranch property in the
central portion of the site, with varying levels of disturbance. Plant species found in the emergent wetland
include western ragweed, tall flatsedge, curly dock, willow herb, and bristly ox-tongue.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-2 April2006
Sensitive Species
• Adolphia califomica
• Juncus acutus
• Least Bell's VIreo
L:J.. California Gnat catcher
o Yellow-breasted Chat + Yellow Warbler
Ill Roadrut/ Vernal Pool
Legend
El Project Boundary
E::1 Hardline
[ZJ Limits of Disturbance
~ Disturbed Area to be biologically
restored
Vegetation Communities
c:::J Extensive Agriculture (Row Crops)
.. Chamise Chaparral
.. Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
-Dlegan Coastal Sage Scrub
mil Disturbed Emergent Wetland
-Eucalyptus Woodland
-Non-native Vegetation
.. Intensive Agriculture (Nurseries)
lf:IJJ Southam Riparian Forest
CJ Southam Willow Scrub
-Urban/Developed
* Note: Mule-flats scrub located within
wetland areas not shown on
figure as the area
is too small
tomamp
0' Iii[-
300'
600'
1200'
/ /
I
' I
I
I
,."'
I
I
/
SOURCE· Merkel and Associates 2004 and Planning Systems 2005 ' '
1980~ 2005
·m·m-~-
~
-
\
\
\
I
I
)
J
Robertson Ranch Mas11er Plan Program EIR
•• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I I I
I I
II " A
I ...... ...... ...... ... ... '
I " I ...
I
I
I
I
Biological Resources, Impact Areas, and Restoration Areas
1111 I I I ! I II ; I I , I
I
9/28/05
FIGURE
5.5-1
5.5-3
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Mule Fat Scrub
Mule fat scrub occurs on 0.05 acre of the project site and is typically found in canyon bottoms, along
washes, and near streams where there is seasonal flooding or the substrate is saturated for relatively brief
periods. On-site this microhabitat is indicative of limited water resources, or of habitat evolving towards
southern willow scrub. This habitat occurs within the centrally located canyon drainage.
Southern Willow Scrub
The on-site southern willow scrub occurs on 2.95 acres of the project site and is dominated by various
species of willows such as Goodding's willow, arroyo willow, and narrow-leaved willow. Fremont
cottonwood may be present as scattered younger individuals. Southern willow scrub is present on-site
along Calavera Creek, and at scattered localities near the Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real
intersection.
Southern Riparian Forest
The southern riparian forest occurs on 4.27 acres of the project site and is dominated by western sycamore
and mature willows. The southern riparian forest occurs along Calavera Creek. Heavy adjacent farming
activities have resulted in an understory composed primarily of pioneering wetland weeds; however, in the
extreme northeast, beyond the agricultural area, a more pristine woodland survives.
San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool
A vernal pool is located downslope from the northern boundary of the property, within an area of open
sage scrub. Upslope is a mild swale that deposits rainfall run-off into this shallow basin (or pool). This pool
retained species common to many pools in the region: dwarf plantain and water tillaea. No evidence of
sensitive vernal pool plants was observed during the spring survey series. Road-rut pools (2) were also found
near the northern property boundary that retained woolly marbles, another non-sensitive, vernal pool-
associate. The vernal pools were not quantified in Table 5.5-1 due to their small scale, they occupy
approximately 0.006 acre, and this area will remain in the proposed open space (PA 23E) as part of the
proposed project.
C. Non-sensitive Upland Habitats
Non-native Vegetation and Eucalyptus Woodland
Non-native vegetation occurs on a linear strip of 3.00 acres located along the western boundary of the
project site, where the site fronts Tamarack Road.
Many species of eucalyptus have been introduced into California from Australia and several of these
species have become naturalized in Southern California. They often form large monotypic groves. One of
the largest and most common species is blue gum. Blue gum and various other species of eucalyptus are
present at scattered locations throughout the Robertson Ranch. Groves occur near both farmhouses, and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-5 Apri12006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
near a farm shed in the northeastern corner of the project site. Eucalyptus woodland comprises
approximately 1.88 acres on-site.
Urban/Developed
Urban/Developed lands occurs on 26.16 acres of the project site and is characterized by structural
development. The wildlife associated with such areas are typically disturbance tolerant, human-
associated species, or species that are opportunistic in nature. Plants include a number of cultivated
ornamental species and invasive weedy species, as well as some opportunistic or ornamental native
plants.
Within the project site, urban lands include a house with adjacent horticultural plantings, a flower stand
near El Camino Real, several packing areas with temporary structures, and the areas that have recently
undergone development associated with the Calavera Hills II project.
Intensive Agriculture (Nurseries)
The area mapped as Intensive Agriculture consists of 14.01 acres and includes a palm nursery, located at
the southern end of the site, near El Camino Real. Most of the vegetation here is either planted in
containers, or is shallowly rooted for later transplant/sale.
Extensive Agriculture (Row Crops)
These lands consist of 269.45 acres of irrigated and non-irrigated field crops. Some of the crops include
tomatoes, bell peppers, zucchini, green beans, green onions, cabbage, and a variety of flowers.
5.5.1.2 Jurisdictional Areas and Wetland/Riparian Habitats
Non-wetland and wetland areas are considered sensitive by local (City of Carlsbad 1999), state (California
Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), and federal (Army Corps of Engineers [ACOE]) agencies. These
areas are regulated by the ACOE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and by the CDFG
under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Compliance with Section 401 of the CWA
(Water Quality Certification) is also required as part of the Section 404 CWA permit approval.
The project site contains three drainages -referred to as Drainage A, Drainage B, and Drainage C. Figure
5.5-2 depicts the location of each of the three drainages and anticipated jurisdictional impacts (see
Impacts discussion later in this section). Additionally, Figure 5.5-3 depicts the proposed extension of Kelly
Drive/entry into PA 1 which would impact Drainage A2 (see Impacts discussion later in this section).
Drainage A is located on the western portion of the project site ( P A's 1 and 2). Drainage B is located in the
central portion of the project site (PA's 23B, 23C, and 23D). Drainage C (Calavera Creek) is located in the
eastern portion of the project site (PA 23E). Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. and/or CDFG streambed occur
in all three on-site drainages. Table 5.5-2 identifies the ACOE and CDFG Non-wetland Waters/Unvegetated
Streambed and Wetlands/Riparian Vegetation occurring in each of the three drainages. Table 5.5-3
identifies the ACOE and CDFG Wetland/Riparian vegetation type located within each drainage. The
wetland habitats present in the three drainages consist of emergent wetland, mule fat scrub, southern
willow scrub, and southern riparian forest.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-6 April2006
LEGEND/ JURISDICTIONAL DEUNEATION
Width Measurement j•r: ... j (A single number represents the width of the Corps OHWM.
A second number represents the width of the CDFG streambed
and associated riparian vegetation. If present, a 'W' denotes
Corps wetlands within the OHWM.)
[1] Corps WetlandS/ CDFG Riparian Vegetation
[I] Corps Wetlands/ CDFG Riparian Vegetation
[)] CDFG Riparian Vegetation
~Study Boundary
D Corps Non-Wetland Waters/CDFG Unvegetated Stream rn Corps Non-Wetland WaterS/CDFG Vegetated Stream
@"" Drainage
SOURCE:
LEGEND/ HARDUNE INIFORMATION
• HMP Open Spaae
Open Space
• Brush-Management
EJ Park/School-Site
CJ Development Area
• Dlegan Coastal Sage Scrub
• T&B Planning HMP Hardllne Map (March 30, 2004)
0' ·-300'
600'
1200'
• Glenn Lukos AssOCiates lurtsdlctlonel Delineation
(April 8, 2004)
• O'Oay Consultants Grading from TaB (July 7, 2004)
NOTE:
Disturbed Jurisdictional Delineation Area
{due to Grading, Development Areas, etc.)
Is 37,461 sq. ft., approximately .86 Acres,
of which .57 Acre consist of Jurisdictional Wetlands.
Approved
Calavera Hills
Restoration
Area
SOURCE: Planning~S~y=st=e=m=s=,2~0~0=4==========================================================================================================:===========================-~=========7/=ll~ros
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE 1980-2005
·m·m·m· On-site Drainages and ACOE/CDFG Jurisdictional Impacts 5.5-2
~l)i!ililll[:~ ~~· ' ',
5.5-7
------------------
I 1 '1
..
SOURCE:O'DayCon~su=Jt=a=n=ts=,2=0=0=4================~~~~~~~Tr~~~~~~~~~======================~ Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
7/21/05
FIGURE
Extension of Kelly Dr.-Entry to PA 1 5.5-3
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 -Biological Resources
A. Drainage A
Approximately 3.16 acres of Corps jurisdiction are associated with Drainage A, of which 3.09 acres consist
of wetlands. Approximately 3.75 acres of CDFG jurisdiction are associated with Drainage A, of which 3.69
acres consist of riparian vegetation. Drainage A consists of a main reach that originates off site to the
north, and two tributaries (A 1 & A2) that originate off site to the west and southwest.
TABLE 5.5-2
ACOE and CDFG Non-Wetland Waters/Unvegetated Streambed
and Wetlands/Riparian Vegetation by Drainage
TOTAL 0.95 0.65 4.80 10.22 5.75
Source: Glenn Lukes Associates, August 18, 2004
TABLE 5.5-3
ACOE and CDFG Wetland/Riparian Vegetation -
Vegetation Type by Drainage
Southern Willow Scrub 0.94
Coastal and Freshwater Marsh 2.15
B
h 0.02
0.42
0.11
c
Southern Willow Scrub 0.50
Southern Forest 0.56
1.54
2.15
0.05
0.42
0.11
4.26
1.39
TOTAL 4.80 10.22
Source: Glenn Lukes Associates, August 18. 2004
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-10
10.87
April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
The main reach of Drainage A enters the site through a ten-foot-wide box culvert under Tamarack Avenue
and extends for approximately 1 ,230 linear feet to the south before exiting the site through culvert under El
Camino Real. The entire main reach of Drainage A exhibits perennial flows (at least in part due to urban
runoff). During the field investigations, water was observed flowing for the entire length of the main
drainage. Flowing/standing water was not observed in Tributaries A 1 or A2.
The majority of the main reach consists of freshwater marsh dominated by southern cattail. Additional
species include Bermuda grass, brass buttons, saltmarsh sandspurry, Saltmarsh bulrush, and pampas grass.
The lower 300 linear feet of the main drainage consists of southern willow scrub dominated by arroyo
willow. Additional dominant species include southern cattail, pampas grass, and Bermuda grass. For the
majority of the main reach, there is no clear flow area, as it is obscured by vegetation. However, the soils
are saturated throughout the marsh.
The upper portion of the main reach contains areas adjacent to the cattail marsh that have been
manipulated and used for agricultural purposes in the past. These areas are categorized as prior
converted cropland and are not subject to ACOE jurisdiction.
Tributary A 1 originates at the southwest corner of the property through two three-foot concrete pipes under
the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real. The tributary receives intermittent flows from a
culvert pipe, presumably in part from urban runoff. The tributary extends for 720 linear feet before joining
with the main drainage. For the first 280 linear feet, the tributary supports southern willow scrub dominated
by arroyo willow. For the next 240 linear feet, the drainage consists of a mostly unvegetated sandy
channel. The remaining 200 linear feet consist of southern willow scrub.
Tributary A2 consists of a ditch that. originates from a three-foot-wide pipe culvert under El Camino Real.
The tributary extends for 240 linear feet before joining the main drainage at the southern end. The tributary
does not support any jurisdictional wetlands, due to lack of hydrophytic vegetation.
B. Drainage B
Approximately 1.18 acres of Corps jurisdiction is associated with Drainage 8, of which 0.65 acre consists of
jurisdictional wetlands. Approximately 1 .47 acres of CDFG jurisdiction is associated with Drainage B, of
which 0.88 acre consists of riparian vegetation. The drainage consists of two main segments (designated
as B 1 and 83) which both originate off site to the north. From where B 1 and 83 join, the remainder of the
drainage to the southern boundary is designated as 81. Each segment also has a smaller tributary (B2 and
B4) that joins the main segments prior to the confluence of B 1 and B3.
The Drainage B complex exhibits both intermittent and ephemeral reaches. The upper 1,300 linear feet of
Drainage B1 has intermittent flows, apparently due to urban runoff. The lowest 700 linear feet (abutting the
southern property boundary) also has intermittent flows, entirely due to irrigation runoff from the adjacent
palm tree nursery. The middle reach of B1 and all of Tributary B2 is ephemeral. Drainage B3 is almost
entirely ephemeral, except for a 350 linear foot reach in the middle that supports interrupted wetlands.
Drainage B4 has intermittent flows, apparently due to urban runoff.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-11 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Drainage B 1 enters the property at the northern boundary through a culvert under the adjacent
development and extends on site for approximately 2,440 linear feet before joining with B3. For the first 400
linear feet, Drainage B 1 consists of southern willow scrub dominated by arroyo willow. Additional
vegetation includes southern cattail, pampas grass, and Mexican elderberry. For the next 660 linear feet,
the channel is deeply incised (ten to 30 feet) and is unvegetated. This stretch does not support wetlands
due to a lack of hydrophytic vegetation. For the next 240 linear feet, the drainage remains deeply incised.
The channel supports wetlands for most of this length and is densely vegetated with mule fat and southern
cattail. Beyond this point, the drainage extends for approximately 700 linear feet before crossing under a
dirt road. The channel is mostly unvegetated and ranges from four to five feet wide. The banks and
upland areas support non-native vegetation including ice plant, fennel, tree tobacco, castor bean, black
mustard, and dward nettle. Beyond the dirt road, and for the next 500 linear feet until joining with Drainage
B3. the channel has been obscured due to recent disking.
Tributary drainage B2 is a small tributary that originates on site west of Drainage B 1 . The tributary consists of
a highly eroded channel that likely began as a ditch for irrigation runoff. The channel is unvegetated
except for non-native grasses and herbs. From its point of origin the tributary extends for 300 linear feet
before becoming obscured due to recent disking.
From its origin at the northern property boundary, Drainage B3 extends for approximately 2,580 linear feet
before joining with B1. Drainage B3 consists of a main drainage and smaller tributary (B4), which enters the
site at the northern boundary through a culvert under adjacent development. For the first 540 linear feet,
Drainage B3 consists of an incised and unvegetated channel. For the next 300 linear feet, Drainage B3
consists of a three to ten-foot-wide channel and supports wetlands. Wetland vegetation includes southern
cattail, spiny rush, and alkali bulrush.
From the northern property boundary, Drainage B4 extends for 1,200 linear feet before joining with
Drainage B3. The first 200 linear feet consist of an unvegetated channel. For the next 400 linear feet, the
channel supports wetlands and exhibits a dense growth of southern cattail. For the next 540 linear feet to
the point where Drainage B3 joins with Drainage B4, both exist as two narrow channels approximately two
to three feet wide. The area between these channels consists of a ruderal wetland vegetated with
rabbitfoot grass, bristly ox-tongue, and cocklebur. From the point where the two join, Drainage B3
continues for 1.420 linear feet before joining with Drainage B1. For the majority of this distance, Drainage B3
has been obscured due to recent disking.
From the confluence of Drainages B1 and B3, a single channel extends south for 760 linear feet through a
nursery before exiting the site under El Camino Real. The channel is confined by two berms that separate it
from the nursery. For the majority of its length, this channel is inundated with irrigation water from the
nursery and supports wetlands. Vegetation is sparse but consists of southern cattail, cocklebur. The width
of the channel varies from six to nine feet wide.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-12 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
C. Drainage C
Approximately 1.41 acres of Corps jurisdiction is associated with Drainage C. of which I .06 acre consists of
wetlands. Approximately 5.65 acres of CDFG jurisdiction is associated with Drainage C, of which that entire
acreage is considered riparian vegetation. Drainage C consists of an extensive riparian corridor that is
bordered on both sides by natural areas (northern portion of property) and agricultural areas (remainder of
property). The drainage enters the site at the northeast corner and extends for 3.400 linear feet along the
eastern property boundary before exiting the site at the southeast corner. At the point where the drainage
enters the site, and for the next 940 linear feet, the drainage consists of a seven to 15-foot-wide low flow
channel. During field investigations, water was observed flowing in the channel and the lower terrace
adjacent to the channel was saturated within a few inches of the surface. Wetlands occur within and
adjacent to the channel and range from seven to 45 feet wide. Hydrophytic vegetation includes arroyo
willow, western sycamore, mule fat. alkali bulrush, southern cattail, giant reed, and rabbitfoot grass.
For the remainder of its length on site (approximately 2.460 linear feet), the drainage consists of riparian
woodland with an overstory dominated by western sycamore. The channel becomes more incised (three
to four feet deep on average) and is mostly unvegetated. Understory vegetation is limited to the higher
terraces and includes giant wild rye, arroyo willow, mule fat, castor bean, and laurel sumac. Although the
channel is inundated or saturated for most of its length, the majority does not support wetlands due to a
lack of wetland vegetation. The wetland vegetation is restricted to the upper terraces, however this area
lacks wetland indicators (hydrology and hydric soils).
5.5.1.3 Sensitive Species
Sensitive species are those considered unusual or limited in that the species are: I) only found in the San
Diego region; 2) a local representative of a species or association of species not otherwise found in the
region; or 3) severely depleted within their ranges or within the region. Figure 5.5-1 identifies the location of
on-site sensitive plant and animal species observed during field surveys.
A. Sensitive Plants
For the purposes of this EIR, sensitive plants include those listed by USFWS (1999 and 2004b). CDFG (2004b),
the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (2001 ), and those considered to be covered and/or narrow
endemic species in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Three sensitive plant species
were found on-site: California adolphia, western dichondra, and spiny rush. Western dichondra is present
on-site in limited numbers in sage scrub understory. Western dichondra was identified on-site during initial
biological investigations, but not mapped at the time, recent (2004) sensitive flora mapping, occurred
during a season when this species could not be definitively identified for the purposes of mapping the
population; therefore, its location is described. Western dichondra is isolated primarily beneath native
shrubs on the moderately flat upland terrain in the northeast. Spiny rush occurs in limited numbers in
association with drainages on the site. In contrast, California adelphia is well distributed throughout the on-
site sage scrub with on-site population numbers in the hundreds. California adelphia and spiny rush are
mapped on Figure 5.5-1 . The status of these species is addressed within Table 5.5-4.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-13 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
TABLE 5.5-4
Special Status Floral Species Observed On-site
Notes: n/a-not applicable to the particular regulation/plan.
Source: Merkel & Associates, Inc .. October 5, 2004
None of the "narrow endemic" plant species noted in the City's HMP were observed on-site. Some, very
limited, potential exists for the thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolial to occur on-site; however, it was
not observed during 2001 general biological surveys nor during the spring 2002 or 2003 focused thread-
leaved brodiaea surveys. Similarly, the following species were not detected and have low probability of
occurrence on-site: San Diego thorn-mint, San Diego ambrosia, orcutt's brodiaea, small-flowered morning
glory, Palmer's grappling hook, and small-flowered microseris. Each of these species either was not
observed, despite suitable habitat, or the potential habitat on-site is degraded and disturbed. Decumbent
goldenbush is the only species not observed but assessed to have relatively high potential for occurrence
based on the presence of clay substrates within the site; however, this conspicuous shrub was not identified
on-site during botanical surveys. Decumbent goldenbush is not a covered species in the City's HMP.
B. Sensitive Animals
Sensitive animal species include those listed by USFWS (1999 and 2004a), CDFG (2004a), and those
considered to be covered species and/or narrow endemic species under the HMP. Sensitive animal
species detected on-site included one lizard, a variety of avian species, and a single mammalian species.
The San Diego desert woodrat was reported on-site, but the specific location was not provided; thus, is not
mapped on Figure 5.5-1. In addition, individuals observed flying over the site (e.g .. northern harrier and
white-tailed kite) were not mapped, as mapping would falsely indicate an association with a specific
portion of the site. Finally, some low sensitivity species were not mapped during the original fieldwork (e.g.,
Costa's hummingbird, California thrasher) since they were not considered sensitive at the time of the
original fieldwork. Figure 5.5-1 depicts the locations of sensitive species (including all listed species). Some
locations reflect the results of earlier surveys (prior to Cannon and College roadway work) and may no
longer represent existing/viable locations. Table 5.5-5 lists all of the special status species observed on-site
and their status under federal, state. and local regulations and plans.
A number of additional sensitive species are known from the region, but were not detected on the site
during surveys. Those species potentially occurring (undetected) on-site include the following:
San Diego Fairy Shrimp. This species may persist in vernal pools mapped on-site. A definitive determination
regarding presence/absence would require a protocol survey, which has not been performed. However,
no impacts to the areas mapped as vernal pool/road ruts are anticipated.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-14 Apri12006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
TABLE 5.5-5
Special Status Faunal Species Observed On-site
i (CD
2 This species was reported from the site by Vivian Marquez (Marquez & Associates 2004)
Source: Merkel & Associates. 2004.
Western Spadefoot. This species was not detected on-site but may occur within sage scrub and riparian
habitats in the vicinity of ephemeral pools.
San Diego Horned lizard. This species has potential for occurrence within on-site sage scrub and along dirt
trails and roads adjacent to sage scrub.
Coastal Western Whlptail. This species is potentially present within sage scrub.
Coronado Sklnk. This species may occur within either sage scrub or riparian habitats.
Two-striped Garter Snake. If this species is present it would be limited to riparian habitats associated with
the primary drainage on-site.
Burrowing Owl. Winter season surveys for the burrowing owl were conducted in January 2005. The findings
of the surveys indicate that the project site is not currently occupied by the burrowing owl. Subsequent
surveys conducted in Spring 2005 concluded that burrowing owls do not currently occupy the project site.
Sharp-shinned Hawk. This species may utilize eucalyptus woodland or riparian woodlands during migration.
The only sensitive mammal species expected, but not detected on-site are San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit, and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse. Each would be expected in on-site sage scrub.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-15 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Focused, protocol surveys were used to determine presence/absence for California gnatcatcher, least
Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The results of these surveys are discussed below.
California Gnatcatcher
Three pairs of California gnatcatchers were located within the site during focused surveys. The two
easternmost pairs were located within dense Diegan coastal sage scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub
with intervening non-native grassland. The pair detected on the western end of the site was located within
high quality sage scrub within a shallow canyon between an agricultural field to the west and another field
to the east. The areas on the project site where the California gnat catchers were located are in the
planned open space areas PA 23B, 23D, and 23E.
In addition, general biological surveys detected California gnatcatchers to the northwest of the site along
Tamarack Avenue and at the northeastern corner where the Calavera Preserve meets the site at Calavera
Creek.
Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Habitat quality for southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo is adequate to very good,
respectively, at the eastern end of Robertson Ranch within Calavera Creek {PA23E), where both riparian
forest and riparian scrub occur.
A single least Bell's vireo was detected in dense southern willow scrub at the south end of the drainage
along the eastern boundary of the site during 2001 surveys (within the Cannon Road extension area). There
were no southwestern willow flycatcher observations within the study area. A Section 7 Consultation was
undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2002-2003 which authorized impacts to this area of
Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
Carlsbad Area Subregional Habitat Management Plan
The Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) is a habitat conservation plan currently being drafted for
the northern subregion of San Diego County (SANDAG 1998). The City of Carlsbad has adopted the HMP
for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, a subarea plan of the MHCP (City of Carlsbad, December
I 999, as amended). Final approval of the plan by the Wildlife Agencies occurred in November 2004. The
HMP designates a natural habitat preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining
impacts and designating mitigation associated with proposed project. The primary objective of the HMP is
to allow development while identifying and maintaining a preserve system that allows for sustained
existence of animals and plants at both the local and regional levels.
In the context of the HMP, the project site is located within the HMP Local Facilities Management Zone I 4
(Zone I 4). Figure 5.5-4 depicts the HMP Focus Planning Areas. Figure 5.5-5 depicts the proposed HMP
Open Space System for the northeast portion of the City. Portions of the project site are mapped as
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-16 April2006
• HMPCore
• Linkages
• Special Resource
Area
SRA2
Detail
SOURCE: CiNofCa~rls=b=a=d=,2=0=04============~~~==~~~~~~~====~==================~ ~~~~7~12~1ros
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
HMP Focus Planning Areas 5.5-4
CXl
•
Existing Hardline
Conservation Areas
•
Proposed Hardline
Conservation Areas c::J Proposed Standards Areas
CJ Not A Part (N.A.P.)
D Development Areas
D SDGE Transmission Corridors
~---.
Focused Planning Areas of Adjoining ~''
Jurisdictions o .· ,\'.·.'~.·,:·:;-·, IRJ Local Facility Management Zones
·I . { __ . \~: .... '· ..
;~4~~~,~
;.~ .· . .;. ~;}\~
'i!.i* to··~
SOURCE: City of Carlsbad, 2003 9/26tos
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE 1980-2005
·~·m·~· Conservation Components Map 5.5-5
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Linkage Area B. Linkage Area B is a wildlife corridor. Wildlife corridors are linear habitat features or patches
that provide for wildlife movement from one discreet area to another through contiguous habitat.
Corridors provide for dispersal, long range movement, and ultimately, genetic exchange, which
contributes toward preserving species diversity and persistence.
The HMP states that. "The southern portion of Zone 14, which encompasses Robertson Ranch, is dominated
by agricultural fields, with scattered areas of non-native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub on
slopes. A narrow sycamore riparian woodland also runs north-south through the agricultural fields.
Remnant habitats in the southern section of this zone likely serve as wildlife movement corridors and habitat
linkages, particularly connecting Core Area 3 to Core Are 4 via Linkage B. Large mammals using these
connections are needed to maintain ecosystem balance at Agua Hedionda Lagoon."
Per the HMP. Linkage Area B is approximately 3,000 feet long and is probably moderately effective for birds
and mammals. Linkage Area B is currently composed of a patchwork of existing habitat fragments and
larger areas of agricultural open space. As mapped within the HMP, Linkage Area B includes the remnant
sage scrub habitats that originate to the northwest of the project site and stretch to the central portion of
the site in southeasterly direction (the northwestern on-site branch of Linkage Area B). From there, the
linkage includes the extensive agriculture and nursery lands that continue the linkage to the southeast and
extensive agriculture and sage scrub that continue the linkage to the northeast (northeastern branch).
Currently, the project site agricultural fields, sage scrub, and riparian habitats are the predominant
constituents of the Linkage Area B. Under these conditions, Linkage B is constrained by the absence of
native habitats through the central and southern portions of the site, where the agriculture and palm tree
nursery occur. The linkage is also constrained by the construction of College Boulevard on the east side of
the site. The linkage also contains a constructed drainage basin (Basin BJB, see Section 5.12 -
Hydrology/Water Quality of this EIR). However, the presence of the detention basin, which consists of open
non-native grassland, is not expected to act as a constraint to movement as it is not significantly different
from previous agricultural conditions. There are currently four undercrossings that facilitate animal
movement through the Linkage Area B: two existing culvert undercrossings located west of the El Camino
Real/Cannon Road intersection; one located at the Cannon Road/College Boulevard intersection; and
one located in the northeastern portion of the project site under College Boulevard.
As stated in Section 3.0 and shown on Figure 3-6, the project applicant has negotiated an HMP "hardline"
preserve design that has been deemed acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies and has been determined by
the Wildlife Agencies to meet the HMP standards required by the HMP for the project site [refer to Wildlife
Agency HMP concurrence letter, dated February 11, 2005, provided in Appendix E of this EIR). The
proposed project is consistent with the HMP planning standards, which include:
• Conservation of at least 67 percent of coastal sage scrub
Creation of a linkage which should utilize patches of existing habitat
A void removal of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-19 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design
of any road or utility crossings of Linkage B (e.g., bridging, undercrossing)
Conserve all riparian habitats on-site
Prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain, except where required for Circulation
Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure
Conserve any narrow endemic plant populations
• Set back development I 00 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage habitat restoration
or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
5.5.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act:
5.5.3
5.5.3.1
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites;
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecnng biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional. or state habitat conservation plan.
Environmental Impact
Direct Impacts
Analysis of direct project impacts from the project is based on the limits of grading for the project, which
includes all grading and clearing activity required to implement the project, proposed trails, and the
proposed 60-foot fuel modification zone. The fuel modification zone is required per the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Manual and fire department requirements and is depicted on Figures 5.1 0-1 and 5.1 0-2a, and
5.1 0-2b (see Section 5.10 -Hazardous Materials and Hazards). All fuel modification activities are located
within the development limits of the HMP Hardline Map, as shown in Figure 3-6. Table 5.5-6 identifies the
vegetation impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-20 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 5.5-6
Vegetation Community Impacts
Sensitive Upland Habitats
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 71.62 21.22
Chamise Chaparral 1.91 0.14
Wetland/Riparian Habitats
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 2.18 0.22
Emergent '"',.,.,,...,,...,... (includes Disturbed
Eme ent 0.52 0.00
Mule Fat Scrub 0.05 0.00
Southern Willow Scrub 2.95 0.61
Southern Riparian Forest 4.27 0.00
San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool N/A 0.00
Non-Sensitive Upland Habitats
Non-native Vegetation 3.00 1.28
Eucalyptus Woodland 1.88 1.88
Urban/Developed 26.16 25.45
Intensive Agriculture (Nurseries) 14.01 8.47
Extensive Agriculture (Row Crops) 269.45 220.00
TOTAL 398.00 279.27
Notes: • Area will be revegetated and will not remain as agriculture.
Source: Merkel & Associates. October 5, 2004.
A. Vegetation Communities
5.5-Biological Resources
50.40
1.77
1.96
0.52
0.05
2.34
4.27
0.00
1.72
0.00
0.71
5.54*
49.45*
118.73
The direct impact resulting from the proposed project is 279.27 acres of the project site's 398 acres. The
majority of the impact area is currently being used for agricultural row crops (220.00).
Upland Habitats
Upland habitats impacted by the proposed project include Diegan coastal sage scrub (21.22 acres) and
chamise chaparral (0.14 acre). The HMP provides conservation goals for LFMP Zone 14 that include, "no
net loss of wetlands and conserve through preservation, restoration, or enhancement, of 67% of Coastal
Sage Scrub." As proposed the Master Plan will preserve more than 70% of the existing coastal sage scrub
habitat on-site. However, the impact to Diegan coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral is considered
significant. Table 5.5-7 identifies the HMP mitigation ratio/requirement and required mitigation for each
vegetation community. Based on these requirements, in addition to 70% preservation of existing coastal
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-21 Apri12006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
TABLE 5.5-7
HMP Mitigation Requirements
""''"""'".n forest, riparian scrub, vernal
nn .... mrm habitats not addressed h
Coastal and Valley Freshwater
Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool
Habitat
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
0.22
0.61
0.00
21.22
No Net Loss
2:1 ~lo !l-lot Loss
N/A
2:1
A minimum of 0.22
1 .22A minimum of
G,M-
N/A
42.44
Habitat Group D: unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral
Chamise Chaparral 0.14 1:1
Habitat Group F: disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands
Non-native Vegetation 1.28 Mitigation Fee ( 1 )
Eucalyptus Woodland 1.88 Mitigation Fee (2)
Intensive Agriculture (Nurseries) 8.47 Mitigation Fee (3)
Agriculture (Row 220.00 Mitigation Fee (4)
Urban/Developed 25.45 None
Source: Merkel & Associates. Inc., October 5, 2004
0.14 acre of Habitat
Group CorD
Mitigation Fee ( 1 )
Mitigation Fee (2)
Mitigation Fee (3)
Mitigation Fee (4)
None
( 1) Non-native Vegetation Mitigation Fee: East Village= 0.76 acre; West Village= ~.52 acre (balance on Oplion Parcel)
(2) Eucalyptus Woodland Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.00 acre; West Village = 1.88 acre
(3) Agricultural Land Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.00 acre; West Village = 8.47 acre
(4) Agricultural Land Mitigation Fee: East Village= 84.50 acre; West Village= 135.50 acre
coastal sage scrub habitat within PA 's 23 C and D. The proposed restoration areas currently contain
sage scrub habitat on-site, a habitat restoration plan is proposed that would involve the restoration of
extensive agriculture and the palm tree nursery. Restoration would involve revegetation of 17.4 acres
(Areas A and B as shown on Figure 5.5-6) and hydroseeding of 18.9 acres (see Area C). Implementation of
Mitigation Measures B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-16 and B-23 will reduce the significant impact to coastal sage
scrub and chamise chaparral to a level less than significant. Proposed mitigation requires that a minimum
of 70% (50.40 acres) of the existing on-site coastal sage scrub is preserved and that an Upland Habitat
Restoration Plan be prepared and implemented as approved by the Wildlife Agencies. In addition, to
avoid impacts to adjacent open space habitats during construction, all impact-open space interfaces
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-22 April2006
I
'
LEGEND
UPLAND RESTORATION AREAS
I I DCSS revegetatiol"l -Area A
I · ... •l DCSS revegetatiom -Area B r• DCSS reintroduction· Area C
~ Future DCSS reintrroduction area ~'"'~~ with West Village
"
N
HABITAT SUMMARY APPROX.AC.
Tolal existing Diegan Coastal Sege Scrub (DCSS): 50.4 ac
Tolal existing Chemise Chaparral: 1.7 ac
Total existing Riparian Corridor: 8.6 ac
(DCSS) REVEGETATION AREA A (INSTALLED WITH 13.4 ac
EAST VILLAGE):
(DCSS) REVEGETATION AREA B QNSTALLED BY WEST 5.6 ac
VILLAGE AFTER NURSERY LEASE EXPIRES (AUG. 2006)):
NATIVE HYDROSEED MIX AREA C (INSTALLED BY WEST 18.9 ac
VILLAGE AFTER NURSERY LEASE EXPIRES (AUG. 2006)):
FUTURE DCSS REINTRODUCTION WITH WEST VILLAGE: 4.4 ac
TOTAL (AREA A, 8, C & FUTURE): 42.3 ac
-----....... ......
W+E 0'
I
1000' I 25~0'~~----~W~O'~~~
s
SOURCE PI s t ann1ng )YS ems, 2005
-m:m~m-Robertson Ranch Mast¢er Plan Program EIR
Upland Habitat R~estoration Plan
\~~Y~t~:"~t.:)}'~ri:iF!Jiilt,Il
I II ill !',1111 I I II,' i I I' I I II Ill I I I
Calavera Creek corridmr --.......
Existing wetland restoration progrann
12,000 S.F. wetland restoratiom
Restore existing tran to DCS$
2.6 AC future wetlands restoratiom
I ~... -,~ .... ..............,
9/26/05
FIGURE
5.5-6
5.5-23
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
will require construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and
clearing and environmentally sensitive areas beyond. This fencing shall be maintained for the duration of
construction activity. A Wildlife Agency-approved biological monitor with the authority to stop work shall
be present during grading and construction activities to ensure compliance with this measure. Figure 5.5-6
identifies the proposed Upland Habitat Restoration Plan for the project.
Pedestrian Trails
Three pedestrian trails are proposed to cross the main habitat corridor in the central portion of the project
site to link the East and West Villages. The alignments of these trails, as proposed, partially or wholly utilize
joint access with existing SDG&E access roads and they utilize the most direct access route in order to
minimize trail impacts. None of the alignments will directly impact coastal sage scrub and no habitat
removal will be required associated with implementation of these trails. Trails will be constructed and
maintained in accordance with the management recommendations identified in the HMP including public
access, fencing, signs and lighting. The criteria for trail development (e.g., fencing, signage) will be
included in the HMP open space maintenance and management plan (as described in Mitigation
Measure B-16). As required in Mitigation Measure B-23, the proposed trails will be managed by the City of
Carlsbad or by a conservation management entity with familiarity with the specific Recreation and Public
Access measures identified in MHCP Volume I.
PaAhaAdle (PA 23E) Trailhead
As a separate project, the City is in tho process of implementing tho Citywide trail network. A component
of this project involves tho potential location of a trailhead on a portion of tho Carlsbad Unified $chool
District (CU$D) property, located immediately offsite. l=lowovor, the City is currently in the process of
seeking agreement with CU$D, and an alternative location within PA 23E is also under consideration by tho
City. As depicted in Figura 5.5 7, if tho City is unable to receive concurrence from CU$D to install a regional
trailhead on tho CUSD proport~' adjacent to the project site, a trailhead and pedestrian trail link to the
Calavera Hills sower easement trail is identified within the southern portion of tho panhandle, adjacent to
tho BdB detention basin. This trailhead would provide no greater than 1 Q parking spaces, and tho potential
for a trail link across tho Calavera Crook riparian corridor to tho m~isting SO'o'rOr easement trail. This trailhead
location has boon identified because it utilizos tho existing BdB detention basin maintenance access road
and it is located within tho existing agricultural and detention basin areas and thus does not impact
sensitive resources. ~lo habitat removal would be required for implementation of tho trailhead.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure B 6 will ensure compliance with those provisions.
Wetlands
Project impacts will also occur to wetland/riparian habitats. The wetland/riparian habitats that will be
impacted by the proposed project are coastal valley freshwater marsh (0.22 acre) and southern willow
scrub (0.61 acre). Please note that these wetland/riparian impacts are not a formal delineation of impacts
to waters of the U.S. or state of California. Wetland and riparian biological impacts to these biological
resources is considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-7 will reduce this
impact to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-25 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Due to the location of the vernal pools and their topographical and geographical relationship to the
proposed Robertson Ranch development, no runoff from proposed Robertson Ranch development is
anticipated to impact the vernal pools located within PA 23E. PA 23E is proposed for open space.
Additionally, from a hydrological standpoint PA 23E is separated from the remainder of the project site as
the area is located north of Robertson Ranch development areas, and is also separated by College
Boulevard.
The existing hydrological conditions in this portion of the project site will not change as a result of the
proposed project. Vernal pool management efforts should be undertaken by the preserve manager to
ensure that the hydrology and watershed of the pools remain protected. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure B-20 will ensure that these vernal pool locations are properly protected within the context of the
proposed open space.
B. Wetlands/Riparian Vegetation
Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Impacts
Wetlands
The proposed project would permanently impact approximately 0.40 acre of wetlands in Drainages A and
B. The wetlands impacts to Drainages A and B will occur in the West Village only. There will be no wetland
impact as a result of development within the East Village. In addition, the project would temporarily
impact 0.17 acre of wetlands in Drainages A and B. No wetland impacts will occur in Drainage C. Figure
5.5-2 depicts the wetland delineation and areas of impact for the entire project site. Figure 5.5-3 depicts
the detail of the anticipated impact to Drainage A2 as a result of the extension of Kelly Drive into PA 1.
Table 5.5-8 identifies the impacts to ACOE wetlands and non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Table 5.5-9
identifies the ACOE wetland impacts by vegetation types. As identified in Table 5.5-9, wetland impacts will
occur to 0.16 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.3 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre
of disturbed emergent wetland. The majority of the wetland impact will occur in Drainage A, where the
extension of Kelly Drive into PA 1 is proposed. The HMP requires that the analysis of proposed impacts to
wetlands consist of a three step process that involves: I J determining whether impacts are avoidable or
unavoidable; 2) determining the allowable amount of encroachment; and, 3) determining the mitigation
for unavoidable impacts. With respect to the wetland impact to Drainage A, the impact to this drainage
cannot be avoided, as it would be impacted by the extension of Kelly Drive, which must meet certain
engineering criteria. The primary reason the impact cannot be avoided is that the placement of the
intersection is already controlled by the existing Kelly Drive south of El Camino Real. The PA 1 driveway
must connect across from the existing Kelly Drive to form an intersection that can be signal controlled.
Additionally, this new connection must meet minimum engineering radius criteria, which pushes the
alignment of the roadway into the drainage area. As shown in Figure 5.5-3, the drainage is located in such
proximity to the future roadway connection and the existing intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive
such that avoidance is not feasible under the proposed project. The wetland impacts associated with
Drainage B would also occur within the West Village associated with the development of the park. Please
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-26 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
see subsequent Section A. Carlsbad Area Subregional Habitat Management Plan for more discussion
related to compliance with HMP conservation Goal II -No Net Loss of Wetlands Function and Value. In
compliance with HMP requirements, mitigation is proposed which would prevent any net loss of wetland
functions and values of the wetland.
TABLE 5.5-8
Impacts to ACOE Wetland and Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. 1
0.39 0.46
0.01 0.07
0.40 0.53
0.11 0.11
0.17 0.33
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.29 0.57 0.86
Notes: 1 = Impacts will occur in West Village only.
Source: Glen Lukos Associates. August 18, 2004.
TABLE 5.5-9
ACOE Wetland Impacts by Vegetation Type1
Freshwater Marsh
0.07
TOTAL 0.57
Notes: 1 = Impacts will occur in West Village only.
Source: Glen Lukos Associates. August 18. 2004.
Waters of the U.S.
The development of the West Village will impact 0.29 acres of Non-wetland Waters of the U.S., of which
0.13 acre will be permanent and 0.16 acre will be temporary. There will be no waters of the U.S. impact as a
result of development within the East Village. No impacts to Waters of the U.S. will occur in Drainage C.
Based on the Master Plan design, approximately 0.57 acres of wetlands and 0.29 acre of non-wetlands will
be impacted by development within the West Village. These impacts to ACOE jurisdictional areas are
considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-7 will reduce this impact to a level less
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-27 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
than significant. Proposed mitigation requires that "no net loss" of wetlands will occur with development of
the proposed project and that a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional Impacts
Riparian Vegetation
The development of the West Village will impact approximately 1.05 acres riparian vegetation in Drainages
A and B. There will be no riparian vegetation impact as a result of development within the East Village. No
impacts to riparian vegetation will occur in Drainage C. Figure 5.5-2 depicts the wetland delineation and
areas of impact. Table 5.5-10 identifies the impacts to CDFG riparian vegetation and unvegetated
streambed. Table 5.5-11 identifies the CDFG riparian vegetation impacts by vegetation type. As identified
in Table 5.5-11, wetland impacts will occur to 0.69 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.29 acre of coastal and
valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of disturbed emergent wetland.
Streambed
The development of the West Village will impact 0.27 acres of unvegetated streambed within Drainages A
and B. There will be no streambed impact as a result of development within the East Village. No impacts
to unvegetated streambed will occur in Drainage C.
TABLE 5.5-1 0
CDFG Unvegetated Streambed and Riparian Vegetation lmpacts1
A 0.05
B 0.22
TOTAL 0.27
1 = Impacts will occur in West Village only.
Source: Glen Lukos Associates. August 18, 2004.
0.98 1.03
O.Ql 0.29
1.05 1.32
Based on the Master Plan design, approximately 1.05 acres of riparian vegetation and 0.27 acre of
unvegetated streambed will be impacted by development of the West Village. These impacts to CDFG
jurisdictional areas are considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-7 will reduce this
impact to a level less than significant. Proposed mitigation requires that "no net loss" of wetlands will occur
with development of the proposed project and that a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the
Wildlife Agencies. Figure 5.5-7, depicts the location of proposed on-site wetland/riparian restoration areas.
Prior to approval of a grading permit for the West Village, a wetlands/riparian restoration plan shall be
prepared and approved by the Wildlife Agencies for proposed wetland impacts in the West Village. No
wetland impacts are proposed in the East Village.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-28 April2006
ROBERTSON RANCH
PANHANDLE LAND USES
LEGEND
ROBERTSON RANCH
BOUNDARY LINE
300
EXISTING C4LA VERA CREEK
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
DETENTION BASIN BJB
OVERLAPING WETLAND RESTORATION
AND DETENTION BASIN BJB
TRAIL
ROBERTSON RANCH AND SURPLUS
WETLAND RESTORATION
SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2005
0
Cd
~ -
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
\ ~ .... _
-----.-··
·m·m·m· Proposed Panhandle (P A 23E) Land Uses
.r-·I!UIIIIil-._
and Restoration
5.5-29
4/4/06
FIGURE
5.5-7
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
TABLE 5.5-11
CDFG Riparian Vegetation Impacts by Vegetation Type 1
TOTAL
1 = Impacts will occur in West Village only.
Source: Glen Lukes Associates, August 18, 2004.
Sensitive Plant Species
1.05
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact sensitive plants. Both California
adelphia and western dichondra occur within the Diegan coastal sage scrub on-site (see Figure 5.5-1):
however, the majority of the on-site sage scrub would be preserved within dedicated open space (PAs
23B, C, D, E). The impact to these plant species is not considered significant because the impact will be
limited, the populations of California adelphia and western dichondra are not considered significant
populations, and the majority of these populations will be preserved on-site within proposed open space
planning areas.
The thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) is a federally threatened and state endangered species
and is listed on the California Native Plant Society's List 1 B. The thread-leaved brodiaea was not observed
on the project site during 2001 general biological surveys nor during the spring 2002 or 2003 focused thread-
leaved brodiaea surveys. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-21 will ensure that no impact to this issue
occurs. Mitigation Measure B-21 requires focused surveys for the thread-leaved brodiaea to be performed
prior to grading only if seasonal precipitation exceeds 1 0 inches.
Sensitive Animal Species
So as to protect the Carlsbad HMP covered sensitive animal species observed on the project site, the
proposed project as required in Mitigation Measure B-22, will comply with all applicable "conditions of
coverage," identified in Volume II of the MHCP.
California gnatcatcher
During field surveys, a total of three active California gnatcatcher territories were identified on-site. All
three locations were mapped outside of the project impact area within PAs 23B, D, and E. Although the
biological surveys performed for the project did not map the boundary of the gnatcatcher home ranges
and some portions of the home ranges may extend into impacted areas, given the magnitude and
location of the proposed sage scrub impacts, it is expected that most or all of the home ranges will
continue to be located in biological open space and the California gnatcatcher will not be directly
impacted by project development. Preservation of existing habitat and proposed creation and restoration
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-30 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
of habitat on-site, as proposed, would ensure that no significant direct impact to the existing on-site
California gnatcatcher population would occur.
The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the HMP is the conservation and management of
habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP also requires that, " ... in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to
the maximum extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citywide on a project
level basis." Mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.5.4 are in accordance with HMP requirements for
those species documented to occur within Robertson Ranch and species with potential for occurrence
within the Robertson Ranch project site. Per the HMP, within Standards Areas, 75% of gnatcatchers shall be
conserved. It is expected that Robertson Ranch will meet these standards within its site boundary as the
three observed gnatcatcher locations within the project site are proposed for HMP open space.
There is a potential for an indirect impact to the gnatcatcher as a result of noise generated during
construction on the project site or during initial clearing and grubbing of habitat. This potential indirect
impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure~ B-8, B-17, and B-18 will
reduce the potential indirect impact to the gnatcatcher as a result of construction activity to a level less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure B-8 requires that no clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitat or construction that
would result in direct impacts to sage scrub or which occurs within 300 feet of occupied sage scrub shall
take place between February 15 and August 31 unless authorized by the Wildlife Agencies after
consultation. If clearing of habitat and subsequent construction cannot be restricted to outside of the
breeding season, appropriate conservation measures shall be identified and implemented, through
agreement with the Wildlife Agencies to ensure that no direct or indirect impact to gnatcatchers will occur.
A voidance of noise-related impacts to occupied habitat can be assured, through implementation of noise
reduction methods (e.g., a noise barrier or wall) to reduce noise within occupied habitat to a level below
60 dBA and/or as allowed by the Wildlife Agencies. If construction can be restricted to outside of the
breeding season, kept to a minimum of 300 feet away from suitable habitat, or if construction noise is less
than 60 dBA within suitable habitat updated focused surveys are not expected to be necessary. This
measure is applicable to both construction of the East Village, and subsequently, construction of the West
Village, which may not occur for a period of time after the East Village, and wherein there may be the
establishment of additional gnatcatcher territories within proposed habitat restoration areas that currently
do not exist. Because the timing of development of the West Village is anticipated to be 3 to 10 years,
updated gnatcatcher surveys would be required for the West Village prior to the commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure B-17 requires a monitoring biologist to be on site during initial clearing and grubbing of
habitat, which shall occur outside of the qnatcatcher breeding season. In addition, the monitoring
biologist shall perform a minimum of three focuses surveys, on separate days, to determine the presence of
qnatcatchers in the project impact footprint outside the gnatcatcher breeding season.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-31 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure B-18 requires that, for subsequent construction work performed during the breeding
season, a monitoring biologist should be on site during significant noise-generating project construction
activities within 300 feet of preserved habitat to ensure compliance with all conservation measures.
Least Bell's Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
The impact to a least Bell's vireo territory (detected in 2001 surveys) is within the footprint of the recently
constructed College Boulevard extension. Based on the results of focused surveys (2001 ), no additional
direct impact to least Bell's vireo, and habitat is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Suitable
vireo habitat will be preserved within open space PA 23E, upstream from the 2001 detection location.
The proposed project has the potential to indirectly impact the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow
flycatcher as a result of construction noise during construction activity. This potential indirect impact is
considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-9 will reduce the potential indirect impact
to the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher to a level less than significant. Mitigation
Measure B-9 requires that if sensitive nesting birds (e.g., least Bell's vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher)
are located outside of the project grading and clearing footprint, but within 300 feet of the proposed work
area, noise reduction measures (e.g., noise barrier/wall) shall be implemented to prevent noise impacts
within occupied breeding season habitat. Comparable to the focused gnatcatcher surveys, vireo and
flycatcher surveys were conducted in 2001. If work is proposed within 300 feet of suitable habitat during
the breeding season, updated surveys are required to ensure that occupied habitat at the time of
construction activity is identified and appropriate noise reduction measures are implemented as necessary.
Noise reduction measures would need to meet the minimum standard of reducing noise levels to below 60
dBA within occupied habitat, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Wildlife Agencies. If construction within
300 feet of riparian scrub or woodland habitat is not proposed during the breeding season, updated
surveys are not required.
Lower Sensitivity Species
Impacts to lower sensitivity species including orange-throated whiptail, Costa's hummingbird, California
horned lark, California thrasher, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Bell's sage sparrow are
anticipated in conjunction with the loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub. Each of these species was recorded
from the site and could be impacted by habitat loss. Of these species, only the orange-throated whiptail
and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow are covered species under the HMP. The loss of potential
orange-throated whiptail and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow habitat is considered a
significant impact. The impact to these species will be mitigated through the proposed habitat-based
mitigation and management of long-term preserves by the City of Carlsbad or another preserve
management entity. These species' HMP conditions of coverage are restricted to area specific
management directives for long-term preserve management and do not include project-by-project
restrictions or recommendations. Compliance with habitat-based mitigation would reduce the proposed
project's impacts to the orange-throated whiptail and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow impacts
to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-32 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
The on-site populations of Costa's hummingbird, California horned lark, California thrasher, and Bell's sage
sparrow are neither known nor expected to be significant; therefore, the impact associated with the loss of
a portion of the suitable habitat on-site (and correspondingly the potential loss of a portion of the
population) is considered to be less than significant.
Loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, and white-tailed kite may be impacted by a loss of foraging habitat
on-site. Each of these species may forage in fallow fields and open sage scrub, but these species have not
been observed on-site in significant numbers. The foraging value of the subject property is largely
decreased by active extensive agriculture, which substantially reduces the prey base. Loss of foraging
habitat is not anticipated to result in a significant impact, as the site does not consist of high quality
foraging habitat and is not known to support significant raptor or raptorial passerine populations. The
potential impact to loss of foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, and white-tailed kite
is considered to be less than significant. The loggerhead shrike is a species that would potentially nest in
coastal sage scrub habitat; therefore, this species may be impacted by loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub.
This impact would be considered significant only if the habitat was occupied and clearing occurred during
the breeding season. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-8 related to the California gnatcatcher
would reduce this impact to below a level of significance.
No impact to yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Nuttall's woodpecker, and Cooper's hawk is
anticipated, as the project would not impact riparian woodland habitats, which these species are typically
associated with.
Other Potentially Occurring Species
Impacts to potentially present species are assessed based upon likelihood of occurrence, the expected
significance of any on-site population, and the location of occupied habitat in relation to the proposed
project footprint.
San Diego Fairy Shrimp. If present, this species would be restricted to the vernal pools and road rut areas
mapped on-site, none of which are located within the project footprint. No impact to San Diego Fairy
Shrimp is anticipated.
Western Spadefoot. This species may occur within sage scrub and riparian habitats, particularly in the
vicinity of ephemeral pools. An impact to this species may result from clearing of sage scrub within which
this toad burrows. However, there is no evidence that a significant population exists on-site. Spring surveys
did not reveal the species presence despite mapping of ephemeral (vernal) pools and survey work within
both sage scrub and riparian areas. Also, much of the site is unsuitable due to extensive agriculture. Based
on this field based information, the potential for an impact to this species is considered less than significant.
San Diego Horned lizard, Coastal Western Whiptail, Coronado Skink, San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit,
Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse, and San Diego Desert Woodrat. An impact to San Diego horned
lizard, coastal western whiptail. Coronado skink, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, northwestern San Diego
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-33 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
pocket mouse, and San Diego desert woodrat may result from the loss of sage scrub on-site. Aside from
the skink and pocket mouse, these species are readily detectable and a significant population of any of
these species would have been identified through field surveys. In the absence of a significant population,
the potential impact to San Diego horned lizard, coastal western whiptail, San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit, and San Diego desert woodrat is not considered significant. If Coronado skink and
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse occupy the project site, they are not expected to do so in
significant numbers due to the limited amount of available habitat. Therefore, the impact to a portion of
this limited habitat will not result in a significant impact to these two low sensitivity species.
Two-striped Garter Snake. An impact to this species could occur should the project impact the primary
drainage (i.e., Calavera Creek) on-site. However, this species is not expected to occur in significant
numbers on-site, and the Calavera Creek drainage would not be impacted.
Sharp-shinned Hawk. This species would only occur on-site during migratory movements and is unlikely to
heavily utilize the site, as this hawk typically frequents more forested habitats. The potential impact to this
species through the loss of migratory habitat are not considered a significant impact.
Burrowing Owl. This species was not detected on-site during Winter and Spring 2005 surveys, but this site
may in the future be utilized by wintering, or less likely, a resident breeding pair(s) as it is known from the
region and suitable habitat exists on-site. These owls burrow and nest in abandoned rodent holes. This
species would be impacted in the event occupied burrows were covered during grading activity. The
potential for grading activity to impact the burrowing owl is considered significant. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure B-10 will reduce the potential impact to burrowing owl to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure B-1 0 requires, per the HMP, that protocol surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted
in all Standards Areas (on the project site) and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas that contain
suitable habitat. Winter surveys were conducted in 2005 and spring surveys shall be conducted prior to any
construction. The surveys would serve to identify owl burrow locations for the purposes of avoidance
(where practicable) or passive relocation. Specifically, if burrowing owls are identified on-site, the following
HMP mitigation measures would be implemented:
Development shall avoid direct impacts to the nest site to the maximum extent practicable. If
impacts are unavoidable, any impacted individuals shall be relocated to a conserved area of
suitable size and characteristics, using passive or active methodologies approved by the Wildlife
Agencies.
Raptors and Migratory Birds. Raptors may nest on-site in large eucalyptus trees or other suitable nesting
areas. The impact to raptors would be considered significant if active nests are observed during
construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-11 would reduce the potential impact to a level less
than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-34 Apri12006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
E. Wildlife Corridor/Linkage B
The City of Carlsbad's HMP discussion of wildlife corridors within the project site addresses Linkage B, the
northwesterly and northeasterly branches of which originate in the central portion of the project site.
Linkage B is currently composed of a patchwork of existing habitat fragments and larger areas of
agricultural open space. As mapped within the HMP, Linkage B includes the remnant sage scrub habitats
that originate to the northwest of Robertson Ranch and stretch to the central portion of the site in a
southeasterly direction (the northwestern on-site branch of Linkage B). From there, the Linkage includes the
extensive agriculture and nursery lands that continue the Linkage to the southeast and extensive
agriculture and sage scrub that continue the Linkage to the northeast (northeast branch).
The project's wildlife corridor design is the product of extensive coordination with the USFWS and CDFG,
which culminated in the Agencies' concurrence of the project's proposed open space and development
configuration as depicted on the approved HMP Hardline Map (see Figure ~-6). Overall, the project
expects to enhance Linkage B (for wildlife movement) through the establishment and revegetation of
permanent wildlife corridors as envisioned by the HMP. The primary targeted species is the California
gnatcatcher, an avian species in which connectivity is provided even with intervening local roadways.
However, the corridor addresses all HMP covered species, and provisions have been made to ensure
connectivity for other types of wildlife in the area. The proposed conservation of existing on-site habitat
and the restoration of coastal sage scrub on-site would comply with the conservation goals and objectives
of the City's HMP, and the proposed design would establish, enhance, and maintain a viable habitat
linkage to the biological core areas to the north and south of the project site.
No vehicular roadways are proposed to cross the main wildlife corridor. However, as proposed, a roadway
would cross the northwestern branch of Linkage B (see Figures 3-3 and 3-6). This road would connect PA's
10 and 11. A 12' x 12' culvert undercrossing is proposed under this roadway to maintain connectivity, and
facilitate wildlife movement (see Figure 3-6). Similarly, wildlife movement under College Boulevard (the
northeastern branch of Linkage B) would maintain connectivity with an existing 6' high x 12' wide arched
animal undercrossing. These undercrossings alone would not result in complete avoidance of corridor
impacts. At-grade crossing by wildlife can occur even in the presence of undercrossings unless fencing to
direct wildlife to crossings is provided. To minimize road-kill impacts, fencing is also proposed at
undercrossing locations to funnel wildlife toward culverts and other undercrossings and to limit at-grade
crossings. Fencing is not proposed along El Camino Real. Installation of fencing along the open space
planning areas that front El Camino Real, where it would occur on one side of the road only, has the
potential to trap wildlife on the roadway. Therefore, no fencing is proposed in these locations. The design
and specific location of the fencing will ultimately be decided in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.
The project also proposes to maintain wildlife movement within Linkage B by:
• Eliminating the existing nursery and on-going agricultural activities within the Linkage, which may not
currently facilitate movement and replacing these uses with sage scrub restoration;
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-35 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
• Preserving virtually all of the northeastern panhandle area (PA 23E). which lies adjacent to existing
preserved lands (and would be subject only to the existing detention basin and a possible future
regional trail head); and
• Restoring wetlands within the panhandle area (PA 23E).
Although the panhandle area may be subject to future trail use, this is not expected to alter use of the area
as a corridor, since most wildlife movement is nocturnal and trail use is typically restricted to daylight hours.
Project design features identified above will ensure that the project maintains a corridor connection for
Linkage B as envisioned in the HMP. Mitigation Measures B-12 will ensure compliance with these standards.
Mitigation Measure B-12 requires avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts associated with roadways (within
Linkage B), additional measures (e.g., fencing, lighting restrictions) shall be required to encourage the
continued use of the corridor and use of the two roadway undercrossings. The required measures are
described below and specified in Mitigation Measure B-12.
Where roads cross the corridor (Linkage B) a substantial fence shall be erected to funnel wildlife
toward appropriate underpasses. These fences shall be buried at least one foot underground so
animals cannot readily dig underneath. As stated previously, fencing is not proposed along El
Camino Real, where it would occur on one side of the road only and could trap wildlife on the
roadway. The ultimate design and specific location of the fencing will be decided in coordination
with the Wildlife Agencies. Also, natural vegetative cover shall also be established and maintained
at either end of the wildlife underpasses. It should be noted that only the first of these criteria (i.e.,
the fencing) is a direct responsibility of the Robertson Ranch project relative to the College Boulevard
undercrossing.
5.5.3.2 Indirect Impacts
In association with direct impacts to native vegetation communities, there are usually indirect impacts to
the remaining, adjacent native vegetation and wildlife communities. Many of these effects are related to
habitat fragmentation, which occurs when a native vegetation community is not entirely altered or
developed, but what remains has a diminished wildlife habitat value due to edge effects and lack of
connectivity. Fragmented habitats may no longer be able to support large predators. The presence of
native predators has been demonstrated to hold in check populations of non-native predators such as
domestic/feral cats. Without the presence of such predators, avian and small mammal diversity and
abundance declines, presumably due to increased depredation pressure from non-native predators. Edge
effects may include increased predation pressure, increased brood parasitism, increased competition for
nesting cavities from non-native species, and increased floral competition from weedy species.
In addition to those effects associated with fragmentation, indirect impacts may also include elevated
noise above 60 dBA Leq, artificial night lighting within wildlife habitat, change in surface water within a
floodplain, and increased erosion or sedimentation. These types of indirect impacts can affect vegetation
communities or alter habitat use by sensitive species.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-36 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
For the proposed project, the indirect effects of greatest concern ore increased potential for invasion of
native habitats by invasive exotic floral species (i.e., giant cane, pampas grass), potential for increased
artificial lighting within adjacent, preserved habitats, and edge effects on sensitive species, including edge
effects from trails.
To the northeast of the project site lie Hardline Conservation Areas (Co/avera Preserve and the Carlsbad
Highlands Mitigation Bank); however, the proposed project does not include impacts in the northeastern
portion of the project site, adjacent to the preserve lands. This area is proposed for designation as open
space.
The potential indirect effects related to artificial night lighting within wildlife habitat, harassment, and
invasive plants are considered significant impacts to the open space areas within and adjacent to the
project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-13, B-14, €1f\€l-B-15, and B-19 will reduce the impact
of these indirect effects on biological resources to a level less than significant. Mitigation B-13 requires that
prior to approval of future building permits, each development shall be inspected by the City's Planning
and Building Departments to ensure that the lighting restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the
Wildlife Agencies have been implemented. Section 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics provides a detailed
lighting study of the proposed active pork. The sports park lighting will be designed so there is no
measurable light spillover into the habitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the
pork's design at the top of slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. The Wildlife Agencies will provide further
review of the lighting analysis prepared for the project's EIR to ensure that light spillover has been
appropriately attenuated. These restrictions would ovoid excess illumination of open space areas through
repositioning, redirecting (shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The Master Plan
requires shielding or redirecting all light within 1 00 feet of open space away from the open space to avoid
indirect impacts.
To ensure continued use of Linkage Band all areas of biological open space by a variety of HMP species,
efforts to reduce detrimental edge effects shall be undertaken. Any linear vegetation feature has an
increased amount of edge relative to a large vegetation patch. If this increased amount of edge is
bordered by development or disturbed habitat the potential for detrimental edge effects is high. To
combat these effects, Mitigation Measure B-14 requires the following:
Residents whose lots back onto the Linkage lands, should be apprised through the project's CC&R's
of the sensitivity of the adjacent lands via signage and informed of penalties for illegal intrusion (via
uncontrolled access points or expansion of landscaping, etc.), and/or illegal dumping (materials into
biological open space).
Fencing shall be installed (at least 5' in height) to deter open access to the biological open space
where the open space lies adjacent to residential development, ancillary facilities, or a roadway.
Fencing should also preclude (to the extent feasible) access of the open space by domestic pets.
Access points to the biological open space should be carefully controlled to reduce habitat
degradation.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-37 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure B-19 includes miscellaneous conditions to be implemented during project construction
in order to avoid indirect impacts to the surrounding habitat.
Two noxious plant species: giant cane (arundo donax) and pampas grass {cortaderia jubata) shall be
eliminated from all areas of the property to be retained in open space. If identified, additional significant
noxious plant species currently growing within Linkage B shall be flagged by a trained biologist and
carefully removed {if such a removal can practically be achieved) so that seeds are not dispersed. In
addition, the use of invasive exotic plants within landscaping areas that are adjacent to proposed open
space shall be prohibited through the application of Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs). See
Mitigation Measure B-15.
The project's open space shall be included within (contribute to) the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
preserve areas. Management of the designated open space shall be undertaken by a professional
management entity (e.g., Center for Natural Lands Management) with experience in managing biological
open space in the southern California region. An area-specific management plan shall be developed and
an endowment shall be established {based upon a Property Analysis Record) by the developer to fund the
management of the preserve except where other management funds become available. The designated
management entity would ensure compliance with the HMP conditions of coverage for HMP species
through implementation the approved area specific management plan. Specially, suitable riparian
habitat for least Bell's vireo and yellow-breasted chat and suitable upland habitats for California
gnatcatcher and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow within the open space will be managed to
meet the conditions of coverage for these species, if present.
A. Carlsbad Area Subregional Habitat Management Plan
Based on the analysis provided above and required Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-16, the proposed
project meets and/or exceeds the HMP Standards as recently approved by the City. The Wildlife Agencies
have concurred that this project is designed to satisfy the HMP Standards.
The Robertson Ranch site lies within a "Standards" area of the City of Carlsbad's HMP. Under the
requirements of the HMP, landowners in "Standards" area are to consult with the City and Wildlife Agencies
in advance of commencing the City's "normal" development application process {seep. E-2 of the HMP).
Extensive discussions among the landowners, the City and the Wildlife Agencies concerning the
appropriate configuration of open space and development on the Robertson Ranch property began in
2002, and well before the City's HMP was formally adopted (the HMP became effective in November
2004). These investigations and discussions became the vehicle for determining HMP consistency, and
culminated in receipt of a joint letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of
Fish and Game dated February 11, 2005 (provided in Appendix E), wherein they stated that, "the Wildlife
Agencies concur that the Robertson Ranch project as described above is consistent with the standards of
the HMP and could proceed being permitted by the City under their 10{a}(1){B} permit." The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion for the overall HMP also recognizes that the agreed upon coastal sage
scrub restoration on Robertson Ranch will help the City "meet and exceed" the coastal sage scrub
restoration requirements of the HMP.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-38 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
The overall HMP Conservation Goals (see page p. D-76 of the HMP) for the 'southern portion" of LFMZ 14
(the Robertson Ranch site makes up all of the southern portion of LFMZ 14) are to: ( 1) establish, enhance,
and maintain viable habitat linkages across Linkage Area B to ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and
other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 4; (2) allow for no net loss of wetlands; and (3) conserve
through preservation, restoration or enhancement, 67% of coastal sage scrub. As discussed in greater
detail below, the proposed project will meet all three of these HMP Conservation Goals and the
recommended planning standards (p. D-76) associated with achieving theses goals. Planning standards
are recommended (as described on p. D-73) as methods to achieve the zone-specific Conservation Goals.
HMP Conservation Goail. Establish, Enhance and Maintain Habitat Linkage
The configuration of open space as proposed in the Master Plan was arrived at after field visits and
numerous meetings with the Wildlife Agencies to ensure that a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area B
is achieved. The recommended standards relating to this goal were also satisfied. Existing habitat patches
have been incorporated into the linkage. As proposed, natural habitat areas contiguous to adjacent
open space parcels to the north and northeast have been avoided to a significant extent, including the
elimination of any private development in the "panhandle" portion of the site. Sensitive design of road
crossings of the corridor was achieved by eliminating from the project altogether an initially contemplated
road crossing between the eastern and western portions of Robertson Ranch, and incorporating a large,
soft bottom culverted-crossing where a circulation road traverses the "western stem" of the corridor. While
not specifically articulated as a recommended standard, the project will reduce the steepness of the lower
western portion of the corridor, which the Wildlife Agencies encouraged in order to enhance the linkage
between Core Areas 3 and 4. The coastal sage scrub restoration proposed within the corridor will also
enhance the effectiveness of the linkage area for the California gnatcatcher and other HMP species.
HMP Conservation Goal II. No-Net-Loss of Wetland Functions and Value
The HMP Conservation Goal of no-net-loss of wetlands will also be achieved, both in terms of the total
amount of acreage preserved/created and in terms of the functions and value of the wetlands on-site in
the existing and post project condition. Two areas containing relatively low quality wetlands will be
impacted by the project. The first area (Drainage B) consists of a visqueen-lined channel that runs north-
south through the Parkway Nursery in the center of the project site. This area currently is supported by
nuisance runoff from the nursery and exhibits little to no habitat functions or value. The removal of this
drainage will be mitigated by the creation of higher quality wetlands, either within the lower central portion
of the wildlife corridor or in the "panhandle" area adjacent to already existing wetlands. Recreated
wetlands in either proposed location will have higher function and value than those impacted.
The second area of wetland impacts occurs in the extreme western portion of the site (Drainage A), near
the intersection of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, where nuisance runoff again supports wetlands
within two drainage courses. The small drainage tributary that runs immediately adjacent to the
intersection would be filled. The drainage course that traverses diagonally from under Tamarack Avenue
southeast to exit under El Camino Real would largely be avoided, but as discussed previously, an entry
road required at the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive would impact a portion of the wetlands
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-39 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
within this drainage. These impacts will be mitigated by the creation of wetlands of higher quality in areas
that are biologically superior to the areas where impacts will occur.
Related to the HMP Conservation Goal of No-Net-Loss is a recommended standard to set back
development at least 1 00 feet from existing wetland habitats when converting agricultural land to other
uses, and to implement restoration and/or enhancement of "buffer" areas. The proposed project is
consistent with this standard in the "panhandle" area along Calavera Creek, which contains the site's
highest quality riparian habitat, but the standard is not fully met in connection with those wetlands avoided
in the westernmost portion of the site. However, the absence of a 100-foot development setback in this
area does not preclude the project from achieving the HMP Goal of No-Net-Loss of wetland functions and
value.
Indirectly related to the HMP Conservation Goal of No-Net-Loss is the recommended standard to prohibit fill
in the flood plain of the riparian areas on-site except where required for Circulation Element roads,
Drainage Master Plan facilities, other essential infrastructure, or unless otherwise agreed to by the Wildlife
Agencies (as allowed pursuant to the USFWS Biological Opinion for the HMP).
College Boulevard and Cannon Road, as well as Detention Basin BJB are already permitted and
constructed on-site and are precisely the type of roads and facilities that the HMP contemplated would be
built. No private development is proposed in the "panhandle" area, which allows for substantial wetland
and upland habitat restoration adjacent and complementary to the most important riparian habitat on-
site. Thus, tho only potential now development within tho flood plain along Calavora Crook is tho possibility
that tho City will locate a regional trailhead in tho panhandle northeast of College Boulevard, which is
anticipated to be tho subject of a separate regional trail permit from the City. This issue '>'lOS specifically
discussed with the Wildlife Agencies, who ha~'e expressed a preference to locate the trailhead on another
site, but are ',¥illing to support the placement of a relatively small ( 10 parking spaces), non paved trailhead
adjacent to Basin BJB if tho City demonstrates that it has been unable to find an alternative feasible
location. Tho Robertson Ranch East Village property O'Nnor has agreed to undertake restoration of an
existing dirt road in tho panhandle and to create 12,000 square foot of wetland habitat to compensate for
tho potential future completion of this trailhead.
The "existing" floodplain on-site was substantially modified when Cannon Road was extended and
Detention Basin BJB installed. It will be further altered by the proposed project and when the proposed
installation an 84-inch storm drain pipe adjacent to Cannon Road is implemented. As with the construction
of Basin BJB, this 84" pipe qualifies as "essential infrastructure," because it will reduce existing flooding
problems at the Rancho Carlsbad Community. There is no riparian or other natural habitat within the low-
lying area south of Cannon Road and the Wildlife Agencies have indicated that this area is generally
unsuitable for restoration efforts because of its proximity to existing and proposed development. Thus the
fact that the proposed project will result in fill of small areas of the existing floodplain in this limited area is
not considered as precluding satisfaction of the HMP's Conservation Goals and recommended standards.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-40 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 -Biological Resources
HMP Conservation Goal Ill. Coastal Sage Scrub Preservation. Restoration and Enhancement
With respect to the third goal of conserving, through preservation. restoration or enhancement, 67% of the
coastal sage scrub acreage within Zone 14, the project will avoid over 70% of the existing sage scrub and
will recreate more acres of coastal sage scrub than will be impacted by project development. Restored
coastal sage scrub will take place in locations which facilitate the provision of a habitat corridor. as
required by the Wildlife Agencies and indicated in the HMP. The related recommended standard to
conserve at least 67% of coastal sage scrub and the associated gnatcatcher population within the
southern portion of Zone 14 is achieved by virtue of the total amount and location of the sage scrub
preserved as part of the project.
Thus it is concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the HMP Conservation Goals, and the
recommended planning standards adopted for Zone 14.
5.5.4 Mitigation Measures
5.5.4. 1 Direct Impacts
A. Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities
B-1 The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the HMP is the conservation and
management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP also states. "In addition, in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act requirements that the impacts of incidental take be
minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. measures to avoid and reduce
impacts will apply citywide on a project level basis."
This measure requires that the development configuration depicted on the Master Tentative Map
for the East and West Villages include a minimum of 70% total of the on-site coastal sage scrub for
preservation. A conservation easement shall be established for the proposed open space
conservation areas.
As a condition of project approval. the applicant must comply with the requirements of all
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the
environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65871 and
Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, Section 20.04.140, the applicant shall grant a
conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife. native
plants and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of certain species thereof.
in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan.
As such, prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first. the project applicant shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the City of
Carlsbad Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s)~. The Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-41 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Gamel shall review and approve the
conservation entity, Property Analysis Record, and conservation easement:
a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary
qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for conservation purposes.
b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for
estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity.
c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial
mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and Wildlife Agencies, to the selected
conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open
space lot(s) in perpetuity.
d. The PAR analysis for the open space preserve shall account for all of the monitoring and
management items identified for all Carlsbad covered species, including the monitoring
strategy identified in MHCP Volume Ill (see Appendix A.3J.
e. Prior to issuance of Concurrent with a grading permit or recordation of the first final map for
each ¥+lla§e:Phase, provide evidence of transfer of fee title or easement over the open
space lot(s) (for each respective ¥+ile§ePhase) to the selected conservation entity.
Timing of Open Space Dedication:
East Village-PA 230 and 23E. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be recorded
over PA 23D and PA 23E with the first final map (master final map) for the East Village. At that time,
title to the land and/or beneficiary of the easement shall be transferred to the conservation entity
or other management body acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. The developer shall continue to
hold maintenance responsibility for restored or revegetated areas within these planning areas until
the success criteria for the restored or revegetated areas has been met, and maintenance
responsibility has been transferred. An easement for an area of coastal sage scrub restoration
located within the habitat corridor on the West Village (which is the responsibility of the East Village
developer) shall also be provided with the first final map (master final map) for the East Village.
West Village -PA 23C. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be recorded over AA
23A, PI\ 23B and PA 23C with the first final map (master final map) for the West Village. The timing
of this dedication is required with the West Village due to the coastal sage scrub restoration
program that will be implemented upon expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease, within PA 23C. At
that time, title to the land and/or beneficiary of the easement shall be transferred to the
conservation entity or other management body acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. The
developer shall continue to hold maintenance responsibility for restored or revegetated areas
within these planning areas until the success criteria for the restored or revegetated areas has
been met, and maintenance responsibility has been transferred.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-42 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
West Village-PAs 23A and 238. An open space and/or conservation easement shall be recorded
over PA 23A and PA 238 with the first final map (master final mapl for the West Village. At that
time, title to the land and/or beneficiary of the easement shall be transferred to the conservation
entity or other management body acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. The developer shall
continue to hold maintenance responsibility for restored or revegetated areas within these
planning areas until the success criteria for the restored or revegetated areas has been met. and
maintenance responsibility has been transferred.
B-2 Development and preservation areas shall be as shown on the exhibit labeled "HMP Hardline
Map" dated September 15, 2004 (as shown on Figure 3-6 of this EIR). No fuel modification is
permitted within the "hardline" open space areas depicted on Figure 3-7 (fuel modification is
limited to those areas shown on Figures 5.10-1 and 5.1 0-2 only).
A coastal sage scrub restoration program shall be implemented as shown on Figure 5.5-6.
Restoration is proposed under two separate restoration plans as follows:
All slopes within the wildlife corridor (East and West Villages) that are graded as part of the
proposed project shall be restored with coastal sage scrub vegetation. The restoration program
shall be subject to a five-year maintenance and monitoring program, with a requirement to meet
agency-approved success criteria. This restoration program shall be approved by the Wildlife
Agencies prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading associated with implementation
of the proposed project (East and West Villages). The restoration program shall include site
preparation guidelines, implementation monitoring, performance standards, long-term
maintenance and monitoring methodology, and contingency measures with a commitment to
funding. Such measure shall also be applicable to the ten ( 1 0) acres of additional coastal sage
scrub restoration Calavera Hills II LLC will implement within the preserve areas of the project.
The revegetation of Area A (MMRP Table A, as provided in Appendix D to the MMRPl will be
accomplished by the developer of the East Village and will be initiated prior to any clearing or
grading of existing CSS for the Robertson Ranch development.
The revegetation of Area B shall occur once grading to an approximate 5:1 slooe aradient has
been completed. This grading will be accomplished by the developer of the West Village upon
expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease and vacation of the property by the Nursery operation.
West Village -PA 23C. A separate restoration plan shall be prepared and implemented for the
portions of the project site within the habitat corridor currently subject to agricultural activity and
the Parkway Nursery lease. The restoration program shall be subject to a five-year maintenance
and monitoring program, with a requirement to meet agency-approved success criteria. This
restoration program shall be approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the commencement of
any clearing or grading associated with implementation of the proposed West Village. The
restoration program shall include site preparation guidelines, implementation monitoring,
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-43 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5 -Biological Resources
performance standards, long-term maintenance and monitoring methodology, and contingency
measures with a commitment to funding. However, this component of the restoration plan would
be less extensive than that identified above (restored slopes and 1 0-acre restoration area).
consisting primarily of hydroseeding, and with limited plantings, with the goal to re-introduce native
vegetation into these areas. This program would be implemented upon the expiration of the
Parkway Lease (which expires in August 2006 and which will not be renewed).
Upon the expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease, the entire habitat corridor along the SDG&E
easement will be subject to a conservation easement and managed as open space, except for
those specific activities SDG&E undertakes within its utility easement consistent with SDG&E's
operation and maintenance requirements. Management of the corridor is anticipated to be
performed by an independent private or public conservation entity experienced in management
of biological resource areas. The amount of funds required to manage and ensure long-term
biological integrity of the habitat corridor will be determined by a property analysis record (PAR)
based on the specific requirements and potential for urban stress on the corridor. Standard
protocol for funding of such corridors dictates that a non-wasting account (endowment) be set up
by the owner of each portion of the property (East Village, West Village) for their respective portion
of corridor to be managed.
The re-introduction of CSS vegetation to Area C /MMRP Table A, as provided in Appendix D to the
MMRPl will commence shortly upon completion of grading within the corridor.
The Future West Village Revegetation /re-introduction of CSS at PA3/EI Camino Real) shall occur at
the time that grading for the future residential street between Planning Area 8/11 and Planning
Area 10 in the West Village is completed.
B-3 Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit. whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall contribute an In-lieu Mitigation Fee (Category F) consistent with Section E.6 of the
City's Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 as follows:
• Non-Native Vegetation Mitigation Fee: East Village = 0.76 acre; West Village = Q.,G00.52 acre
(balance on Option F'mcol)
• Eucalyptus Woodland Mitigation Fee: East Village= 0.00 acre; West Village= 1.88 acre
Agricultural Lands Mitigation Fee: East Village= 0.00 acre; West Village= 8.47 acre
Agricultural Lands Mitigation Fee: East Village = 84.50 acre; West Village = 135.50 acre
B-4 To avoid impacts to adjacent open space habitats during construction all impact open space
interfaces will require construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved
limits of grading and clearing and environmentally sensitive areas beyond. This fencing shall be
maintained for the duration of construction activity. Implementation of this measure shall be
verified by the project Biological Monitor and reported to the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department concurrent with construction.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-44 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
The project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers! the limits of project impacts
(including construction staging areas and access routes! to prevent additional habitat impacts
and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats to be
avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
The applicant shall submit to the Service for approval, at least seven days prior to initiating
project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initial clearing and grubbing of habitat
and project construction. These final plans shall include photographs that show the fenced
limits of impact and all areas (including riparian/wetland or CSS) to be impacted or avoided. If
work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the
problem has been remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts
that occur beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary
construction fencing shall be removed upon project completion.
B-5 A Wildlife Agency-approved biological monitor shall be present to monitor clearing, grading, and
construction activities in the vicinity of biological open space areas. The biological monitor shall
have the authority to stop construction and require additional precautions or conservation
measures to protect the proposed open space preserve areas, including the wildlife movement
corridor, as necessary. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department prior to and concurrent with construction.
B 6 If construction of a trailhead is proposed 'Nithin tho "panhandle" (PA 2dE), tho following criteria
shall apply. Tho trailhead shall: 1) be designed for no more than ton cars; 2) be located at least
100 foot from riparian/wetland vegetation; a) be located at least 500 foot away from the 'Notland
mitigation area; 4) be fenced and gated and posted with usage restrictions; 5) be unpaved with
no lighting; and, 6) constructed of a temporary design which could be relocated. Tho detention
basin will not be maintained, vegetation in tho detention basin shall be maximized, and tho inlet
shall be cleaned as needed. Mitigation for impacts associated with tho parking lot shall occur on
site. The creek crossing shall impact loss than 0.25 aero of land and 'A'ould entail a bridge that
spans the 100 year flood level. /',lthough the trailhead is proposed as a separate City project, tho
impacts shall be mitigated by the Robertson Ranch East Village property owner as follows: 1)
restore an existing dirt trail within the panhandle area to coastal sage scrub (as shm¥n on tho June
10, 2004 exhibit) and, 2) create 12,000 square feet of wetland habitat in the panhandle area.
B. Wetland/Riparian Habitats (West Village Only)
Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Area (West Village Only)
B-7 This measure requires that "no net loss" of wetlands will occur with development of the proposed
project. The development configuration of the Master Tentative Map for the East Village shall
include the proposed on-site restoration area, unless prior to this time some offsetting mitigation
credit is given by the Wildlife Agencies for biological enhancement within the West Village.___A
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-45 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
minimum of 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh and 0.61 acre of southern willow
scrub shall be provided. (Refer to EIR Table 5.5-7 provided in Appendix E of this MMRPl.
A 1 00-foot buffer from wetland vegetation shall be provided where feasible. Any proposed
reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall require sufficient information to determine that a
buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resources. Such information shall include, but is not
limited to, the size and type of the development and/or proposed mitigation (such as planting of
vegetation or the construction of fencing) that will also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The
California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff shall be
consulted in such buffer determinations.
Notwithstanding that all wetlands and riparian impacts (0.83 ac.) are a result of the West Village
development; the mitigation site is located within the boundaries of the East Village (within the
panhandle, adjacent to the existing Calavera Hills mitigation project),, or within the on-site habitat
corridor in a location approved by the Resource agencies. As proposed, the restoration areas on
the project site (PA 23E) contains sufficient area so as to exceed normal mitigation requirements.
Figure 5.5-7 depicts the location of future on-site wetlands/riparian restoration areas. Also, prior to
approval of a grading permit for the West Village, the Planning Director shall confirm that a
wetlands/riparian restoration plan has been prepared and approved by the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Further. enhancement or
restoration within the Drainage A riparian corridor (between PA 1 and PA 2) can also constitute
mitigation credit for wetlands impacts.
California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional Areas (West Village Only)
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-7 as identified above.
San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool
B-20 The following vernal pool management actions shall be incorporated into the preserve
management of PA 23E:
Fencing around the vernal pool areas shall be installed to prevent potential impacts from foot
traffic and to prevent collection of any flowering plants or tadpoles, particularly in light of the
pools' location immediately down slope from an off-site residential, landscaped area.
Pool hydrology is likely to be effected by summer runoff from the off-site, upslope
development. Changes in drainage patterns and the possible addition of fertilizer or herbicide
runoff from the upslope landscaping may transform pools into more permanent wetlands or
transform the vegetative components of the pools by favoring invasive species. The preserve
manager shall work closely with the adjacent Calavera Hills homeowners association and their
landscape maintenance contractor to avoid application of excess drainage, herbicides and
pesticides upslope from the existing vernal pools.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-46 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
Exotic plant invasion shall be prevented through the use of selective weeding, appropriate
herbicide application, or designed grazing.
C. Sensitive Animal Species
B-22 The project shall comply with all applicable conditions of coverage for Carlsbad HMP covered
sensitive animal species observed on the project site, as identified in the MHCP Volume II,
including:
al Cooper's hawk;
bl Least Bell's vireo;
c) Yellow-breasted chat.
California gnatcatcher
B-8 This measure requires, per the HMP, no clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitat or construction
that would result in direct impacts to sage scrub or which occurs within 300 feet of occupied sage
scrub shall take place between February 15 and August 3 1'1 unless authorized by the Wildlife
Agencies after consultation. Since the project's focused gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in
2001, updated protocol-level surveys shall be performed no longer than one year before the
initiation of project construction for the East Village, and subsequently, no longer than one year
before the initiation of project construction for the West Village, to provide an accurate mapping
of current occupied habitat. Surveys for loggerhead shrike shall also be conducted concurrently
with gnatcatcher surveys.
If clearing and construction cannot be restricted to outside of the breeding season appropriate
conservation measures shall be implemented, subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies, to
ensure that no impact to this species occurs. A voidance of noise-related impacts to occupied
habitat can be assured through implementation of noise reduction methods (e.g., a noise barrier
or wall) to reduce noise within occupied habitat to a level below 60 dBA and/or as allowed by the
Wildlife Agencies. If construction can be restricted to outside of the breeding season, kept to a
minimum of 300 feet away from suitable habitat, or if construction noise is less than 60 dBA within
suitable habitat, updated focused surveys are not expected to be necessary. Implementation of
this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department concurrent with
construction.
B-17 A monitoring biologist approved by the Service shall be on site during initial clearing and grubbing
of habitat, which should occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season, or as allowed
pursuant to Mitigation Measure B-8.
The monitoring biologist shall perform a minimum of three focused surveys, on separate days, to
determine the presence of gnatcatchers in the project impact footprint outside the gnatcatcher
breeding season. Surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to performing vegetation
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-47 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
clearing/grubbing and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of
remaining work. If any gnatcatchers are found within the project impact footprint, the biologist
shall direct construction personnel to begin vegetation clearing/grubbing in an area away from
the gnatcatchers. In addition, the biologist shall walk ahead of clearing/grubbing equipment to
flush birds towards areas of CSS to be avoided. It shall be the responsibility of the biologist to
ensure that gnatcatchers shall not be injured or killed by vegetation clearing/grubbing.
The biologist shall also record the number and location of gnatcatchers disturbed by vegetation
clearing/grubbing. The applicant shall notify the Service at least seven days prior to vegetation
clearing/grubbing to allow the Service to coordinate with the biologist on bird flushing activities.
B-18 For subsequent construction work performed during the gnatcatcher breeding season, a
monitoring biologist shall be on site during significant noise-generating project construction
activities (e.g., including but not necessarily limited to grading, drilling, blasting, etc.) within 300 feet
of preserved habitat to ensure compliance with all conservation measures. The biologist shall be
knowledgeable of upland biology and ecology. The applicant shall submit the biologists name,
address, telephone number, and work schedule on the project to the Service at least 30 days prior
to initiating project impacts. The biologist shall perform the following duties:
The project biologist shall determine the presence of gnatcatchers, nest building activities, egg
incubation activities, or brood rearing activities within 300 feet of the project impact limits
within the gnatcatcher breeding season. The applicant shall notify the Service within 24 hours
of locating any gnatcatchers. If a nest is found in or within 300 feet of initial vegetation
clearing/grubbing or project construction, work shall be postponed within 500 feet of the nest.
The applicant shall contact the Service to discuss: 1) the best approach to avoid/minimize
impacts to nesting birds (e.g., sound walls), and 21 a nest monitoring program. The surveys shall
begin a maximum of seven days, prior to vegetation clearing/grubbing or project construction
and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work;
Work may be initiated subject to implementation of the avoidance and/or minimization
measures and nest monitoring program approved by the Service. Nest success or failure shall
be established by regular and frequent trips to the site, as determined by the biologist and
through a schedule approved by the Service. The biologist shall determine whether bird
activity is being disrupted. If the biologist determines that bird activity is being disrupted, the
applicant shall stop work and coordinate with the Service to review the
avoidance/minimization approach. Coordination between the applicant and Service to
review the avoidance/minimization approach shall occur within 48 hours. Upon agreement as
to the necessary revisions to the avoidance/minimization approach, work may resume subject
to the revisions and continued nest monitoring. Nest monitoring shall continue until fledglings
have dispersed or the nest has been determined to be a failure, as approved by the Service;
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-48 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
• Inspect the fencing and erosion control measures within or up-slope of all restoration and/or
preservation areas a minimum of once per week and daily during all rain events to ensure that
any breaks in the fence or erosion control measures are repaired immediately;
Train all contractors and construction personnel on the biological resources associated with this
project and ensure that training is implemented by construction personnel. At a minimum,
training shall include: ll the purpose for resource protection; 21 a description of the
gnatcatcher and its habitat; 31 the conservation measures given in the draft subsequent EIR
that shall be implemented during project construction, including strictly limiting activities,
vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the fenced project footprint to avoid
sensitive resource areas in the field (i.e., avoided areas delineated on maps or on the project
site by fencing); 4) environmentally responsible construction practices as outlined in measure 8;
51 the protocol to resolve conflicts that may arise at any time during the construction process;
and, 6) the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the need to adhere to the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the penalties associated with violating the
Endangered Species Act;
Halt work, if necessary and confer with the Service to ensure the proper implementation of
species and habitat protection measures. The biologist shall report any violation to the Service
within 24 hours of its occurrence;
• Submit weekly letter reports (including photographs of impact areas) to the Service during
clearing of habitat and/or project construction within 300 feet of avoided habitat. The weekly
reports shall document that authorized impacts were not exceeded, work did not occur within
the 300-foot setback except as approved by the Service, and general compliance with all
conditions. The reports shall also outline the duration of gnatcatcher monitoring, the location of
construction activities, the type of construction which occurred, and equipment used. These
reports shall specify numbers, locations, and sex of gnatcatchers (if present). observed
gnatcatcher behavior (especially in relation to construction activities), and remedial measures
employed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to gnatcatchers. Raw field notes shall be
available upon request by the Service; and,
The biological monitor shall submit a final report to the Service within 60 days of project
completion that includes: as-built construction drawings with an overlay of habitat that was
impacted and avoided, photographs of habitat areas that were to be avoided, and other
relevant summary information documenting that authorized impacts were not exceeded and
that general compliance with all mitigation measures in the EIR was achieved.
Least Bell's Vireo
B-9 This measure requires that if sensitive nesting birds (e.g., least Bell's vireo or southwestern willow
flycatcher) are located outside of the project footprint, but within 300 feet of the proposed work
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-49 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
area, noise reduction measures (e.g., noise barrier/wall) shall be implemented to prevent noise
impacts within occupied habitat during the breeding season (April 15 through July 31). Focused
surveys for the vireo and flycatcher were conducted in 2001. If work is proposed within 300 feet of
suitable habitat during the breeding season, updated surveys are required to ensure that current
occupied habitat is identified and appropriate noise reduction measures are implemented as
necessary. Noise reduction measures would need to meet the minimum standard of reducing
noise levels to below 60 dBA within occupied habitat, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Wildlife
Agencies. If construction within 300 feet of riparian scrub or woodland habitat is not proposed
during the breeding season, updated surveys are not required. Implementation of this measure
shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Burrowing Owl
B-10 This measure requires, per the HMP, that protocol surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted in
all Standards Areas and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas that contain suitable
habitat. Winter surveys were conducted in 2005 and pre-grading surveys shall be conducted prior
to any construction. The surveys would serve to identify owl burrow locations for the purposes of
avoidance (where practicable) or passive relocation. Specifically, if burrowing owls are identified
on-site, the following HMP mitigation measures would be implemented:
• Development shall avoid direct impacts to the nest site to the maximum extent practicable. If
impacts are unavoidable, any impacted individuals shall be relocated to a conserved area of
suitable size and characteristics, using passive or active methodologies approved by the
Wildlife Agencies.
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Raptors and Migratory Birds
B-11 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the East Village, and subsequently the West Village, a
biological survey shall be conducted of the project area (if grading is proposed during the
breeding season). If active raptor and/or migratory bird nests are observed during the
construction phase of both the East Village and subsequently the West Village, a buffer area of
adequate width (typically 500 feet), as determined by the monitoring biologist, shall be established
between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. To
avoid potential impacts, trees shall be removed outside of the breeding season of local raptor
species (trees shall be removed between September through January). Noise attenuation and
buffer (if required) shall remain in place until the construction activities are completed or the nest is
no longer active. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-50 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
D. Wildlife Corridor/Linkage B
8-12 This measure requires avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts associated with roadways (within
Linkage B); additional measures (e.g., fencing, lighting restrictions) shall be required to encourage
the continued use of the corridor and use of the two undercrossings. It should be noted that only
the first of these criteria (i.e., the fencing) is a direct responsibility of the Robertson Ranch project
relative to the College Boulevard undercrossing. The wildlife undercrossing design shall be shown
on the Master Tentative Map. The required measures are described below:
Where roads cross the corridor (Linkage B) a substantial fence shall be erected to funnel
wildlife toward appropriate underpasses. (Note: wildlife undercrossing locations shown in
Appendix C of the MMRP). These fences shall be buried at least one foot underground so
animals cannot readily dig underneath. As stated previously, fencing is not proposed along El
Camino Real, where it would occur on one side of the road only and could trap wildlife on the
roadway. The ultimate design and specific location of the fencing will be decided in
coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Also, natural vegetative cover shall be established
and maintained at either end of the wildlife underpasses. Concrete V-ditches shall be
eliminated to allow for natural stream flows, and any water drainage area in the base of each
culvert shall be as narrow as possible and placed to the side, rather than the center.
• Installation of a 6-foot high (measured from the ground up) wing fencing on both sides of the
culvert. The fencing shall have mesh that is smaller than 10 centimeters by 15 centimeters.
• Noise within the culverts shall not exceed 60 dBA Leq. This could be accomplished by the use
of sound walls.
• No artificial light shall stray within the culvert openings.
Use of skylight openings within the underpass (on any new underpass) to allow for vegetation
cover within the underpass.
All undercrossings shall be surrounded by native vegetation.
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering
Departments at the time specific plans for the proposed undercrossings are prepared and
submitted to the City for review. The proposed wildlife corridor design shall be reviewed by a
qualified biologist.
E. Sensitive Plant Species
8-21 Easf Village. Additional focused surveys for the Brodiaea filifolia shall be conducted within the clay
soil regions of the East Village (clay soils are located only in locations south of Cannon Road) prior
to grading only if winter into spring 2005-2006 rainfall exceeds 10 inches. If rainfall exceeds 10
inches in the season prior to grading, and if a new Brodiaea filifolia survey is necessary, and if
Brodiaea filifolia is found, per HMP narrow endemic conservation standards (HMP, pages D-89 and
D-90) it would be subject to required preservation of 80% of any newly discovered population. If
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-51 April 2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
precipitation is less than 1 0 inches, the results of the 2003 surveys shall be considered the best
available assessment of this species presence/absence status on-site and no further action related
to this species is necessarv.
West Village. If sufficient precipitation !greater than 10 inches) occurs prior to grading of the West
Village, surveys shall be conducted to provide an opportunity to identify Brodiaea filifolia under
peak emergence conditions. Surveys for the West Village shall not necessarily be conducted
immediately prior to ground disturbance. The survey timing shall be dictated by optimal
emergence conditions. If precipitation of greater than 1 0 inches does not occur prior to grading
for the West Village, then the results of the 2003 surveys shall be utilized to assess impacts to this
species.
5.5.4.2 Indirect Impacts
A. Lighting
B-13 This measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each development shall be
inspected by the City's Parks and Planning and Building Departments to determine that the lighting
restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife Agencies will avoid excess illumination
of open space areas within 1 00 feet of open space areas through repositioning, redirecting
(shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The sports park lighting, and any
perifphery lighting !including low-sodium lights! adjacent to the wildlife habitat corridor shall be
designed so that there is no measurable (shall not exceed +G-l]ootcandles) light spillover into the
habitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of
slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. In areas where spillover exceeding 3-footcandles cannot be
avoided, trees shall be located near the light standards to filter the light spillover into the open
space. The following measures shall be implemented:
• Maximum light spillover shall not exceed 3 footcandles
• Use of full cut-off lighting fixtures
• Limit hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. !park use)
• Additional trees shall be planted between the open space and residential areas and the future
sports field light standards.
The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for the Robertson
Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensure that light spillover has
been appropriately attenuated.
B. Harassment
B-14 To ensure continued use of Linkage B and all areas of biological open space by a variety of HMP
species, efforts to reduce detrimental edge effects shall be undertaken. Any linear vegetation
feature has an increased amount of edge relative to a large vegetation patch. If this increased
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-52 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
amount of edge is bordered by development or disturbed habitat the potential for detrimental
edge effects is high. To combat these effects the following measures are required:
• Residents whose lots back onto the Linkage lands, shall be apprised through the developments
CC&R's of the sensitivity of the adjacent lands via signage and informed of penalties for illegal
intrusion {via uncontrolled access points or expansion of landscaping, etc.), and/or illegal
dumping {materials into biological open space).
Fencing shall be installed to deter open access to the biological open space where the open
space lies adjacent to residential development, ancillary facilities, or a roadway. Fencing shall
also preclude {to the extent feasible) access of the open space by domestic pets. Access
points to the biological open space shall be carefully controlled to reduce habitat
degradation.
B-19 The applicant shall ensure that the following conditions are implemented during project
construction:
Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment and construction materials to
the fenced project footprint;
• To avoid attracting predators of the gnatcatcher. the project site shall be kept as clean of
debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and
regularly removed from the site;
• Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on the project site;
• Disposal or temporary placement of excess fill, brush or other debris shall not be allowed in
waters of the United States or their banks;
All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such
activities shall occur in designated areas outside of waters of the United States within the
fenced project impact limits and in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering
waters of the United States. and shall be shown on the construction plans. Fueling of
equipment shall take place within existing paved areas greater than 100 feet from waters of
the United States. Contractor equipment shall be checked for leaks prior to operation and
repaired as necessary. "No-fueling zones" shall be designated on construction plans;
Night lighting, if any, of construction staging areas shall be of the lowest illumination necessary
for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from natural habitats;
The project applicant shall temporarily fence (with silt barriers) the limits of project impacts
(including construction staging areas and access routes) to prevent additional habitat impacts
and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats to be
avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
The applicant shall submit to the Service tor approval, at least seven days prior to initiating
project impacts, the final plans and photographs for initial clearing and grubbing of habitat
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-53 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
and project construction. These final plans shall include photographs that show the fenced
limits of impact and all areas (including riparian/wetland or CSS) to be impacted or avoided. If
work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the
problem has been remedied to the satisfaction of the Service. Any upland habitat impacts
that occur beyond the approved fenced shall be mitigated at a minimum 5:1 ratio. Temporary
construction fencing shall be removed upon project completion;
• Landscaping shall not use plants, that require intensive irrigation, fertilizers, or pesticides
adjacent to preserve areas and water runoff from landscaped areas shall be directed away
from the biological conservation easement area and contained and/or treated within the
development footprint, where feasible. The applicant shall submit a draft list of species to be
included in the landscaping to the Service for approval at least 30 days prior to initiating
project impacts. The applicant shall submit to the Service the final list of species to be included
in the landscaping within 30 days of receiving approval of the draft species list.
• The San Diego County Invasive Ornamental Plant Guide shall be used in developing the
landscape plan for the proposed project.
Restrictions on the use of invasive plant species shall be included in the project CC&R's.
• Coyote Roller devices shall be installed on fences that interface with the perimeter of
proposed open space preserve areas, to the extent feasible.
C. Invasive Plants
B·15 Two noxious plant species: giant cane {arundo donax) and pampas grass (cortaderia jubata) shall
be eliminated from all areas of the property to be retained in open space. If identified, additional
significant noxious plant species currently growing within Linkage B shall be flagged by a trained
biologist and carefully removed {if such a removal can practically be achieved) so that seeds are
not dispersed.
In addition, the use of invasive exotic plants within landscaping areas adjacent to the proposed
open space areas shall be prohibited through the application of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions {CC&Rs). The list of invasives shall be those identified on List A and List B of the
California Exotic Plant Council's List of Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California, as
of October 1999, and updated if applicable. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Department during review of proposed landscape plans.
D. Preserve Management
B·16 The project's open space shall be included within (contribute to) the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan preserve areas. Management of the designated open space shall be
undertaken by a professional management entity (e.g., Center for Natural Lands Management)
with experience in managing biological open space in the Southern California region. An area
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-54 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
specific management plan shall be developed and a non-wasting endowment or other financial
guarantee shall be established (based upon a Property Analysis Record) by the developer to fund
the management of the preserve except where other management funds become available. The
designated management entity would ensure compliance with the HMP conditions of coverage
for HMP species through implementation of the approved area specific management plan.
Specifically, suitable riparian habitat for least Bell's vireo and yellow-breasted chat and suitable
upland habitats for California gnatcatcher and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow within
the open space will be managed to meet the conditions of coverage for these species, if present.
In order to provide for the cost of the long-term maintenance and biological monitoring program
for the preserve, a long-term management program shall be defined and funded. The criteria for
trail development (e.g., fencing, signage) shall be included in the management program. The
property owner/on-site environmental manager will initially propose a scope of work for the long-
term management program. The scope of work shall then be subject to review by the City and
Wildlife Agencies. Based upon the scope of work and associated costs agreed to by the
developer or their successors and the City, a funding mechanism for the long-term maintenance
can be a non-wasting endowment or other financial guarantee acceptable to the City. The long-
term maintenance program shall be a separate agreement between the City and the property
owner.
B-23 Proposed trails specifically allowed within the proposed Master Plan open space planning areas
shall be managed by the City of Carlsbad or by a conservation management entity with familiarity
with the specific Recreation and Public Access measures identified in MHCP Volume I. The
Robertson Ranch Open Space management program shall be consistent with these measures,
including provision of litter control, limiting use during the breeding season, discouraging trespass
off of the trail, prohibiting equestrian uses on the trail, erosion control. provision of signage, lighting
restrictions, limitations on biking, and establishment of patrols to monitor.
5.5.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures B-1 through B-+4-23 will reduce the impact to Biological Resources
to a level of less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-55 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.5-Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.5-56 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6-Cultural Resources
5.6 Cultural Resources
Information contained in this section is summarized from the cultural resources report, A Cultural Resources
Survey and Evaluation for the Proposed Robertson Ranch Project, prepared by Brian F. Smith and
Associates (BFSA) (Smith and Buysse, 2002). This document is located in Volume Ill Appendix F of this EIR.
5.6.1 Existing Conditions
Approximately 4031 acres were surveyed for cultural resources. The purpose of this investigation was to
complete a records search of previously recorded archaeological sites on or near the property, to survey
the project site, to locate all archeological and historical resources, and to test and evaluate any cultural
resources identified within the project boundaries. The archeological survey and institutional records
searches identified cultural resources both within and near the project. A total of 18 resources ( 17
prehistoric and one historic structure) were identified during the records search and archaeological survey.
These resources are located within the proposed project site. The following describes the cultural resources
identified within the entire 403-acre survey area.
5.6.1.1 Historical Resources
Based on the record search, literature review, and field survey, no historic structures were identified on the
project site. One historic structure (P-37-024329), the Robertson Ranch House, was identified adjacent to
the project site within the 5.7-acre option parcel. This structure has been determined to be important
according to CEQA and City of Carlsbad cultural resource significance guidelines. The Robertson Ranch
House is described as a rectangular structure that was constructed as a single wall building on wooden
posts and piers. The architectural style of the Robertson Ranch House is a single-story vernacular Victorian
with a medium pitched roof. The siding is board and batten for most of the structure, but three-inch-wide
vertical boards with butt joints cover the exterior of the east-side addition. The roof is presently covered
with sheet composition roofing that was laid over an earlier generation of wood shingles. The fireplace was
constructed of fieldstone over brick at the rear or north side of the house. A porch was constructed on the
south side (front) of the house. Additions include a bath and kitchen on the north side of the house, an
expanded wall on the east side of the house, and an extension on the south side of the house adjacent to
the porch. The cultural resources evaluation indicates that the ranch house is in poor condition and has
not been well maintained in recent years. The kitchen addition is also in poor condition, either as a result of
poor original construction or neglect, or both. Restoration of the house to its original condition would
require removal of the additions and restoration of the original exterior walls.
5.6.1.2 Archaeological Resources
The literature review and field survey identified 17 archaeological sites (nine new sites and eight previously
recorded sites) located on the project site. Table 5.6-1 depicts the archeological resources identified within
the project site. Two of the sites have been tested recently. These were small sites lacking deposits;
therefore, they were not retested. A total of 15 sites were evaluated and resulted in having a variety of
1 The 5.7-acre option parcel, as discussed in Section 3.0-Project Description. was included in the cultural resources survey area.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.6-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6-Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.6-1
Archaeological Resources Identified Within the Project Site
SDI-5435
SDI-10, 609
SDI-10, 610
SDI-10, 611
SDI-10, 612
SDI-16, 135
SDI-16, 136
SDI-16, 137
SDI-16, 138
Source: BFSA, 2002.
This site is identified in records as a sparse lithic scatter over Not significant
a four-square meter area. The area contains poor-quality
bedrock outcrops, material unlikely to have been quarried.
Although quartz pebbles and small cobbles are present, no
indication of prehistoric flaking activities were identified. The
site was not tested as part of this nrr\ll:>t-t
This site is a dense scatter of marine shell fragments and very Significant
dark midden soil along the length of the ridge. Several
flakes, a core, and a hammerstone were also identified, but
enerally few artifacts were identified.
This site is a camp site consisting of a dense shell scatter with Significant
associated artifacts, including ground stone, percussion,
and ision tools.
This site is a large, moderately deep deposit of marine shelL Significant
bone, and artifacts located on two knolls.
This site was recorded as a shell scatter, but no evidence of Not Significant
the site was identified on the surface or in the subsurface
BFSA.
This site is a moderately deep deposit of shell and artifacts, Significant
including ceramics. The deposit was shallow, sparse, and
heavily disturbed.
This site is a Late Prehistoric scatter of shell and artifacts, Not Significant
including ceramics. This deposit was shallow, sparse, and
n<O>onVI,IV disturbed.
This is a very disturbed deposit of shell and artifacts on a Not Significant
prominent knoll. No intact deposits were identified.
This is a moderately dense scatter of marine shell and bone Significant
associated with a scatter of lithic artifacts.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.6-2 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6-Cultural Resources
disturbances, including erosion, bioturbation due to small mammal burrowing, pedestrian traffic near
migrant camps, and the construction of driveways and buildings; however, the greatest amount of
disturbance has been caused by cultivation of crops for several decades throughout the project site. Of
the 17 sites, 1 1 have been determined to be not important as part of the Robertson Ranch cultural
resources investigation or by previous investigators. The remaining six sites have been determined to be
important under CEQA and City of Carlsbad cultural resources guidelines.
The six archaeological resources and one historic structure that have been listed as significant were
evaluated as important based on CEQA criteria and the City's cultural resource significance guidelines.
Specifically, the sites are important because of the information potential represented within the subsurface
deposits identified during the testing program. The data potential within these sites can address research
questions relating to the period of historic use of the area, the subsidence patterns of the people using the
sites, the relationship between sites within the framework of occupation sites in the area, and the
distinctions between the occupations of the archaic La Jolla Complex and the late prehistoric Luiseno
Indians.
5.6.2 Threshold for Determining Significance
For purposes of this EIR a significant impact will occur if the proposed project would:
Couse a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines;
Couse a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines; or,
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines-A cultural resource is considered significant when it:
Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural social, economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering, or architectural history;
Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;
Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, is a
valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is representative of a
notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer, or architect;
Is on archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological, or
geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or,
Is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of sites, buildings, structures,
improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may
be greater than the value of each individual improvement.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.6-3 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6-Cultural Resources
5.6.3 Environmental Impact
5.6.3.1 Historical Resources
The Robertson Ranch house, located off-site within the 5.7-acre option parcel, is considered a historical
structure. It is evaluated as historically important because of its association with individuals important to
local history and the settlement of the region. This structure is located off-site and will not be impacted by
the proposed project.
5.6.3.2 Archaeological Resources
Of the 17 prehistoric resources identified on the project site, 11 are evaluated as not significant and no
significant impact will result to these resources. There are six significant prehistoric sites within the project
site, five of which would be impacted by proposed grading. These sites have been evaluated as
significant resources based on the research potential represented in the cultural deposits at the sites.
Archaeological sites identified as significant that would be impacted by the proposed project are: SDI-
1 0,609, SDI-1 0,61 0, SDI-1 0,611, SDI-16, 135, and SDI-16, 138. The project's impact to these archaeological
resources is considered significant due to the potential of these sites to expand the understanding of the
subsistence patterns of the late prehistoric Luiserio people in the Carlsbad area. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 will reduce the impact to a level less than significant. Mitigation
Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 require that a data recovery program be conducted for each significant
archaeological site impacted by the proposed project.
5.6.4 Mitigation Measures
5.6.4.1 Historic Resources
No mitigation measure is proposed, as no significant impact to historic resources has been identified.
5.6.4.2 Archaeological Resources
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented for the significant archaeological sites impacted
by the project: SDI-1 0,609, SDI-1 0,61 0, SDI-1 0,611, SDI-16, 135, and SDI-16, 138. Prior to the issuance of grading
permits for the East and West Villages, the following measure shall be implemented:
CR-1 A phased data recover)' system shall be completed for the significant archaeological sites
impacted by the proposed project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Cultural Resource
Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data Recovery Program Phase Ill (City of
Carlsbad, 1990). This phased data recovery approach shall be employed to ensure that the scope
of proposed sampling is valid with respect to research questions that address data gaps of impact
and interest. Data recovery provides for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and
ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian
hydration and sourcing) and a report of findings which addresses the important research questions.
A research design shall be prepmed prior to data recovery, subject to peer review, prior to
initiation of data recovery.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.6-4 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6-Cultural Resources
In addition, monitoring of brushing, grading, and trenching shall be required during the
construction of the project in order to identify any significant components of each archaeological
site that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoring will also focus on any
potential to discover sites that were not identified in the previous surveys due to the resources
being buried or masked from view. In the event that any previously unrecorded sites are
discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching, a significance evaluation shall be performed,
and, if found to be important, mitigation applied before grading can resume at the location of the
discovery. All archaeological resources, unless otherwise required by law and other than burial-
related artifacts, that are excavated or removed from prehistoric or historic sites during testing,
data recovery projects and all associated project data, including but not limited to field notes,
photos, catalogues and final reports will be permanently curated at a qualified repository as
defined by the "State of California Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections."
Owner (project developer) agrees additionally to execute a release of title form and to pay such
fees as required for curation that are in effect at such qualified repository at the time of curation.
All curation shall be accomplished within six (6) months from completion of project.
The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified archaeologist and/or archaeological
monitor has been retained to implement the archaeological construction monitoring and data
recovery programs. Verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and the
archaeologist/archaeological monitor to the City.
Additionally, the following measures shall be implemented prior to and during grading activities:
CR-2 As a means of mitigating cultural concerns of the Luiseno people, monitoring of grading in the
archaeological site locations shall be performed by either knowledgeable Luisenos or
archaeologists. The field monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt grading and to
examine prehistoric resources if they are encountered. Prior to the commencement of grading for
the East and West Villages, respectively, the Construction Contractor shall meet with the
Archaeological Monitor to determine when grading and archaeological monitoring would take
place in proximity to archaeological sites.
CR-3 Prior to commencement of grading of the East and West Villages, the developer shall enter into a
pre-excavation agreement with a representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The
purpose of the agreement will be to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American
human remains, burial, ceremonial or cultural sites that may be uncovered during any ground
disturbance activity.
In the event archaeological features are discovered, the archaeological monitor shall be
empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time as a data
recovery plan can be developed and implemented. Work outside the area of the find shall
proceed along with the continuation of archaeological monitoring.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.6-5 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.6-Cultural Resources
5.6.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the one historical site
located off-site within the 5.7-acre option parcel. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a
significant impact to five archaeological sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2 and CR-3
will reduce the impact to archaeological resources to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.6-6 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
5.7 Geology /Soils
Information contained in this section is summarized from the Updated Geotechnical Evaluation of the
Robertson Ranch Property, prepared by GeoSoils Inc. (GSI) (September 20, 2004). This document is located
in Volume Ill Appendix G of this EIR.
5.7.1 Existing Conditions
5.7. 1. 1 Geology
The project site is located in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern
California. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. The
western portion of the Peninsular Ranges generally consists of Upper Cretaceous-, Tertiary-, and
Quaternary-age sedimentary rocks.
The project site is underlain by the sedimentary layers of the Eocene-aged Santiago Formation and
undifferentiated Jurassic-to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic granitic (igneous) bedrock. Human influences,
recent weathering and erosion have produced engineered stockpile, engineered fill, stockpile soil and
rock, existing undocumented soil fill, surficial slump deposits, colluvium, alluvium, and Pleistocene-age
terrace deposits. Figure 5.7-1 depicts the soils and geologic units on the project site. The geologic units
occurring within the project site are described below:
Engineered Stockpile (Aft): Engineered stockpile has been placed within a triangular area bounded by
College Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road to the south, and upland areas to the west. Site preparation
and fill placement was performed during grading operations in general accordance with
recommendations presented in GSI (2001 c and 2002b), and in the field by GSI. Field testing indicates that
fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are
considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts clays, and
rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and bedrock in the
vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately 10 to 15 feet in thickness locally.
Engineered Fill (Afsro): Earthwork operations have been completed for those portions of Cannon Road and
College Boulevard, located within the Robertson Ranch property, between El Camino Real and the
adjacent Calavera Hills II development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters
generated up gradient from the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Site preparation
and fill placement were performed during grading operations in general accordance with
recommendations presented in GSI (2002a and 2002b), and in the field by GSI. Field testing indicates that
fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are
considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and
rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and bedrock in the
vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately 30 feet in thickness locally.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
Undocumented Stockpile (Stockpile): A large stockpile of soils and rock fragments was located within the
eastern portion of the project site at the time of the geotechnical survey. This material is not considered
suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill support unless it is removed, moisture conditioned and
placed as properly compacted fill; however, this stockpile has largely been removed from the project site.
Existing Undocumented Fill (Afu): Minor amounts of existing fill are scattered throughout the project site as
small embankments for dirt roads or level pads for existing farm structures. These materials typically consist
of silts and sands derived from the underlying native soils and appear to be on the order of 1 to 5 feet thick
where observed. Existing fills are not considered suitable foundation, improvements, and/or fill support
unless these materials are removed, moisture conditioned and placed as properly compacted fill.
Surficial Slump Deposits (Qis): Slump deposits were noted throughout the project site. The determination of
these features was based solely on project site landform; however, subsurface exploration was not
conducted. The field mapping performed noted some minor geomorphic features suggestive of slope
instability. Where encountered in the geotechnical exploratory excavations, these deposits consist of
sandy clay with fragments of sedimentary bedrock. Based on field mapping and additional subsurface
exploration, these "slump" deposits are considered to be relatively shallow (i.e., less than approximately 10
feet) and are not considered a significant constraint to site development. However, these soils are not
considered suitable for the support of fills and structures and would need to be removed and
recompacted in areas proposed for settlement-sensitive improvements.
Colluvium (not depleted on Figure 5.7-1): Where encountered, colluvium on the project site is on the order
of 2 to 6 feet thick, and consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy clay. These materials are typically dry to
moist, loose to medium dense (sands), stiff (clays) and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for
support of settlement-sensitive improvements unless these soils are removed, moisture conditioned and
placed as properly compacted fill. These soils range from very low to medium expansive. Large
dessication cracks in colluvial soils are visible at the surface in some areas of the project site underlain with
sedimentary bedrock, and may indicate highly expansive soils.
Alluvium (QaiA and Qala): Alluvial soils on the project site appear to occur within two distinct despositional
environments. One is characterized as tributary alluvium (QaiA), deposited within smaller canyons and
gullies dissecting slope areas, and valley alluvium (Qals), deposited within the larger, broad flood plains
located along the eastern and southern sides of the project site. Where encountered, alluvial sediments
consist of sandy clay and clayey/silty sand. Clayey sands are typically loose to medium dense while sandy
clays are stiff. Alluvium ranges from generally damp to wet above the groundwater table, to saturated at,
near, and below the groundwater table. Tributary alluvium is anticipated to range in thickness from
approximately 5 to 35 feet (5 to 25 feet within planned development areas), while valley alluvium was
encountered to the depths explored (approximately 51 feet).
Alluvium soils above the groundwater table is not considered suitable for structural support and should be
removed andre-compacted prior to development. Due to the presence of groundwater, alluvial removals
will be generally limited in depth. Complete to partial removals to saturated sediments on the order of 5 to
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-2 April2006
,I
II.
il
1 .•. \ n i' II.
. ef,
at ...
efu a.e. '(5)
.Ghi?
LE!lllll --· ~11WpllcldwllhlntMC~~Wlr1
Arllldllftl.~
QIM!tlmlry~anyanllkMvlt
au..tm.I'J '1811\' !low pllln llhMurn. c:tded \~~bare bliNicl
~surllclllltll.mp~IIIUIMd....,....~
Qt a-....,..__
(!!!) , Tllllerylltta.goFCII!MIIon.dtdld.,..,.,.burled
( Je,/Ktr) ""':':::" .... _ .... -..,-.-
-.--~bt.ltlonol~c:onbd
••••• , ••• ~~ofaonctllld~c:om.ct.qu.rled
_..!9 ._ ......... --
---Altlh.MMof'l'8lflclffnlc:Me
CCI.,_ --"'"'"''""'2110'> [;ilwwii Appmtmlltll!lcdonoftestpii&(GSI, 20D1c) e.... ~loc:Mionofbomp~!,201Ho)
..... ~loc8illonof ..... (OSI,:zoo:tl D~D' .,._..._:,,_.,;.....,,.,
~ ___ ,_(IN!)
1111 I II
·.-•. 1 ·,{ •· ~ ;o,:.·: .:
~-
. '{
, ........ ~ .: '
•. ·.~ :~. '
1· ,:
\:l; .·, ;:
SOURCE: O'DayC~o=n=su=lt=a=n=ts=·=20=0=4==================================================================================================================================~
Robertson Ranch Mastter Plan Program EIR 1980-2005
·m·~·m· Geologic Units on the Project Site
,..UWNi;@,_
5.7-3
I II: I I
.. ~~..,;; ·' ' ... "' •',
... ~ ..
FIGURE
5.7-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
25 feet are anticipated within areas underlain by tributary alluvium [QaiA}. Alluvial materials left in place will
require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design.
Terrace Deposits (Qt): Mid-to late-Pleistocene terrace deposits encountered on the project site vary from
silty sand to sandy/silty clay. These sediments are typically yellowish-brown to brown and olive brown,
slightly moist and medium dense/stiff. Unweathered terrace deposits ore generally considered suitable for
the support of structures and engineered fill. Bedding structures observed within these materials in road
cuts along El Camino Real. Cannon Road, and other outcrop exposures display a generally massive to a
weakly developed subhorizontol orientation.
Santiago Formation (Tsa): Sandstone, clayey siltstone and claystone sedimentary bedrock belonging to
Eocene-age Santiago Formation was encountered on the project site. These deposits occur
predominately within the western half of the project site. Where unweathered, these rocks ore considered
suitable for structural support. Bedding structures observed in geotechnical test pit excavations, road cuts
along El Camino Real and in outcrop within canyon bottoms indicate a general northerly trend with a
westerly dip on the order of 6 to 28 degrees. Locally, bedding was observed to trend northeasternly,
dipping 2 degrees southeast and 19 degrees northwest.
While the Santiago formation occurs at the surface predominantly across the northwestern portion of the
site, it was encountered at depth in some of the exploratory borings, beneath younger terrace and alluvial
deposits to the east. East of the site, these sediments outcrop and form the low hilly terrain observed. The
general limits of the Santiago Formation, both near the surface, and where buried, are shown on Figure
5.7-1.
Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Jsp/Kgr): Undifferentiated igneous bedrock on the project site consists
of metavolcanic rock belonging to the Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics and/or granitic rock
belonging to the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. Where encountered in geotechnical exploratory test pits
and observed in outcrops, these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular
weathered zone (up to 21 h to 4 feet thick) consisting of dry, medium dense materials which generally
decompose to silty sand and angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Fractures observed within this
material ore typically high angle (i.e., 45 degrees or steeper} and closely spaced, on the order of 1 to 30
inches. Fracture orientations appear to vary from east-northeast to northwest to north-south.
5.7.1.2 Seismicity
As is common in most of Southern California, the project is located within a seismically active region. There
are a number of faults considered active in Southern California. These include, but are not limited to: the
San Andreas fault. the San Jacinto fault. the Elsinore fault. the Coronado Bank fault zone and the Rose
Canyon-Newport-Inglewood fault zone. No known active fault or potentially active faults are known to
exist on, or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon
Fault, located approximately seven miles west of the project site. Figure 5.7-2 depicts the location of
regional active faults. The potential for ground acceleration, or shaking, at the site is considered similar to
the Southern California region.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-5 April2006
Los Angeles County
loloml
Pacific Ocean
\
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
'·" ""' '~ Baja California '
'
SOURCE: San Diego General Plan, 1991
1980-2005 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
·rn·m·m· Location of Regional Active Faults
,-an~lliH·~
5.7-6
7111/05
FIGURE
5.7-2
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
Based on project site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures, impacts
resulting from tsunamis and seiches are not anticipated to occur onsite. Seismic hazards that may affect
the site include ground shaking, ground lurching or shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, and groundwater.
The seismic hazards affecting the site are discussed below.
A. Ground Shaking
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on
a major active fault. Due to the relatively close proximity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone to the project site,
the most significant ground shaking from one of the regional faults will most likely occur on the Rose
Canyon Fault Zone. A maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.31 g to 0.36g (site acceleration), and a
maximum probably event may be on the order of 0.17g to 0.19g. This is the level of risk assumed by the
Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) minimum design requirements.
B. Ground Rupture
Ground Rupture generally is considered to occur along pre-existing fault strands. Since no active, or
potentially active faults have been mapped on the project site or in the vicinity of the project site, ground
rupture on-site is considered unlikely.
C. Liquefaction
Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes in soils that have
cohesionless characteristics. Numerous conditions must exist for liquefaction to occur including the age
and type of sediments; however, one of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is
depth to groundwater. Both research and historical data indicate loose granular soils and non-plastic silts
that are saturated by a relatively low ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Small areas
of the project site are underlain with by alluvial soils with localized zones with relatively shallow ground
water depths.
D. Dynamic Settlement and Settlement
Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlement in sands both above and
below the groundwater table. The alluvial materials onsite are loose and could settle during a seismic
event. During the maximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, a 0.5 to 1 inch of
settlement could occur within the onsite alluvium soil material.
Site-specific conditions affecting settlement potential include depositional environment, grain size and
lithology of sediments, cementing agents, stress history, moisture history, material shape, and density.
Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression of the
left-in-place alluvium. The magnitude of settlement will vary based on the depth of fill placed above the
alluvium.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
E. Subsidence
Subsidence is the lowering of the ground surface which can be the result of several different types of
processes, including dynamic loading during grading, fills loading, fault activity or fault creep as well as
groundwater withdraw!. At this time, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other
than fill loading would be relatively minor.
5.7.1.3 Groundwater
Groundwater encountered on the project site ranges from 6 to 14 feet below existing grades, along the
southeastern and eastern portions of the project site within the alluvial materials. The presence of bedrock
materials, with lower moisture content beneath the alluvium, suggest that groundwater is generally
perched within the alluvial section. Groundwater was also locally encountered at depths approximately 6
to 30 feet below grade, within the tributary alluvium feeds, with the depth increasing as the alluvial deposits
extend up into each tributary drainage.
5.7.1.4 Landslides
Landsliding is caused by slopes becoming unstable and collapsing. Previous geotechnical reviews of the
project site identified several "landforms" which may be suggestive of slumps and/or small landslides.
These features were generally located within the toe areas of natural slopes developed in terrace deposits
or the Santiago Formation. However, a field study and subsurface exploration by GSI did not indicate the
presence of landsliding or deep-seated slope instability on the project site.
5.7.1.5 Expansive Soils
GSI performed an expansion index testing on representative soil samples of colluvium and terrace deposits
in general accordance with Standard No. 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code {UBC). The test results are
presented in Table 5.7-1 below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC (GSI. 2004).
TP-38@ 3'-5'
TP-1@1'-2'
TP-1 0@ 7'-8'
TABLE 5.7-1
Expansion Index Testing Results
Sand
19
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7 -Geology /Soils
5.7.2 Threshold for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone Mop;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the' project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or co/lapse; or
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-l-B of the Uniform Building Code.
5.7 .3 Environmental Impact
5.7.3. 1 Geology
According to the geotechnical evaluation, the site is generally suitable for grading and development in
accordance with the land uses proposed in the Moster Plan. Earth materials on the project site that ore
identified as unsuitable for the support of settlement sensitive improvements, and/or compacted fill consist
of undocumented stockpile, existing undocumented fill, surficial slump deposits, colluvial soil, alluvium, and
near-surface highly weathered formational earth materials (i.e., sedimentary and/or igneous bedrock).
Removal and partial removal of these materials will be required to properly prepare the site for the
proposed development. These soils ore not considered suitable for foundation and/or fill support unless the
materials ore removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as properly compacted fill. This is considered a
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1 will reduce the impact of existing
unsuitable soil conditions on the project site to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure GS-1
requires that all future grading and construction of the project site comply with the geotechnical
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property (GeoSoils,
Inc., 2004), which identifies the removal and moisture conditioning of these materials prior to use as
compacted fill.
5.7.3.2 Seismicity
Because the site is located in a seismically active region, the site is likely to be subject to at least one
moderate to major earthquake during the design life of the structures. The nearest known active fault is the
Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately seven miles west of the project site. Potential seismic
related impacts related to the proposed project include ground shaking, liquefaction, and dynamic
settlement. Ground rupture is not considered a potential impact as no known active or potentially active
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
faults traverse, or are located in the vicinity of the project site. The potential impact related to ground
shaking would be addressed through compliance with the UBC (UBC, 1997), as the level of risk for the
project site is the level of risk assumed by the UBC minimum design requirements.
Liquefaction potential has been identified in the alluvial areas of the project site. The geotechnical analysis
indicates that damaging deformations that result from liquefaction should not adversely affect proposed
development provided that a minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable material (i.e., compacted fill
plus alluvium above the water table) is provided beneath any proposed structure. According to the
proposed grading concept, a minimum of 10 to 15 feet of compacted alluvial materials, in addition to fill,
with be provided in all alluvial areas within the project site. Mitigation Measure GS-2 is proposed to ensure
that no significant impact related to this issue will occur.
Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event can produce settlement in sands both above and
below the groundwater table. The alluvial materials onsite are loose and could settle during a seismic
event. During the maximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, a 0.5 to 1 inch of
settlement could occur within the onsite alluvium soil material. The mitigation identified in Measure GS-2 will
reduce the potential dynamic settlement impact to a level less than significant.
5.7.3.3 Groundwater
Ground water is present at depths of 6 to 30 feet below existing grades. The primary constraint related to
the presence of groundwater is the potential for liquefaction. Due to the shallow groundwater table in
alluvium areas, there is a potential of liquefaction during a strong earthquake in these areas of the site. As
discussed above, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-2, the potential liquefaction impact
will be reduced to a level less than significant.
5.7.3.4 Landslides
No landslides were identified on the project site. No significant impact to this issue is anticipated.
5.7.3.5 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils on the project site range between very low to high. The potential for expansive soils to
affect the proposed project is considered a significant impact. These soils will need to be addressed
through remedial grading and specific foundation design (e.g., post tension slab design). Implementation
of Mitigation Measure GS-1 will reduce the impact of existing unsuitable soil conditions on the project site to
a level less than significant.
5.7.3.6 Erosion
The project site contains soils that are considered very erosive. The use of hay bales, silt fences, and/or
sand/gravel bags will be used for temporary erosion control measures during construction. As part of the
earthwork construction for the proposed project, the project site will be mass graded. An evaluation of the
cuts during grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non-cohesive materials.
Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction, remedial grading may be
recommended. All graded slopes will designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-10 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
requirements of the City of Carlsbad/County of San Diego, the Uniform Building Code, and the
recommendations in Appendix F of the Geotechnical Evaluation (GeoSoils, Inc., 2004). The potential for
erosion to affect the proposed project is considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure GS-1, as well as standard City Conditions of Approval. will reduce this impact to a level less than
significant.
5.7.4 Mitigation Measures
Prior to approval of final engineering and grading plans for individual planning areas within the East or West
Villages, the City shall verify that all recommendations contained in the Updated Geotechnical Evaluation
of the Robertson Ranch Property (GeoSoils, Inc., 2004) have been incorporated into all final engineering
and grading plans. The City's soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review grading plans prior to
finalization, to verify plan compliance with the recommendations of the report.
GS-1 All future grading and construction of the project site shall comply with the geotechnical
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. This report identifies specific measures for
mitigating geotechnical conditions on the project site, and addresses soils earthwork, corrosion
and expansion potential, subsurface waters, slope stability, liquefaction stability, and regional
seismicity and faulting.
GS-2 A minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material [i.e .. compacted fill plus alluvium
above the groundwater table) shall be provided beneath any structure. If the groundwater table
rises above its current level, then new design and construction measures will need to be included
into the proposed project to reduce any potential liquefaction impacts.
5.7.4.1 City Standard Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Mitigation Measures identified above, the project will be required to comply with the
following City standard Conditions of Approval:
The proposed project shall comply with the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance (§ 1 5.16,
Carlsbad Municipal Code).
Grading information shall be submitted for review by the City with each tentative subdivision map.
Grading shall comply with grading standards and manufactured slope revegetation requirements
of the City
The proposed project shall comply with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan landscape sections and
the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual.
All applicable federal. state, and local permits regarding drainage shall be obtained. Such permits
include the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-11 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.7-Geology/Soils
5.7.5
Erosion control measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance
with the City's grading and erosion control requirements (Municipal Code §15.16. et. seq.). The
locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on the grading plans.
All grading permits issued authorizing grading during the rainy season (November 16th of any year
to April 141h of the following year), shall require the installation of all erosion and sedimentation
control protective measures in accordance with city standards. Erosion and runoff control
measures shall be designed and bonded prior to approval of grading permits by the City.
All permanent slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, drained and properly
maintained to reduce erosion within 30 days of completion of grading. Erosion control and
drainage devices shall be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City.
All erosion and sedimentation control protective measures shall be maintained in good working
order throughout the duration of the rainy season unless it can be demonstrated to the City
Engineer that their removal at an earlier date will not result in any unnecessary erosion of or
sedimentation on public or private properties.
Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-1 and GS-2 will reduce the impact to geology and soils to a
level of less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.7-12 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8-Paleontological Resources
5.8 Paleontological Resources
5.8.1 Existing Conditions
Paleontological resources are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life. Fossil remains
are found in the geologic deposits within which they were originally buried. The project site overlies
alluvium, colluvium, terrace deposits, undifferentiated igneous bedrock, Pleistocene age deposits and the
Santiago Formation. The alluvium, colluvium, terrace deposits, and undifferentiated igneous bedrock do
not have any potential for yielding fossils. The Santiago Formation has yielded very important marine
invertebrate faunas (San Diego Natural History Museum collection records) and is assigned a high
paleontological resource sensitivity by Demere and Walsh, 1993. The Final EIR for the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Update (City of Carlsbad, March 1994) identifies quaternary (Pleistocene age) deposits and
tertiary deposits (including the Santiago Formation) as potentially significant fossil areas. The Pleistocene
age deposits are described as being deposited unconformably on older formational materials within the
eastern and western portions of the project site. The only known dinosaur skeleton from San Diego County
was recovered in Carlsbad, near Faraday Avenue.
5.8.2 Threshold For Determining Significance
For purposes of this EIR a significant impact will occur if the proposed project:
• Directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site.
Because paleontological resources are largely a buried resource, there is no way to accurately predict
what fossils are present within a site or their individual significance to the scientific community before they
are discovered. For the purposes of this EIR, an impact to paleontological resources is considered
significant if grading and construction is proposed in any area underlain by geologic formations that exhibit
a moderate to high paleontological resource potential.
5.8.3 Environmental Impact
Paleontological resources are typically impacted when earthwork activities such as mass excavation
projects cut into geological deposits (formations) within which fossils are buried. The impact is in the form of
the physical destruction of fossil remains. Since fossils are the remains of prehistoric animal and plant life,
they are considered to be non-renewable. Such an impact is significant, and under CEQA Guidelines,
requires mitigation.
Implementation of the proposed project will require earthwork that will occur within quaternary
(Pleistocene age) and tertiary age deposits, including the Santiago Formation. These formations have a
high paleontological resource sensitivity. Because the proposed project will disturb geological formations
that have a high sensitivity, the potential impact to paleontological resources is considered significant.
In order to mitigate for the potential impact to potentially important fossil deposits, a paleontologist will be
required to monitor any grading or trenching that will intrude into the quaternary (Pleistocene age) and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.8-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8-Paleontological Resources
tertiary {Santiago Formation) located within the project site. In the event that fossils are discovered, a
recovery plan will need to be implemented to remove the fossils for study and preservation. Mitigation
Measure PR-1, discussed below, requires paleontological monitoring of any earthwork on-site and the
recovery of any important paleontological resources if discovered on-site during grading. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure PR-1 will reduce the potentially significant impact to paleontological resources to a
level less than significant.
5.8.4 Mitigation Measures
PR-1 Prior to site grading, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an appropriate
mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in
paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontology procedures and techniques.)
The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with
grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time during the original cutting
of previously undisturbed Santiago Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the
event that fossils are discovered, it may be necessary to increase the per/day in field
monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring shall be
reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the
direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover
them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time.
However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require
an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of
fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil
remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up
a screen-washing operation on the site.
Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program
shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.
Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall either
be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological
collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or retained by the City and
displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as City Hall.
A final summary report shall be completed and retained on file at the City that outlines the
results of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used,
stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.8-2 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8-Paleontological Resources
5.8.5 Impact After Mitigation
The proposed project has the potential to result in a significant impact to paleontological resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PR-1 will reduce the potential paleontological resources impact to a
level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.8-3 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.8-Paleontological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.8-4 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
5.9 Agricultural Resources
Historically, agriculture has been a major enterprise in the City of Carlsbad and the surrounding areas of
San Diego County. Beginning with the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey 10 miles north of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon in 1798, dry farming and cattle grazing dominated the economic landscape of North
County. Mission lands were secularized and divided up in land grants by the Mexican government to
private interests in the early 191h Century, making way for establishment of large and lucrative ranches and
ensuring the maintenance of a healthy agricultural industry within what is now the City of Carlsbad. In
1914, water rights for the City were first secured from the City of Oceanside by South Coast Land Company
railroad money. With capabilities of irrigation, dry farming enterprises were soon expanded to include
irrigated propagation of flowers, bulbs and fruit orchards.
In recent years, several factors have significantly altered the agricultural conditions in the area. Expanded
population has given rise to booming residential and commercial development, which in turn has
substantially increased the value of land and the cost of water and labor essential for successful
agricultural production. As urbanization expands along the coastal region, there is a growing economic
incentive for local farmers to sell off agricultural lands or relocate their operations elsewhere, and
agricultural land within the City is gradually disappearing.
5.9.1 Existing Conditions
5.9.1. 7 Existing Activities
A majority of the project site has been utilized for the production of agriculture. These lands include
irrigated and non-irrigated field crops. Typical crop production has included tomatoes, bell peppers,
zucchini, green beans, green onions, cabbage, corn, and a variety of flowers. Currently, approximately
283 acres (including the Parkway Nursery) are utilized for agricultural production.
5.9. 1.2 Zoning
The project site is currently zoned planned community (P-C). The P-C zone generally provides a method to
encourage comprehensively planned development in accordance with an adopted master plan and
provides a framework for the phased development of an approved master plan. Pursuant to Section
21.38.020 Permitted Uses and Structures in the P-C Zone, prior to approval of a master plan, the property
may be used as permitted by Chapter 21.07 for the E-A Exclusive Agricultural Zone. After approval of a
master plan, such agricultural uses may be continued if the master plan so provides.
5.9.1.3 Important Farmland Categories
The California Department of Conservation Farming, Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces
Important Farmland Maps, which are a hybrid of soil resource quality and land use information. USDA Soil
Survey information (see Section 5.9.1.4), and the corresponding Important Farmland candidacy
recommendations are used in the assessment of local land. The goal of the program is to provide
consistent and impartial data to decision makers for use in assessing present status, reviewing trends, and
planning for the future of California's agricultural land resources. According to the 2000 FMMP, the project
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-1 Apri12006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
site contains land designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland,
and Farmland of Local Importance. The project site also contains land designated as Urban & Built-up and
Other Land. Figure 5.9-1 depicts the Important Farmlands Classifications on-site. Table 5.9-1 depicts the
approximate acreage amounts associated with each of the Important Farmland Classifications on-site.
TABLE 5.9-1
Department of Conservation Important Farmlands On-Site
ce
Urban & 18
Other Land 120
Source: Department of California Conservation, 2000.
A. Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland is defined by the California Department of Conservation as:
"land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term
production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply
needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for production of irrigated
crops at sometime during the [past four years]."
As indicated in Figure 5.9-1, the eastern portion of the site (totaling approximately 92 acres), is currently
mapped as Prime Farmland.
B. Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Statewide Importance is defined by the California Department of Conservation as:
"land similar to Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for the production of agricultural crops. This land has minor shortcomings, such as
greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture than Prime Farmland. Land must have been used
for production of irrigated crops at sometime during the [past four years]."
Land classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance (approximately 100 acres) is generally located in the
central and western portions of the site (Figure 5. 9-1 ) .
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-2 April2006
[" ,;> ., [ Farmland of Local Importance
B) Farmland of Statewide Importance
0 Other Land
-Prime Farmland
~ Unique Farmland
rz2] Urban and Built-Up Land
375 750 1,500
SOURCE: California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2000, Rand McNally and BRG Consulting, Inc., 2005 7/21/05
1 9 8 0 -2 () 0 5 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE -~·m·m· Important Farmlands Map 5.9-1
,.I!IIUg!i~
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
C. Unique Farmland
Unique Farmland is defined by the California Department of Conservation as:
"lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is
usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic
zones in California. Land must have been used for production of irrigated crops at sometime
during the [past four years]."
. A portion on the western area of the project site (approximately 35 acres) is classified as Unique Farmland
(Figure 5.9-1).
D. Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Importance is defined by the California Department of Conservation as:
"land that meets all the characteristics of Prime and Statewide, with the exception of irrigation.
Farmlands not covered by the above categories but are of significant economic importance to
the county. They have a history of good production for locally adapted crops. The soils are
grouped in types that are suited for truck and orchid crops."
A portion on the western area of the project site (approximately 33 acres) is classified as Farmland of Local
Importance (Figure 5.9-1). This area is currently being cultivated for the production of tomatoes, bell
peppers, zucchini, green beans, corn, green onions, cabbage, and a variety of flowers. These crops are
grown by Robertson Ranch and the produce is sold at a privately owned produce stand on site.
E. Other Land
As shown on Table 5.9-1, approximately 138 acres of the project site is classified as Urban and Built-up Land
and Other Land. Figure 5.9-1 depicts the location of these categories on-site.
5.9.1.4 San Diego County Agriculture Conversion
Table 5.9-2 depicts the conversions of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses within San Diego County
from 2000-2002. As depicted in this table, 10,109 acres of Prime, 13,000 acres of Statewide Importance,
57,030 of Unique, and 108,580 acres of Farmland of Local Importance were inventoried in 2002. Based on
the County's total acreage, the lands identified by the FMMP for the project site as Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance comprise .009
percent, .007 percent, .0006 percent, and .0003 percent, respectively. As shown in Table 5.9-2, there was a
net loss of agricultural lands within San Diego County from 2000-2002. The trend in the conversion of
agricultural land is expected to continue.
F. Agricultural Soils
In 1973, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a Soil Survey for the San Diego Area and
published maps and guidelines to define the condition and location of various kinds of soils in the region.
Soils were characterized according to their appearance, depth, consistency, slope, and erosion factors.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-4 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
The Soil Survey has grouped the various soil types identified in its study into eight soil Capability Classes
according to any limiting characteristics that would prevent suitable use for agricultural purposes. These
classes are indicated below in Table 5.9-3. Soils are graded I-VIII, with I denoting the most suitable class for
cultivation.
TABLE 5.9-2
San Diego County Change in Agricultural Land Use Summary
(2000-2002)
Notes: (1) =Changes mode to lake boundaries may result in different acreage totals for Wafer and adjacent fond use categories
than those in the 1998-2000 report.
Source: Farmland Conversion Report 2000 to 2002 (Deportment of Conservation).
TABLE 5.9-3
Soil Capability Classes
Ill
IV
v to remove, that limit their
VI
VII
VIII
Source: United Stoles Deportment of Agriculture, 1973.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-5 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
Sails are also rated by the Storie Index, a numerical system expressing the relative degree of suitability, or
value of a soil for general intensive agriculture use. The index considers a soil's color and texture, the depth
of nutrients, presence of stones, and slope, all of which relate to the adequacy of a soil type for use in crop
cultivation. The rating does not take into account other factors, such as the availability of water for
irrigation, the climate, and the distance from markets. Values of the 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 5.9-4
depicts the Storie Index classifications. The Storie Index of soils in the San Diego region range from 5 to 97.
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. Soils that have a Storie rank of 10 or below are considered to have
a very low agricultural potential. Soils are considered to be prime for high quality agricultural production if
their Storie Index Rating is 80 or greater.
TABLE 5.9-4
Storie Index Ratings
Source: United Slates Department of Agriculture, 1973.
The USDA survey found a variety of ten soil types present on the Robertson Ranch property. These include
Altamont clay, Diablo clay, Friant rocky fine sandy loam, Huerhuero loam, Las Flores loamy fine sand,
Salinas clay loam, Tujunga sand, Visalia sandy loam, Riverwash, and Escondido very fine sandy loam.
Figure 5.9-2 depicts the distribution of soil types on the project site. Table 5.9-5 details the varieties of soils
found on the project site, along with their capability class and Storie Index rating.
The majority of the project site is composed of LeC2, which is considered to be relatively poor for
agricultural production. Small patches of SbA and VaB, which are considered to be of relatively higher
potential value for cultivation, covers the eastern portion of the site.
The California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) maintains a list of these USDA soil types
by the County that meet criteria for Prime Farmland Soils and Farmland of Statewide Importance Soils. AtC,
SbA, SbC, and VaB, all meet the criteria for the Prime Farmland designation. Soil types DoC, LeC, LeC2,
and TuB, all meet the criteria for Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-6 April2006
LEGEND
Soil Type
~Ate
c=::::JAtE
-DaC
-DaE2
-FxE
iiiiiiiiiiiiGaF
~FeE2
-LeG
c=::::J LeC2
-LeD2
-LeE
~LeE2
-LeE3
-Rm
-SbA
-SbC
-TuB
-VaB
Sources:
1. HMP Hardline Map (March 30, 2004)
2. Soil Survey San Diego Area, California
Sheet No. 22 (Issued December 1973)
Robertson Ranch Boundary
c=::::J Excluded Areas (roads, wetlands, protected
endangered species habitat)
SOURCE: Planning Systems 2005
ffl! 0 -2_{/~ 5 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
·m·m·m· Project Site Soil Types
i._,-nl@~i .. "
\
\
300" 1200" \
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.9-2
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis
Source: United States Department of Agriculture. 1973.
G. Williamson Act
TABLE 5.9-5
Soil Suitability
slopes,
slopes,
5.9 -Agricultural Resources
IV 31
IV 29
VI 26
VII 24
The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act, California Government Code, Section 51200 et. seq.)
is a statewide mechanism for the preservation of agricultural land and open space land. The Act provides
a comprehensive method for local governments to protect farmland and open space by allowing lands in
agricultural use to be placed under contract (agricultural preserve) between a local government and a
land owner. No portion of the project site is under a Williamson Act preservation contract.
H. City of Carlsbad General Plan Policies
The City of Carlsbad supports agriculture as a interim use, but does not designate any portion of the city for
agricultural preservation. The project site is designated by the General Plan for urban uses. General Plan
land use designations of the city allow agriculture, but the city does not utilize an "Agriculture" or "Exclusive
Agriculture" designation. The City's General Plan contains the goals of which:
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-8 April 2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
1 . Prevents the premature elimination of agricultural land and preserves said lands wherever possible;
and,
2. Supports agriculture while planning for possible transition to urban uses.
To meet these goals, the City of Carlsbad has implemented programs that include supporting preservation
measures such as the Williamson Act, encouraging soil and water conservation, and buffering agriculture
from conflicting urban land uses. The City does not expect that agricultural land within its boundaries will
continue to be used for agriculture. The City, through its General Plan and implementation policies,
recognizes that the agricultural industry is dynamic and that agriculture in Carlsbad is subject to a number
of variables including continually changing markets, variations in crop specializations, urbanization, rising
water costs and availability, and difficult competition from foreign markets and other U.S. producers (City of
Carlsbad, 1994). The City's regulations are focused on the control of the transition of agricultural land to
non-agricultural uses, and are not intended for the preservation of agricultural land.
5.9.2 Thresholds For Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project
would:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to
non-agricultural use:
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or,
Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines also identifies the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. A LESA evaluation was conducted for the proposed
project as discussed under Section 5.9.3 below.
5.9.3 Environmental Impact
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the ultimate conversion of approximately 283 acres
of land currently in agricultural production to residential, commercial or open space uses, including habitat
restoration. A majority of the 283 acres is identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance
or Unique Farmland by the Important Farmland Mapping Program.
A California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Analysis was prepared for the
proposed project and is provided in Volume IV, Appendix J of this EIR. Based on the LESA analysis, the
conversion of existing farmlands on the project site to other uses is not considered a significant impact.
Table 5.9-6 below provides a summary of the LESA analysis.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
TABLE 5.9-6
LESA Analysis Summary
28.58 0.25
0.15 15
0.15 7.6275
0.15
4. Protected Resource Lands 40 0.05 2
II.
Total LESA Score
0 TO 39 Points
40 to 59 Points
60 to 79 Points
Not
Source: Planning Systems, 2005.
Additiona'lly, the proposed conversion of agricultural land to residential or open space uses is not
considered to be an adverse impact to agricultural resources within the City or the County of San Diego.
The project site has not been designated as an agricultural preserve under the Williamson Act, nor is it
contiguous with land designated as an agricultural preserve. The existing General Plan and zoning
designations of the project site, as well as the LFMP for Zone 1 4, anticipate development of residential uses
and the preservation of vacant land for open space in accordance with the HMP on the site and in the
surrounding area. In addition, the existing zoning on the site, Planned Community (P-C), is not intended to
preserve the site for agricultural uses. The P-C zone allows for comprehensive planning and development
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-10 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
of large tracts of land under unified ownership so that the entire tract will be developed in accord with an
adopted Master Plan. Therefore, the conversion of a portion of the project site from agricultural land to
residential and commercial development and open space would not result in significant impacts to
agricultural resources.
A. Zoning
The project site is zoned P-C. This zone designation will allow open space and agricultural uses as interim
uses within Planning Areas 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 until a Focused Master Plan Amendment has been
approved by the City Council. It is anticipated that interim agricultural uses would occur within the West
Village for three to ten years after Master Plan adoption.
B. Williamson Act
There are no lands under Williamson Act contracts within the project site. As a result, implementation of the
Master Plan will not result in the conversion of a Williamson Act contracted property to a non-agricultural
use. No significant impact to Williamson Act contracted property is anticipated.
C. City of Carlsbad General Plan Policies
The proposed project allows for the continuation of agricultural activities on the project site for an interim
basis. Specifically, the Master Plan policy related to agriculture states that:
"Agriculture may continue on any portion of the project site that is currently being used for or has
previously used for agricultural purposes until that portion of the project site has been developed or
used for mitigation purposes."
While the proposed project and General Plan policies help encourage agricultural resources to remain in
agricultural production, these policies have not been adopted with the intent to preserve the agricultural
land on the project site permanently. However. the Master Plan policy meets the City of Carlsbad
objectives related to agriculture by encouraging agriculturally productive land to remain in use until
development of the land has been planned and conversion of the land to urban uses is appropriate.
However. as discussed in Section 3.0 -Project Description, the East Village is expected to be developed
soon after project approval. Portions of the West Village will remain in agricultural production on an interim
basis, which is anticipated to be 3 to 10 years. Those portions anticipated to remain in agricultural
production are depicted on Figure 3-5, Interim land Use Overlay (see Section 3.0. Project Description, of this
EIR). The Interim land Use Overlay allows for agricultural and open space uses in defined areas of the West
Village, until a focused Master Plan Amendment has been approved.
D. Conversion of Adjacent Agricultural Land
Implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant impact related to the conversion of
farmlands off-site to non-agricultural uses. The project site is isolated from other agricultural areas within the
City and is segmented from the agricultural lands located east of the site by Cannon Road and College
Boulevard.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-11 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.9-Agricultural Resources
5.9.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measure is proposed, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.9.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact related to agricultural resources is anticipated with implementation of the proposed
Master Plan.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.9-12 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
5.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards
The hazardous materials information provided in this section is summarized from the following technical
reports prepared for the project site:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Robertson Ranch -Parcel 1 (GeoSoils, Inc., September 13,
2001) [East Village]
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Robertson Ranch -Parcel 2 (GeoSoils, Inc., September 13,
2001) [West Village]
• Report for Removal and Placement of Pesticide Affected Soil During Construction of a Segment of
College Boulevard, Robertson Ranch-Parcel 1 (GeoSoils, Inc., November 5, 2003)
Hazardous Waste Report Robertson Ranch {Pacific Trans Environmental Services, Inc.)
These technical studies are provided in Volume IV Appendix H of this EIR.
5.1 0.1 Existing Conditions
A majority of the project site is, and historically has been utilized for agricultural operations. Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESA 's) were prepared for the project site, and included a review
and analysis of historical aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance Rate Maps, report
review, and interviews with key personnel with knowledge of present and past use of the project site to
determine previous uses of the project site and the potential occurrence of hazardous materials. Research
conducted indicates that the project site has been in agricultural use from 1928 to present.
The East Village currently contains agricultural operations. Structures located on the East Village at the time
of the Phase I Assessment included outhouses, wood-frame sheds, fiberglass and aluminum residential
trailers, greenhouses, and a corral. The Robertson Ranch house is located immediately off-site in the
Option Parcel.
The West Village is also currently utilized for agricultural production. Structures on the West Village include
the Connor's Ranch house (adjacent to the Parkway Nursery), wood-frame sheds, fiberglass and aluminum
residential trailers, greenhouses, and metal trailer-mounted refrigeration units on the produce processing
and packaging site in the northwest corner of the West Village. Portable outhouses also provide sanitary
services to the project site.
5. 1 0.1.1 Hazardous Materials
Based on the existing and historical uses of the project site, the primary issues of concern related to
hazardous materials are the presence, or potential presence of Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST's) and
Underground Storage Tanks (UST's), chemical storage, asbestos and lead based paint, and miscellaneous
trash and debris located throughout the site. These are described in more detail below.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
A. East VIllage (Parcell)
Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST's) and Underground Storage Tanks (UST's)
Four small plastic above ground tanks, utilized for the mixture and application of fertilizers to irrigation
systems were observed during the hazardous materials reconnaissance. Two were located within the
western portion of the East Village and two were located within the West Village at the eastern edge of the
Parkway Nursery. In addition two abandoned, metal above ground fuel storage tanks were observed off-
site, in the front yard of the Robertson Ranch House (located within the Option Parcel). No permitted UST's
have been identified on the East Village or within a one-mile radius. There are no listings of leaking storage
tanks on the property.
Chemical Storage and Use
No chemical storage areas were directly observed during the hazardous materials reconnaissance.
However, chemical storage is anticipated to consist predominately of permitted agricultural chemicals
(i.e., pesticides and herbicides) and small quantities of refined and waste petroleum products. Surface
discoloration was visible near 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon buckets that are stockpiled in the dilapidated
barns located near the lower drive of the Robertson Ranch House. The 5-gallon buckets appeared to
contain waste petroleum.
Based upon the existing and historical use of the East Village for agricultural operations, the Phase I ESA
identified the potential for historical restricted chemicals (i.e., pesticides and/or herbicides) to have been
applied on-site. With respect to the East Village, it was subsequently determined that the use of certain
now banned chemicals resulted in detectable concentrations of chemical residues to remain within near
surface earth materials. Chemical testing of near surface soils (GeoSoils, 2003) for toxaphene, DDD, DDE,
and DDT indicated that there were no concentrations that were above the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5, Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC). However, concentrations of
toxaphene were encountered that were above the Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRGs). The PRGs combine
existing USEPA and CALEPA toxicity values with generally accepted exposure factors to estimate
concentrations in residential and industrial soils that do not represent a cancer risk to humans greater than
one-in-one million. This was encountered at locations that were actively cultivated, or were in the past.
and several localized areas.
Specific mitigation measures were identified and implemented in order to address the potential effect of
these soils with respect to human contact. surface water, and ground water (GeoSoils, 2003). This involved
removal of the toxaphene affected soil with concentrations of toxaphene greater than the PRG for
residential soil and placement of the toxaphene affected soil as compacted fill within College Boulevard.
The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health indicated concurrence with the proposed
mitigation. This approach was subsequently reviewed by the San Diego County Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), which required subsequent testing and monitoring to ensure that disposed of soils
were properly contained within the fill material for College Boulevard.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-2 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 0-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint
Asbestos and lead based paint were commonly used in older structures. Based on the hazardous materials
reconnaissance, buildings and/or structures which may contain asbestos and/or lead based paint, were
not observed within the East Village portion of the site. The Robertson Ranch house and barn (located off-
site within the Option Parcel). was built prior to the 1960's, and is a potential source of these materials.
Trash and Debris
Stockpiled materials/debris observed within the East Village included empty plastic buckets, sheet plastic
and lumber wastes, metal fragments, wooden pallets, and abandoned farm equipment. Similar stockpiled
materials and waste were encountered in the storage area southwest of the greenhouses, including but
not limited to wooden pallets, stockpiled lumber wastes, cardboard produce boxes, trash bins, and
furniture. Structures within the produce and flower packing area included tractor trailers. residential trailers.
abandoned farm equipment, batteries, outhouses, and assorted plastic buckets. It is likely that small areas
of surface discoloration/surficial petroleum residues are present.
B. West VIllage (Parcel 2)
Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST's) and Underground Storage Tanks (UST's)
Small plastic above ground tanks, utilized for the mixture and application of fertilizers to the irrigation
systems were observed during the hazardous materials reconnaissance within the western portion of the
West Village and within the eastern edge of Parkway Nursery. In addition there were metal above-ground
fuel storage tanks observed onsite near the produce processing and packaging area.
One small, above ground storage tank, utilized for the mixture and application of fertilizers to the irrigation
systems was observed in the western portion of the site (GSI, 2001 ). The palm tree nursery has two
permitted above ground storage tanks for diesel and "red dye" fuel for the equipment and chemicals
stored in a secure labeled storage shed, consist of Orthene, Sub-Due, and Round-Up. These fertilizers are
added to the irrigation system via a plastic mixing system. In addition there were four, metal above ground
fuel storage tanks observed on-site; two on the produce farm and two on the palm tree nursery.
There are no surface signs of underground storage tanks located on the West Village.
Chemical Storage and Use
Based upon the existing and historical use of the West Village for agricultural operations, the Phase I ESA
identified the potential for historical restricted chemicals (i.e., pesticides and/or herbicides) to have been
applied on-site. This use may have resulted in detectable concentrations of chemical residues to remain
within near surface earth materials. Chemical storage was observed on the produce farm and on the
palm tree nursery. Chemical storages consisted predominately of permitted agricultural chemicals (i.e.,
pesticides and herbicides) and what appeared to be refined petroleum and waste oil products.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-3 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Commonly, pesticides and herbicides were found to be properly stored in secure, clearly labeled storage
sheds. However, soil surface testing has not been conducted for the West Village.
Asbestos and Lead Based Paint
The buildings and/or structures described above, within the West Village boundaries, have the potential to
contain asbestos and/or lead based paint (GSL 2001 ).
Trash and Debris
Stockpiled materials/debris observed within the West Village were isolated to two areas; the produce
processing facility and Parkway Nursery. Overall, materials associated with the processing operations were
found to consist predominately of crop wastes, sheet plastic and wooden stakes, wooden pallets, produce
boxes, and abandoned farm equipment. Small, dark-colored surface stains were observed on the project
site in the vicinity of the abandoned farm equipment, personal vehicles, and residential trailers. Surface
discoloration was also visible near 55-gallon drums that contained waste oil filters and 5-gallon buckets that
appeared to contain waste oiL as well as two above grade storage fuel tanks.
Other Hazardous Materials
Also addressed in the Phase I ESA 's, but determined not to be significant related to the proposed project
are potential sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), water wells, electromagnetic fields (EMF), and
radon.
PCBs. Transformers on overhead power poles are potentially a significant source of PCBs. San Diego Gas
and Electric (SDG&E) Company indicates that transformers in the county have been tested and found to
contain little or no concentrations of PCBs in the mineral oils. The likelihood of transformers containing high
concentrations of PCBs is extremely low.
Utility Structures, Roods, Disposal Systems, Water Wells. Surrounding roadways carry standard, municipal
underground utilities and no water wells were observed on-site. The Robertson Ranch House is served by a
septic system. However, no sewage disposal system traverses the project site.
Electromagnetic Fields. Overhead transmission lines traverse the project site. There is speculation that EMFs
represent a risk to human health; however, medical and scientific research has not determined exposure
levels related to health risks. Studies to date are inconclusive as to the possible dangers of EMFs.
Radon. The potential for radon gas accumulation is generally low in Southern California. Because of this
low potential, the nature of standard building industry construction techniques in Southern California (i.e.,
vapor barriers under slabs and no basement construction), and mild year-round climate, the potential for
radon gas is not considered significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-4 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 0-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
5.10.1.2 McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The
project site is located within the Noise Impact Notification Area [NINA) of the airport as identified in the
adopted Comprehensive land Use Plan {ClUP); however, the project site is not located within the airport's
Flight Activity Zone or Runway Protection Zone designated by the airport's ClUP. The project site is located
within Airport Compatibility Zone E according to the San Diego County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan
Policy Document [March 2005 Draft) [see Section 5.1 Land Use); and no special land use restrictions as they
relate to airport safety are applicable to the project site.
5.10.1.3 Emergency Plans
The City of Carlsbad has adopted the City of Carlsbad Emergency Plan. which addresses the City's
planned response to extraordinary emergency situations. The City's plan identifies certain open space
areas and public buildings to serve as emergency shelters when residents must be relocated. The
proposed project site is not designated as an emergency shelter area.
The Emergency Plan also identifies primary road arterials to move people in the event of an emergency.
These arterials are: El Camino Real, la Costa Avenue, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and Carlsbad Village Drive.
5. 1 0.1.4 Fire Hazard
The project site currently consists of agricultural fields and vacant, undeveloped land that is contiguous
with open space of adjacent properties. The existing naturally vegetated areas within the steep slopes
and canyons of the project site represent a potential wildland fire hazard.
5.10.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR. a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Routinely transport, use or dispose of hazardous materials;
• Release hazardous materials into the environment;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of on existing or proposed school;
Be included on a list of hazardous materials sites;
Be located within on airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport;
Be located within a vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area;
• Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with on adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-5 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands.
5.10.3 Environmental Impact
5.10.3.1 Hazardous Materials
A. Existing Hazardous Materials On-site
Potential hazardous materials currently on the project site include above ground storage tanks, discarded
and current storage drums and buckets, building materials containing asbestos and lead-based paint, and
miscellaneous trash and debris.
East Village
The Master Plan proposes residential, a portion of the school site, and open space land uses within the East
Village. The presence, and in some cases the potential presence of hazardous materials within the East
Village, as described above, will require that specific mitigation measures be implemented prior to and
during construction to ensure proper disposal and remediation (if necessary). The impact associated with
existing potentially hazardous materials on-site is considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HM-1 will reduce the potential impact associated with the potential contamination of soils with
hazardous materials/waste to a level less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-2 will
reduce the impact associated with the potential release of asbestos and exposure to lead to a level less
than significant.
Localized areas of trash/debris have been observed within the East Village. Improper cleanup and
disposal of this debris has the potential to harm the public and the environment, which would be
considered a significant environmental impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-3 will reduce
the potential impact to a level less than significant.
West Village
The Master Plan proposes residential, a portion of the school site, village center (commercial and
community facilities), park, and open space land uses within the West Village. As with the East Village, the
presence, and in some cases the potential presence of hazardous materials within the West Village will
require that specific mitigation measures be implemented prior to and during construction to ensure proper
disposal and remediation (if necessary). Measures are required to ensure the proper removal and disposal
of hazardous materials during construction of the West Village. The impact associated with existing
potentially hazardous materials on-site is considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-
1 will reduce the potential impact associated with the potential contamination of soils with hazardous
materials/waste to a level less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-2 will reduce the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-6 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5. I 0-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
impact associated with the potential release of asbestos and exposure to lead to a level less than
significant.
Localized areas of trash/debris have also been observed within the West Village. Improper cleanup and
disposal of this debris, especially any waste materials associated with Connor's Ranch House and the
above ground storage tanks, has the potential to harm the public and the environment, which would
represent a significant environmental impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-3 will reduce the
potential impact to a level less than significant.
No soils testing has been conducted for the West Village. Due to this portion of the project site's history of
agricultural usage, it is possible that soils contaminated with unacceptable levels of toxics as a result of the
application of pesticides and herbicides exist. Soil testing would be required to determine levels of toxics
within soils on the West Village, and to identify the appropriate remediation measures, if necessary.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-4 will reduce the potential impact to a level less than significant.
B. Transport, Use, Or Disposal of Hazardous Materials and Potential Accidents
The proposed project would involve the development of 1 ,383 residential units, a village center, community
recreation center, RV storage, school, and a city patk. The proposed land uses will not involve the routine
use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the
surrounding environment. No impact associated with this issue is anticipated.
5.10.3.2 McClellan-Palomar Airport
As discussed above, the project site is not located within a Flight Activity Zone or Runway Protection Zone
associated with the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Additionally, proposed land uses are allowed within Zone E
as identified in the draft March 2005 ALUCP (see Section 5.1 Land Use). No impact associated with
potential hazards from McClellan-Palomar Airport is anticipated.
5.10.3.3 Emergency Plans
Development within the proposed project site will not result in a significant impact associated with the
emergency preparedness as the proposed project site is not currently designated as an emergency shelter
area, and the proposed project will not impede movement along any established or planned evacuation
plan. The proposed project will not impact the operation and movement of traffic along any of the
primary evacuation routes. Therefore. the proposed project will not result in an impact to the existing
emergency plan for the City of Carlsbad.
5.10.3.4 Fire Hazard
Natural open space will be maintained in PA's 23A, B, C, D. and E. These areas either currently contain
existing native vegetation communities, or will be revegetated with native vegetation pursuant to HMP
requirements. These areas would be susceptible to wildland fires.
In accordance with the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual and fire department requirements, a Fire Fuel
Modification Zone will be implemented adjacent to the open space edges. The City Landscape Manual.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5. 1 0 -Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Section IV.F, requires that the Fire Fuel Modification Zone consist of a minimum 60-foot structural setback for
manufactured and native slopes from adjacent open space. The Fire Fuel Modification Zone for the
proposed project has been modified to extend 60-feet from the residential property lines when adjacent to
native or re-vegetated down-hill slopes. This represents a substantial increase in the setback from open
space areas. The Fire Fuel Modification Zone will be implemented in several configurations as specified in
the City Landscape Manual, based on whether the residential development area abuts manufactured
slopes with native vegetation or natural slopes with native vegetation (Robertson Ranch Master Plan, 2005).
Figure 5.1 0-1 depicts the proposed fuel modification plan, and Figure 5.1 0-2 depicts the fuel modification
zone cross sections. Adherence to the fuel modification zones would ensure the potential fire hazard
remains at a less than significant level.
5.1 0.4 Mitigation Measures
A. East Village and West Village
HM-1 Prior to site grading, in any areas containing stained soil, the stained soil shall be removed and
properly disposed of in accordance with federaL state and local requirements in order to eliminate
this potential health hazard from the project site. A hazardous materials specialist shall verify that
materials have been properly disposed of prior to site grading. Implementation of this measure
shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Buildjng Engineering Departments.
HM-2 Prior to demolition of the Connor Ranch House, located on the West Village, an asbestos
investigation shall be conducted and mitigation report prepared. The mitigation report shall
identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into
the air. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and
Building Departments.
HM-3 All trash and debris within the project site shall be disposed of off-site, in accordance with current,
locaL state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered shall be
evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building Engineering Departments.
B. West Village
HM-4 Prior to approval of the tentative map for the West Village, a detailed agricultural chemical residue
survey will be required to fulfill the requirement of the City of Carlsbad's Standard Agricultural Area
Mitigation Condition (for agricultural sites). As part of the mitigation condition, a report shall be
presented to the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Site Assessment (DEH)
Voluntary Assistance Program and Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and comment
prior to receipt of a grading permit.
The residue survey shall include surficial soil sampling from depths of 1 /2 foot and 1 1 /2 feet within
areas planned for grading, as well as within current storage and mixing areas. The County DEH will
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-8 April 2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
recommend a representative sampling of earth materials within the subject parcel, to consist of
collection from two locations within each one-acre grid. Soil samples collected shall be tested for
Chlorinated Pesticides and PCB's (EPA test method 8081), Organophosphorous Pesticides (EPA test
method 8141), and Chlorinated Herbicides (EPA test method 8151). Soils shall be remediated to a
level deemed acceptable for residential uses according to federal, state, and local guidelines and
standards.
Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building
Engineering Departments and in consultation with the County Department of Environmental
Health.
5.10.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-1, HM-2, HM-3, and HM-4 will reduce the potential impact
related to hazardous materials and hazards to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-9 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.10-Hazardous Materials and Hazards
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.10-10 April 2006
! I'
LEGEND
Condition "A"-Manufactured Slopes (Downhill Condition)
Condition "B"-Native Slopes (Downhill Condition)
Condition "C"-Manufactured Slopes (Uphill Condition)
Condition "D"-Single-Loaded Street (Downhill Condition-Native)
Condition "E"-Single-Loaded Street (Downhill Condition-Revegetated Manufactured Slopes)
Condition "F"-Single-Loaded Street (Uphill Condition-Manufactured Slopes)
Requires a 60-foot: setback fro·m native vegetatiOfl to combustible structures
*Condition "B" does not occur on site.
*Condition "A" or Condition •ro•
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005
1980-2005
-~·m·m·
P.A 3 2111o Cross.~c. •4.~ ~&~'t.· 6.~P.~tots
'\
\
Robertson Ranch Mcaster Plan Program EIR
Fuel Modifiication Plan
P.A 16 20fGrossJ_C. ·~-~£kll!,.o\C:" s.~s?F.&,t5
r-,
PA23P ~,)· Gro.:;s AC. vpcn spa,-,
• f. 0' 150' 300' GOO"~ 1:1~~m
5.10-11
Ill I I I I I
4/4/06
FIGURE
5.10-1
---"" ~~--~r-.~~~~~~~--~-+--·~.~~~--4---~~ML---+--~-=--
OI"&N .. AOE
l:Ondition "A" -Manufactured SloJJes
Condition "C" -Uphill Manufactured Slope
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants. 2005
-m1~m-
,r-BBIIiiB·--.
t
SECJ1C)N 11-3 I NATIVe -__..--;.,.=.---t-----";;;;=-----+--=. ... .r---..-r -._
I atron .., -
f.ondition "H" -Native Slopes
4/4/06
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections 5.1 0-2a (Sections A -C)
Condition "D" -Single-Loaded Street (Downhill Condition -Native Slopes)
Condition "E" -Single-Loaded Street (Downhill Condition -Manufactured Slopes)
13'
~------------60-,R-D.W-.----------~~o=PE~~~~
Condition "F"-Single-Loaded Street (Uphill Condition-Manufactured Slopes)
SOURCE· T & B Planning Consultants 2005 9/26/05
-m-m~m-Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections 5.1 0-2b (Sections b -F) ,.a!RII!Jii~l·.-.
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
5.11 Grading and Aesthetics
5.11.1 Existing Conditions
Topographically, the project site varies considerably and ranges in elevation from approximately 40 feet to
225 feet above mean sea level. High terraces dominate the site's topography and three distinct drainages
traverse the site on the west, central, and eastern portions of the site. Figure 5.11-1 depicts the project site
topography. Figure 5.11-2 identifies the location of onsite steep slopes.
The majority of the project site is currently used for agricultural purposes, including the cultivation of field
crops and flowers and the operation of a wholesale palm tree nursery. Structures on the site include one
single-family residence, several agricultural outbuildings and irrigation infrastructure. The project site is also
traversed by two SDG&E utility easements containing high voltage electrical transmission lines, poles and
associated access roads.
In addition to agricultural cropland, the site contains a variety of native vegetation including chamise
chaparral and Diegan coastal sage communities located on the higher slopes and canyons of the site,
with riparian habitat located within the natural drainages. Calavera Creek, an intermittent tributary of
Agua Hedionda Creek, runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the site within PA 23E and
through an existing box culvert under College Boulevard and Cannon Road. A variety of mammalian,
reptilian and avian species occur in the habitat of the site.
Land uses surrounding the project site vary considerably and include undeveloped/agricultural land to the
south and east, established residential subdivisions located to the north, west and south, and the Rancho
Carlsbad mobile home park located along the Master Plan's southeast property line. The Calavera Hills II
residential development is under construction adjacent to a portion of the projects' northern boundary.
Directly to the east of the site is an undeveloped parcel which is owned by the Carlsbad Unified School
District. To the northeast is an undeveloped parcel under the ownership of the State of California, which is
part of the City's Habitat Management Plan {HMP).
5.11.1.1 City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Regulations
The intent of the Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code) is to:
Implement the goals and objectives of the land use and open space/conservation elements of the
Carlsbad General Plan;
• Assure hillside conditions are properly identified and incorporated into the planning process;
Preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes by
designing projects which relate to the slope of the land, minimizing the amount of project grading,
and incorporating contour grading into manufactured slopes which are located in highly visible
public locations; and
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-1 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
Under the City's Hillside Development Regulations, no property with a slope of 15 percent or more and an
elevation differential greater than 15 feet shall be developed unless a hillside development permit has
been issued. The Hillside Development Regulations prohibit development on natural slopes greater than
40% and the creation of manufactured slopes greater than 40 feet in height unless excluded per section
21.95.130.
In terms of grading volume, up to 7,999 cubic yards of grading per acre (cy/ac) is considered acceptable,
8,000 to 10,000 cy/ac of grading is considered potentially acceptable, and grading over 10,000 cy/ac is
considered unacceptable.
All manufactured slopes greater than 20 feet in height and 200 feet in length and that are located
adjacent to or are substantially visible from a circulation element road, collector street or useable public
space area shall be contour graded. Contour graded slopes that are developed for nonresidential land
uses shall be designed to vary slope gradient between 50 and 30 percent. All manufactured slopes shall
be landscaped consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. A modification to the Hillside Development
Regulation may be approved if:
The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than
would a strict adherence to the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations; or
• The proposed modification will result in the development of manufactured slopes which are more
aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing than would result from a strict adherence to the
requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations.
The following are excluded from the hillside development and design standards of the Hillside
Development Regulations:
Hillside areas where a circulation element roadway or a collector street must be located provided
that the proposed alignment(sj are environmentally preferred and comply with all other city
standards;
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
preferred and comply with all other City standards; or.
Hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that
may require significant amounts of grading.
5. 11. 1.2 City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The City adopted Scenic Corridor Guidelines on July 1, 1998. The Guidelines identify the scenic corridors
within the City, and provide recommendations for preserving and enhancing the character of the
corridors. Significant vistas within the area are also identified in the Guidelines. The Scenic Corridor
Guidelines are intended to be used as a guide for improvements which take place within or adjacent to
the right-of-ways for identified scenic corridors. El Camino Real, which forms the southwestern project
boundary, is identified as a "community theme corridor" in the Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The Final Master
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-2 April2006
Robertson R ---===____::..______ anch Mastfer Pia~ ===-----~ ogram EIR • ,. • -=====~===E_x·l~sting Torno ---::::==---~600·~ ~------,.,., graphy = _
~~7~/21/05
FIGURE
5.11-1
5.11-3
LEGEND
Color Slope Category . " 1i
D 0% to 15%
n 15% to 25% -25% to ~0% ->40%
SOURCE· T & B Planning Consultants 2004 ' 7/21/05
19so 2oo···s Robertson Ranch Ma:ster Plan Program EIR FIGURE
·W·W·m· Steep Slope Map 5.1 1-2
Jf!:li'llf>!IDifilll~ . . 'l
5.11-5
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update, March 1994 states that potential impacts may result if
future development projects "remove mature landscaping, cut and fill slopes, and development of
residentiaL commercial, and industrial buildings adjacent to the corridor." Currently, El Camino Real is the
only designated scenic roadway within the City for which a set of development standards (EI Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards) has been adopted. The following goals are identified specifically to
address the visual quality of the El Camino Real corridor:
• Enhance the historical heritage of the street by creating a "California-Spanish-Mission" theme for the
corridor.
Enhance the visual quality of the street by encouraging the theme oriented landscaping and street
furniture within the corridor.
• Emphasize the theme along the corridor by using predominant theme trees throughout the length of
the corridor.
• Create identifiable and visually pleasing intersections at points where scenic corridors cross.
• Emphasize the importance of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
Encourage special landscape setbacks.
The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards identify right-of-way landscape treatments, lighting,
street signs, and street furniture types specific to El Camino Real. The Development Standards divide the El
Camino Real Corridor into five segments in order to apply appropriate development standards to specific
areas along the corridor. Some portions of the project site are located adjacent to Area 3 of the El Camino
Real scenic roadway corridor. Design standards applied to this portion of El Camino Real include a design
theme, median breaks, sidewalks, signs, building height, grading, setbacks from roadway, street furniture,
street light spacing, roof equipment, and anticipated land uses.
Cannon Road and College Boulevard have partially been constructed through the southeastern and
northeastern portions of the project site, respectively, as a requirement of the Calavera Hills Master Plan
project located north of the project site. Both roadways are identified as a "community scenic corridor" in
the Scenic Corridor Guidelines.
5. 11. 1.3 City of Carlsbad Final Master EIR, General Plan Update
In terms of addressing aggregate aesthetic changes within the City, the Aesthetics Section of the City of
Carlsbad Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update states that, "Although existing landforms would be
altered and the rural and agricultural character of some areas within the City would be affected, the
changes in aesthetic character are not considered a significant visual impact. Potential impacts will be
precluded by fully implementing all relevant General Plan policy guidelines and action programs, adopted
City ordinances, and other planning programs. This includes consistency and compliance with the
following policies, guidelines, ordinances, and programs:"
Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21.53 and California Environmental Quality Act-Preservation of steep
slopes (40% or greater) and other environmentally constrained areas (i.e., wetlands, and floodways).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
• El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
Hillside Development Ordinance (contour/landform grading, screening graded slopes, landscape
buffers. reduction of slope heights and grading, sensitive roadway design, and sensitive hillside
architecture).
• Planned Development Ordinance and Design Guidelines Manual.
Landscape Guidelines Manual.
City Council Policy No. 44 -Architectural Design Guidelines for the Development of Livable
Neighborhoods.
• City Council Policy No. 66-Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods.
• Growth Management Ordinance-Requirement for 15% performance standard open space.
Zoning Regulations (i.e., setback, coverage, signage, and height, etc.)
Mitigation Measures identified in the City of Carlsbad Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update that
would be applicable to the proposed project include:
1. Arrange land uses so that they preserve community identity and are orderly, functionally
efficient. healthful, convenient to the public and aesthetically pleasing. (Land Use Element,
Overall Land Use Pattern, C.1.)
2. Establish development standards for all land use categories that will preserve natural features
and characteristics, especially those within rural, coastal and/or hillside areas. (Land Use
Element. Overall Land Use Pattern, C.2.)
3. Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent
land uses. (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Pattern, C.3.)
4. Review the architecture of buildings with the focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of
design and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood. (Land Use Element,
Overall Land Use Pattern, C.6.)
6. Ensure that grading for building pads and roadways is accomplished in a manner that
maintains the appearance of natural hillsides. (Land Use Element, Environmental, C.3.)
8. Relate the density and intensity of development on hillsides to the slope of the land to preserve
the integrity of hillsides. (Land Use Element, Environmental, C.4.)
5. 11. 1.4 City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual
The City Landscape Manual identifies policies and requirements for general plantings, irrigation. water
conservation, streetscape, slope revegetation/erosion control and fire protection policies. Policies and
requirements related to irrigation, water conservation and streetscape apply to any type of development.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
5.11.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Have a substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area;
Propose development on natural slopes greater than 40% and create manufactured slopes
greater than 40 feet in height which are not excluded from Section 21. 95. 130 of the Hillside
Development Regulations or subject to standards modification Section 21. 95. 140;
Create a manufactured slope greater than 20 feet in height and 200 feet in length that is not
contoured and which is located adjacent to or is substantially visible from a circulation element
road, collector street, or useable public open space area ([21.95.120(F)(I)] of the Municipal Code)
and a/so is not excluded from Section 2!. 95.130 of the Hillside Development Regulations or subject
to standard modification Section 21. 95. !40; or
Propose to grade more than 10,000 cubic yards of cut or fill per acre if it has not been excluded
from Section 21. 95. !30 of the Hillside Devet~pment Regulations or subject to standard modification
Section 2 J. 95. 140.
5.11.3 Environmental Impact
5. 11.3. 1 Grading/Landform Alteration
Figure 5.11-3 depicts the Conceptual Grading Plan for the proposed project. According to the proposed
grading concept plan, approximately 2,566,000 cubic yards of earthwork will be required for project
implementation. Figures 5.11-4 and 5.11-5 depict the preliminary grading plans at Glasgow Drive and
Edinburgh Drive. Two grading options are being considered at these locations. Figure 5.11-4 depicts the
proposed grading concept without retaining walls. Figure 5.11-5 depicts the proposed grading concept
with the use of retaining walls. The use of retaining walls at these locations would avoid the need to grade
off-site on adjacent residential properties (shown as Lot 1 and Lot 43 on Figures 5.11-4 and 5.11-5).
As shown on Figure 5.11-2, the project site contains varying topography, and steep slopes are dispersed
throughout the project site. The proposed grading plan will avoid the majority of steep slope areas that
exceed 40%. These steep slope areas are largely contained in open space PA's 23A, 23B, 23C and 23E.
Also, significant areas of steep slopes between 25% and 40% will also be retained as open space in these
PA's. No grading is proposed within the steep slope portions of PA's 23A, 23B, and 23E, and impacts to
steep slopes would be avoided. However, the remaining areas of the project site, (including a portion of
PA23C for habitat creation purposes), containing steep slopes would be graded. These steep slope
portions of the project site, which consist of slopes in the 25 to 40 percent (3.02 acres) and 40 percent ( 15.84
acres) are exempt from the City's Hillside Development Regulations. The areas of the 25 to 40 percent
slope are exempt as they are constrained by either the new circulation element roads, electrical line
easements, riparian, and floodplain areas. The areas of 40 percent slope are exempt as they are either: a)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
a previously graded slope; b) a slope less than 15 feet high; c) a slope less than 10,000 square feet; d) a
hillside area where circulation element roadway or a collector street must be located; and/or e) hillside
areas constrained by electrical line easements, riparian, or floodplains.
The Master Plan has established the following guidelines to ensure appropriate grading designs for the
grading and development of the individual planning areas (PAs) with in the Master Plan.
Grading plans shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
and the City of Carlsbad Design Guidelines Manual. Mass and precise grading plans will be
prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code for review by the City Engineer.
• Grading shall be in compliance with the policies of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance,
Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code unless modified in accordance with section
21.95.140. Landscape screening, landform plantings, perimeter slope edge building setbacks and
hillside development architectural guidelines shall apply in locations of high visibility, and where
otherwise not excluded pursuant to Chapter 21.95.
As a requirement of the grading permits and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, fills in cut
slopes shall be stabilized consistent with recommendations included in the geotechnical report.
Over-excavation may be required, below the depth of the lowest utility line for street areas exposing
hard rock. Grading and blasting activities, if required, (specifically, ripping and blasting of boulders)
shall conform to the recommendations outlined in the geotechnical study, City of Carlsbad Grading
Ordinance and San Diego County Blasting Ordinance as they apply.
• Grading for the portion of Planning Area 23C adjacent to Planning Area 11 shall consist of a 5:1
revegetated manufactured slope, consistent with the Conceptual Grading Plan and the Landscape
Guidelines of the Master Plan. Grading for this slope may occur prior to the transition of the West
Village to its final land use designation.
As discussed above, approximately 40 percent of the project will remain in open space and project design
has avoided existing natural features such as the three drainages and significant hillsides with prominent
landforms of over 40 percent that are more than 15 feet high or more than 10,000 square feet in size.
Additionally, the proposed grading for the project is within the threshold of the City's Hillside Development
Regulations. Table 5.11-1 depicts the proposed project grading quantities. The proposed grading amount
takes into account the Exclusions and Modifications to the Development and Design Standards permitted
by Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140 of Carlsbad's Hillside Development Ordinance.
Because the project does not proposed to grade prominent landforms of over 40 percent that are more
than 15 feet high or more than 1 0,000 square feet in size, manufactured slopes greater than 20 feet in
height and 200 feet in length will be contoured graded, and grading will not consist of more than 10,000
cubic yards of cut or fill per acre, grading/landform modifications associated with the proposed project
are considered less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-10 April2006
'I
Robertson Ranch Mastenr Plan Program EIR 1980-2005
·m·~·m· Conceptual Grrading Plan
•'pMIIIQii@ ...
II
,,. ¥
100
II
9/13/05
FIGURE
5.11-3
5.11-11
,:II
SECTION A-A SECTION 8-8 SECTION C-C
I I' I I'
LtGEND
----80111DAf/r IJN£
PRa'OSED CCNT1JIR
PRa'OSED /JIIIT OF' GIIADING
FlJTIJiiE IIKi1IT OF ""r
II! I I i ' I
SOURCE: O'DayC.~o~ns~u~lt~a~nt~s~,2~0~0~5============================================~====~============~====~====================================================~
Robertson Ranch Masteer Plan Program EIR FIGURE
9/26/05
1980-2005
·~·~·~· Preliminary Grading at Glassgow Dr. & Edinburgh Dr . 5.11-4
..-·IIIIINI;f$t;" •
5.11-13
210 ::
reo
SECllON A-A
'Pl. ~·----------------~--~~f~-~~HW~~~--rl-=-=-==-=-----------210'=--==---jfF-=-,=--'t• ..;.:__~-::_,......,=--~=::::--:::---=_:-::-::-=::-=:----~-====~~~-=~=J~-~---~~S'~--~-=-=-~rw---------------~c~~~~~~Nm~--~-------=::::~7==
PHOPO!iED FCJ
SECllON 8-8
I
f ' ))
' ' / j ' / / )/ / /' / /
/ /
'// /
/ /
/ /' '//
// // / / ./ /, /
LEGEND ,t~<
-.,ri.IIE
Hlri'OSED CONTrJ/IR
FIITIJH£ llf(}(T Of' lf'A Y '
!II
SOURCE: O'DayC~o=ns=u=lt=a=nt=s=,2=0=0=5==============================================================================================================================~ Robertson Ranch Mast~er Plan Program EIR
Preliminary Grading at Glasgow Dr. & EdHnburgh Dr.-Retaining Wall Alternative
5.11-15
I i
9/26/05
FIGURE
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
TABLE 5.11-1
Proposed Project Grading Quantities
Balanced? Yes Yes Yes
22.7
N
N/A*
Notes: • Hillside Development regulations do not apply to school and park site.
Source: Planning Systems. 2005
5. 11.3.2 Aesthetics
A. Short-term
The project site will be visually disrupted during the construction phase of the project. Similar to any project,
new construction, landscaping, and other construction related work has the potential to result in a
temporary aesthetic impact on-site. This impact would be considered significant if large expanses of the
project site are graded, then left in a barren state for an extended period of time. The Master Plan
contains provisions to ensure that temporary slopes not scheduled for development within 60 days shall be
hydroseeded. Also. all other graded areas not scheduled for construction within 90 days must be
hydroseeded. Ninety percent (90%) germination is required by means of rainfall or with an irrigation system
if rainfall is insufficient. No significant impact resulting from construction activities on the project site is
anticipated.
B. Long-term
The proposed project will introduce residential, commercial, community facilities, recreation, RV storage,
school, City parkland land uses and supporting infrastructure to the project site. The majority of the project
site is currently used for agricultural purposes. Figures 5.11-6 through 5.11-12 depict existing views of the
project site and proposed (simulated) views of the project site at buildout of the East and West Villages
from key vantage points along El Camino Real and Cannon Road. Figure 5.11-6 identifies the vantage
point at which the photographs were taken and the direction of the view.
Photosimulation l-PAl. Figures 5.11-7 and 5.11-8 depict the existing and proposed view of PA 1 as taken
from the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue looking northeast across the site. PA 1
is planned for multi-family residential dwelling units. Also depicted in this view is a portion of PA 23A, which
will be retained in open space, single-family residential development associated with PA 3 (on the hilltop).
Photoslmulation 2-PA 7 and ll. Figures 5.11-9 and 5.11-10 provide an existing and proposed view of PAs 7
and 11 as taken from Linda Lane and looking north across El Camino Real. This view shows the main entry
point into the West Village, via proposed Street "Z". Multi-family residential development associated with
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-17 April2006
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants and BRG Consulting, Inc., 2005
PA 13 al]d PA 14 Alternative Uses
WEST EAST
VIlLAGE VILLAGE
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
PA;12 Alternative Uses
Photosimulation View Locations
4/4/06
FIGURE
5.11-6
1980-2005
-~-~-~-
,.dfUI0jlff' J
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing View -Planning Area 1
9/26/05
FIGURE
5.11-7
9/26/05
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Proposed View -Planning Area 1 5.11-8
1980-2005
-~·m·m·
.,..!fl.hQj;lj!;' r }
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing View -Planning Areas 7 and 11
9/26/05
FIGURE
5.11-9
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Proposed View -Planning Areas 7 and 11 5.11-10
SOURCE: 9/26/05
-Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Existing View -Planning Area 22 5.11-11
SOURCE: 9/26/05
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Proposed View -Planning Area 22 5.11-12
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
PA 7 is depicted on the left side (west) of Street "Z", and commercial uses associated with PA 11 (the
Village Center) are depicted on the right (east) of Street "Z".
Photoslmulation 3-PA 22. Figures 5.11-11 and 5.11-12 provide and existing and proposed view of PA 22 as
taken from Cannon Road, looking northeast. PA 22 is planned for multi-family residential dwelling units.
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan contains a thorough set of Design Guidelines for future development on
the project site. The Design Guidelines are intended to establish standards for the quality of future
development and to ensure a high quality, aesthetically pleasing environment for onsite residents and
offsite views onto the project site. The objectives of the Design Guidelines are to:
• Provide guidance to developers, builders, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and other
professionals during the implementation and construction phase of development.
• Provide a framework for the preparation of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
Provide guidance in formulating precise development plans for the community facility, commercial
and multi-family components of the project.
Provide the City of Carlsbad with then necessary assurances that the project will be developed in
accordance with the quality and character proposed in this document.
The Design Guidelines address architectural and landscaping requirements. The architectural Design
Guidelines, as an example, identify a range of required architectural styles; building materials; colors;
building mass, form, and scale. The landscaping Design Guidelines, as an example, identify a range of
required street trees; community entry and monumentation; streetscapes for local streets within the project
site; community edges; boundaries; and transition interfaces; park, school, recreational amenities and trails;
landscape zones (e.g., lush landscapes and native landscapes); general standards; walls and fences; and
lighting.
Approximately 40 percent of the project will remain in open space and project design has avoided existing
natural site features such as the three drainages and prominent landforms with a gradient of over 40
percent which is more than 15 feet high or more than 10,000 square feet in size.
The aesthetic impact associated with development of the project site according to proposed Master Plan
land uses is not considered significant because: 1) the project site is not considered a scenic resource nor
will future development on the project site block an existing scenic vista from the view of surrounding land
uses; 2) the aesthetic quality of future development and landscaping on the project site will be ensured
through compliance with the Master Plan Design Guidelines (architectural and landscaping requirements);
and, 3) project development will avoid substantial changes to significant natural features. On the project
site these include slopes greater than 40 percent and that exceed 15 feet in height or more than 10,000
square feet in size, and avoidance of the three onsite drainages, which will be retained within the larger
open space areas of the project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-25 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
5.11.3.3 City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The Scenic Corridor Guidelines identify El Camino Real as a "community theme corridor" and Cannon
Road and College Boulevard as "community scenic corridors." As required by the Guidelines, specific
planning considerations need to be incorporated into right-of-way treatments, property treatments
adjacent to corridor right-of-way, and the preservation of scenic views. The structural and landscape
setbacks provided in the Master Plan are consistent with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines and the El Camino
Real Corridor Development Standards. For example, structures within PA 11 shall be setback from El
Camino Real by 100 feet. The setback areas will also contain a 50-foot landscape area. Table 5.11-2
identifies the structural and landscape setbacks established by the Master Plan from General Plan
roadways within the vicinity of the project site. As proposed within the Master Plan, the proposed project
landscaping along El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and College Boulevard will be consistent with the
Scenic Corridor Guidelines and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. No significant impact
associated with the Master Plan's proposed structural setbacks and landscaping setbacks and the City of
Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines is anticipated.
No portion of the East Village fronts El Camino Real; therefore, the East Village is not subject to the El
Camino Real Corridor Scenic Corridor development standards. The portion of the West Village located
between the northerly boundary along El Camino Real, and northerly of the PA 7 boundary (which includes
PA 1 and a portion of PA 3-all areas located within up to 500 feet of the El Camino Real right-of-way) is
consistent with the development standards for design theme, median breaks, sidewalks, building height,
grading, setback from right of way, street furniture, street light spacing, and roof equipment. The portion of
the West Village that includes PA's 7, 11 and a portion of PA 12 and all areas located within up to 500 feet
of the El Camino Real right-of-way is consistent with the development standards for median breaks,
building height, setback from right-of-way, street furniture, street light spacing, and roof equipment.
Deviations are allowed under the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor standards, provided there is proper
justification for deviation from the standards. The proposed Master Plan will involve several deviations from
the development standards related to signs, design themes, sidewalks and grading. Table 5.11-3 identifies
the proposed deviations and the justification for the proposed deviation. The proposed deviations are not
considered to represent a significant conflict with the El Camino Real scenic corridor development
standards as the scenic qualities of the corridor will continue to be maintained and would comply with the
overall intent of the overlay zone.
A retaining wall is also proposed along the north side of El Camino Real within a portion of PA 23A, and
south of PA 3. The proposed retaining wall is also considered a deviation from the hillside development
standards. The proposed retaining wall would be required to incorporate features so as to soften the visual
appearance of the wall and ensure that the appearance of the wall is compatible with the scenic quality
of the corridor. The potential aesthetic impact of the retaining wall is considered significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GA-l will reduce the potential impact to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan final EIR 5.11-26 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
TABLE 5.11-2
General Plan Roadway Structural and Landscape Setbacks
El Camino Real, Cannon Road, College Boulevard, and Tamarack Avenue
40 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
top of slope,
whichever is
2. Downslope [PA 1) 45 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
toe of slope,
whichever is
2.
45 feet from right of 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet
way or 15 feet from
top of slope,
whichever is
2. Downslope 55 feet from right of 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet
way or 15 feet from
toe of slope,
whichever is
45 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
top of slope,
whichever is
2. Downslope [N/A) 55 feet from right of 50 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet
way or 15 feet from
toe of slope,
whichever is
40 Feet 40 Feet 20 Feet 20 Feet
30 Feet 30 Feet 15 Feet 15 Feet
A= I
Source: Planning Systems, 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-27 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
TABLE 5.11-3
Robertson Ranch West Village El Camino Real (ECR) Scenic Corridor Analysis-
Proposed Justification for Deviation from Standards
Design Standards Area 2 Compliance Compliance Justification for Deviation from Standards
Signs -Only wall signs are A neighborhood entry monument sign at No The proposed neighborhood entry monument sign will be low in
permitted on ECR. If the sign is PA 1 entry at Kelly Drive is included in the profile and made of materials consistent with the PA 1 architectural
constructed with wood, it shall Master Plan. development. It will maintain the scenic qualities of the ECR corridor.
be externally lighted. If the sign No impact on traffic safety will result.
is constructed with metal or
plastic, it shall be either
externally or internally lighted.
':Eett~~ea!3~: PA 7, PAl lilanai<iipijrffonof PA·12 -' All area$\1ok£atedrwHhln up to 50Qifet:Of.ifli.e~E¢R:iighf-of~way. §'~r"' ;;';;•:i1q,1:. ·: ·:; 3J:','' · :.. '>1 ·'·.·· .. ·:.···
Design Standards Area 3 Compliance ·· Compliance Justification for Deviation from Standards
Design Theme -"Rural Although commercial, community No Commercial Village Center land uses are proposed for PA 11. These
Residential" facilities, single-family, and multi-family uses are however, set back a minimum of 100-ft. from ECR and
Sidewalks -There shall be no
sidewalks adjacent to the street.
They may be provided in
individual developments on the
interior side of the minimum
setback.
land uses would be provided along this buffered by a landscape setback. This setback will allow that the
portion of the corridor, these land uses scenic qualities of the corridor will continue to be maintained and is
would be visually buffered from the designed so as to comply with the intent of the overlay zone. PA 7
corridor by landscaping and structural multi-family development is proposed in a clustered fashion
setbacks. (avoiding development of steep areas) and will provide the required
landscape buffer which will allow this area to maintain a rural
residential character. PA 12 is a community park, which is consistent
with "Rural Residential" theme.
Sidewalks previously have been
constructed along ECR in Area 3 on the
frontage just south of the proposed
project site (Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park). The RR Master Plan may
include sidewalks adjacent to the curb
along ECR in areas which are contiguous
to open space. This sidewalk pattern
currently exists along the majority of ECR.
However, within the PA's fronting ECR,
there will be a sufficiently wide
landscape buffer to allow for a
meandering, non-contiguous sidewalk
design.
No The proposed project will maintain the scenic qualities of the Area 3
corridor if the sidewalk and general landscape design is consistent
throughout the frontage length. Sidewalks do not result in any
adverse impact on traffic safety.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-28 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
.ECR Area~3";;.1'A 7,sPA.11 and a pOrtiOn of I' A 12-All areaslocat~d,wlthin up. to 500f~:Ofthe ECR rlgtn~of·way. ;:.''',· ··,,.,,:~~ ,. ~·· ,,_;._ ...
Deslg_n Standards Area 3 Compliance Com_l)llance Justification for Deviation from Standards
Signs -Only wall signs are Signage for PA 11 (Village Center) will be No The proposed project will maintain the scenic qualities of the Area 3
permitted on ECR. All signs shall subject to a special sign program which corridor as the sign program will allow for limited monument signage,
be constructed with wood, and will allow Village Center entry only in conjunction with heavy landscaping and decorative walls.
shall be externally lighted. monumentation and limited retail meandering sidewalks, specimen and accent trees. No adverse
identification for the commercial impacts on traffic safety will result. The intent of the scenic
businesses. Wall signs will also be limited preservation overlay will be maintained.
through the sign program. Community
entry monuments, decorative walls,
meandering sidewalks. specimen and
accent trees will be provided along the
ECR frontage.
Grading -No cut or fill The anticipated depth of fill on PA 7 is 20 No Findings in support of a variance from this standard are as follows:
exceeding 10 feet from original feet and on PA 11 is 16 feet. Therefore
grade shall be allowed. the project is not consistent with the a. Strict compliance with the grading standard on PA 7 and PA 11 is
Earthwork outside the setback standard. PA 12 is anticipated to result in infeasible due to the clustering of development in areas that do
may exceed this amount in less than 10 feet of fill on the portion of not contain natural steep slopes, and the land uses allowed (high
isolated areas. as a result of the site within the jurisdiction of these density multi-family and commercial) which necessitate large
extreme, localized topographic standards. pads, which requires a high volume of fill in the particular area
conditions or for the provision of adjacent to ECR.
public streets. The Land Use b. The scenic qualities of the corridor will continue to be maintained Planning Manager and City because the fill slope will be highly landscaped and appear rural Engineer together may grant a in character. variance to this section if they
make the four findings in Section c. The grading will have no impact on traffic safety.
V of these standards.
d. The significant area of landscape setback will allow the subject
planning areas to meet the intent of the scenic preservation zone.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-29 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
5. 7 7 .3.4 City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual
The proposed landscape guidelines of the Master Plan are consistent with the City's Landscape Manual.
The Master Plan requires that a conceptual landscape plan be submitted for each planning area
concurrent with future applications for discretionary development approvals. A final landscape plan will
be approved by the Planning Director prior to approval of a final map, or the issuance of grading
orbuilding permits for development in a particular planning area. Because landscaping associated with
future development will be consistent with the City's Landscape ManuaL no significant impact is
anticipated.
5.11.3.5 Light and Glare
The proposed project will introduce new light and potential sources of glare on the project site. Proposed
development will be required to comply with City standards regarding building, street, and recreational
lighting, as well as architectural design criteria. The Master Plan provides basic lighting provisions that all
future development on the project site will follow. The provisions are provided below:
Street lights should provide a safe and desirable level of illumination for both motorists and
pedestrians without intr\,Jding into residential areas.
• Lighting fixtures should relate to the human scale, especially in pedestrian areas.
Lighting and lighting fixtures should complement the design and character of each planning area in
which they are placed.
• All lighting shall be pedestrian oriented and friendly but shall not be obtrusive or offensive.
• All street lighting shall conform to City standards or an approved theme lighting program, and shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting of tennis courts and/or basketball courts may be allowed subject to the approval of the City.
• Illuminated entries should direct lighting glow to the ground and be limited to only the immediate
vicinity of the entry.
Lighted entries should not be distracting, create visual hot spots, or glare, etc.
All lighting should be designed so that it is directed away from the adjacent existing mobile home
park residences.
All commercial lighting shall be restricted and designed so as not to significantly affect any
residential planning area or other nearby properties.
All lighting conditions will be addressed in the review and approval of any site development plan or
other application.
Sports field lighting shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
The general development of the property on the project site will involve lighting of a similar scale and
nature as other developments surrounding the property. The one exception is PA 12, which proposes
development of a community park with field lighting. A lighting study was prepared for PA 12 to evaluate
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-30 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
the potential for spillover light from proposed park field lighting. Figure 5.11-13 illustrates the lighting study
and initial spill light maximum footcandles -which essentially shows the lighting footprint. Figure 5.11-14
depicts cross sections of the park plan lighting study. PA 12 is surrounded by Master Plan land uses and
Cannon Road. The lighting analysis demonstrates that there would be no direct spillover light onto
adjacent residential properties. The maximum footcandles would be less than ten on the park boundary
that interfaces with PA 23C.
In addition to aesthetic concerns, there are also concerns about lighting effects on habitat areas. With
respect to the proposed project, PA 12 (the proposed park) is located adjacent to PA 23C, a portion of the
proposed HMP open space corridor. The Master Plan proposes special design criteria to address the
potential for spillover light from the park onto this proposed HMP open space area. Specifically, the Master
Plan states that, "Lighting for the fields and facilities adjacent to the Open Space areas (PA 23C) and/or
adjacent to Cannon Road shall be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from conserved
habitat." Mitigation Measure GA-2 requires that lighting restrictions established by the HMP Agreement with
the Wildlife Agencies for this project be implemented.
Figure 5.1 1-14, Section A-A depicts that light spill-over into the open space area from field lighting will not
substantially (less than 10 footcandles) encroach into the open space area. Figure 5.11-14, Section B-B
depicts that light spill-over from field lighting will not substantially (less than 1 0 footcandles) encroach into
proposed open space areas. Development of the active use fields in PA 12 will not create light spill-over
into the adjacent open space area to the west greater than 1 0 footcandles and the level of light spill is not
considered significant. Therefore, development of the active use fields is not anticipated to result in a
significant light impact to sensitive biological resources that may occur in the open space area.
The Master Plan discourages certain types of materials that have the potential to create glare. The
Architectural Design Standards and Requirements portion of the Master Plan discourages use of materials
such as fiberglass, aluminum or vinyl/plastic siding, galvanized products, and brightly painted steel roofs
which have the potential to create on-and off-site glare. Future development on the project site is not
anticipated to create a significant amount of on-or off-site glare and this issue is considered less than
significant.
5.11 .4 Mitigation Measures
GA-l The proposed retaining wall adjacent to the north side of El Camino Real (within PA 23A) shall be
constructed of a natural bluff face appearance so as to blend into the existing topography and
minimize the visual impact along this corridor. Plans for the construction of the retaining wall shall
be provided to the City concurrent with development applications for the West Village.
Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering
Departments.
GA-2 This measure requires that prior to approval of future building permits, each development shall be
inspected by the City's Building Parks and Planning Departments to determine that the lighting
restrictions established by the "Agreement" with the Wildlife Agencies will avoid excess illumination
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-31 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.11 -Grading and Aesthetics
of open space areas within 1 00 feet of open space areas through repositioning, redirecting
(shielding, down-casting), and/or the use of low sodium lighting. The sports park lighting, and any
periphery lighting (including low-sodium lights) adjacent to the wildlife habitat corridor shall be
designed so that there is no measurable (shall not exceed +G-;ijootcandles) light spillover into the
habitat corridor, and a small passive use area will be included in the park's design at the top of
slope to buffer the wildlife corridor. In areas where spillover exceeding 3 footcandles cannot be
avoided, trees shall be located near the light standards to filter the light spillover into the open
space. The following measures shall be implemented:
• Maximum light spillover shall not exceed 3 footcandles
Use of full cut-off lighting fixtures
• Limit hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. (park use!
• Additional trees shall be planted between the open space and residential areas and the
future sports field light standards.
The Wildlife Agencies will provide further review of the lighting analysis prepared for the Robertson
Ranch Master Plan Program EIR and the proposed lighting plan to ensure that light spillover has
been appropriately attenuated.
5. 11.4. 1 City Standard Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Mitigation Measures identified above, the project will be required to comply with the
following City standard Conditions of Approval:
A Hillside Development Permit shall be approved by the City.
Subsequent development of the Robertson Ranch PA's l, 7, and 1 L shall comply with the City's El
Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development Standards and shall require approval of a Scenic
Corridor Special Use Permit.
A detailed Landscaping Plan shall be approved by the City and comply with the City's Landscape
Manual, and shall include details for manufactured slope treatment that provides visual softening
of slope areas.
5.11.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GA-l and GA-2 will reduce the potential grading and aesthetic
impact to a level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.11-32 April2006
---------~E-aiTiPMEN-TiJSTiNG~-----
Pole Pole • Mounting Pole i Fixt. Kilow count location : height size Elev. 1 /unit /unft
1 i S1 _1 90' 90' 0' 8 12.8
_____ 1 ____ J ______ -~? ___ L_~~·-··· _!lO: t ~:-_1_6 __ 25.6
2 i 83-S4 I 90' 90' I 0' 8 12.8
3 I 85-S7 i 90' 90' I 0' 16 25.6 r-11--·sa· r·--eo-·-· -ocr j·-o· ~--8-12.a
1 ! S9 i 90' 90' ! o· I 14 22.4
-+l-·s-;~~-12 --j--: :: ~j± -~~::
-{-Ls1~~~isl· -:6> -~: l ri: +1
: ~~::
1 816 1 go· 90' ' o· ! 16 25.6 + ~1§~~1~ -+---~~---~:-1-ri;--h82 . I ~~} + -----~ft-----1-~;---~~~--ri~·+{-~~:
1 ' 822 I 90' 90' I o· 1 7 11.2
----~---t---~}}----·f--:6; ____ -~--!1 -~-L12· ~:::
I '
Note: This lighting plan illustrates lighting of expandectl park
site into PA 13 for purposes of illustrating worst-case
park lighting scenario.
1980-2005
·~·ill·~·
~ (i!IJ' -~
Robertson Ranch M1aster Plan Program EIR
Illustrated Park Plan -Lighting Study !Initial Spill Light Maximum Footcandles
I I I II
INIITIAL SPILL LIGHT
MJAXIMUM FOOTCANDLES
lTarget Points:
JAverage:
fMaximum:
fMinimum:
JAvg/Min:
PM ax/Min:
32
4.06
8.31
0.39
10.454
21.399
~umber of Luminaires:
* IKW Consumption:
il ,I I I I
258
412.80
**)Average Tilt Factor: 0.962
**•*Recoverable Light Loss Factors: x LOOP
TCDtal Light Loss Factor(LLF) 0.962
.*Refer to amperage draw for electrical sizing.
** A~dditional non-recoverable Light Loss Fac~tors are design constants equal to 1.0 at
maitintained illumination levels.
*** llncludes Luminaire Dirt Depreciation and
Larmp Lumen Depreciation -per IESNA
Ligltlting Handbook 9th Edition, page 9-17.
li!-11 to Mtll ~
9/27/05
FIGURE
5.11-13
5.11-33
I I
1980-2005
·m·m·m·
~
I
50
Section A-A'
0 50
Section B-B'
I
100
I
100
I I I
150 .200 250
I I
150 2<00 250
I 300
300 I 350
950 1000 1050
Robertson Ranch MaSlster Plan Program EIR
Lighting Study-Cross Sections lnitical Spill Light Maximum Footcandles
II: I I 1:
1250
I. I I II II II, I I I
1300
M.I.Ji to MM
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.11-14
5.11-35
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact AnalYsis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
5.12 Hydrology /Water Quality
Information contained in this section is summarized from the following hydrology and water quality
technical reports:
Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project, Rick Engineering Company, June 30. 1998
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report for Calavera Hills II and Detention Basin BJB. Rick Engineering
Company, May 8, 2002
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Alternative Analysis for Agua Hedionda Channel
Maintenance, Rick Engineering Company, December 13, 2004
Rancho Carlsbad Channel Maintenance-Ague Hedionda and Calavera Creek Hydrology
Modeling Criteria Letter, Rick Engineering Company, February 7, 2006
Drainage Study for Robertson Ranch, O'Day Consultants, Inc., September 2, 2005
• Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Robertson Ranch East Village, O'Day Consultants
Inc., September 2, 2005
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Robertson Ranch West Village, O'Day Consultants,
Inc., September 2, 2005
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses for Robertson Ranch East Village, Chang Consultants.
September 2. 2004
Hydraulic Analyses for 84" RCP at Robertson's Ranch East Village, Chang Consultants. November
22.2004
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses for Robertson Ranch East Village 84" Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Alternative, Chang Consultants. April 27. 2005
• Hydraulic Analysis for Calavera Creek Channel Protection. Chang Consultants. August 30,2005
• Engineering Analyses of Detention Basin BJ, Chang Consultants. October 4, 2005
• Robertson's Ranch East Village 84" Reinforced Concrete Pipe Alternative, Chang Consultants,
January 1 0, 2006
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses for Robertson's Ranch, Chang Consultants. February 20, 2006
Those technical studios ore pro>tided in Volume IV Appendix I of this eiR.
5.12.1 Existing Conditions
5.12.1.1 Hydrologic Setting
A. Regional Hydrologic Setting
The proposed project site is located within the San Diego Hydrologic Region. The San Diogo Hydrologic
Region is comprised of eleven smaller hydrologic units. The project site is located within the Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
Hydrologic Unit. The entire Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit is a triangular area of approximately 210 square miles
( 134,400 acres), extending from Lake Wohlford east of Escondido, west to the Pacific Ocean, and from
Vista on the north to Cardiff by the Sea on the south. The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit contains four major
coastal lagoons: Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo.
The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit is further divided into six hydrologic areas (watersheds). Figure 5.12-1 depicts
the watersheds within the City (Buena Vista Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, Encinas Creek, and San Marcos
Creek). As shown, the project site is located in the Agua Hedionda Creek watershed. The Agua Hedionda
Creek is the principal drainage course of the approximately 24 square mile Agua Hedionda watershed.
The Agua Hedionda Creek originates in the hills south of the San Marcos Mountains and flows in a general
southwest direction to where it ultimately discharges at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Agua Hedionda
Lagoon connects to the Pacific Ocean, and is considered Coastal Waters by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB).
B. Project Site Hydrologic Setting
DRAINAGE BASINS
Figure 5.12-2 depicts the existing hydrology patterns of the project site, including drainage basins onsite.
With the exclusion of PA 23E, the project site is comprised of nine drainage basins (Basins A through I).
Surface runoff from drainage basins A, B, C, and D is currently directed to Calavera Creek, south of the
existing perimeter wall of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Surface runoff from basins E, F, and G is
currently directed to an existing RCB located under El Camino Real at Kelly Drive. Surface runoff from
basins H and I is currently directed to an existing RCB located under El Camino Real west of Cannon Road.
PA 23E is not included in the drainage analysis because PA 23E is designated for use as a detention basin
(referred to as the BJB detention basin), serving College Boulevard and offsite drainage areas upstream of
the PA. Minor grading may be required within PA 23E for parking associated with the potential trailhead, in
which case appropriate materials (e.g., porous pavement) would be utilized for the parking lot. Table 5.12-
1 depicts the existing 1 00-year storm event flow rates for drainage Basins A through I.
TABLE5.12-1
Existing 1 00-Year Storm Event Flow Rate*
Notes: *Flow into Calavera Creek North of F'lood 'Noll Rancho Carlsbad Perimeter Wall.
Source: Drainage Study for Robertson Ranch. O'Day Consultants. Inc., September 2, 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-2 April2006
Carlsbad
Legend
i:-.: J City of Carlsbad Boundary
[223 Project Area
-Freeways
--Major Roads
1111 Waterbodies
--Rivers
[A] Buena Vista Creek Basin m Agua Hedionda Creek Basin
Cl:J Encinas Creek Basin rn San Marcos Creek Basin
0.5 2
Miles
SOURCE· SanGIS, SANDAG, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and BRG Consulting, Inc , 2004
1980 2 00 5 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
·m·m·m· Drainage Basin Map
,-·!IIU~Iill!·n~
5.12-3
San
Encinitas
7/11/05
FIGURE
5.12-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
DRAINAGES
There are three jurisdictional drainages onsite (referred to as Drainage A, Drainage B, and Drainage C).
These drainages convey stormwater runoff from the project site to the south. The drainages both discharge
directly to Agua Hedionda Creek, or indirectly via tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek. Figure 5.5-2 (see
Section 5.5 Biological Resources) depicts the location of Drainages A, B, and C on the project site. The
following provides a description of each drainage.
Drainage A -This drainage traverses the western portion of the project site, within the West Village.
Drainage A consists of a main reach that originates off site to the north, and two tributaries (A 1 and A2)
that originate off site to the west and southwest. The main reach enters the site through a 8'x5'wide box
culvert under Tamarack Avenue and extends for approximately 1,230 linear feet to the south before exiting
the site through 2-8'x4' box culverts under El Camino Real. The entire main reach exhibits perennial flows.
Immediately offsite (south of El Camino Real), this drainage is unimproved; however, the channel transitions
into an improved, concrete channel located behind the single-family residences on the east side of Kelly
Drive. The channel conveys runoff under Hillside Drive via a culvert to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Drainage B -This drainage consists of two main segments (B1 and B3) which both originate off site to the
north. Each segment has a smaller tributary (B2 and B4) that joins the main segments prior to the
confluence of B 1 and B3.
Drainage Bl enters the project site at the northern boundary through a culvert under the adjacent
development and extends onsite for approximately 2,440 linear feet before joining with B3. The upper 1 ,300
linear feet of B 1 has intermittent flows, due to urban runoff. The lowest 700 linear feet also has intermittent
flows, due to irrigation runoff from the adjacent nursery. The middle reach of B 1 is ephemeral.
Drainage 82 is a small tributary that originates onsite west of B 1 . The tributary consists of a highly eroded
channel that likely began as a ditch for irrigation runoff. This drainage is ephemeral.
Drainage B3 extends from the northern project site boundary approximately 2,580 linear feet before joining
with B 1. B3 consist of a main drainage and smaller tributary (B4) that enters the northern boundary through
a culvert under adjacent development. This drainage is almost entirely ephemeral, except for a 350 linear
foot reach in the middle that supports wetlands.
Drainage B4 extends from the northern project site boundary approximately 1 ,200 linear feet before joining
with B3. This drainage has intermittent flows, due to urban runoff.
From the confluence of B 1 and B3, a single channel extends south for 7 60 linear feet through the palm tree
nursery before exiting the site under El Camino Real and to the Agua Hedionda Creek. This portion of the
channel is inundated with irrigation water from the nursery.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-4 April2006
I I '' I II I 1 I I! : I
(:··(JZ5' 500'
\~.) 250'
I
1000'
7{21/05
Robertson Ranch Masteer Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Existing Project Si;ite Hydrology 5.12-2
5.12-5
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
Drainage C -This drainage is Calavera Creek. The drainage enters the site at the northeast corner (within
PA 23E). and extends for 3.400 linear feet along the eastern project site boundary before exiting the site at
the southeast corner of PA 23E (the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard).
5.12.1.2 Flooding
According to the City of Carlsbad and based on hydrological reports that have been prepared within the
Agua Hedionda Watershed. there is a history of flooding at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
(RCMHP) that is located south of the project site. Flooding is associated with the 1 00-year storm flows from
Calavera Creek and Aqua Hedionda Creek. Several engineering analyses and design projects have been
performed within the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks watersheds. Rick Engineering Company
prepared analyses to establish the 1 00-year flow rate in Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek. The analysis
also examined alternatives for reducing 1 00-year inundation in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
Recently. Rick Engineering updated their HEC-1 hydrologic analysis to account for an upcoming
improvement to the Lake Calavera outlet facility. Chang Consultants subsequently revised this analysis to
account for the fact that a portion of the Calavora II Robertson Ranch development will not be
constructed in facility BJB as originally planned. This latest analysis shows that the total 1 00-year flow from
the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek watersheds below El Camino Real will be approximately 8,500
cubic feet per second, assuming all four planned detention basins are constructed. To alleviate the
flooding condition. recently the BJB detention basin and a weir were constructed within the eastern portion
of the East Village (PA 23E). The weir is located immediately downstream of the detention basin in the
freestanding wall along the northerly boundary of RCMHP. The weir was designed to control the 100-year
flow distribution north and south of the RCMHP perimeter wall. As discussed later in this section, as part of
the development of the East Village, an 84" RCP is proposed along the north side of Cannon Road that
would intercept flow that is currently diverted by the weir/wall along with runoff from the East Village
development. By limiting flow on the south side of the perimeter wall, additional flood protection is
provided to the RCMHP.
In addition. there is also a history of flooding west of El Camino Real, south of the project site. Flood waters
and sediment have also been documented to back-up behind an existing SDG&E access road off-site to
the south of El Camino Real, into the Country Store parking lot. Flooding has occasionally occurred on the
project site and portions of the project site are located within the 1 00-year floodplain.
5.12.1.3 Water Quality
A. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan
Each of the nine regional boards in California is required to adopt a Basin Plan. Basin Plans designate the
beneficial uses for all surface and groundwaters in the San Diego Region.
B. Beneficial Uses
Beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater have been established for each water body within the
San Diego Basin. According to the RWQCB Basin Plan:
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-7 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
Beneficial uses are defined as the uses of water necessary for the survival or well being of man,
plants and wildlife. The uses of water serve to promote the tangible and intangible economic,
social and environmental goals of mankind.
Examples include the drinking, swimming, industrial, and agricultural water supply, and the support
of fresh and saline aquatic habitats. According to the Basin Plan, beneficial uses have been
designated for specific coastal water bodies, inland surface waters, and groundwater.
In 1972, the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) adopted a uniform list and description of
beneficial uses to be applied throughout all hydrological basins of the State. Water bodies that have
beneficial uses that may be affected by construction activity and post-construction activity include Agua
Hedionda Creek (Los Monos Hydrologic Subarea) and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Table 5.12-2 identifies the
designated beneficial uses for Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon.
In terms of groundwater, the majority of the Los Monos Hydrologic Subarea groundwater area is located
just south of the project site. Table 5.12-2 identifies the beneficial uses associated with the Los Monos
Hydrologic Subarea groundwater area because the project site may be considered tributary to the Los
Monos Hydrologic Subarea groundwater area. The beneficial uses are applicable to the portion of the Los
Monos Hydrologic Subarea groundwater area tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek downstream from the El
Camino Real crossing. In addition, the beneficial uses are applicable to the land area east of Interstate 5,
east of the easterly boundary of El Camino Real, north of the southerly edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon
east to the easterly portion of El Camino Real along the ridge-lines separating Letterbox Canyon and the
area draining to the Marcario Canyon.
TABLE 5.12-2
Beneficial Uses of Project Effected
Surface Water and Groundwater
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-8 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5. I 2-Hydrology/Water Quality
The following are definitions of the applicable beneficial uses.
Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) -Includes uses of water for community, military, or individual water
supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.
Agricultural Supply (AGR) -Includes uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching including, but not
limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing.
Industrial Service Supply (IND) -Includes uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily
on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel
washing, fire protection, or oil well re-pressurization.
Contact Water Recreation (REC-1) -Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving body
contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited
to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and SCUBA diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of
natural springs.
Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2) -Includes the uses of water for recreational activities involving
proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is
reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking,
beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic
enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.
Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM) -Includes the uses of water for commercial or recreational
collection of fish, shellfish, or other organisms including, but not limited to, uses involving organisms intended
for human consumption or bait purposes.
Aquaculture (AQUA) -Includes the uses of water for aquaculture or mariculture operations including, but
not limited to, propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of aquatic plants and animals for
human consumption or bait purposes.
Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) -Includes uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including,
but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, wildlife {e.g., mammals,
birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources.
Estuarine Habitat (EST} -Includes uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited
to, preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., estuarine
mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds).
Marine Habitat {MAR)-Includes uses of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to,
preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g.,
marine mammals, shorebirds).
Wildlife Habitat (WILD) -Includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited
to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5. I 2 -Hydrology /Water Quality
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) -Includes uses of water that support habitats necessary,
at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under
state or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered.
Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) -Includes uses of water that support habitats necessary for
migration, acclimatization between fresh and salt water, or other temporary activities by aquatic
organisms, such as anadromous fish.
Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL} -Includes uses of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-
feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters and mussels) for human consumption, commercial, or sport purposes.
Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) -Includes uses of water that support habitats
suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters and mussels) for human
consumption, commercial, or sport purposes.
C. Water Quality Objectives
California Water Code, Section 13241 provides that each Regional Water Quality Control Board shall
establish water quality objectives for the waters of the state (i.e., ground and surface waters) which, in the
Regional Board's judgment, are necessary for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and for the
prevention of nuisance. Like the designation of beneficial uses, the designation of water quality objectives
must satisfy all of the applicable requirements of the California Water Code, Division 7 (Porter-Cologne Act)
and the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act Section 303 requires that the State adopt water quality
objectives (called water quality criteria) for surface waters. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San
Diego Basin identifies a wide range of water quality objectives.
D. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodles
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq, at 1313(d)), requires States
(Regional Water Quality Control Board) to identify waters that do not meet the water quality objectives
that are designated to protect the beneficial uses of particular waterbodies after applying certain required
technology-based effluent limits. Waters that do not meet the water quality standards are referred to as
"impaired" water bodies. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for review and approval. This list is known as the
Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies. As part of the listing process, states are required to prioritize
water/watersheds for future development of total maximum daily load (TMDL). The TMDL establishes the
allowable pollutant loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a water body and provides the basis for
the State to establish water quality based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses of
the water body are restored and that the water quality objectives are achieved.
On July 25, 2003, USEPA gave final approval to California's 2002 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies.
With respect to the proposed project site, Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon are identified on the List of
Impaired Waterbodies. Stormwater runoff from the project site drains to Agua Hedionda Creek, which in
turn, drains to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Creek is identified as impaired due to high total
dissolved solids. Potential sources of this pollutant include urban runoff from storm drains, as well as
unknown non-point and point sources. Total dissolved solids affect approximately seven miles of Agua
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-10 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
Hedionda Creek. Ague Hedionda Lagoon is identified as impaired due to bacteria indicators and
sedimentation/siltation. Potential sources of these pollutants are non-point sources. Bacteria indicators
and sedimentation/siltation affect approximately 6.8 acres of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The RWQCB has
determined that developing TMDLs for these contaminants is a lower priority for this watershed than in other
watersheds.
E. Regulation/legal Basis for Authority
The principal federal and state laws pertaining to the regulation of water quality are known respectively, as
the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act) and Division 7 of the
1969 California Water Code (also known as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act). These laws are
similar in many ways. The fundamental purpose of both laws is to protect the beneficial uses of water. An
important distinction between the two laws is that the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control addresses
both ground and surface waters while the Clean Water Act addresses surface water only. The RWQCB has
developed policies, rules, and procedures, and has been granted the authority to implement and enforce
the laws and regulations requiring the control of water quality.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) also established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
which requires permits for discharges of pollutants from certain point sources into waters of the United
States. The CWA allows the EPA to delegate NPDES permitting authority to states with approved
environmental regulatory programs. California is one of the delegated states. The NPDES permits relative to
this project are the Regional General Municipal Stormwater Permit and the General Construction
Stormwater Permit.
F. Regional General Municipal Stormwater Permit
The RWQCB has adopted an area-wide Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No.
CAS0108758, "Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the Municipal Separate
Stormwater Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated
Cities of San Diego County and the San Diego Unified Port District." Under this area-wide Municipal
Stormwater Permit, municipalities are ultimately held responsible for everything in their stormwater
conveyance systems, including industrial and construction stormwater runoff. Order No. 2001-01 presents
guideline requirements for the control of pollutants resulting from stormwater and urban runoff from all
areas named in NPDES Permit No. CAS0108758. The RWQCB specifically requires Co-permittees to:
Inventory existing stormwater pollution control programs, illicit discharge detection programs,
monitoring programs and data, stormwater conveyance system maps, land use maps, and existing
laws, ordinances, and codes giving the dischargers the authority to implement and enforce
stormwater management programs in their areas of jurisdiction and where necessary, promulgate
the authority to carry out all functions of the stormwater management programs.
The municipal stormwater permit requires Co-permitees to utilize planning procedures including a master .
plan to develop, implement, and enforce controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal
separate storm sewers which receive discharges from areas of new development and significant
redevelopment. This new permit addresses controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from municipal
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-11 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
separate storm sewers after construction is completed. With respect to land use planning for new
development and redevelopment, at a minimum, each Co-permitee shall assess it's general plan, modify
development project approval processes, revise environmental review processes, and conduct education
efforts focused on new development and redevelopment to minimize the short and long-term impacts on
receiving water quality.
G. General Construction Stormwater Permit
Pursuant to Section 402(p)(4) of the CWA, EPA promulgated regulations for NPDES permit applications for
stormwater discharges. On November 16, 1990, the EPA published final regulations establishing that
stormwater to waters of the United States from construction projects that encompass one (1) or more acres
of soil disturbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES Permit.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 99-08, NPDES General Permit No. CAS2000002,
"General Permit for Stromwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity," is the active general
stormwater construction activity permit for the State of California and RWQCB.
This permit was modified and reissued on August 19,1999 based on a court challenge by the San Francisco,
Santa Monica, San Diego, and Orange Coast BayKeepers groups. The Court issued a judgment and
directed the SWRCB to modify the provisions of the General Permit to, among others, require permitees to
implement specific sampling and analytical procedures to determine whether Best Management Practices
(BMPs) implemented on the construction site are: 1) preventing further impairment by sediment in storm
waters discharged directly into waters listed as impaired for sediment or silt; and 2) preventing other
pollutants, that are known or should be known by permitees to occur on construction sites and that are not
visually detectable in stormwater discharges, from causing or contributing to exceedances for water
quality objectives. Based on the Court's direction, the two areas of the permit that were modified were the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Monitoring Program and Reporting Requirements
portions of the permit.
In order to be in compliance with the Permit, the SWPPP prepared for this project must include the
following:
Notices of Intent (NOis)-Certification to be signed by owner of the construction site.
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) -Required elements of SWPPP include: 1) Site
description addressing the elements and characteristics specific to the site; 2) Description of BMPs for
erosion and sediment controls; 3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal; 4)
Implementation of approved local plans; 5) Proposed post-construction controls, including
description of local post-construction erosion and sediment control requirements; 6) Non-storm water
management; 7) Identify a sampling and analysis strategy and sampling schedule for discharges
from construction activity which discharge into water bodies listed on the 303 (d) list of impaired
water bodies; and 8) For all construction activity, identify a sampling and analysis strategy and
sampling schedule for pollutants which are not visually detectable in stormwater discharges, which
are known to occur on the construction site, and which could cause or contribute to an
exceedance of water quality objectives in receiving waters.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-12 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental impact Analysis 5.12 -Hydrology /Water Quality
Monitoring Program and Reporting Requirements -Including inspection of prevention measures
record keeping and annual certification of compliance, due July 1, 1993, and each July 1 thereafter.
Dischargers of stormwater associated with construction activity that directly enters a water body
listed on the 303 (d) list of impaired water bodies shall conduct a sampling and analysis program for
the pollutants (sedimentation/siltation or turbidity) causing the impairment. Discharges that flow
through tributaries that are not listed on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies or that flow into
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) are not subject to these sampling and analysis
requirements.
H. City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
EAST VILLAGE
The Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the City of Carlsbad (CMDP) (March
1994, plates 1 and 2) identifies two drainage facilities within the East Village (facility BJA and BJB) and one
adjacent to the East Village {facility BJ). Figure 5.12-3 depicts the facilities identified in the CMDP for
Zone 14.
Facility BJ. Facility BJ is shown on the CMDP as an 80-foot wide earthen channel along the northern
boundary of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP).
As the site exists today, an approximately 10 to 15-foot wide earthen channel runs through RCMHP
(Calavera Creek) along the alignment shown for Facility BJ. An approximately 5-foot high masonry wall is
on the top of the north bank of this channel.
Facility BJA. Facility BJA is shown on CMDP as a 33" RCP line within College Boulevard draining the
Calavera Hills area to Facility BJ.
Facility BJA was built in 2004 as a 36" RCP storm drain line within College Boulevard Reach B and outlets to
the east into facility BJB as shown on the CMDP.
Facility BJB. Facility BJB is shown on CMDP as a sedimentation basin northeast of Cannon Road and
College Boulevard that would drain into Facility BJ.
Facility BJB was approved and constructed in 2004 as a 49-acre foot detention basin. This basin was built
as part of a regional solution to the existing flooding that occurs in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
Detention Basin BJB and Calavera Creek drain into an existing 11' x 7' culvert and under the present
intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. At the outlet of this culvert, on the south side of the
intersection a weir/wall was constructed north of the confluence of Calavera Creek and Little Encino
Creek which form the 10-foot wide earthen channel of Calavera Creek within RCMHP. During a 100-year
storm, this weir/wall is designed to allow only a portion of the flow exiting the existing culvert into the existing
Calavera Creek channel. The balance of the flow is diverted parallel to the Calavera Creek channeL to
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.12-13 April2006
SOURCE: Planning Systems and the City of Carlsbad, 2004
1Tifa=Toos Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
LEGEND:
BF MASTER PLANNED
FACILITY
NoScllo hoow..,., ........... ~ ........
·ffi·ffi·~· carlsbad Master Drainage Plan -zone 14
,.WH'IQ!i!Fit,..
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.12-3
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
the west, north of the 5-foot masonry wall along the paved sewer access road, then through existing
culverts under Cannon Road and El Camino Real into the Agua Hedionda lagoon.
The existing 5-foot masonry wall that separates these two flows has several arched openings along its base
and cannot be considered a floodwall by current FEMA Standards.
In conjunction with development of the East Village, an 84" RCP storm drain pipe is proposed to be
constructed along the north side of Cannon Road to accept the flows originally contemplated by the
80-foot wide channel identified as Facility BJ in the CMDP. The 84" RCP would connect to the existing
11' x 7' culvert under the College Boulevard and Cannon Road intersection. This line would intercept the
flow that is currently diverted by the weir/wall, along with runoff from the East Village development, and
outlet north of Cannon Road near El Camino Real where the flow would continue through an existing
culvert under El Camino Real to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The low flows will be routed into a de-
pollutant facility south of Cannon Road and then flow under Cannon Road through the existing culverts.
WEST VILLAGE
The CMPD identifies five proposed drainage facilities within or adjacent to the West Village. These include:
Facility BF.· Facility BF is shown on the CMDP as a 75" RCP that collects runoff from an existing 8' x 5' culvert
which outlets onto the West Village from the existing neighborhoods north of Tamarack Avenue and would
run south to a proposed sedimentation basin (BF1) north of El Camino Real. This drainage flows south
through an existing culvert under El Camino Real into an enhanced natural channel offsite out to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon.
The area identified in the CMDP for Facility BF is presently a wide riparian habitat and creekbed.
Facility BFA. Facility BFA is shown on the CMDP as a 42" RCP along the south side of El Camino Real
(downstream of Robertson Ranch) which is intended to carry drainage from residential developments to
the north and west to the channel south of Facility BF.
Facility BFB. Facility BFB is shown on the CMDP as a 48" RCP storm drain to route drainage from the channel
north of Tamarack Avenue that runs southerly along El Camino Real to the sedimentation basin Facility BF.
This facility is currently not constructed.
Facility BH. Facility BH is identified on the CMDP as 36", 57" & 72" RCPs and basin which are intended to
carry drainage from the open space in Calavera Hills to a sedimentation basin just north of El Camino Real.
Drainage then flows south through an existing natural channel.
I. On-Site Wetlands
Federal and state jurisdictional wetlands occur on the project site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
jurisdictional wetlands total approximately 4.80 acres. California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG)
vegetated riparian habitat totals approximately 10.22 acres. Drainage A contains 3.09 acres of ACOE
jurisdictional wetlands and 3.69 acres of CDFG riparian habitat, Drainage B contains 0.65 acres of ACOE
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-15 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5. I 2-Hydrology/Water Quality
jurisdictional wetlands and 0.88 acre of CDFG riparian habitat, and Drainage C contains 1.06 acres of
ACOE jurisdictional wetlands and 5.65 acres of CDFG riparian habitat. Figure 5.5-2 (see Section 5.5 -
Biological Resources) depicts the location of Drainages A, B. and C on the project site. A more detailed
discussion of these drainages is provided in Section 5.5.
5.12.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR. a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river. in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on-or off-site;
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site;
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water
quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses;
Substantially impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat;
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; or,
Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
5.12.3 Environmental Impact
5.12.3.1 Hydrology
A. East VIllage
Development of the East Village according to the proposed grading plan and Master Plan land uses will
result in a change in the topographical conditions of the area and an increase in impervious surface area.
Because a majority of the project site is currently undeveloped, proposed development will create an
increase in impervious surface area and there will be a corresponding level of increased stormwater runoff
volumes. Approximately 1 OS acres of the 178-acre East Village will be graded and developed. A
hydrology analysis and drainage study was performed to evaluate the increase in runoff that will be
generated by development of the proposed project. and drainage improvements have been identified to
accommodate the runoff volumes. Table 5.12-3 identifies the post-construction drainage basins for the
project site, including East Village and the associated stormwater runoff velocities associated with each
drainage basin of the East Village (Basins A-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, C-1, C-2, C-3, D-1, D-2, a portion of I).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-16 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
Figure 5.12-4 depicts the post-development drainage basins and drainage improvements for the entire
Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site, including the East Village. Figure 5.12-5 depicts the proposed 84"
stormdrain plan, and Figure 5.12-6 depicts the Calavera Creek post development floodplain. Figure 5.14-4
(see Section 5.14 Public Services and Utilities) depicts the proposed major drainage facility concept plan
for the project site.
CITY OF CARLSBAD MASTER DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
East Village
Facility BJ (Basin). No improvements for Basin BJ are proposed as part of the Robertson Ranch project
because no drainage flows from Robertson Ranch flow into this facility.
Facility BJA. Facility BJA was built in 2004 as a 36" RCP storm drain line within College Boulevard Reach B
and outlets to the east into facility BJB as shown on the CMDP. This facility is currently constructed and no
improvements are proposed as part of the Robertson Ranch project.
Facility BJ. In conjunction with development of the East Village, an 84" RCP storm drain pipe is proposed to
be constructed along the north side of Cannon Road to accept the flows originally contemplated by the
80 foot wide channel identified as Facility BJ in the CMDP. The 84" RCP would connect to the existing
11' x 7' culvert under the College Boulevard and Cannon Road intersection. This line would intercept the
flow that is currently diverted by the existing weir/wall located north of the confluence of Calavera Creek
and Little Encino Creek, along with runoff from the East Village development, and outlet north of Cannon
Road near El Camino Real where the flow would continue through an existing culvert under El Camino Real
to the Agua Hedionda lagoon. The low flows will be routed into a de-pollutant facility (vegetated swale)
south of Cannon Road and then flow under Cannon Road through the existing culverts. This water quality
basin will perform as a flow-based BMP to remove pollutants from runoff prior to proceeding downstream
into Agua Hedionda lagoon. Figure 5.12-5 depicts the proposed 84" storm drain plan. Figure 5.12-6
depicts the Calavera Creek post development floodplain.
Installation of these Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan facilities, the 84-inch RCP
storm drain pipe, and the project's proposed drainage plan will provide adequate drainage from the
project site and the site will drain in a similar manner as it currently does, south to Aqua Hedionda Creek.
Site-design best management practices (BMPs) that have been included in the project design include inlet
filters, vegetated buffer strips, biofilters, development clustering, conservation of natural areas, non-
connected impervious surfaces, and protection of slopes and channels. These BMPs will reduce post-
development on -and off-site erosion. With implementation of proposed flood control and drainage
improvements. development of the East Village would not contribute stormwater runoff that would exceed
the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system. Potential drainage and flood control
issues are considered significant. However, mitigation is proposed to ensure that drainage and flood
control improvements are constructed concurrent with proposed development, and in accordance with
City standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 will reduce the significant drainage and flood
control impact to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure H-1 requires that, consistent with the
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.12-17 Apri12006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) facilities phasing requirements, drainage facilities shall be
provided concurrent with future development of the East Village. Prior to approval of grading permits for
development within the East Village, the City Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm
drain facilities as required by the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, LFMP and
Drainage Study. The required storm drain facilities include but are not limited to:
84-inch RCP from BJB detention basin
• Proposed East Village onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.14-4)
B. West Village
Development of the West Village according to the proposed grading plan and Master Plan land uses will
result in a change in the topographical conditions of the area and an increase in impeNious surface area.
Because a majority of the project site is currently undeveloped, proposed development will create an
increase in impeNious surface area and there will be a corresponding level of increased stormwater runoff
volumes. A hydrology analysis and drainage study was performed to evaluate the increase in runoff that
will be generated by development in the West Village, and drainage improvements have been identified
to accommodate the runoff volumes. Of the 219.4-acre West Village, about 139 acres will be graded and
developed. Table 5.12-3 identifies the post-construction drainage basins for the project site, including the
West Village and stormwater runoff velocities associated with each drainage basin of the West Village
(Basins E, F, G, H, and a portion of 1). Figure 5.12-4 depicts the post-development drainage basins and
drainage improvements for the entire Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site, including the West Village.
City of Carlsbad Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
West Village
Facility BF. The area identified in the CMDP for Facility BF is presently a wide riparian habitat and creekbed.
As a result, as part of development of the West Ranch, the 75" RCP in Facility BF will not be built and the
existing natural channel will remain to minimize riparian loss and to accommodate Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) goals. The 1 00-year flows through the existing wetlands would have a maximum velocity of
three feet per second.
The proposed sedimentation basin BF north of El Camino Real will be built as a volume-based depollutant
basin adjacent to the natural channel and will be designed to treat the low-flow storm event. Soil loss
calculations for the West Village show a 97% reduction in soil loss after development. This reduction in soil
runoff along with the treatment of offsite runoff in the depollutant basin satisfies the need for sedimentation
basin BF.
Facility BFA. Proposed Robertson Ranch developments will be designed so as to not increase discharge
rates or velocities downstream, through the existing culvert under El Camino Real to Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. Facility BFA is anticipated to be constructed in conjunction with the West Village and the exact
size and location of the facility will be determined in the future. Drainage basin "G" outlets to this facility. A
proposed detention basin located within drainage basin "G" will prevent increased discharge rates or
velocities downstream.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-18 April2006
'I i
SOURCE· O'Day Consultants 2005 7/21/05 '
1 ~80-2005 Robertson Ranch Masteer Plan Program EIR FIGURE ·ill·ill·~· Proposed Project Site Hydrology 5~ 12-4
,.mBBIIIil~
5.12-19 I i I
~ i $
Ill I ~jil
"' r~/
-------------'' \)
~\
I
l J
I
I ~~
•.. .. ..
·-----· _______ .....-; __
PROfll£ N 81" STQRM DRA!JIV
Robertson Ranch MasHer Plan Program EIR
84" Storm [)rain Plan
I I I II' II' I 11: I I
;;:; ,, "
FIGURE
5.12-5
5.12-21
~ lld!A11CMS CN 'Mt E'lOWt ARE !lASED
OM A tlliJ..;'IEM H'IDROLOGIO AHAI.V. (134 en IN C#UIYEAA au<) 111H 1HE fQLl.tiWtG ASS1AF11011S:
-NO ~ 10 lilliE CAI.AWRA -NO AEWIIONS 10 Df:YEN1ION BASIN 8.8 OU1L£J' -NO c:oMSift'JC1ION at DEYEN110N BASIN 8.1
.. "' COIIPIE110N at 114." RCP IN CANNON ROAD
1HE wA'IEJI SURI'ACt: D.EVA1JONS NClR1H at 1HE WAU.. Nil£ ~ 10 liE EQOAL 10 1HE ~ CH..AYERI\ QIEEK WA'IER IUIFACE ELEVAllOHS 1M: 10 FLDW 1HROUGH 1HE WALL OPENIIGS.
LEiiDik. -;oo..a I"'..ODPP.AAN ASSUIIHO tfDAY GIWIINCJ IN PA-22
II • I II
SOURCE: O'DayC~o~n~su~lt~a~n~ts~,=20=0=5========================================================================~~======================================================~ ~=========9'=27~~5
Robertson Ranch Master FPian Program EIR FIGURE 1980-2005
·m·m·m· Calavera Creek Post Deveelopment Floodplain 5.12-6
,.!ii!!YJ;IfH ...
5.12-23
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
TABLE 5.12-3
Proposed Project Hydrology 1 00-Year Storm Event Flow Rate
El Camino
Q
1 Increased flows are accounted for in regional solution to Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park flooding problem as analyzed by City of
Carlsbad/Rick Engineering and Chang Consultants reports (including diversion of Calavera Creek flood waters into 84" storm drain).
Source: Drainage Study for Robertson Ranch. O'Day Consultants, Inc., September 2. 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-25 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
Facility BFB. Facility BFB will be incorporated into the design of PA 1 as indicated in the CMDP.
Facility BH. The existing natural channel in and around the alignment of facility BH will be preserved (and
biologically enhanced) as permanent open space eliminating the need for underground drainage
facilities. The CMDP anticipated 501 cubic yards/year of sediment being transported to sedimentation
basin BH. However, based on ultimate build-out conditions, calculations show that only 15.6 cubic
yards/year of sediment will be carried through basin H. As a result of this 97% decrease in sediment
transport, sedimentation BH would not be necessary.
In addition to these Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan facility improvements,
the project proposes to construct four new detention basins. Detention basins or detained flow will be
located within Planning Areas 1, 2, 7, and 11. These basins or alternative means will detain enough water
as to not increase the volume of stormwater runoff from the project site beyond existing conditions at
buildout of the West Village.
Site-design BMPs that have been included in project design include vegetated buffer strips, street design
(narrow streets with parkway vegetation treatment), inlet filter inserts, development clustering, conservation
of natural areas, non-connected impervious surfaces, and protection of slopes and channels. Proposed
source control BMPs include street sweeping, trash storage areas enclosures, use of efficient irrigation
systems & landscape design, storm water conveyance system stenciling and signage. Proposed treatment
control BMPs include vegetated buffer strips, inlet filters, detention & pollution control basins, drainage
courses and swales, and vortex separators. These BMPs will reduce post-development on -and off-site
erosion.
With implementation of proposed flood control and drainage improvements, development of the West
Village would not contribute stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned
stormwater drainage system. Potential drainage and flood control issues are considered significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-2 will reduce the drainage and flood control impact to a level less
than significant. Mitigation Measure H-2 requires that consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan
(LFMP) and Drainage Study, drainage facilities be provided concurrent with future development of the
West Village. Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the West Village, the City
Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm drain facilities as required by the Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, or as modified by equivalent infrastructure as
proposed under the plan LFMP and Drainage Study. The required storm drain facilities include but are not
limited to:
• Facility BFB
Facility BF1
Detention basins in Planning Areas 1, 2, 7, and 11
Facility BFA
Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.14-4)
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-26 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
5.12.3.2 Water Quality
A. Construction
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan has established guidelines that address grading and erosion control. The
following selected guidelines from the Master Plan are intended to assure appropriate grading design to
control erosion to prevent excessive sedimentation during storm events.
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits shall be obtained from the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) prior to project implementation. Such permits are required for specific (or a
series of related) construction activities which exceed one acre in size and include provisions to
eliminate or reduce off-site discharges through implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP).
• Specific SWPPP provisions include requirements for erosion and sediment control, as well as
monitoring requirements both during and after construction. Pollution control measures also require
the use of best available technology, best conventional pollutant control technology, and/or best
management practices to prevent or reduce pollutant discharge (pursuant to SWRCB definitions and
direction).
Post-construction erosion control measures shall be implemented where proposed disturbance is
adjacent to or encroaches within existing drainage courses and project runoff velocities exceed six
feet per second.
Final project design shall incorporate all applicable BMPs contained in the City and State Best
Management Practices to be considered in the development of an Urban Stormwater Management
Plan. Specifically, these may include measures such as the use of detention facilities, retention
structures, infiltration facilities, permeable pavements, vegetation controls, discharge controls,
maintenance (e.g., street sweeping,) and erosion controls.
Surface drainage shall be designed to collect in pollution control basins and discharge runoff into
natural stream channels or drainage structures. All project-related drainage structures shall be
adequately sized to accommodate 1 00-year flood events (or other storm events pursuant to
direction from the City Engineer).
B. On-Site Wetlands
The proposed project would result in a temporary impact of 0.57 acre and a permanent impact of 0.40
acre ACOE jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed project would result in impacts to 1.05 acres of CDFG
riparian habitat. To compensate for these impacts to wetland and riparian areas that serve as natural
biofilters, the project will achieve "no net loss" of wetlands via onsite wetland creation. Project
implementation will not reduce the amount of onsite wetlands and the beneficial water quality effects of
the wetlands will continue through buildout of the project site.
Grading requirements associated with the proposed project have the potential to cause erosion and/or
sedimentation/siltation on the site or in the area on a short-term basis during construction. In the East
Village at least three temporary desilting basins are proposed during the mass grading operation to reduce
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-27 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
the level of sedimentation entering the natural drainage courses. In the West Village temporary desiltation
basins are also proposed during grading to reduce sedimentation entering natural drainages.
Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon will receive stormwater runoff from the project site.
Because grading activities have the potential to increase the level of sedimentation/siltation that enters
Ague Hedionda Lagoon on a short-term basis during construction, the impact is considered significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1 will reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure WQ-1 requires that erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related pollutants shall
be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan,
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection,
Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871 ), General Construction
Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08, NPDES CAS000002) and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit
(Order No. 2001-01, NPDES CAS0108758). In compliance with the General Construction Stormwater Permit,
a SWPPP shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of any grading permits. The owner/developer
shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMPs identified below on a weekly basis. In
addition, prior to approval of the grading permit for the respective village, the City Engineer must
determine that project plans have incorporated the temporary desilting basins in the East Village and the
four permanent detention facilities in the West Village.
Some of the BMPs that shall be used during construction include, but are not limited to:
Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms
• Check dams
• Street Sweeping and vacuuming
Strom drain inlet protection
• Stabilized construction entrance/exit
Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling
Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch
• Material delivery and storage
Stockpile management
• Spill prevention and control
Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous and sanitary waste, contaminated soil
Concrete waste management
C. Long-Term
EAST VILLAGE
The project site will contain some pollutants commonly found in similar developments that could affect
water quality downstream from the project site. Pollutants are generated from single-family and multi-
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-28 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
family residential developments, streets, and parking lots. Those pollutants include sediment discharge,
nutrients from fertilizers, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding
substances, oil and grease from paved areas, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides from landscaping and
home use. Figure 5.12-7 depicts the proposed Storm Water Management Plan and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan for the East Village. Proposed facilities that will treat post-construction stormwater runoff
from the East Village include the BJB detention basin (constructed) and a Water Quality Basin, in the form
of a naturally vegetated drainage course south of Cannon Road. In addition, site design, source controL
and treatment control BMPs have been incorporated into the project to reduce water quality impacts to
the maximum extent feasible. The specific site design, source controL and treatment control BMPs that
have been incorporated into the Master Plan are identified beiow and also summarized on Figure 5.12-7:
• Site Design BMPs -Vegetated buffer strips, biofilters, street design, driveways, development
clustering, conservation of natural areas, minimization of connected impervious surfaces, and
protection of slopes and channels.
• Source Control BMPs -Street Sweeping, covering of trash and storage areas, efficient irrigation
systems & landscape design, storm water system stenciling and signage and education.
• Structural Treatment Control BMPs-vegetated buffer strips, inlet filters, and vegetated swale.
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is located downstream of the project site will receive stormwater runoff
from the project site and is identified on the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies
for sedimentation/siltation. In the post-development condition, the project site has the potential to
discharge sediment and other pollutants to Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek, which are
tributaries to Agua Hedionda Lagoon; therefore this issue is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-2 will reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure WQ-2 requires that pollutants be controlled through compliance with the City of
Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required
under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control
Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871 J, and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01,
NPDES CAS0108758). Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the East Village, the City
Engineer must determine that the proposed project has incorporated the post-development water quality
pollution control measures identified below into project design to the maximum extent practicable.
Site Design BMPs
Source Control BMPs
• Structural Treatment Control BMPs
WEST VILLAGE
The project site will contain some pollutants commonly found in similar developments that could affect
water quality downstream from the project site. Pollutants are generated from single-family and multi-
family residential developments, commercial land uses, streets, and parking lots. Those pollutants include
sediment discharge, nutrients from fertilizers, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen
demanding substances, oil and grease from paved areas, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides from
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-29 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
landscaping and home use. Figure 5.12-8 depicts the Summary Stormwater Management Plan for the West
Village. Stormwater drainage design in the West Village includes four detention basins {A, B, C, D).
Detention basins serve three purposes: flood prevention, water detention, and removal of urban pollutants.
In addition, site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs have been incorporated into the
project to reduce water quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The specific site design, source
control, and treatment control BMPs that have been incorporated into the Master Plan are identified below
and summarized on Figure 5.12-8:
Site Design BMPs -vegetated buffer strips, street design, driveway treatment. development
clustering, conservation of natural areas, minimization of connected impervious surfaces, and
protection of slopes and channels.
• Source Control BMPs-street sweeping, enclose trash and storage areas, efficient irrigation systems &
landscape design, storm water system stenciling and signage, and education.
Structural Treatment Control BMPs -vegetated buffer strips, inlet filters, detention and pollution
control basins, drainage courses and swales, vortex separators.
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is located downstream of the project site will receive stormwater runoff
from the project site and is identified on the Clean Water Act, Section 303{d) list of impaired water bodies
for sedimentation/siltation. In the post-development condition, the project site has the potential to
discharge sediment and other pollutants to Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek, which are
tributaries to Agua Hedionda Lagoon; therefore this issue is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1 and WQ-2 will reduce this impact to a level less than
significant. These measures require that pollutants be controlled through compliance with the City of
Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required
under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control
Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit {Order No. 2001-0L
NPDES CAS0108758). Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the West Village, the City
Engineer must determine that the proposed project has incorporated the post-development water quality
pollution control measures identified below into project design to the maximum extent practicable.
Installation of the four detention basins (A, B, C, D)
Site Design BMPs
• Source Control BMPs
• Structural Treatment Control BMPs
5.12.3.3 Flooding
Historically, flooding has occasionally occurred on the project site and portions of the project site are
located within a 1 00-year flood hazard area. The proposed project would not place housing within a 1 00-
year flood hazard area nor would it place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or significantly redirect flood flows as all development would be raised above the flood plain and
floodwaters would be directed and channelized through appropriate storm drain facilities.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-30 April2006
I
I
SOURCE· O'Day Consultants 2005 '
.rn:m:m.
-~il'/Ji~
/;'· .. ... VILLAGE W
'·
•' /
I'
,.,.
BJIP SUJIJIA8Y
1-1
15 16 llA 118 18A 188 19
21 22
R1
R'l. R5
R2. RJ
R6
Robertson Ranch Mas1ster Plan Program EIR
. (JII'{CitiJ
Pai.UTANTS
·$111£CT~ -Wf&EF!RIIflml
..N.£7IJASINlNJll.Nf; -11.(AIRAaDAS' llltDlD-ICMll' -fl.Otf<-1/AD lf'R'TAIRI -lfMti'O:fA.'ll..,_ lft!'TA/Jrlt' Sllf4U" IMiflf'SIJW:;Jif.nt:llfV,/f£1Wfl STUll/ 0RM1 NI.CT AS IEl1XD
-lllrl'flf1tllliN1H
-IICAmAIDAS ,.,.._,...,
-51rJRtiDIJNNIUTIJASI((IS -I!'MtrQCNftDN/11 1111HH~AIJS1JIIP110NHIPPtJCMI!IrJVBOt/IISHllfAtS)
-Twt:rfiOIIICN1H
-fll.tmAaPAS _,....,..,
-51rYIIIDRNNNDIASitl'lf -I!'Mtrt:ltAIItDMIJ
1111HHIDHOCNIIJONA8St11P11DN H'fDIIfJCAII8(WBOaiSRD!AQ71 _,__,....,.,. ...
-n«rPCRMfJN1N -arror~
~~AS ~A.S:ltQo!11t/N
;.:~~~=110N -Hf¥tMirmA.S:ltQo!1D¥
51flllltriNNAf.CTA.5'1E£Dlr)
-~r.w:racAAm l£t;r1;411DNIINM$'flllf; ....JGflJIIIIflASSIXIA11t1N SIT-'PI'OMV,IIFPMtS1r'RIIDIJNNIIIITS AND OIJR[fS INSPCCT AJI) RtPMIIJtRII BOrCU.I£/tTIIUT.taJRITA.S'IEEIJ
SOIL I!JSS $UJIJI.4BY
IIOB£/ITS(K-1/IANCH fAST llllAGr
J,8f;Nfp
mill OIJST,....,_
mm --~ CIIIS1ITI6IlCitWIIriNIIASN
~~~;] NAIPMUYIRFTAI!li~C/Misr
UB.l fUllf'•&4D1017AilD.5111U"
~ IIJoiii:WMrtnr:rauw
0 IRI'I'Ailflllllm/Siflll
~~~3.1 --• -lll.tTIUIII!DIS
Afr.l8'1oliWIDWY
PI.NMN&MrAIIWIIMir ---
Summary SWMP &S)WPPP-East Village
~ !
A)QII$1Df11£HDIJUSitCAI'r.ll'Cl!-
UI"AI QIMMJME'A fltliAC
tiQ\'QSSMfA IM.J At:
I)IUIIIGCIWS1RfiCC111JN -MAA!o!GI\r;JZ"IAM~MID.PAIIW:QI!Ji'ADSNIJS1IIIJC'RIIt ctJNSIIIUC!IaiAMIJ PAINTIN(J -~f(}ff.M41C84lMM1PY.USlAMli51CWAt:r -SFIJ.I'ROOIIIfXIIMJ&alrRa. • IAS1C~1Fal.sri.CI,IWNIIJIMMJ$AMTNIYIH$n; ctJNTAMNATCD.Sst:l.tr.M:llrll" -IOCC AIIIJ C«<OIIIVNT afAMWO fiJtlllfl AMJ MUY/IMW:t aJV/lli'ACTQ{SOftO)!lMC!!lJIICtllfRACffll~ lf£PfRIWII T ASH~f/WflllfJfJit
""
""' • t!UDTY llffJQCtCTIIJN tJ!JINt: otJW IWOfmD( fJECK DAMS AIIIJ ~"'--SllJIIICN1fl1lRI/IINGIJSJNt:JlTIIM:t SllrAWBMt oWJQPAIQ BAG~ RfNX1f nm 111£1 AW11lt'110'( stiiM!NT JW'S ........
~--PA U(JtNOa). A4 I 14/lCU-FAIII~ PA 14 1/i\l.lt ,_ III{SINfJU..f'AJ/1.1').
PAll (lmi(ATIDN MUF,U AI II. II (C(JIMIYNID HOlD)
-NTIIASIIIWIIlltlJtiJ -IIQITIN( S1R!t11swm:M
(DIUII'-6ASE1lDn'TAilPSIItlt
(DDI/STINt:NAMR.I'M.!ICQ'M1lJDfWiA/itctJIJII!lE
I'UIIUCAII'iiYT-tr-•lllr(llt) -ROIJWS1RttT'TSitlEIWIJ
-lll£TBASJIItA811El.IIIC
-SIUIIDIMINRIUllllfltS
IVIJC"""·tT-MIIU'(N. HJJ -ROIJWS111EC1'1SfltEE1WC -I«TBASINlA/INJD.ItG •STOIIIIfJIMINRNI.Effl.1lliS <D R.tMi-BASEllllJ IRI'TAIZI$114U'
I'UIIlJCfiiQIT-tT-IIUIIY(fN.tS) •ROIITIES'IIIECT,'TJ'IIZliiJIIIC -IIETIIASIIlAIIIIIIM' • STOIIIIIJIMINI/ti.II.CTFI1111$ CD (JISIIt(;AiifMIUPAIIRlTAUtRWtGtctJtJII!lE
fiUilJCfllliNNII'-•nr/111) -GillE sntar !T ~ • MCT BASJIIlAllMIIIC
CD UI$TIIIIIMfiU1UPAIIR!'rAD~QUII:!r
(Dc.-sTrlfl~BAM
'
9/14/05
FIGURE
5.12-7
5.12-31
BMP SfJMAIARY
I
7 8
..! 4 s; 6
.9, 10
II
2
IJ
12
Alf'IJCAS.E
/IOSTCONSTRtJCTKW -
-$1fJRIIIJIWI WIETBASI(£/S -IFM!Ya£4Nl/J IRJ WIHH'KJIHJt':Nii/DNA/J5011PrroN H'IDROCAiitK.WIIOOIISMAm:J
-IJCTEIIIDIIJASIN -SEJI-MINtJAI. a.EANNC. lf'Q'TA!It:W HNMSTINC. fifJitM !iEDIJENT ·lif-UiMJ£fiHENSIDIII£NTRfAQ61« OFIDTAI.BASJNtru.llf:
-n:M~;YQ.CMG NSPCCTFrlftwMCtl" -HOIICrJIIN(RSASS'IlQillt/N IIEIWtASARl'S341'Y
-51flfET~ -frWX/IDIII(IIlH
JIUliiMI:r.s -S1UIIIIDIWIIUISUI!'13' -IFMtYa£WIJAND
:&4C'm.i • IGfti.SD' WIN HtfKiOCA/ff/OII A85YJIIP110N HWJIIOC'NIIION IIOOIIS R9lAQl1
-P£SIIQOCS -lf'll"IMPIM'AWAIZ"~ 5.:~~~~=~= ..HfMI1WRSA.SSWAIIat
AND WII.E1S,. 1/SPEr:T AND lflPN/1 B£1111 ANOIJQKtltiP'TMET.t OUTUTASN£ED
i:=rSUSTIAQS =~ ~:;;,: ~~,_
~::~h1itl.n -::::=::::::a, ~~MRM!Z1 ~.usl¥MflfJII
-IRUA1CDIM'AIIioiG!'CGUP2" -IFMtYMNG lfll'TATICIIHAIII£SIIIC -IKIIICrJIIIriCAS:SI:Qillt/N 51llAI1fOIOil. fiDWfJSI'DIIIIIIIWNIILEIS AND (XJfi.£1S. /NSPE"GT AND fPAJ/f IJ£flll AND BOK CU.w.RTRET .t OURET AS NEED
-Kir.UPMIIIDI' -IFMtYaENG liSI'£CTRRAW41Z' -HfMtDIIIIl1fSA.S:SriQitllfli IIEPNRAS~Y
SHEET I OF I
"" ....... ' """""--AMWAt:r'BAJMII«AArWr'J' lill!!lll!l --TPriU.UIIai-IIASit
~ I AMRAAUriiR't41lD~t:Rft5F'
~I_.....,.
SOURCE: O'Day Consultants, 2005 9114tos
Robertson Ranch Masrster Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Summary SWMFP-West Village 5.12-8
5.12-33
!I
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
Implementation of the proposed drainage improvements, including the 84" storm drain, will remove from
the 1 00-year floodplain those areas of the project site, as well as off-site areas in the vicinity of Calavera
Creek that are currently located within the 1 00-year floodplain. Figure 5.12-6 depicts the post-
development floodplain for the East Village. This issue is not considered significant.
There is a history of flooding at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) that is located south of
the project site. To alleviate this condition, recently the BJB detention basin and a weir were constructed.
The weir is located immediately downstream of the detention basin in the freestanding wall along the
northerly boundary of RCMHP. The weir was designed to control the 100-year flood flow distribution north
and south of the wall. By limiting flow on the south side of the wall, additional flood protection is provided
to the RCMHP. In addition, as part of the proposed project, an 84-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is
proposed to be constructed from the BJB detention basin (recently constructed) south along the northerly
edge of Cannon Road to an outlet adjacent to the existing box culverts under Cannon Road immediately
east of El Camino Real. This 84-inch facility could convey approximately 500 cubic feet per second of
stormwater runoff underground past the RCMHP, which is approximately half of the stormwater flow that
would flow from Calavera Creek south toward RCMHP and Agua Hedionda Creek. Installation of the BJB
detention basin and 84-inch RCP that will route approximately half of the 100-year flood flows underground
past the RCMHP will reduce flooding at RCMHP to a level less than significant. Figure 5.12-6 depicts the
post-development floodplain in this area.
5.12.4 Mitigation Measures
5.12.4.1 Hydrology
H-1 This measure requires that consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), drainage
facilities shall be provided concurrent with future development of the East Village. Prior to
approval of grading permits for development within the East Village, the City Engineer must
approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm drain facilities as required by the Master Drainage
and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, LFMP and Drainage Study. The required storm drain
facilities include but are not limited to:
84-inch RCP from BJB detention basin
Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.14-4)
H-2 This measure requires that consistent with the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) and
Drainage Study, drainage facilities shall be provided concurrent with future development of the
West Village. Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the West Village, the City
Engineer must approve the necessary onsite and offsite storm drain facilities as required by the
Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, LFMP and Drainage Study. The
required storm drain facilities include but are not limited to:
Facility BFB
Facility BF1
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-35 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
Detention basins in Planning Areas 1, 2. 7, and 11
Facility BFA
Proposed onsite drainage plan (Figure 5.12-6)
5.12.4.2 Water Quality
WQ-1 This measure requires that erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related pollutants shall be
controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed
Protection, Stormwater Management. and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871 ),
General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08, NPDES CAS000002) and the General
Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01. NPDES CAS0108758). In compliance with the
General Construction Stormwater Permit. a SWPPP shall be prepared and approved prior to
issuance of any grading permits. The owner/developer shall be responsible for monitoring and
maintaining the BMPs identified below on a weekly basis. In addition, prior to approval of the
grading permit for the respective village, the City Engineer must determine that project plans have
incorporated temporary desilting basins of adequate number and size in the East Village and
permanent detention basins of adequate number and size in the West Village.
Some of the BMPs that shall be used during construction include, but are not limited to:
Silt fence, fiber rolls. or gravel bag berms
Check dams
• Street Sweeping and vacuuming
Strom drain inlet protection
Stabilized construction entrance/exit
Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling
Hydroseed. soil binders, or straw mulch
• Material delivery and storage
• Stockpile management
Spill prevention and control
Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous and sanitary waste. contaminated soil
Concrete waste management
WQ-2 This measure requires that pollutants be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required
under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge
Control Ordinance (WPO) (section 67.871 ), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order
No. 2001-01. NPDES CAS0108758). Prior to approval of grading permits for development within the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-36 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
East Village, the City Engineer must determine that the proposed project has incorporated the
post-development water quality pollution control measures identified below into project design to
the maximum extent practicable.
Installation of the vegetated swale located south of Cannon Road
Site Design BMPs
Source Control BMPs
Structural Treatment Control BMPs
Proposed BMPs include:
-Street Sweeping
-Inlet Basin Labeling
-Storm Drain Inlet Baskets with Hydrocarbon Absorption
-Vortex Separator(s)
-Vegetative Drainage Course
-Existing Detention Basin BJB
-Dog Waste Bag Dispensers
-HOA shall provide information to homeowners and residents regarding the requirements of pet
waste disposal.
City Standard Conditions of Approval
In addition to the Mitigation Measures identified above, the project will be required to comply with the
following City standard Conditions of Approval:
In conjunction with the implementation of any tentative subdivision map, the project engineer will
install or cause to be installed, an underground drainage system network and curbs and gutters
that capture and direct storm water flows. Such improvements shall be developed in substantial
conformance with the Master Drainage Plan provided in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan
document (2005) and shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and meet all regulatory
standards.
The drainage area fee established in the current Drainage Master Plan for any specific sub-
drainage area within the proposed project, shall be paid or credit given for master drainage
facility installation costs or assured through an agreement.
The construction of storm drain facilities in substantial conformance with those provided for within
the propose Zone 14 LFMP Amendment shall be paid or assured through a financial guarantee for
that development phase within the Robertson Ranch in which the improvement is necessary.
Development conducted under the auspices of the Proposed Project shall comply with all
requirements of State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 90-42 (NPDES Permit No.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-37 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology /Water Quality
CAOl 08758) and the most current order. In accordance with such permits a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Monitoring Program Plan shall be developed, and a complete and
accurate Notice of Intent (NOll shall be filed with the SWRCB meeting all regulatory standards.
A copy of the acknowledgment from the SWRCB that an NOI has been received for the proposed
project shall be filed with the City when received. A copy of the completed NOI from the SWRCB
showing the construction permit number for the proposed project also shall be filed with the City
when received.
5.12.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures H-1, H-2 and WQ-1 and WQ-2 will reduce the impact to Hydrology/
Water Quality to a level of less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-38 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.12-39 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13-Population/Housing
5.13 Population/Housing
The primary source of information for this EIR Section is the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan and
Finance Plan Amendment, July 22,2005.
5.13.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is located within the City of Carlsbad's Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan. Figure
5.14-1 (See Section 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities) depicts the location of Zone 14 within the limits of the
City of Carlsbad. The project site currently contains one dwelling unit that provides housing for
approximately three people.
LFMP Zone 14 is an irregularly-shaped, long and narrow zone, located in the northeast quadrant of
Carlsbad. Zone 14 contains approximately 822 acres of land, 98 percent of which is currently vacant. Zone
14 borders the City of Oceanside to the north and east, Tamarack Avenue and Zone 2 to the west, and El
Camino Real to the south. As required by the Zone 7 LFMP Colovera Hills Phose II development. core
improvements to College Boulevard and Cannon Road have recently been constructed across the central
and southern portions of Zone 14, providing connection between El Camino Real and Highway 78 to the
north.
The purpose of the Zone 14 LFMP Amendment is to provide an update to the adopted Zone 14 LFMP for
supplying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate development within the Zone 14 area
of the City of Carlsbad. The Plan Amendment has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 21.90 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan of 1986.
Zone 14 LFMP development assumptions ore based on Growth Management Control Points for the various
residential land use categories (e.g., low density residential, medium density residential, medium high
density residential and high density residential). The Control Points are average dwelling unit per acre
assumptions that are applied to all vacant. developable residential land within the zone. The LFMP also
includes phasing schedules that estimate future development from 2006 to 2012 (projected buildout). The
phasing estimates are used for facility planning purposes.
The existing General Plan land use designations for the project site are residential low-medium (RLM),
residential medium (RM), shopping center fl) (floating designator land use), and elementary school (E)
(floating designator land use). The buildout development capacity of Zone 14 was originally determined in
the Zone 14 LFMP prepared in 1989. That analysis determined that 1,122 dwelling units ore allowed within
Zone 14. Since 1989, an updated constraints map of Zone 14 was developed. Based on the updated
constraints map, the Zone 14 buildout development capacity was modified to allow a maximum of %+-983
dwelling units.
The Master Plan would require a transfer of dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (Bank),
subject to the criteria for allocation contained in City Council Policy 43. The Master Plan proposes 1,17 6
units with an alternative scenario allowing up to 1 ,383 units if the proposed elementary school site becomes
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.13-1 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13-Population/Housing
available for residential development. Therefore, the proposal would require an allocation of between m
J..2d._and ~400 units from the Bank. The Bank presently has 3,134 units (as of June 2005), which are
available for re-allocation in compliance with the Growth Management Program.
The LFMP also provides buildout population projections. The population projections are based on a
generation rate of 2.3178 persons per dwelling unit. Table 5.13-1 provides the population projections for
Zone 14. These population projections were utilized through the Zone 14 LFMP analysis to predict demand
for public facilities.
TABLE 5.13-1
Zone 14 Residential Buildout Projections
RLM 3.2
RM 8.58 6.0 51.48
Total 225 1 '176/1,383* 2,725/3,205*
RLM-Residential Low-Medium
RM-Residential Medium
Source: Zone 14. Local Facilities Management Plan and Finance Plan Amendment. July 22, 2005.
• Assumes PAs 13 and 14 are developed with multi-family uses.
The LFMP also provides phased buildout projections for Zone 14. The City uses phased projections as a tool
to allow the City to anticipate future public facility needs and to budget funds accordingly. Table 5.13-2
identifies the anticipated phased development of Zone 14 (project site). As Table 5.13-2 identifies. buildout
of the project site will occur through the year 2012 and at buildout. Zone 14 will have a population of 2,725
(based on the proposed L 17 6 dwelling units). Should the maximum number of 1,383 dwelling units be
implemented, the Zone 14 population would be 3,205.
City Council approval is required for both the allocation of units from the Bank and the public facility
adequacy analysis addressed in the Zone 14 LFMP.
5.13.2 Threshold for Determining Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Result in a substantial increase to the number of dwelling units and the population from that
anticipated by the approved LFMP; or,
Result in a change to the number of residential units, population and growth patterns from that
anticipated by the LFMP that would adversely impact the ability of the City to provide planned
levels of service for public facilities.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.13-2 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13-Population/Housing
TABLE 5.13-2
Zone 14 Residential Phasing Projections
Source: Zone 14. Local i
• Total Zone 14 d.u.'s equals 1.383 and population equals 3.205 if PAs 13 and 14 are developed with multi-family uses.
5.13.3 Environmental Impact
To ensure that appropriate public facilities are provided concurrent with development, the Zone 14 LFMP
provides 1 0 General Conditions for Zone 14, which include:
All development within Zone 14 shall conform to the provisions of Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code and to the provisions and conditions of [the Zone 14] Local Facilities Management
Plan Amendment.
All development within Zone 14 shall be required to pay a public facilities fee pursuant to the
standards adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987, and as amended from time to time and all
other applicable fees. Development in Zone 14 shall also be responsible for any additional fees to be
incorporated into this plan that are found to be necessary to enable facilities to meet the adopted
performance standard.
• The City of Carlsbad shall monitor all facilities in Zone 14 pursuant to Subsections 21.90.130(c), (d) and
(e) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
• All development in Zone 14 shall be in conformance with the adopted Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan as adopted by City Council Resolution 8797 on September 23, 1986 and
amended on January 9, 1990, and in conformance with future amendments as described in
Condition 5 below.
Periodic amendment to the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan is anticipated to incorporate
newly acquired data, to amend conditions and upgrade standards as determined through the
required monitoring program. Amendment to this Plan may be initiated by action of the Planning
Commission, City Council or property owners at any time.
• Please refer to the Zone 14 LFMP for General Conditions 6 through 1 0.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.13-3 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13-Population/Housing
At buildout of the project site [estimated to be Year 2012 for facility planning purposes), 1,17 6 dwelling units
( 1,383 if PA 's 13 and 14 are not developed with a school use) will be located on the project site. The
project would result in an increase in the number of units originally anticipated for Zone 14. The original
Zone 14 LFMP anticipated that 1, 122 units could be constructed; however, based on recent constraints
analysis mapping, that number was reduced to %-t--983 units. The proposal requires an allocation of
between ~193 and ~400 dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (Bank) to achieve the
1, 17 6 to 1,383 units proposed by the Master Plan. As described in Section 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities
of this EIR, City Administrative, library, Wastewater Treatment Capacity, Fire, and Open Space public
facilities/services provided for the proposed project are currently in compliance with the City's adopted
performance standards. As described in Section 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities of this EIR, after
mitigation is applied, Parks, Drainage, Circulation, Schools, Sewer Collection, and Water Distribution will also
be in compliance with the City's adopted performance standards.
The allocation of units from the Bank is consistent with Council Policy 43 and with Goal 2 (Quantity and
Diversity of Housing Stock) of the General Plan Housing Element. Objective 2.1 of the Housing Element
allows for development of sufficient new housing to meet the City's share of the total regional housing
need, as identified in SANDAG's Regional Housing Needs Statement. Objective 2.3 ensures sufficient
developable acreage in all residential densities to provide varied housing types for households in all
economic ranges. The Master Plan achieves both of these goals by providing planning areas with a range
of densities from 3 to 21 dwelling units per acre and a variety of housing types including detached single
family homes, small lot planned developments, courtyard homes and multi-family residential units.
There are adequate units in the Bank for the requested allocation and the transfer of these units would not
exceed the Proposition "E" dwelling unit cap of 9,042 dwelling units for the North East Quadrant. The Zone
14 LFMP estimates current residential build-out for the North East Quadrant to be 7,489 dwelling units with
the Master Plan proposal of 1, 1 7 6 units. If the Master Plan alternative residential uses were constructed, the
residential build-out for the North East Quadrant would be increased to 7,696 units.
While the project will result in on increase in the number of dwelling units and population beyond the level
anticipated by the original LFMP, the increase is not considered significant as the proposed LFMP
amendment demonstrates that facilities will be provided to serve the development, and the excess
dwelling units are available from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. As discussed in Section 5.1 -Land
Use, City Council Policy 43 establishes the City's policy regarding the number and criteria for allocation of
"Excess" dwelling units which have become available. Under City policy, "Excess" dwelling units may be
allocated to projects located in any quadrant of the City as long as the number of residential units
constructed in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E.
Additionally, as part of the "Excess" dwelling unit allocation, the City may require additional units to be
restricted for low or moderate income households, above the City's 15% lnclusionary Housing Requirement.
The proposed project would not result in a significant change to the number of residential units, and would
not change the population and growth patterns from that anticipated by the LFMP. The proposed amount
of housing and corresponding population that will be introduced to the project site as a result of
development of the project would not adversely impact the ability of the City to provide planned levels of
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.13-4 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13-Population/Housing
service for public facilities. The project would also not impact the planned residential unit count,
population or growth patterns in the area.
5.13.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is proposed as no Population/Housing impact has been identified.
5.13.5 Impact After Mitigation
No Population/Housing impact has been identified.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.13-5 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.13-Population/Housing
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.13-6 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14 Public Services and Utilities
The Robertson Ranch project site boundary is located within the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
Zone 14 of the Carlsbad Growth Management Program. Figure 5.14-1 depicts the location of Zone 14 in
relationship to other City of Carlsbad LFMP Zones. The following analysis is based on information provided in
the Zone 14 (Local Facilities Management Plan and Finance Plan Amendment) (Planning Systems, July 22,
2005).
The purpose of the LFMP is to provide a plan and financing structure to ensure that facilities and public
services are provided to accommodate development within Zone 14. The LFMP is prepared as a
requirement of the City's adopted Growth Management Plan, and in accordance with Chapter 21.90
(Growth Management) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan of
1986. The LFMP provides a phasing schedule to determine approximate threshold years for construction or
upgrading various public facilities to maintain compliance with the performance standards adopted in the
Growth Management Program. The City monitors development within the zone to ensure Growth
Management Standards are maintained. The LFMP also contains general and special conditions of
approval to ensure compliance with the performance standards. Public facilities addressed in this section
and as required by the City's Growth Management Program include city administrative facilities, library,
wastewater, parks, drainage, fire, open space, schools, sewer, and water. Overall, there are currently no
public facility demands in Zone 14 as there is currently no development in the zone.
5.14.1 City Administrative Facilities
5. 14. 1. 1 Existing Conditions
The City of Carlsbad currently owns or leases 1 70,657 square feet of City administrative facilities in five
locations. These facilities include City Hall, Faraday Center, Redevelopment Department, Public Safety
Center, and the Water District Office. The City's adopted performance standard requires 1,500 square feet
of administrative facilities per 1 ,000 population be scheduled for construction within a five year period or
prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units beginning at the time the need is first identified. The existing
estimated City population is 97,367 generating a demand for 146,051 square feet of administrative facilities.
This existing demand is well below the 170,657 square feet currently owned or leased by the City. Currently,
the project site generates a negligible demand for administrative facilities (estimated population of five
persons generating a demand for eight square feet of administrative space).
5.14.1.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR. a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "1,500 square feet per 1,000 population must be
scheduled for construction within a five year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units
beginning at the time the need is first identified;" or,
Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
administrative facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable administrative services.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-1 April2006
City of Oceanside
~--
/
Local Facilities
··-----: TManagement Zone 14
"' 25 -.......-~'-----...
Pacific
LEGEND:
Ocean
\
City of Carlsbad
Boundary
"-........-·.......-t~--
\ ( r-z \ 7 I . :
' / \._ .~,.-' I .
)-----L-)
/-14 /
/' __ /
15 __ p~L-
/' ~ J-I City of ·--.r-· 16 Vista ~ I ~ I ·-L.-,.•j . ··---...
I :City of __ i_~~.J lB JSan Marcos
f·"-·-.....;----
10 ' I
I
City of Encinitas
'----:-----
City of Encinitas ~ __ _n__.
-·----· LFMP Boundary
SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2004
1980-2005
·m·m·m·
~======~======~======~==~====~======~ Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Local Facilities Management Zone
Location Map
5.14-2
7/ll/05
FIGURE
5.14-1
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5. 14. 1.3 Environmental Impact
At buildout of the project site in the year 2020, the project will have added approximately 2,725 residents to
the City of Carlsbad (3,205 if alternative uses for PA 's 13 and 14 are implemented). These additional
residents will generate a demand for 4,088 square feet (4,808 square feet if alternative uses are
implemented) of administrative space based on the adopted performance standard. The citywide
population in year 2020 is estimated to be 110,622 (or 111, 102). Applying the performance standard of
1 ,500 square feet of administrative space per 1 ,000 population results in a citywide demand for
approximately 165,000 square feet of administrative space in year 2020. Based on the LFMP analysis,
232,675 square feet of administrative space is projected, which is a surplus of 66,724 square feet of space
based on the performance standard. Therefore, the supply of administrative facilities is not in a deficit
situation through the buildout of Zone 14.
According to the LFMP, Zone 14 is projected to conform with the performance standard at buildout of the
City. There are no project-specific special conditions that are needed in order to continue to meet the
Zone's performance standard of "1 ,500 square feet per 1,000 population must be scheduled for
construction within a five year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units beginning at the time
the need is first identified." The project would be required to meet the general conditions as defined in the
Zone 14 LFMP which includes participation in the City of Carlsbad Community Facilities District No. J and
payment of public facilities fees with building permits. As discussed in the LFMP, city administrative facilities
will be met through buildout of Zone 14. The proposed project would not require the provision of new or
physically altered administrative facilities and no significant impact to the environment as a result of
construction or expansion of administrative facilities will result.
5. 14.1.4 Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measure is required, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.14.1.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to city administrative facilities has been identified.
5.14.2 Library Facilities
5.14.2.1 Existing Conditions
The City of Carlsbad currently owns or leases I 02,211 square feet of library facilities in five locations. The
library performance standard requires 800 square feet of library space per 1 ,000 population scheduled for
construction within a five year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units beginning at the time
the need is first identified. The estimated city population is currently 97,367, resulting in a citywide demand
for 77,892 square feet of library space; therefore, there is a surplus of about 14,906 square feet of library
space based on the Growth Management Performance Standard. The City's 2005-06 Capital
Improvement Program shows funds for the expansion of Cole Library to 45,1 00 square feet (an increase of
20,500 square feet) in 20 l 0 or after. Currently, the project site does not generate a demand on library
facilities.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-3 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14.2.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "800 square feet per 1.000 population must be
scheduled for construction within a five year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units
beginning at the time the need is first identified;" or,
• Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to
maintain acceptable library services.
5.14.2.3 Environmental Impact
The proposed project will add approximately 2,725 residents to the City (3,205 if alternative uses for PA 's 13
and 14 are implemented). These additional residents will generate a demand for 2,180 square feet (or
2,564) of library space based on the adopted Growth Management performance standard. The year 2020
citywide population, including the project site, will be 110,622 (or 111.102). Applying the performance
standard of 800 square feet per 1.000 population results in a demand of 88.497 square feet (or 88,882) of
space. The current available library space exceeds the performance standard. Additionally, the LFMP
analysis shows that the library performance standard will continue to be met throughout buildout of Zone
14.
According to the LFMP, library facilities are required to conform with the performance standard until
buildout of the City. There are no project-specific special conditions that are needed in order to continue
to meet the performance standard of "800 square feet per 1 ,000 population must be scheduled for
construction within a five year period or prior to construction of 6,250 dwelling units beginning at the time
the need is first identified." The project will contribute to the funding of the library facilities through
participation in Community Facilities District No.1 and through the payment of Public Facilities Fees (PFF} at
the time of building permit issuance. The proposed project would not require the provision of new or
physically altered library facilities and no significant impact to the environment as a result of construction or
expansion of library facilities will result.
5.14.2.4 Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measure is required, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.14.2.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to library facilities has been identified.
5.14.3 Wastewater Facilities
5.14.3.1 Existing Conditions
Wastewater treatment in the City is provided primarily at the Encino Wastewater Authority (EWA) Plant and
also to a lesser degree at satellite treatment facilities (the southern portion of the City is served by the
Gafner Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Leucadia County Water District} and Meadowlark Reclamation
Facility (Vallecitos Water District). Zone 14 is served by the EWA Plant. Capacity at the EWA Plant is
separated into two categories: treatment capacity and outfall capacity. Currently, the EWA Plant has a
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-4 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis · 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
treatment capacity of 36 million gallons per day (MGD). Ultimately, this facility will be able to treat up to 54
MGD. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) retains capacity rights to 25.67 percent or 9.24 MGD
of the EWA Plant capacity. The existing demand is 6.31 MGD, resulting in an existing 2.93 MGD wastewater
treatment capacity surplus. Table 5.14-1 depicts existing flow and wastewater treatment capacity of the
CMWD and five other sewer districts that share ownership.
TABLE 5.14-1
Encino Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Capacity Analysis
Carlsbad 9.24 6.31 2.93
Buena 2.26 1.27 0.99
Vallecitos 7.54 4.59
Leucadia 7.11 4.06
Encinitas 1.80
TOTAL 36.00 23.68 12.32
Source: Zone 14 LFMP. 2005
The Encino Ocean Outfall is a drainage line that transports treated sewage (effluent) from the EWA Plant
and satellite facilities and discharges approximately 8,900 feet westerly into the Pacific Ocean. Currently,
the Encino Ocean Outfall has sufficient capacity to dispose of the estimated peak flows with an average
flow of 38 MGD capacity. Outfall capacity, just as treatment capacity, is shared on a percentage basis by
the six water/sewer service districts and is projected to provide sufficient capacity through the year 2010.
The City of Carlsbad also holds title to the Calavera Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant which has a capacity
of 1.2 MGD. The Calavera Hills facility is not operational at this time and according to the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District there are no plans to utilize this facility.
The project site is currently not served by sewer and there are no sewer facilities located on-site.
5.14.3.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "wastewater treatment plant capacity is
adequate for at /east a five year period;" or,
Result in substantia/ adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable wastewater treatment capacity.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-5 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14.3.3 Environmental Impact
Future development of the proposed project will contribute to the increasing amount of wastewater
generation within the EWA Plant wastewater service area. Additional expansion to accommodate
increased flow expected in the future based on area growth projections is being planned for by the Encino
Wastewater Authority. According to the Encino WPCF's 2020 Facility Plan Update Report (February 1993),
projected future flow could reach 53.7 MGD. To accommodate this projected flow, additional phases are
outlined in the 2020 Facility Plan Update Report that will provide Encino with the capacity to handle 54.0
MGD. Expansion of these facilities will be adequate to handle projected flow rates within the service
district through 2020.
According to the LFMP, there are no project-specific special conditions that are needed in order to meet
the Zone's performance standard of "wastewater treatment plant capacity is adequate for at least a five
year period." The LFMP identifies a monitoring condition that each sewer district shall monitor Encino
treatment flows on a monthly basis to determine actual flow rates and to have an early warning of
capacity problems. Additionally, sewer connection fees provide the primary source of funding for both
sewer and upgrades and expansion of treatment plant capacity. The proposed project would not require
the provision of new or physically altered wastewater facilities and no significant impact to the
environment as a result of construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities will result.
5.14.3.4 Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measure is required, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.14.3.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to wastewater treatment facilities has been identified.
5.14.4 Park Facilities
5.14.4.1 Existing Conditions
The provision of park facilities in the City is addressed on a Park District basis. There are four Park Districts
which correspond to the four quadrants of the City. The project site is located in the eastern portion of Park
District 2. Table 5.14-2 depicts the existing District 2 parkland inventory. There are currently 42.26 acres of
park facilities in District 2. Table 5.14-3 depicts the Park District 2 Inventory of Buildout Park Facilities. Figure
5.14-2 depicts the location of the project site in relation to the four Park Districts and Figure 5.14-3 depicts
the location of the existing park and proposed park facilities within Park District 2. The Growth
Management performance standard requires that three acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per
1 ,000 population within the Park District must be scheduled for construction within a five year period or prior
to construction of 1 ,562 dwelling units within the Park District beginning at the time the need is first
identified. The current population in District 2 is 12,203, resulting in a demand for approximately 36.6 acres
of parkland. The existing parkland demand is below the existing total park facilities inventory in District 2 of
42.26 acres. Therefore, there is currently a surplus of 5.66 acres of parkland in District 2. The project site
does not currently generate a demand for park use.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-6 April2006
··~
.......... _ 25 • .--""·._1 ----,
".--"" . .--"" ! ~ ""]
\
Pacific
LEGEND:
Ocean
Park District
Boundary
Northwest Quadrant • District 1
Northeast Quadrant • District 2
Southwest Quadrant -District 3
Southeast Quadrant -District 4
* Veterans Memorial
Park
SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2004
\ 7 ( r--
2 \ I . : •/
\._ ~,--' I . )-----14 1--)2 . / r __ ./
/ 15 r-·
' I . .
.. J
~ .. _fl__.
7/11/05
~==========================================-Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE 1980-2005
-~-~-~-Park Districts 5.14-2
5.14-7
,..
Park District
Boundary
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1
Veterans Memorial
Regional Park
LEGEND:
Northwest Quadrant
Park District 2
• Existing Community Park
,A. Future Community Park
• Existing Special Use Area * FutureCommunity/
Regional Park
Note: All locations are approximate
Hidden Canyon Park
Hope Elementary
Calavera Hills Community Park
Skateboard Park
' _ __l_ __
'
16 1
5
17 18
SOURCE: Planning S-:y:::st=e=m=s=, =20=0=4=============;:;cr~~~~==r.:::::;::;~;:;:::~::===;~~===::;:;;:;=====================--:::::::;;::;:::;;~;::;::;:;;;:;9/=2s~tos
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR fiGO RE 1980-2005
·~·~·m· Park District 2 Existing and Proposed Park Facilities 5.14-3
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
TABLE 5.14-2
Park District 2 Inventory of Existing Park Facilities
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 14. July 22. 2005.
TABLE 5. 14-3
Park District 2 Inventory of Buildout Park Facilities
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 14, July 22. 2005.
5.14.4.2 Thresholds For Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "three acres of Community Pork or Special Use
Area per LOOO population within the Park District must be scheduled for construction within a five
year period or prior to construction of I ,562 dwelling units within the Park District beginning at the
time the need is first identified:" or,
Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to
maintain acceptable park services.
5.14.4.3 Environmental impact
The project will add approximately 2,725 residents to the City (or 3,205 if alternative uses for PA 's 13 and 14
are implemented}. These residents will generate a demand for 8.2 acres of parkland based on the Growth
Management performance standard. The population for District 2 in 2020, including the project site, will be
17,592 (or 18,072} resulting in a demand for approximately 52.8 acres (or 54.2 acres} of parkland in 2020. At
that time there will be 63.2 acres of parkland in District 2, or a surplus of approximately 1 0.4 acres (or 9
acres}. Table 5.14-3 depicts the Park District 2 future parks inventory.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-9 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
The proposed project will provide an approximately 13.50 acre public park within Planning Area 14 -
currently referred to as the Robertson Ranch Park. The 13.50 acres represents the minimum gross park size.
The physical impact to the environment as a result of the construction of the park has been evaluated as a
component of the overall development and operation of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Potential
environmental impacts associated with the construction of the park include traffic, air quality, noise,
biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, geology/soils, hazardous materials,
grading and aesthetics, and water quality/hydrology. Mitigation measures identified in preceding sections
of this EIR would reduce the environmental impact associated with construction of project park facilities to
a level less than significant.
According to the LFMP, Park District 2 will conform with the adopted performance standard at buildout of
the park district based on the assumption that the proposed Robertson Ranch Park and the Veterans
Memorial Park will be constructed prior to the buildout of Park District 2. The LFMP also identifies special
conditions that require: 1) the East Village shall dedicate parkland or provide payment of in-lieu fees; 2) the
owner of Zone 14 West Village shall dedicate parkland, equivalent to their requirements under the City's
park dedication requirements, and/or make available for purchase or a combination thereof a minimum of
13.5 acres of parkland; and, 3) if at any time Zone 14 is found by the City Council to not be in compliance
with the parks performance standard, no further residential development will be allowed in Park District 2 or
Zone 14 unless actions have been taken by the City to guarantee additional park facilities, such as funding
of Veteran's Memorial Park or other special use areas within five years. The project would be required to
meet the general, and special conditions as defined in the Zone 14 LFMP.
5.14.4.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.2 Traffic/Circulation, 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological
Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous
Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the
impact associated with the construction of the on-site park facilities to a less than significant level. No other
mitigation is required as no off-site parks are required to meet the performance standard in Park District 2.
5.14.4.5 Impact After Mitigation
Mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.2 Traffic/Circulation, 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological
Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous
Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the
impact associated with the construction and operation of the on-site park facilities to a level less than
significant.
5.14.5 Drainage Facilities
5.14.5.1 Existing Conditions
The Drainage Master Plan, entitled Master Drainage and Storm Water Management Plan for the City of
Carlsbad, California {City of Carlsbad, 1994a), was the major source of information used to prepare the
LFMP. The Drainage Master Plan identifies drainage systems necessary to meet the long-term needs of the
City. While the Drainage Master Plan identifies regional facilities, the Preliminary Drainage Study for
Robertson Ranch (0-Day Consultants, Inc., September 2, 2005) identifies the drainage improvements
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-10 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
internal to the project that would connect to Master Plan drainage facilities. The LFMP standard is that
"major drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development."
Zone 14 is located completely within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed. The storm water within this
watershed flows through natural drainage courses into Calavera Creek on the east, or unnamed creek
drainages on the west, into the lagoon. Because Zone 14 and the project site is primarily undeveloped,
existing, improved drainage facilities are limited. Table 5.14-4 depicts existing improved drainage facilities
within or adjacent to the subject property in Zone 14.
Improved channel
2 Detention Basin BJB
3 Box culvert
TABLE 5.14-4
Existing Drainage Facilities
Just south of the southern Zone 14 boundary line, draining in a
westerly direction, within Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
Central portion of Zone 14, along the eastern boundary of the East
west of the owned CUSD.
At the exit point of Detention Basin BJB, under College Boulevard
and Cannon Road intersection.
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 14, July 22. 2005.
5.14.5.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not provide major drainage facilities concurrent with development; or,
• Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in
order to provide acceptable drainage to the project site.
5.14.5.3 Environmental Impact
As required by the Growth Management Performance Standards, major drainage must be provided prior
to or concurrent with development. Figure 5.14-4 depicts the location of existing and proposed Zone 14
drainage facilities. Table 5.14-5 depicts the Zone 14 trunk drainage improvements.
The project will be responsible for the construction of drainage improvements on-site, connecting to the
other existing and planned facilities within Zone 14. According to the LFMP, continuing to meet the
performance standard of "major drainage facilities must be provided prior to or concurrent with
development" necessitates payment of required drainage fees established in the current Drainage Master
Plan (or as revised and updated), and agreement to participate in a Drainage Maintenance District should
one be formed by the City of Carlsbad. The LFMP indicates that the drainage performance standard will
be met within District 4.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-11 April2006
Detention Basin
(Existing)
LEGEND:
Zone 14 LFMP
Boundary
Existing Storm
Drain Line
Proposed storm
Drain Line
Natural Drainage
Corridor
-Development
• Depollutant Basin
SOURCE: Planning Systems and O'Day Consultants, 2005 91713/05
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
Drainage Facilities -Zone 14 5.14-4
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
West
Village
East
TABLE 5.14-5
Trunk Drainage Improvements
Facility BF storm drain will not be implemented and instead will remain a natural riparian corridor
and creekbed.
Facility BFl desiltation basin will be installed in a location immediately west of the riparian
corridor.
Facility BFA will be constructed off-site south of El Camino Real with development of the West
Ranch. The exact size and location of the facility will be determined after further study.
Facility BFB will be installed in conjunction with the development of PA 1.
Facility BH storm drain will not be implemented and will remain an open space ephemeral
stream corridor.
Facility BH desiltation basin will not be installed in the location specified on the Drainage Master
Plan and instead will be addressed with BMP's on the development pads, revegetation, and
other erosion reduci measures.
Village Drainage from the Robertson Ranch East Village will occur through a variety of storm drain
pipes, flowing into an 84" pipe along the north side of Cannon Road. This storm drain will
replace the widening of the Calavera Creek earthen channel (Facility BJ). The first flush will be
routed under Cannon Road to the south where the runoff will be treated by a pollutant facility.
The flows from larger storm events will flow in the 84" pipe to an outlet just west of the proposed
park.
A de-pollutant basin will be constructed along the south side of Cannon Road to treat the
Robertson Ranch East runoff to the zone.
CUSD Drainage from the CUSD property (located immediately east of the East Village) will exit into the
owned Calavera Creek channel.
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 14, July 22, 2005.
Other than those described above, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would require the
provision of new or physically altered drainage facilities outside the project site and no significant impact to
the environment as a result of construction or expansion of new or altered drainage facilities outside the
project site will result. The proposed project will provide drainage facilities on-site. The environmental
impact associated with the construction and operation of drainage facilities as identified within the Master
Plan is evaluated as a component of the whole project as provided in the preceding sections of this EIR.
Potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of on-site drainage facilities include
short-term air quality, construction noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazardous
materials and water quality/hydrology. Mitigation measures identified in preceding sections of this EIR
would reduce the environmental impact associated with construction of drainage facilities on-site to a
level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.14-13 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14.5.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality (short-term construction), 5.4 Noise (short-term
construction), 5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological
Resources, 5.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards, and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology (short-term
construction and long-term operational) will reduce the impact to the construction and operation of
drainage facilities to a less than significant level.
5.14.5.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality (short-term construction), 5.4
Noise (short-term construction), 5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8
Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards, and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will
reduce the environmental impact associated with construction of drainage facilities to a level less than
significant.
5.14.6 Fire Facilities
5.14.6.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is currently served by the City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 3, temporarily located at 3701
Catalina Drive, and Station No. 5, located at the Public Safety Center on Faraday Avenue east of El
Camino Real. The performance standard for fire facilities is "no more than 1 ,500 dwelling units outside of a
five minute response time." A 30 miles per hour average driving speed is used to determine the five minute
response time. The five minute response time begins when the fire truck leaves the fire station. This is
equivalent to a 2.5 mile driving distance from the fire station. The project site is within the five minute
response time for Fire Stations No.3 and No.5.
5.14.6.2 Threshold for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this E/R, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "no more than 1,500 dwelling units should be
outside of a five minute response time;" or,
Result in substantia/ adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to
provide acceptable response times to the project site.
5.14.6.3 Environmental Impact
The project site conforms to the fire performance standard and will continue to conform to this standard
through buildout. Station No.3 is a temporary facility and Station No. 5 is a permanent facility. The City of
Carlsbad Fire Department previously planned to relocate Station No. 3 into central Zone 7 at the southwest
corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Glasgow Road, which brings the station closer to the project site. The
2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program anticipates this relocation to occur during the period 2010-2014.
However, the Fire Department has recently expressed interest in an alternative site for this relocation within
PA 22. The relocation of Station No.3 to PA 22 would provide an improved response time compared to the
Carlsbad Village Drive/Glasgow Road location as a result of a "mutual services agreement" which allows
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-14 April2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
for Oceanside Fire Department protection coverage, in addition to Carlsbad Fire Department Coverage,
over the extreme northeast section of Carlsbad. PA 22 would be more centrally located for the mid-
section of the northeast and northwest quadrants.
Assuming that Station No. 3 relocates within Zone 7 {Carlsbad Village Drive/Glasgow Road), the majority of
the City is located within the 5 minute response timeframe, with the most westerly portion of Zone 81ocated
beyond the 5 minute response timeframe. Up to 309 dwelling units within Zone 8 would be outside of this
response time; however, this does not exceed the 1 ,500-unit threshold identified in the performance
standard. The buildout urbanized area of Zone 14, including all residential units, will be located within the 5
minute response time from either Fire Station No. 3 or Fire Station No. 5, which is in compliance with the
performance standard. According to the LFMP, there are no project-specific special conditions that are
needed in order to continue to meet the performance standard of "no more than 1 ,500 dwelling units
outside of a five minute response time." The LFMP indicates that the fire performance standard will be met
within Zone 14. The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire
facilities and no significant impact to the environment as a result of construction or expansion of fire
facilities will result.
5.14.6.4 Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measure is required, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.14.6.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to fire facilities has been identified.
5.14.7 Open Space
5.14.7.1 Existing Conditions
The project site generally consists of vacant undeveloped land. Also, LFMP Zone 14 is primarily vacant and
undeveloped. The performance standard for open space facilities is that 15 percent of the total land area
of the zone exclusive of environmentally constrained, non-developable land must be set aside for
permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development. The gross Zone 14 land area
totals 822.8 acres. The 1989-adopted Zone 14 LFMP indicates that the total land area within Zone 14 that
qualifies as exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land totals 695.0 acres. Calculated
at a 15 percent ratio, total open space demand for Zone 14 is 95.5 acres. There is approximately 440.0
acres of existing open space in Zone 14 that qualifies as performance standard open space pursuant to
Growth Management Requirements. These areas include open space preserves, a community park site,
detention basins and environmental mitigation areas and buffers. Table 5.14-6 provides a summary of the
open space supply/demand analysis.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-15 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
TABLE 5.14-6
Open Space Supply /Demand
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan, Zone 14, July 22, 2005.
5.14.7.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not meet the LFMP performance standard "fifteen percent of the total/and area of the project site
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent
open space and must be available concurrent with development."
5.14.7.3 Environmental Impact
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan provides for ~143.4 gross acres of Open Space. Figure 3-3 in Section
3.0 -Project Description depicts the proposed open space planning areas in the Master Plan. The
proposed open space acreage exceeds the performance standard for the project site. Additionally, as
shown in Table 5.14-6, existing open space will exceed the performance standard at buildout, and no
impact associated with the provision of open space is anticipated.
5.14.7.4 Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measure is required, as no significant impact has been identified.
5.14.7.5 Impact After Mitigation
No significant impact to open space has been identified.
5.14.8 School Facilities
5.14.8.1 Existing Conditions
The proposed project is located within the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD). Figure 5.14-5 depicts the
boundaries of the CUSD. The CUSD is currently comprised of eight elementary schools, three middle
schools (Aviara Middle SchooL Valley Middle School, and Calavera Hills Middle School-Grades 6-8), one
high school, and one continuation/alternative programs academy. A majority of these schools are
located within the Northwest Quadrant of the City, which is the most densely populated. According to the
CUSD, all schools are currently at enrollment capacity. No schools currently exist within Zone 14; however,
Hope Elementary School and the Calavera Hills Elementary and Middle School are located within Zone 7 to
the north of the project site. Kelly Elementary School is located south of the project site across El Camino
Real within Zone 1. CUSD currently owns a 56.6-acre parceL 42.64 acres are within Zone 14, and 13.96 acres
are within Zone 15. This area has a General Plan land use designation as high school.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-16 April2006
Buena Vista
Elementary
Pacific
LEGEND:
Carlsbad High School
Hope Elementary
Ocean
El!:istlng Schools ENCINITAS UNION
• Elementary School
Avlara Oaks
Elementary and
Middle Schools
. ·I /
.-t.-ELEMENTARY
'--1
12 SCHOOL
,/
DISTRICT ..__ __ :--'
• Middle School
... High School
Proposed Schools ~ __ __IL_,
0 Elementary School
D Junior High School
A CUSD-Owned Property
Note: All locations are approximate
SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2005
~======~==============~==~====~======~ Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR 1980-1005
·m·m·m· School Locations and District Boundaries
5.14-17
9/26/05
FIGURE
5.14-5
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
Anticipated residential development on the proposed project site will generate additional students within
the CUSD and in addition, may create a demand for the construction of a new elementary school. The
City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies approximate, and in cases where CUSD has already purchased
property, precise locations for future school sites in order to meet projected growth of the city. This process
involves responses from the District confirming the exact site locations at time of development. The
General Plan identifies a general location for an elementary school within Zone 14 (referred to as the
"floating" land use designation ("E")) on the project site, for an elementary school. Planning Areas 13 and
14 are designated for a school use in the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
The CUSD uses projection figures to estimate the projected number of students that will be generated by
residential development within their service boundaries. These generation rates are shown below in Table
5.14-7.
TABLE 5.14-7
CUSD Student Generation Rate
Source: Zone 14 LFMP, July 22, 2005.
5.14.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not meet the performance standard that "school capacity to meet projected enrollment within
the zone as determined by the school district must be provided prior to projected occupancy;" or,
• Generate more students than the current Carlsbad Unified School District could accommodate,
necessitating the development of new schools, the construction of which may cause significant
environmental impacts.
5.14.8.3 Environmental Impact
All CUSD schools are currently at capacity. Development of the proposed project will result in the
generation of additional students and will place a demand on existing school facilities. According to CUSD
projection figures, the proposed project would result in the generation of a total of 398 students (or 468 if
alternatives uses are implemented on PA 's 13 and 14) that would utilize the services of the District. Table
5.14-8 depicts the estimated student generation for the project. The most recent adopted CUSD School
Location Plan projects buildout demand based on a compilation of the various LFMP projected student
expectations. This School Location Plan concludes that approximately 500 projected students at city
buildout would benefit from a school located within Zone 14. These students are anticipated to live in
Zones 8, 14, and 15.
According to the LFMP, additional schools will be needed to meet the continuing growth within the school
district. This will be achieved through making land available on-site for purchase to CUSD for the
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.14-18 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
construction of a school. If the school site is determined to be unnecessary by CUSD, then the area
reserved for the school site will be replaced with an alternative land use as described in Section 3.0 of this
EIR, which will include multi-family residential or a combination of multi-family residential and park. As
depicted on Figure 3-3 of this EIR, Planning Areas 13 and 14 will be reserved for a school site. This school site
would accommodate the construction of an elementary school.
TABLE 5.14-8
Estimated Student Generation
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan, Zone 14, July 22. 2005.
The environmental impact associated with construction and operation of a school within the project site as
identified in the Master Plan is evaluated as a component of the whole project as provided in the
preceding sections of this EIR. Potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the
school include traffic, air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils,
paleontological resources, hazardous materials and hazards, grading and aesthetics and water
quality /hydrology. Mitigation measures identified in preceding sections of this EIR would reduce the
environmental impact associated with construction and operation of school facilities onsite to a level less
than significant.
5.14.8.4 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.2 Traffic/Circulation, 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise.
5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10
Hazardous Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will
reduce the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of school facilities to a
level less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-19 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
The LFMP also identifies special conditions applicable to school facilities. These include: 1) confirmation
with CUSD compliance with the adopted school performance standard as a prerequisite of any
development within the zone. All development within Zone 14 will be conditioned in accordance with the
requirements of the State of California and the CUSD; and, 2) The owner of Zone 14 West Village shall make
Planning Area 13 available, and the owner of the East Village shall make Planning Area 14 available for
purchase by CUSD during the time period of "subdivision review of the development application" in
compliance with Special Planning Consideration 1 (b)( 1) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
during which; "the district must notify the City whether or not it wants to initiate action to proceed with
acquisition." If this school site is determined to be unnecessary by CUSD or if CUSD fails to act to notify the
City of the desire to proceed with acquisition during the allotted time period, then the area reserved for the
school site in Planning Area 13 shall be replaced with an alternative land use acceptable to the City as
indicated in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Under these circumstances, mitigation for all residential
development within the Zone will be through funding from annexation of the property into CUSD CFD No.3.
5.14.8.5 Impact After Mitigation
All CUSD schools are currently at capacity. Future development according to the Robertson Ranch Master
Plan will contribute students to the CUSD, necessitating the construction of a new school(s) which may
result in environmental impacts, which at this time are unknown. The CUSD has the option of purchasing
PAs 13 and 14 for the development of a school. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in
Sections 5.2 Traffic/Circulation, 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7
Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and
Aesthetics and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the environmental impact associated with the
construction and operation of school facilities on the project site to a level less than significant.
Furthermore, the District, in compliance with CEQA, would be required to evaluate the environmental
effects of the construction and operation of a new school or expansion of a school offsite, and to identify
appropriate mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce or avoid significant effects.
5.14.9 Sewer Facilities
5.14.9.1 Existing Conditions
Sewer service in the City of Carlsbad is provided by three sewer agencies: City of Carlsbad, Leucadia
Wastewater District (LCWD), and Vallecitos Water District (VWD). The project site is located entirely within
the City of Carlsbad sewer services area. Currently, Zone 14 does not generate a demand for sewer
service, as there are only two residential units located within Zone 14 and these units utilize septic systems.
The proposed project site will be served by an existing sewer trunk line which travels southerly through the
eastern and southern portion of Zone 14, along the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park northern
boundary, to El Camino Real {Lines SAHT2B and SAHT2C). These lines have been completely constructed
and are fully operational.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-20 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14.:... Public Services and Utilities
5.14.9.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "trunk line capacity to meet demand, as
determined by the appropriate sewer district, must be provided concurrent with development:" or,
Require the construction of new sewer facilities, the construction of which may cause significant
environmental impacts.
5.14.9.3 Environmental Impact
Carlsbad's Sewer Master Plan establishes unit flow generation as a basis for projecting the average sewer
flow. This flow is based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) at a rate of 220 gallons per day (GPD). The
projected buildout sewer flows for Zone 14, and the project site can be determined by multiplying the
buildout EDU projections as established in the LFMP by the average EDU flow rate. Table 5.14-9 depicts the
projected buildout average flows for Zone 14.
TABLE 5.14-9
Zone 14 Buildout Sewer Flow Projections
Commercial
School 80
10
Co Facilities 20
TOTAL
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan, Zone 14, July 22. 2005.
Notes: EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit
GPO = Gallons Per Day
220
220
220
• Buildout sewer flow would be 304,260 if altemative uses are implemented in PA 's 13 and 14.
23,100
17.600
2.200
The trunk sewer system from Zone 14 to the wastewater treatment facility is complete. Major on-site trunk
lines and facilities will be constructed as development occurs to ensure that conformance with the
adopted performance standard be maintained throughout the buildout of Zone 14. The project will be
required to comply with the general and special conditions of the LFMP. Additionally, all development
within Zone 14 will be required to pay appropriate connection fees. Table 5.14-10 depicts on-site sewage
improvements required to serve the proposed development in Zone 14. Figure 5.14-6 depicts the proposed
sewer plan.
The environmental impact associated with construction of sewage improvements onsite as identified in the
Master Plan is evaluated as a component of the whole project as provided in the preceding sections of this
EIR. Potential impacts associated with the construction of sewage infrastructure include air quality, noise.
biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils. paleontological resources. hazardous materials and
hazards, and water quality/hydrology. Mitigation measures identified in preceding sections of this EIR
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-21 April2006
LEGEND
:~~wor
i:r:'.:!~~sewer
Proposed sewer acms hole
Exisling sewer atrtss hole
---· I'A 2
WEST VILLAGE EAST VILLAGE
Nolf.: l~l'Dlllll PL\~lirffO .4RF.\ lhirAIIS o\T 1'00,\\1\'E M \I' /I)F.\'FJ.Uf'Hf.NT Uf.\'lliW Sn&F.
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Master Sewer Plan
1-Jl,nb:.K l~~!'l \(.
JL5l•IJI(
:i~ !lit".;
flll,rhudlfr.IR"'
I i I i I i ~~~m ::'•_7 Gin~~ .\f.
Uf-~'!!~pm
I'A 2:lf
2~11;pJS~i K
!Jp•nS.p.ft'P
* f..L TE!<lr~;\TI'-'E u·;ES A\1\llABLE · SEE: TEXT ** ~EE TE...'\ T FOP. Dl5t:US~!ON
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.14-6
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
would reduce the environmental impact associated with construction of on-site sewer structure to a level
less than significant.
5.14.9.4 Mitigation Measure
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.2 Traffic/Circulation, 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise,
5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology /Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.1 0
Hazardous Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will
reduce the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of sewer facilities to a
level less than significant.
West Village
East Village
TABLE 5.14-1 0
Trunk Sewage Improvements
Sewage collection from the Robertson Ranch West Village will occur through a variety of
sewer pipes. A portion of this sewage will flow north in El Camino Real to Kelly Drive and
NAHI1 B. while the balance flow south in El Camino Real into the SAH Line on the south
side of ua Hedionda
Sewer collection from the Robertson Ranch East Village will occur through a variety of
sewer pipes, flowing into the existing 8" -12" trunk line south and parallel to Cannon
Roo which will flow into the SAH Line on the south side of A Hedionda
High School Site Sewer collection from the CUSD High School site will occur through a pipe directing the
sewer into the sewer trunk line
Source: Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 14, July 22.2005.
5.14.9.5 Impact After Mitigation
Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.2 Traffic/Circulation, 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise,
5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10
Hazardous Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will
reduce the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of sewer facilities on the
project site to a level less than significant.
5.14.1 0 Water Facilities
5. 14.10.1 Existing Conditions
Water service in the City of Carlsbad is provided by three agencies: City of Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD), Vallecitos Water District (VWD), and Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD). Water
service for Zone 14 is provided entirely by CMWD, which is the largest of the districts and provides service to
the vast majority of the City. As discussed in the LFMP, the performance standard for water distribution is
that water line capacity for any development within the zone must meet demands dictated by the CMWD.
These demand standards are detailed below. Additionally, the LFMP states that prior to any development
within the zone, a minimum 1 0-day average water storage capacity must be provided to the project site.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-23 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
Existing water transmission facilities within Zone 14 include the following:
1. A 1 0-inch diameter water main running north/south within Tamarack Avenue.
2. A 16-inch diameter transmission line within Cannon Road.
3. A 16-inch diameter transmission line within College Boulevard.
4. A 36-inch diameter water main in El Camino Real.
5. A 14-inch water line from the Glasgow Drive stub through the Robertson Ranch project site to El
Camino Real.
CMWD uses a Master Plan (2003 Water Master Plan Update) to evaluate the water systems within their
district and to formulate long-range plans that will provide for future improvements. The Master Plan has
established dwelling unit (DU) demand factors according to City General Plan land use designations as a
basis for determining the projected average volume of water demand. The LFMP estimates the total
projected water demand for the zone by multiplying the number of dwelling units projected at buildout by
the average unit demand for each factored land use. Build out projections are not based on time
constraints, only on the eventual full extent of development of the area.
A. Carlsbad Municipal Water District-2000 Urban Water Management Plan
The California Water Code requires all urban water supplies within the state to prepare urban water
management plans and update them every five years. Recent amendments to the act now require that
total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in 5-year
increments.
Currently, CMWD relies exclusively on imported water to meet potable water demands for residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. Table 5.14-11 depicts the projected water demands for the buildout of
Zone 14.
TABLE 5.14-11
Project LFMP Zone 14 Buildout Demand
Village Center (13.0 Acre)
School (66.6 Acre)
Park (13.5 Acre)
Notes: • = Reclaimed water use will lower potable amount.
Source: Zone 14 LFMP, July 22, 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
13.0ac.
66.6 ac.
13.5ac.
5.14-24
2.300 GDP/10,000 SF of building
area+ AF/AC/YR landscape
2,300 GDP/10,000 SF of building
area+ AF/AC/YR landscape
3.00 AF/AC/Year landscape
GOP/Acre*
Apri12006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
Fire Flow Requirements
The CMWD Master Plan also outlines requirements for the flow of water to hydrants in case of a fire
emergency. Anticipated demands are measured in gallons per minute [gpm), and are pursuant to
recommendations from the City of Carlsbad Fire Department. Fire Flow Requirements for Zone 14 are
displayed in Table 5.14-12.
TABLE 5.14-12
Fire Flow Requirements for Zone 14
Source: Zone 14 LFMP, July 22, 2005.
5.14.10.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "line capacity to meet demand, as determined by
appropriate water district, must be provided concurrent with development;"
• Not meet the LFMP performance standard that "a minimum ten day overage storage capacity
must be provided prior to development;" or,
Require the construction new water facilities, the construction of which may cause significant
environmental impacts.
5.14.10.3 Environmental Impact
The projected buildout average potable water demands have been established by the Zone 14 LFMP from
the average unit demand factors obtained from the CMWD's Master Plan. As depicted in Table 52 of the
LFMP, the projected average potable water demand at buildout of the project area is 583,515 gallons per
day [GPD) (or 429,255 GPD if alternative uses are implemented in PA's 13 and 14, replacing the school use}.
According to the LFMP, since development is required to install water distribution facilities as a condition of
future development, conformance with the adopted performance standard will be maintained to the
ultimate buildout of the zone.
As discussed in the CMWD Master Plan, the storage capacity within the system is currently 15.1 days. The
estimated current storage capacity is 241 .5 million gallons with average daily demand estimated to be 16.0
million gallons. This provides for a projected storage of 15.1 days capacity, this CMWD system design
currently indicates that a minimum 1 0-doy storage supply is available.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-25 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14 -Public Services and Utilities
As described in Table 5.14-13, the projected ultimate storage capacity is estimated to be 254.5 million
gallons with an average ultimate daily demand of 24.5 million gallons. This will provide for an ultimate
projected storage of 10.4 days capacity, which assures that the minimum 1 0-day storage supply will be
available at buildout.
TABLE 5.14-13
CMWD Water Storage Capacity
16.0MGD 24.5 MGD
15.1 10.4
Source: Zone 14 LFMP. March 2004.
The proposed project will provide facilities on-site. Proposed facilities include: 1) the provision of water
distribution for the Robertson Ranch West Village via an existing 14-inch line that traverses the West Village
and the extensions of existing 8-inch lines adjacent to the north, 2) the provision of water distribution for the
East Village via a 12-inch line to be extended from El Camino Real into Zone 14 via Cannoh Road, which
will cross-tie into College Boulevard, and 3) water distribution to the CUSD property will occur through a 12-
inch line in College Boulevard. Figure 5.14-7 depicts the proposed Master Plan water plan. The
environmental impact associated with the provision of water facilities is considered as part of the
environmental evaluation contained in the preceding sections of this EIR. Potential environmental impacts
associated with the construction of water facilities include short-term air quality, construction noise,
biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, geology/soils, hazardous materials,
grading and aesthetics, and water quality/hydrology. Mitigation measures identified in preceding sections
are applicable to these construction-related impacts and would reduce the environmental impact
associated with construction of water facilities on-site to a level less than significant.
According to the LFMP, all future development in Zone 14 shall pay a major facilities fee based on water
meter size to CMWD and any capacity charge levied by the San Diego County Water Authority. In
addition, all development in Zone 14 shall be required to provide any water reclamation facilities identified
in the Water Reclamation Master Plan as determined by the District Engineer. Further, the proposed water
and reclaimed water lines identified in the LFMP shall be required as a condition of future development.
The LFMP indicates the water performance standard will be met in Zone 14. The proposed project would
not require the provision of new or physically altered water facilities outside the project site boundaries and
no significant impact to the environment as a result of construction or expansion of new or altered water
facilities outside the project site will result.
5.14.10.4 Mitigation Measures
Construction related mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological
Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous
Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics, and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the
impact to the construction of water facilities to a less than significant impact. No other mitigation is
required as no construction or improvements of off-site water lines are necessary.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-26 April2006
~
t-1'0 .....
b -'"--1
I " I
b ••• ..t .... l
I 8 I
~
''"" ....
LEGEW
\
~'!i,':l\!,'''rlino
~1."J'!f'd W •lrrline
~~~~~~g Redoimod Yi•ter~n•
p,..,;ure Reducing SUi on
SOURCE: T & B Planning Consultants, 2005
1980-2005
·m·m·m·
,_/
-, I \ WEST ¥JUAGE EAST VIUAGE
..... ..l ..... ...r_ ...... ~-
tl
I
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Master Water Plan
"--If·· .........
NOTES:
• ALTERNATIVE USES AVAILABLE· SEE TEXT
"SEE TEXT FOR DISQJSSION
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.14-7
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14.10.5 Impacts After Mitigation
Construction related mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological
Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous
Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics, and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the
impact of the construction of water facilities to a less than significant level.
5.14.11 Solid Waste
5. 14. 11. 1 Existing Conditions
Solid waste generated in the City of Carlsbad is collected exclusively by Waste Management, Inc. Waste
Management, Inc. collects the solid waste and transports it to the Palomar Transfer Station, located in the
City of Carlsbad. The Palomar Transfer Station is owned by Allied Waste, which also owns four active in-
county landfills: Otay Annex, Sycamore, Borrego Springs, and Ramona.
After being brought to the Palomar Transfer Station, solid waste from the City of Carlsbad is integrated into
the rest of the waste received at the transfer station. After recyclables and hazardous items are removed,
the waste is consolidated and placed on a transfer truck (approximately 20-ton capacity). The transfer
truck then transports the waste to the landfill for disposal. The majority of solid waste from the Palomar
Transfer Station is disposed at Otay Annex Landfill and a minimal amount is disposed at Sycamore Landfill
(Pers. Comm., Rodrigo Hutero, July 5, 2005). Otay Annex Landfill, located in the City of Chula Vista, has a
remaining capacity of approximately 31 .3 million tons with an estimated closure date of 2027. Sycamore
Landfill, located in the City of San Diego, has a remaining capacity of approximately 17.2 million tons with
an estimated closure date of 2017. The landfill operator is currently seeking an expansion of the landfill that
would provide additional capacity extending the closure date to approximately 2035. The estimated
remaining capacities are based on design limits specific to each landfill site. Estimated closure dates are
determined by site capacity and the maximum daily permitted rate of disposal specific to each site.
There are a total of seven active landfills located within the County of San Diego: West Miramar,
Sycamore, Otay Annex, Ramona, Borrego Springs, Las Pulgas, and San Onofre. Only the first five accept
municipal solid waste. The latter are military owned and operated and only accept military waste. West
Miramar Landfill is operated by the City of San Diego.
The project site currently generates a minimal amount of solid waste associated with agricultural
operations, the existing nursery and residence on the project site.
5.14.11.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Be serVed by a landfill within sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs; or,
• Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-28 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14.11.3 Environmental Impact
The proposed project will generate additional solid waste that will need to be disposed by landfills serving
the project site. Table 5.14-14 depicts the estimated solid waste generation from the proposed project. As
indicated, approximately 2.7 tons per day would be generated by the proposed project.
TABLE 5.14-14
Estimated Solid Waste Generation of the Proposed Project
,, ' ' ' ",' ' ,'," ,,,,,,, ,,,, ' ' ',> ;,,
, ,estlrnatedsondwaste
J,
Land Use Generation Facto~ ,,
' ,, '" '' 'l/,1" '
Generation
Residential 0.41 tons/res/year 482 tons/year
Commercial 0.0024 tons/sq ft/year 420 tons/year
Schools 1 lb/student/day 500 lbs/day/91 tons/year
Total 993 tons/year (2.7 tons/day)
Existing landfills serving the site have adequate capacity, with the Otay Annex Landfill's remaining capacity
of approximately 31.3 million tons with an estimated closure date of 2027 and Sycamore Landfill's
remaining capacity of approximately 17.2 million tons with an estimated closure date of 2017, and a
planned expansion that would provide additional capacity extending the closure date to approximately
2035. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant contribution to the waste flow, and
would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs. No impact related to this issue is anticipated.
5. 14. 11.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measure is proposed, as no significant impact to solid waste facilities is anticipated.
5. 7 4.11.5 Impacts After Mitigation
No significant impact to solid waste facilities has been identified.
5.14.12 Police
5.14.12.1 Existing Conditions
The proposed project site is located within the service area of the Carlsbad Police Department which
operates from the Safety Center located at 2560 Orion Way. In generaL one officer is assigned per beat in
the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project site is located within Carlsbad Police Beat 4. Currently, 109
sworn officers serve a citywide population of approximately 97,367 at a ratio of 1.12 officers per 1,000
population.
The Carlsbad Police Department's Strategic Planning Committee evaluates the need for additional sworn
officers or civilian employees to provide an adequate level of police service to the City. A number of
factors may be used by the Strategic Planning Committee to determine when more officers and civilian
employees are needed, but no set standards have been established. Some of the factors that the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-29 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
Strategic Planning Committee considers includes, but are not limited to, response times, travel times, local
and national crime rates, type of service, number of calls for service, and the time of day that the calls are
received.
The Carlsbad Police Department classifies service calls into Priority one, two, and three to prioritize calls
received by the Department. The determination of a call's priority depends on the severity of the crime
and the time frame in which it occurred. There is a priority assigned to each crime code within the
computer-aided dispatch system but the dispatcher has the option to upgrade a call's priority based on
the communications with the caller. If units are available, officers will be immediately dispatched no
matter what the call priority.
The average response time to the project area in 2004 is provided in Table 5.14-15. As indicated in Table
5.14-15, the response time goals for Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 calls are currently being met.
TABLE 5.14-15
Police Average Response Times {2004)
, :,, ,, ,
Pollee Beot tt
4 4.4 min 10.1 min 22.1 min
Target Response Times 6.0min 15.0min 25.0 min
Source: Lynn Diamond, Carlsbad Police Department, 2005.
5.14.12.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order
to provide acceptable response times to the project site.
5.14.12.3 Environmental Impact
The proposed project will result in an increase of approximately 2,725 residents (3,205 if altemative uses for
PA' s 13 and 14 are implemented) within the area of responsibility of Beat 4, and an increase in service
would be expected.
Funding for additional police personnel comes to the Police Department from the City's General Fund. The
General Fund Revenues are generated by a number of taxes and fees such as, property tax revenue, sales
tax, transient occupancy tax, vehicle license fees, development related fees and other revenue sources.
Additionally, the City has established an impact fee to fund future citywide public facilities, including
police, city hall and related govemmental facilities in accordance with the Performance Standards.
Land development inevitably results in a higher demand being placed on police services due to an
increase in calls for service. Due to many complicated factors ranging from neighborhood crime rates,
location in relation to surrounding land uses, demographic characteristics of new residents, etc., it is not
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-30 April2006
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
until the new development is in place and begins to generate calls for police service it is possible to more
accurately predict the level of demand that will be placed on the Police Department. The adequacy of
police service is a factor of community-wide importance that cannot be resolved on a project-specific
basis. The proposed project would impact the Department by increased demand for service; however, the
impact would not be regarded as significant because the proposed project would provide revenue for
additional officers.
The conversion of portions of the project site to developed land would increase the property tax base,
vehicle licensing revenue, revenue from sales tax and development fees, and generate revenue for the
City, which would increase the general funds available to provide additional police officers as determined
necessary by the Department. The project tax contribution and other revenues that would be generated
by the project are adequate to fund the incremental demands for police service.
5.14.12.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measure is proposed, as no significant impact to police is anticipated.
5.14.12.5 Impacts After Mitigation
No significant impact to police service is anticipated.
5.14.13 Dry Utilities
5.14.13.1 Existing Conditions
Gas and Electricity
Gas and electricity services would be provided by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E}, which is located in
San Diego. SDG&E maintains two easements through the project site. Four 230kV circuits are positioned in
the westerly easement that traverses PA 1 and PA2. One 138 kV circuit is located within the central portion
of the project site (PA 23C and PA 23D}. There are no gas transmission lines in the project area.
SDG&E uses an estimated residential demand rate for electricity of approximately 6,000 kilowatts per
dwelling unit per year. The electricity demand of non-residential uses is highly variable, with yearly
estimates for small commercial of approximately 14,892 kilowatts and medium commercial of
approximately 262,344 kilowatts.
Natural gas usage rates are as follows: approximately 6,665 cubic feet/unit/month for single family;
approximately 4,011 cubic feet/unit/month for multi-family; 2.9 cubic feet/square foot/month for retail and
shopping uses.
Telephone and Cable Services
Telephone and cable services are available in the vicinity of the proposed project site and are provided by
Pacific Bell, as well as Adelphia.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-31 April2006
Chapter 5 ~ Environmental Impact Analysis 5.14-Public Services and Utilities
5.14.13.2 Thresholds for Determining Significance
For the purpose of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
• Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered gas
and electric or telephone and cable facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts.
5.14.13.3 Environmental Impact
Gas and Electricity
SDG&E would provide service to the project site for natural gas and electrical utilities. Based on a
residential demand rate for electricity of 6,000 kilowatts per dwelling unit per year, the proposed 1,17 6
dwelling units would generate a demand for approximately 7,056,000 kilowatts per year. If the alternative
uses for P A's 13 and 1 4 are implemented, 1 ,383 dwelling units would generate a demand for approximately
8,298,000 kilowatts per year. The commercial uses would generate a demand for approximately 262,344
kilowatts per year. The school. park, and civic uses [if implemented) would also generate a demand for
electricity.
Natural gas usage would be approximately 46 million cubic feet per year for single-family uses;
approximately 28 million cubic feet per year for multi-family uses; and 6 million cubic feet per year for retail
and shopping uses. The school, park, and civic uses [if implemented) would also generate a demand for
natural gas.
Telephone and Cable Services
Telephone and cable lines would be extended to the project site from existing facilities located in adjacent
public rights-of-way. These extensions could require the excavation of existing roadways and temporary
Jane closures. The proposed project would not require the construction of new systems.
The proposed project will result in an increase in demand for electricity, gas and telephone and cable
service; however, it would not require the provision of new dry utility systems or a substantial alteration of
existing facilities. The impact related to this issue is not considered significant.
5.14.13.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measure is proposed as no significant impact has been identified. Construction related
mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 Cultural
Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards, 5.11
Grading and Aesthetics, and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the impact of the construction of
water facilities to a less than significant level.
5.14.13.5 Impacts After Mitigation
Construction related mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological
Resources, 5.6 Cultural Resources, 5.7 Geology/Soils, 5.8 Paleontological Resources, 5.10 Hazardous
Materials and Hazards, 5.11 Grading and Aesthetics, and 5.12 Water Quality/Hydrology will reduce the
impact of the construction of water facilities to a less than significant level.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.14-32 April2006
Chapter 6 -Alternatives
6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires the consideration of alternative development scenarios and the analysis of impacts
associated with the alternatives. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the
advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires
that an EIR, "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives." (Section 15126.6).
Additionally, Sections 15126.6 (e)(f) of the CEQA Guidelines state:
The specific alternative of "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its impact. If the
environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be
limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency
determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible
alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation
and informed decision making.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines stated above, a range of alternatives to the proposed project is
considered and evaluated in this EIR. The discussion in the section provides:
6.1
1 . A description of alternatives considered;
2. An analysis of whether the alternatives meet most of the objectives of the project (described in
Chapter 3.0 of this EIR); and
3. A comparative analysis of the alternatives under consideration and the proposed project. The
focus of this analysis is to determine if alternatives are capable of eliminating or reducing the
significant environmental effects of the project to a less than significant level. Table 6-1
provides a summary of this analysis. The alternatives considered in the EIR include: 1) No
Project/Existing General Plan; 2) Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative; 3) Reduced Scale
Project Alternative; 4) PA 22 Senior Housing Alternative; 5) PA 22 Fire Station Alternative; and, 6)
PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative.
No Project/Existing General Plan
The State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources Code Section
15126). According to Section 15126.6(e), "the specific alternative of 'no project' shall also be evaluated
along with its impacts. The 'no project' analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-1 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
TABLE 6-1
Less Less Less Similar Similar Similar
Less Less Less Similar Similar Similar
Noise Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Biological Similar Less Similar Similar Similar Similar
Resources
Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Paleontological Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Resources
Agricultural NA NA NA NA NA NA
Resources
Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Similar Similar Less Similar Similar Similar
Yes Yes Yes Similar Similar Similar
Some Some Some Yes Yes Yes
YES YES
NA = No significant impact identified associated the proposed project.
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 6-2 Apri12006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on
current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services."
6. 1. 1 Description of Alternative
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Robertson Ranch Moster Plan, as
proposed, would not be implemented. Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the Project
Area would be developed pursuant to the specifics of the existing General Plan fond use designations.
Table 6-2 provides o statistical summary of this alternative. Figure 6-1 depicts the land use plan for this
alternative.
TABLE 6-2
No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
Statistical Summa
11. 72
183.
195.2 652
Non-Residential
13.6
10.1
Roods 22.4
Water Detention Basin 2.9
Non-Residential Subtotals 202.8
Source: Planning Systems. 2005.
Under this scenario, development of the project site would be primarily o series of single-family residential
subdivisions (residential low-medium density) approximating 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre. Open space
areas, similar to the HMP open space configuration proposed as port of the Moster Pion, will be
maintained. Single-family subdivisions would be developed on the west side of College Boulevard and
both sides of Connon Rood. Multi-family housing at on overage of six dwelling units per acre would be
developed around the riparian habitat at the lower elevations of the south-east corner of El Camino Real
and Tamarack Avenue (PA 1 and PA2). The total number of residential units across the site would be 652
units, 580 of which would be single-family detached product.
Under the Existing General Plan development scenario, on approximately 10.1 acre elementary school site
is assumed to be developed within PA 's 14 and 15.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-3 Apri12006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
A neighborhood (local) commercial center would be developed in PA 12, near the intersection of two
major arterials, Cannon Road and El Camino Real.
The Existing General Plan project would not include a community park, nor would it be expected to include
community facilities, community recreation features, or RV storage facilities. A functional habitat corridor
would need to be provided pursuant to the HMP, with the Existing General Plan project. Onsite
preservation of biological resources features would be expected to occur to the extent proposed in the
proposed project.
The low and medium density residential character of the project would discourage affordability of
residential units, and thus not result in the provision of moderate-priced housing pursuant to the Regional
Housing needs. However, the project would still be subject to the City's 15% lnclusionary Housing
Requirement. The overall clustering of development could take place pursuant to HMP policies; therefore,
grading is assumed to be similar in area and quantity as the proposed project.
6. 1. 1. 1 Land Use
Implementation of this alternative would not reduce, or avoid, any significant land use impact associated
with the proposed project as no significant impact has been identified.
6.1.1.2 Traffic/Circulation
This alternative would significantly reduce the traffic/circulation impact associated with the proposed
project. The overall trip generation of this alternative would be approximately 7,241 average daily trips,
which is approximately 1 0,355 trips less than the proposed project (with the alternative residential uses
instead of the school in PA's 13 and 14). Because the same circulation system is assumed under this
alternative, roadway segments and intersections would likely operate at an improved level of service than
would occur under the proposed project.
6.1.1.3 Air Quality
This alternative would significantly reduce the mobile-source emissions impact associated with the
proposed project as a result of a decrease of 60% traffic generation. The mobile emission levels would still
remain above the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and, although less than the proposed
project, the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6. 1.1.4 Noise
The EIR analyzes potential on-site and off-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project. No
significant impact associated with the generation of off-site noise, including as a result of project-
generated traffic has been identified. However, future roadway noise levels will expose planned residential
areas to noise levels that exceed City standards. Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar
noise impact to the proposed project as the alternative would not result in an off-site noise impact, and
noise barriers would be required along Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or College
Boulevard (as required by mitigation identified in Section 5.4) in order to achieve acceptable noise levels
for residential land uses proposed along these roadways.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-4 April2006
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN -LEGEND
DESIGNATION RESIDENTIAL Acres
RM -Multi Family Residential 9.3
RM -Multi Family Residential 2.3
RLM [E Single Family Residential 18.5
RLM []!3] Single Family Residenrial 1.1
RLM [!E) Single Family Residential 8.2
RLM ffiEJ Single Family Residenrial 15.8
RLM [EI Single Family Residential 11.6
RLM IE:!J Single Family Residential 11.1
RLM [i:B] Single Family Residenrial 12.7
RLM [i!EJ Single Family Residential 8.2
RLM ~ Single Family Residenrial 5.0
RLM [ill] Single Family Residential 8.9
RLM tim Single Family Residential 6.1
RLM ~ Sing!~ Family Residential 19.9
RLM ~ Single Family Residential 22.9
RLM tim Single Family Residential 21.3
RLM 8 Single Family Residential 1.6
RLM IE:il] Single Family Residential 6.4
RLM !Em Single Family Residential 4.3
RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTALS 195.2
NON-RESIDENTIAL
L -Local Commercial 13.6
E -School 6.8
E -School 3.3
OS -Water Quality Detention Basin 2.9
OS aJ Open Space(PA24 A-F) 153.8
Circulation I!BJRoads 22.4
NON-RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTALS 202.8
DU'S
56
16
59
3
26
50
37
35
40
26
16
27
19
63
73
68
5 "V'EST VILLAGE
20
13
652
I
I
I
I
I
I
EAST VILLAGE
PA 17
19.9 Gross AC.
Single Family
PA21
2.9 GrossAC.
Water Quality
Basin ~ NORTH
1'PA 19
2U GrossAC.
Si!lgle Family
'·
2.3 Gross AC.
Open Space
II,
3o~1 o·~~~-~· ~~o~· ~~, ~60~l o~· iiiiiiiiii·1·2ho·
SOURCE: Planning~S=ys=te=m==s,=2=0=0=5==============================================~7=~==~==~======~~============================================================~
, 9 so -2 o o s Robertson Ranch MaSlster Plan Program EIR
·m·m·m· Existing General Pian Alternative
~J
6-5
9/28/05
FIGURE
6-1
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6.1.1.5 Biological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to biological resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint/limits of grading would be similar to the proposed project. As wPth the proposed
Master Pl~n project, this alternative would protect areas per the HMP that would be considered otherwise
developable, and a functional habitat corridor would be provided with the Existing General Plan project.
Onsite preservation of biological resources features would be expected to occur to a similar extent as
proposed in the proposed project.
6. 1.1.6 Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to cultural resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading in areas containing cultural resources would be the same as
the proposed project; therefore, the same cultural resources would be impacted on-site, requiring
implementation of mitigation as identified in Section 5.6 of this EIR.
6.1.1.7 Geology /Soils
This alternative would result in a similar geology/soils impact as the proposed project. The overall
development footprint would be similar to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, clustering
of development could take place, necessitating the creation of large -flat graded pad areas.
6.1.1.8 Paleontological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed
project. The development footprint and limits of grading would be similar to the proposed project; and the
same geologic formation potentially containing paleontological resources (including the Santiago
Formation) would be disturbed by grading activity. Implementation of mitigation as defined in Section 5.8
of this EIR would be required.
6. 1.1. 9 Agricultural Resources
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to agricultural resources as no significant impact to
agricultural resources has been identified. Under this alternative, the same amount of existing farmland
would be converted to urban use or restored natural habitat.
6.1.1.1 0 Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar hazards/hazardous materials impact as the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, existing and potentially present hazardous materials
would need to be properly disposed of and remediated (if necessary) prior to development of the project
site under the alternative plan. As with the project, implementation of mitigation identified in Section 5.10
would be required.
6. 1. 1. 11 Grading and Aesthetics
This alternative would result in a similar level of grading and area of disturbance as the project. Areas that
would be retained for natural slopes and natural topographical conditions would also be similar to the
project. Therefore, the grading and aesthetics impact would be similar to the proposed project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-7 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6. 1.1.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would result in significant topographical changes and an increase in impervious surfaces
over the project area. The backbone drainage and flood control infrastructure improvements. as
described in Section 5.11 would need to be constructed. As with the proposed project, water quality best
management practices would be implemented, consistent with those identified in Section 5.11 for
residential uses and other non-residential uses. The hydrology impact is expected to be similar to the
proposed project. With implementation of these improvements and mitigation identified in Section 5.11 the
impact to water quality would be similar to the proposed project.
6.1.1.13 Population/Housing
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to population/housing as no significant impact to
population/housing has been identified. Implementation of this alternative would result in a lower amount
of population and housing than is contemplated in the City's General Plan for the project site. However,
this alternative would implement less multi-family residential development; which would reduce housing
opportunities in the City and would not provide moderately priced housing to meet regional housing
needs.
6. 1. 1.14 Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in slightly less of a demand for public services and facilities than the proposed
project due to the decrease in housing and population. Certain public facilities improvements are
identified for the proposed project that would also be implemented under this alternative; however, this
alternative would not provide the community park, community recreation areas, and RV storage. The
project would be required to pay the in-lieu fee for park construction elsewhere in the City. While a
decrease in population would result in an incremental decrease in demand for various public services and
facilities, the project in and of itself has not been determined to necessitate the construction or alteration
of City Administrative, Library, Parks, Fire. or Schools. The same backbone infrastructure to serve the project
would be provided, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities. Overall, the impact to public services
and utilities is anticipated to be similar to the proposed project.
6. 1. 1. 15 Conclusion-No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative
would reduce the project's impact to traffic/circulation and air quality, and would result in similar impacts
. to noise, biological resources. cultural resources, geology/soils, paleontological resources, hazardous
materials and hazards. grading and aesthetics, hydrology and water quality and public services and
utilities. This alternative would not meet the following project objectives:
• Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee
Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the
presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age
groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular
circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan
boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for
recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources;
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-8 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
• Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing
opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational
and community facilities,
6.2
6.2.2
Establish a project-wide circulation system which is responsive to regional and local transportation
needs, and which accommodates a variety of transportation modes;
Provide for the recreational and open space needs of project residents and the City at large, by
incorporating recreational land uses including a City park site, community recreation facilities,
pocket parks, school playgrounds, a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and substantial areas
of permanently preserved natural open space;
Develop a community identity for the project through control of project design elements such as
architecture, clustering of development, landscaping, color treatment, paving, walls, fencing,
signage, and entry treatments;
Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family residential lot sizes in
traditional subdivision layouts and courtyard neighborhoods;
Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative
Description of Alternative
The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative assumes avoidance of all existing native habitat on the project
site. Areas of the project site that do not currently contain native habitats would be developed with the
same land uses (with the exception of the community park) as identified for the proposed project. Table
6-3 provides a statistical summary of this alternative. Figure 6-2 depicts the land use plan for this alternative.
6.2.2.1 Land Use
Implementation of this alternative would not reduce, or avoid, any significant land use impact associated
with the proposed project as no significant impact has been identified.
6.2.2.2 Traffic/Circulation
Implementation of this alternative would reduce the traffic/circulation impact associated with the
proposed project. This alternative would generate approximately 15,578 average daily trips, which is 2,018
average daily trips less than the proposed project. Because the same circulation system is assumed under
this alternative, roadway segments and intersections would likely operate at a slightly improved level of
service than would occur under the proposed project.
6.2.2.3 Air Quality
This alternative would reduce the mobile-source emissions impact associated with the proposed project as
a result of decreased traffic volumes; however, mobile emission levels would still remain above the
significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and, although less than the proposed project. the air quality
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-9 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
TABLE 6-3
Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative
Statistical Summ
51.5 724
143.6
195.1 1 185
Non-Residential
10.0
10.0
1 1.0
13.4
184.4
Habitat
71.6
9.4
9.1
Source: Planning Systems. 2005.
6.2.2.4 Noise
The EIR analyzes potential on-site and off-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project. No
significant impact associated with the generation of off-site noise, including as a result of project-
generated traffic has been identified. However, future roadway noise levels will expose planned residential
area to noise levels that exceed City standards. Implementation of this alternative would reduce in a
similar noise impact to the proposed project as the alternative would not result in an off-site noise impact,
and noise barriers would be required along Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or
College Boulevard (as required by mitigation identified in Section 5.4) in order to achieve acceptable noise
levels for residential land uses proposed along these roadways.
6.2.2.5 Biological Resources
Implementation of this alternative would result in less of an impact to biological resources on the project
site. This alternative assumes avoidance of all existing native habitats on the project site. Areas not
presently containing native habitats would be developed. There would be no revegetation and
restoration of PA 23c (shown as PA 130 on the alternative Figure 6-2), and PA 23E would include
development of approximately 14 single-family dwelling units (shown as PA 11 on the alternative Figure 6-2).
A total of 71.6 acres of coastal sage scrub and 9.4 acres of existing riparian areas would be retained on-
site. Approximately 9.1 acres of approved Calavera Hills Restoration would be provided in PA 23E.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-10 April2006
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
RM
RM
RLM
RMH
OS
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RMH
L
E
OS
OS
CIRCULATION
LAND USE PLAN-LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL Acres IIIII Multi Family Residential 4.7
-Multi Family Residential 2.5
~ Single Family Residential 53.9
-Multi Family residential . 15.4
ll!iiiiPark 13.9
~ Single Family Residential 21.6
lEi] Single Family Residential 56.4
IE3 Single Family Residential 4.3
EiiiJ Single Family Residential 4.5
-Multi Family Residential 15.0
RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTIALS 192.2
NON-RESIDENTIAL.
-Village Center/Commercilai/C.F. 10.0
-School 10.0
-Open Space (PA 13 A-1) 151.0
-Water Quality Basin 2.9
lii!IIJ Roads 13.4
NON-RESIDENTIAL SUBT01TALS 187.3
OS -Existing DCSS 71.6
OS -Existing Riparian 9.4
OS -Approved Calvera Hills Rlestoration 9.1
PA2
2.5 Gross AC.
Multi Family
SOURCE· Planning Systems 2005 '
1980-2005
·m·m·~·
.:F~JJ~q~m~
DU'S
32
18
171
234
208
70
180
15
14
232
ll74
3.5 Gross AC.
·-----------------
IIi II
Alternative A: REDUCED BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS: This land use alternative assumes avoidance of all existing native
habitats onsite. Areas not presently containing native haabitats are developed with the same uses (except park) identified in the Proposed Project.
PA l3B
15.3 Gross AC.
Open Space
PA3
53.9 Gross AC.
Single Family
I
WIEST VILLAGE I EAST VILLAGE
I
I
I
I
Robertson Ranch Mas1ster Plan Program EIR
Water Quality
Basin
Reduced Biological I Impacts Alternative
I
PA9
56.4 Gross AC.
Single Family
N.A.P. /
Option Parcel/
/
/ ,..../
/
2,7 Gross AC.
Open Space
"-I)ete:nti<m Basin
2.3 Gross AC.
Open Space
~'~~·~3~£~o;~61.o· .... ~J
NORTH 1200'
9/28/05
FIGURE
6-2
6-11
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6.2.2.6 Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to cultural resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading in areas containing cultural resources on the project site would
be the same as the proposed project; therefore, the same cultural resources would be impacted on-site,
requiring implementation of mitigation as identified in Section 5.6 of this EIR.
6.2.2.7 Geology/Soils
This alternative would result in a similar geology/soils impact as the proposed project. Although the
development footprint and limits of grading would be slightly modified from the proposed project, similar
geotechnical conditions would be encountered as would be under the proposed project. Implementation
of mitigation as identified in Section 5.7 of this EIR would be required.
6.2.2.8 Paleontological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed
project. Although the development footprint and limits of grading would be slightly modified from the
proposed project, the same geologic formation potentially containing paleontological resources (including
the Santiago Formation) would be disturbed by grading activity. Implementation of mitigation as defined
in Section 5.8 of this EIR would be required.
6.2.2.9 Agricultural Resources
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to agricultural resources as no significant impact to
agricultural resources has been identified. Under this alternative, the same amount of existing farmland
would be converted to urban use or maintained as natural open space.
6.2.2.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar hazardous materials and hazards impact as the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, existing and potentially present hazardous materials
would need to be properly disposed of and remediated (if necessary) prior to development of the project
site under the alternative plan. As with the project, implementation of mitigation identified in Section 5.10
would be required.
6.2.2.11 Grading and Aesthetics
This alternative would result in a similar grading and aesthetics impact as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading would only be slightly modified from the proposed project.
6.2.2.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this alternative, proposed topographical chtmges and the amount of impervious surfaces would be
similar to the proposed project. Drainage improvements and water quality control measures similar to
those proposed under the proposed project would be implemented. The overall impact to hydrology and
water quality would be similar to the proposed project.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-13 April 2006
Chapter 6 -·Alternatives
•
6.2.2.13 Population tHo using
This alternative would not ovoid or reduce the impact to population/housing as no significant impact to
population/housing has been identified. Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar amount
of population and housing as the proposed project (i.e., 9 units more than the proposed project, and 132
units less than the project if the PA 13 and 14 alternative land uses are implemented). This alternative
would provide 126 multifamily units more than the proposed project. If the alternative land uses for PAs 13
and 14 are implemented, it would provide 84 less multi-family dwelling units.
6.2.2.14 Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in a similar demand for public services and facilities as the proposed project.
However, this alternative would not provide the approximately 14-acre community park as is proposed
under the project, rather the project would be required to pay the in-lieu fee for park construction
elsewhere in the City. The impact to public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed project.
6.2.2.15 Conclusion-Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative
This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project and would reduce impacts associated
with traffic/circulation, air quality, and biological resources with respect to maintaining biological resources
on the project site. Impacts to the remaining environmental issue areas would be similar to the proposed
project. This alternative would not provide for restoration of the habitat corridor. Additionally, this
alternative would not provide moderate priced housing in excess of lnclusionary Housing requirements, as is
proposed under the Master Plan. This alternative would not meet the following project objectives:
Implement the applicable portions of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Code.
Implement the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan, as amended.
Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee
Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the
presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age
groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular
circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan
boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open space areas for
recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources.
• Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing
opportunities that ore conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational
and community facilities.
Provide for the recreational and open space needs of project residents and the City at large, by
incorporating recreational land uses including a City park site, community recreation facilities,
pocket parks, school playgrounds, a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system and substantial areas
of permanently preserved natural open space;
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-14 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6.3 Reduced Scale Project Alternative
6.3.3 Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes the Open Space (OS) configuration required by the Wildlife Agencies for
implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP); however, the only residential use identified
is single family, which is proposed over a majority of the proposed site, and multi-family residential use at
the corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue (consistent with the existing General Plan). The overall
number of dwelling units ( 612) is reduced by approximately 50% from the proposed project. Also, the
commercial use has been eliminated. The circulation system would be the same as the proposed project.
Table 6-4 provides a statistical summary of this alternative. Figure 6-3 depicts the land use plan for this
alternative.
6.3.3.1 Land Use
Implementation of this alternative would not reduce, or avoid, any significant land use impact associated
with the proposed project as no significant impact has been identified. However, this alternative would not
provide a range of housing opportunities as would be provided with the proposed project. The dwelling
unit amount and density is below that contemplated by the General Plan and LFMP Zone 14 Plan.
6.3.3.2 Traffic/Circulation
This alternative would reduce the traffic/circulation impact associated with the proposed project. The
reduction of proposed dwelling units by 564 units, and the elimination of the commercial use would reduce
the overall trip generation of the proposed project by approximately 9,530 average daily trips (ADT).
Because the same circulation system is proposed, roadway segments and intersections would likely
operate at a better level of service than would occur under the proposed project.
6.3.3.3 Air Quality
This alternative would reduce the mobile-source emissions impact associated with the proposed project as
a result of decreased traffic volumes; however, mobile emission levels would still remain above the
significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and, although less than the proposed project, the air quality
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.3.3.4 Noise
The EIR analyzes potential on-site and off-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project. No
significant impact associated with the generation of off-site noise, including as a result of project-
generated traffic has been identified. However, future roadway noise levels will expose planned residential
areas to noise levels that exceed City standards. Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar
noise impact to the proposed project as the alternative would not result in an off-site noise impact, and
noise barriers would be required along Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or College
Boulevard (as required by mitigation identified in Section 5.4) in order to achieve acceptable noise levels
for residential land uses proposed along these roadways.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-15 April2006
Chapter 6 -Alternatives
TABLE 6-4
Reduced Scale Alternative Statistical Summary
Residential Subtotals 184.9 612
Non-Residential
2.3
Facilities 5.0
Recreation 1.1
Park 13.9 ..
School 6.8
3.3
1.6
2.9
Roads 22.4
Non-Residential Subtotals 213.1
Source: Planning Systems. 2005.
6.3.3.5 Biological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar less of an impact to biological resources -es-than the proposed
project. Under the Reduced Scale Alternative the same open space configuration, consistent with the
Habitat Management Plan and agency requirements, would be implemented. This alternative would result
in the same quantity of impact to sensitive vegetation communities and would implement the same level
and configuration of revegetation and restoration as the project. However. this alternative would also
result in less indirect effects to biological resources because the number of proposed dwelling units would
be reduced by nearly 50%, thereby decreasing the potential for domestic pets to harass native wildlife in
the adjacent preserve areas.
6.3.3.6 Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to cultural resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, the
same cultural resources would be impacted on-site, requiring implementation of mitigation as identified in
Section 5.6 of this EIR.
6.3.3.7 Geology /Soils
This alternative would result in a similar geology/soils impact as the proposed project. The development
footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, similar geotechnical
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-16 April2006
Ill
:II
I,
I I I
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RLM
RV
CF
OS
OS
E
E
OS
OS
OS
Circulation
Multi Residential
!E!J Single Family Residential
IE] Single Family Residential
~ Single Family Residential
[lli:zJ Single Family Residential
8 Single Family Residential
ffil Single Family Residential
IITl![J Single Family Residential
~ Single Family Residential
~ Single Family Residential
IEillJ Single Family Residential
[ill] Single Family Residential
~Em] Single Family Residential
6]] Single Family Residential
[ill) Single Family Residential
-R.V. Storage
-Community Facilities
-Community Recreation
-i>ark
-School
-School
-Community Recreation
18.5 59
8.2 26
15.8 50
11.6 37
11.1 35
12.7 40
8.2 26
8.9 27
6.1 19
19.9 63
22.9 73
21.3 68
20
2.3
5.0
1.1
13.6
6.8
3,3
1.6
2.9
Alternative B: REDUCED SCALE F'ROJECT: This land use alternative assumes the OS configuration required by the
Resource Agencies; however the onl)Y residential use identified is single family over the m!Uority of the site and multi family
at the corner ofEl Camino Real and Tfamarack Ave. (consistent with the existing General Plan.) The overall number of
dwelling units is reduced by almost 550%. Also, the commercial use has been eliminated. All circulation is the same as the
proposed project.
WEST VILLAGE : EAST VILLAGE
I
I
I
I
PA 17
19.9 Gross AC.
Single Family
',1
PA 191
21.3 Gross sAC.
Single Fanmily
Community Recre~eation
Robertson Ranch Mas1ster Plan Program EIR
Reduced Scale Prioject Alternative
PA21
2.9 GrossAC.
Water Quality
Basin m NORTH
II
2.3 Gross AC.
Open Space
1200'
II
6-17
: I '
9/28/05
FIGURE
6-3
Chapter 6 -Alternatives
conditions would be encountered as would occur under the project. Implementation of mitigation as
identified in Section 5.7 of this EIR would be required.
6.3.3.8 Paleontological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed
project. The development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; and
the same geologic formation potentially containing paleontological resources (including the Santiago
Formation) would be disturbed by grading activity. Implementation of mitigation as defined in Section 5.8
of this EIR would be required.
6.3.3.9 Agricultural Resources
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to agricultural resources as no significant impact to
agricultural resources has been identified. Under this alternative, the same amount of existing farmland
would be converted to urban use or restored natural habitat.
6.3.3.10 Hazardous M ateria/s and Hazards
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar hazardous materials and hazards impact as the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, existing and potentially present hazardous materials
would need to be properly disposed of and remediated (if necessary) prior to development of the project
site under the alternative plan. As with the project. implementation of mitigation identified in Section 5.10
would be required.
6.3.3.11 Grading and Aesthetics
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar grading and aesthetics impact as the proposed
project as grading requirements would be similar to the proposed project.
6.3.3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this alternative, proposed topographical changes and the amount of impervious surfaces would be
similar to the proposed project. The backbone drainage and flood control infrastructure improvements. as
described in Section 5.11 would be constructed. Additionally, water quality best management practices
would be implemented, consistent with those identified in Section 5.11 for residential uses and other non-
residential uses. With implementation of these improvements and mitigation identified in Section 5.11 the
impact to hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed project.
6.3.3.13 Population/Housing
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to population/housing as no significant impact to
population/housing has been identified. Implementation of this alternative would result in less housing and
population than the proposed project. and less population and housing than is contemplated in the City's
General Plan and LFMP Zone 14 Plan for the project site. Under this alternative 564 less units would be
constructed than the proposed project and 772 less units if alternative uses for PA 's 13 and 14 are
implemented. This alternative would not implement multi-family residential development; which would
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-19 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
reduce housing opportunities in the City. The project· would be required to meet the 15% inclusionary
housing requirement which could be met on or off-site.
6.3.3.14 Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in less of a demand for public services and facilities than the proposed project
due to the decrease in housing and population. Certain public facilities improvements are identified for
the proposed project that would also be implemented under this alternative. While a decrease in
population would result in an incremental decrease in demand for various public services and facilities, the
project in and of itself has not been determined to necessitate the construction or alteration of City
Administrative, Library, Parks, Fire, or Schools. The same backbone infrastructure to serve the project would
be provided, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities.
6.3.3.15 Conclusion-Reduced Scale Alternative
This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative
would reduce the project's impact to traffic/circulation, air quality, and public services and utilities.
Impacts to the remaining environmental issue areas would be similar to the proposed project. This
alternative would not provide moderate priced housing in excess of lnclusionary Housing requirements. This
alternative would not meet the following project objectives:
Establish a community that creates an urban design concept consistent with the Ahwahnee
Principles by incorporating a variety of public spaces and recreation elements that will attract the
presence of people, accommodate the housing needs of a wide range of economic levels and age
groups, promote public transportation while providing consistency with the existing vehicular
circulation network, provide a variety of employment opportunities within the Master Plan
boundaries, promote a diversity of land uses within the project, and conserve open spac-e areas for
recreation and the preservation of sensitive environmental resources;
• Encourage housing diversity by providing a variety of multi-family and affordable housing
opportunities that are conveniently located adjacent to transportation, commercial, recreational
and community facilities.
6.4 P A 22 Senior Housing Alternative
6.4.4 Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes PA 22 would be developed with a total of 75 senior housing units instead of 20
multi-family courtyard homes as is proposed under the proposed project. Figure 6-4 graphically depicts a
conceptual plan for this alternative.
6.4.4.1 Land Use
Implementation of this alternative would not reduce, or avoid, any significant land use impact associated
with the proposed project as no significant impact has been identified.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-20 April2006
)
'7S UNIT!>
s~ s-,.,.._ /UNIT
II~ "e.li<.,..ll>"f'"--T P/=l~lot-1/,Jl, (RF.Cl. fi.Z..)
f.S vr51TOI't.'S.' l"~INl.. (.~, lS)
I :s""oCl> C.OH~ !U t..ll T 'f lal,L)C.. •.
SOURCE: Plannin-g Systems and O'Day Consultants, 2004
____ 0 __ .
~---... -~--~-... --... --~-.... -· ---------···-... -... -~ ----''" ............. ~-
-------·-----=---..,.-------: -:-
9/14/05
·····------Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR 1980-2005 FIGURE
·ill·ffi·ffi· PA 22 senior Housing Alternative 6-4
,fHW'iillYiil""-
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6.4.4.2 Traffic/Circulation
Implementation of this alternative would result in a nominal increase of vehicular trips associated with PA 22
than would occur under the proposed project. Under this alternative, approximately 600 average daily
trips would be generated by proposed PA 22 uses, as compared to 160 average daily trips associated with
the proposed project. This is an increase of 440 average daily trips and 44 AM and PM peak hour trips. The
resulting difference would not significantly impact the roadway segment or intersection operation level of
service identified for the project, assuming the same circulation network improvements are in place. As a
result, this alternative would result in a similar traffic/circulation impact as the proposed project.
6.4.4.3 Air Quality
This alternative would generate slightly more mobile source air emissions as a result of a net increase of 440
average daily trips. The air quality impact is considered similar to the proposed project, as the increase in
air quality emissions would be represent an approximate 0.01 percent increase of the proposed project. As
with the project, mobile emission levels would exceed the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants
and the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.4.4.4 Noise
This alternative has the potential to alleviate concerns of adjacent residences regarding potential noise
from residential activities (children interaction and dogs); however, no significant impact has been
identified associated with the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not avoid or reduce a
significant impact associated with noise related to this issue. As with the proposed project, future roadway
noise levels will expose planned residential areas to noise levels that exceed City standards.
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar noise impact to the proposed project as the
alternative would not result in an off-site noise impact, and noise barriers would be required along
Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or College Boulevard (as required by mitigation
identified in Section 5.4) in order to achieve acceptable noise levels for residential land uses proposed
along these roadways.
6.4:4.5 Biological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to biological resources as the proposed project. Under this
alternative, the same open space configuration, consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and
agency requirements, would be implemented. This alternative would also result in the same quantity of
impact to sensitive vegetation communities and would implement the same level and configuration of
revegetation and restoration as would occur under the proposed project.
6.4.4.6 Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to cultural resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, the
same cultural resources would be impacted on-site, requiring implementation of mitigation as identified in
Section 5.6 of this EIR.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-22 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6.4.4.7 Geoiogy /Soils
This alternative would result in a similar geology/soils impact as the proposed project. The development
footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, similar geotechnical
conditions would be encountered as would occur under the project. Implementation of mitigation as
identified in Section 5.7 of this EIR would be required.
6.4.4.8 Paleontological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed
project. The development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; and
the same geologic formation potentially containing paleontological resources (including the Santiago
Formation) would be disturbed by grading activity. Implementation of mitigation as defined in Section 5.8
of this EIR would be required.
6.4.4.9 Agricultural Resources
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to agricultural resources as no significant impact to
agricultural resources has been identified. Under this alternative, the same amount of existing farmland
would be converted to urban use or restored natural habitat.
6.4.4.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar hazardous materials and hazards impact as the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, existing and potentially present hazardous materials
would need to be properly disposed of and remediated (if necessary) prior to development of the project
site under the alternative plan. As with the project, implementation of mitigation identified in Section 5.10
would be required.
6.4.4.11 Grading and Aesthetics
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar grading and aesthetics impact as the proposed
project as grading requirements would be similar to the proposed project.
6.4.4.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this alternative, proposed topographical changes and the amount of impervious surfaces would be
similar to the proposed project. The backbone drainage and flood control infrastructure improvements, as
described in Section 5.11 would be constructed. Additionally, water quality best management practices
would be implemented, consistent with those identified in Section 5.11 for residential uses and other non-
residential uses. With implementation of these improvements and mitigation identified in Section 5.11 the
impact to water quality and hydrology would be similar to the proposed project.
6.4.4.13 Population/Housing
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to population/housing as no significant impact to
population/housing has been identified. Implementation of this alternative would not significantly exceed
the level of population and housing that is contemplated in the City's General Plan for the project site.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-23 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
Housing opportunities provided by the proposed project would be substantially similar under this
alternative; however, this alternative would provide additional housing opportunities for senior citizens.
6.4.4.14 Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in a similar demand for public services and facilities as the proposed project
due to only a slight increase in housing (55 dwelling units) and slightly more population. However, the
public facilities improvements identified for the proposed project would also be implemented under this
alternative. While an increase in population would result in an incremental increase in demand for various
public services and facilities, the project in and of itself has not been determined to necessitate the
construction or alteration of City Administrative, Library, Parks, Fire. or Schools. The same backbone
infrastructure to serve the project would be provided. including water, sewer, and drainage facilities under
this alternative.
6.4.4.15 Conclusion-PA 22 Senior Housing Alternative
This alternative is environmentally similar to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would
not avoid or reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. This alternative would meet most
of the basic objectives of the proposed project as defined in Section 3.0 of this EIR.
6.5 P A 22 Fire Station
6.5.5 Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes P A 22 would be developed with a fire station instead of 20 multi-family courtyard
homes as is proposed under the proposed project. Figure 6-5 depicts a conceptual plan for this
alternative.
6.5.5.1 Land Use
Implementation of this alternative would not reduce, or avoid, any significant land use impact associated
with the proposed project as no significant impact has been identified.
6.5.5.2 Traffic/Circulation
Implementation of this alternative would result in less vehicular trips associated with PA 22 than would occur
under the proposed project. Under this alternative, only a small amount of average daily trips would be
generated by proposed PA 22 uses, as compared to 160 average daily trips associated with the proposed
project. The resulting difference would not significantly impact the roadway segment or intersection
operation level of service identified for the project, assuming the same circulation network improvements
are in place. As a result. this alternative would result in a similar traffic/circulation impact as the proposed
project.
6.5.5.3 Air Quality
This alternative would generate slightly less mobile source air emissions as a result of a net decrease of
approximately 1 60 average daily trips. The air quality impact is considered similar to the proposed project
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-24 April2006
~" -1-59 .r
si
+-
s1
-\'
~I.
'-\"
c.S 5> +
6;..-\"
NE'T A c.. Sl-+
ROBERTSoN R.ANC.H PA-2. z o I/ Z./ /as .TN S33 -ooz.
0 25' 50' . 100' ~ r-..r-1 ~
SOURCE: Planning Systems and O'Day Consultants, 2004
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
P A 22 Fire Station Alternative
+ S5
-r54-
.rs+
-:P
FIRE STATION
o.~3 NET AC..
>5 +
9/14/05
FIGURE
6-5
Chapter 6-Alternatives
as the increase in air quality emissions would be represent an approximate 0.01 percent increase of the
proposed project. As with the project, mobile emission levels would exceed the significance thresholds for
all criteria pollutants and the air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.5.5.4 Noise
This alternative has the potential to alleviate concerns of adjacent residences regarding potential noise
from residential activities (children interaction and dogs); however. no significant impact has been
identified associated with the proposed project. Therefore. this alternative would not avoid or reduce a
significant impact associated with noise related to this issue. As with the proposed project, future roadway
noise levels will expose planned residential areas to noise levels that exceed City standards.
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar noise impact to the proposed project as the
alternative would not result in an off-site noise impact. and noise barriers would be required along
Tamarack.Avenue, El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and/or College Boulevard (as required by mitigation
identified in Section 5.4) in order to achieve acceptable noise levels for residential land uses proposed
along these roadways.
6.5.5.5 Biological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to biological resources as the proposed project. Under this
alternative, the same open space configuration, consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and
agency requirements, would be implemented. This alternative would also result in the same quantity of
impact to sensitive vegetation communities and would implement the same level and configuration of
revegetation and restoration as would occur under the proposed project.
6.5.5.6 Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to cultural resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; therefore. the
same cultural resources would be impacted on-site, requiring implementation of mitigation as identified in
Section 5.6 of this EIR.
6.5.5.7 Geology /Soils
This alternative would result in a similar geology/soils impact as the proposed project. The development
footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, similar geotechnical
conditions would be encountered as would occur under the project. Implementation of mitigation as
identified in Section 5.7 of this EIR would be required.
6.5.5.8 Paleontological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed
project. The development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project; and
the same geologic formation potentially containing paleontological resources (including the Santiago
Formation) would be disturbed by grading activity. Implementation of mitigation as defined in Section 5.8
of this EIR would be required.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-26 April2006
Chapter 6 -.Alternatives
• 6.5.5.9 Agricultural Resources
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to agricultural resources as no significant impact to
agricultural resources has been identified. Under this alternative, the same amount of existing farmland
would be converted to urban use or restored natural habitat.
6.5.5.10. Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar hazardous materials and hazards impact as the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, existing and potentially present hazardous materials
would need to be properly disposed of and remediated (if necessary) prior to development of the project
site under the alternative plan. As with the project, implementation of mitigation identified in Section 5. I 0
would be required.
6.5.5.11. Grading and Aesthetics
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar grading and aesthetics impact as the proposed
project as grading requirements would be similar to the proposed project.
6.5.5.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this alternative, proposed topographical changes and the amount of impervious surfaces would be
similar to the proposed project. The backbone drainage and flood control infrastructure improvements, as
described 'in Section 5. I 1 would be constructed. Additionally, water quality best management practices
would be implemented, consistent with those identified in Section 5.11 for residential uses and other non-
residential uses. With implementation of these improvements and mitigation identified in Section 5. I I the
impact to hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed project.
6.5.5.13 Population/Housing
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to population/housing as no significant impact to
population/housing has been identified. Implementation of this alternative would not provide housing
within PA 22.
6.5.5.14 Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in a similar demand for public services and facilities as the proposed project
due to only a slight decrease in housing (20 dwelling units) and slightly less population. However, the public
facilities improvements identified for the proposed project would also be implemented under this
alternative. While a decrease in population would result in an incremental decrease in demand for various
public services and facilities, the project in and of itself has not been determined to necessitate the
construction or alteration of City Administrative, Library, Parks, Fire, or Schools. The same backbone
infrastructure to serve the project would be provided, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities under
this alternative.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-27 April2006
Chapter 6 -·Alternatives
6.5.5.15 Conclusion-PA 22 Fire Station Alternative
This alternative is environmentally similar to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would
not avoid or reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project. This alternative would meet most
of the basic objectives of the proposed project as defined in Section 3.0 of this EIR.
6.6 PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative
6.6.6 Description of Alternative
This alternative assumes that PA 1 would be developed with a community facility use such as a church use.
A church use would be allowed within PA 1 subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). PA 1
comprises approximately 9.3 gross acres. but only 4.6 net acres due to existing constraints. Total maximum
building area would be approximately 45,000 -50,000 square feet. As with the proposed project. site
access would be taken from Tamarack Avenue and the Kelly Drive/EI Camino Real intersection.
6.6.6.1 Land Use
PA 1 is located in the southwestern portion of the West Village, and is bound by El Camino Real and
Tamarack Avenue. There are no residential uses immediately adjacent to this planning area. The nearest
residential land uses are single-family homes located west of the project site across Tamarack Avenue, and
condominiums located south of the project site across El Camino Real. Under the proposed project. the
Master Plan would allow development of 24 multi-family residential dwelling units in PA 1. This alternative
would replace the proposed residential uses with a community facilities use (i.e .• a church). No significant
land use impact has been identified associated with the proposed PA 1 land use; therefore. this alternative
would not reduce or avoid a significant land use impact.
6.6.6.2 Traffic/Circulation
Implementation of this alternative would result in an increase of the vehicular trips associated with the
proposed· PA 1 land use from the level that would occur under the proposed project. Under this
alternative. approximately 450 average daily trips would be generated by the alternative land uses (based
on a SANDAG trip generation rate of 9 trips per 1.000 square feet) as compared to 216 average daily trips
associated with the proposed project. This is an increase of 234 average daily trips. Additionally, a church
use would increase the amount of weekend trips. Overall, the traffic impact would be similar to the
proposed project and the same level of mitigation would be required.
6.6.6.3 Air Quality
This alternative would generate slightly more mobile source air emissions as a result of a net increase of 234
average daily trips. The air quality impact is considered similar to the proposed project. as the increase in
air quality emissions would be Jess than a 0.01 percent. As with the project, mobile emission levels would
exceed the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants and the air quality impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-28 April2006
Chapter 6-Alternatives
6.6.6.4 Noise
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the significant noise impact associated with the proposed
project. As with the proposed project, future roadway noise levels will expose planned residential areas to
noise levels that exceed City standards. lmJ;Jiementation of this alternative would result in a similar noise
impact to the proposed project as the alternative would not result in an off-site noise impact, and noise
barriers would be required along Tamarack Avenue, El Camino Real. Cannon Road, and/or College
Boulevard (as required by mitigation identified in Section 5.4) in order to achieve acceptable noise levels
for community facility uses.
6.6.6.5 Biological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to biological resources as the proposed project. As with the
proposed project, this alternative assumes a net developable area of 4.6 acres. A similar impact to
wetland and upland vegetation communities would be expected, as access would be required from El
Camino Real and Tamarack Road, which is constrained by existing wetland habitat. The impact to
biological resources would be similar to the proposed project.
6.6.6.6 Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in a similar impact to cultural resources as the proposed project. The
development footprint and limits of grading in the portions of the project site that contain cultural resources
would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, the same cultural resources would be impacted
on-site, requiring implementation of mitigation as identified in Section 5.6 of this EIR.
6.6.6.7 Geology /Soils
This alternative would result in a similar geology/soils impact as the proposed project. The development
footprint and limits of grading would be similar to the proposed project in PA 1; and the geotechnical
impact would be considered similar. Implementation of mitigation as identified in Section 5.7 of this EIR
would be required.
6.6.6.8 Paleontological Resources
This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources as the proposed
project. The development footprint and limits of grading would be the same as the proposed project in the
areas containing the Pleistocene materials and the Santiago Formation; which ore considered to
potentially contain paleontological resources. Implementation of mitigation as defined in Section 5.8 of this
EIR would be required.
6.6.6.9 Agricultural Resources
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to agricultural resources as no significant impact to
agricultural resources has been identified. Under this alternative, the same amount of existing farmland
would be converted to urban use or restored natural habitat.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-29 April2006
Chapter 6 -Alternatives
6.6.6.10 Hazardous Materials and Hazards
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar hazardous materials/hazards impact as the
proposed project. As witt, the proposed project, existing and potentially present hazardous materials
would need to be properly disposed of and remediated (if necessary) prior to development of the project
site under the alternative plan. As with the project, implementation of mitigation identified in Section 5.10
would be required.
6.6.6.11 Grading and Aesthetics
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar grading and aesthetics impact as the proposed
project as grading r:quirements would be similar to the proposed project.
6.6.6.12 Hydrology /Water Quality
Under this alternative, the amount of impervious surface in PA 1 would be less than the proposed project.
The backbone drainage and flood control infrastructure improvements, as described in Section 5.11 would
be constructed. Additionally, water quality best management practices would be implemented,
consistent with those identified in Section 5.11 for residential uses and other non-residential uses.
6.6.6.13 Population/Housing
This alternative would not avoid or reduce the impact to population/housing as no significant impact to
population/housing has been identified. Implementation of this alternative would not introduce additional
housing within PA 1 and would not exceed the level of population and housing that is contemplated in the
City's General Plan for the project site. The alternative would provide less housing opportunities than would
be provided by the proposed project.
6.6.6.14 Public Services and Utilities
This alternative would result in a similar demand for public services and facilities as the proposed project
due to only a slight decrease in housing. However, the public facilities improvements identified for the
proposed project would also be implemented under this alternative. The same backbone infrastructure to
serve the project would be provided, including water, sewer, and drainage facilities under this alternative.
6.6.6.15 Conclusion-PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative
This alternative is environmentally similar to the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would
not avoid 'or substantially reduce the potential significant impacts associated with the proposed project.
This alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project as defined in Section 3.0
of this EIR, although it would provide for less housing opportunities on the site.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 6-30 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7.0 ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS
7.1 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 define cumulative effects as "two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The
CEQA Guidelines further state that the individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or
a number of separate projects; or the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely
related past, present. and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Section 15130 of the CEQA
Guidelines allows for the use of two alternative methods to determine the scope of projects for the
cumulative impact analysis:
Ust Method -A list of past. present. and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts. including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency.
General Plan Projection Method -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 area-wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact.
This cumulative impact analysis utilizes the regional growth projections method, which assumes buildout of
both local and regional general plans as well as population forecasts for the County and region as a
whole. However, the cumulative impact analysis includes specific projects that are identified on Figure 7-2
and are proposed or under construction in the immediate project area.
7 .1.1 The SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecasts
SANDAG estimates regional growth for the San Diego County area for the purposes of planning and public
policy development. The most recent growth projections available at the time of the Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was published for the EIR is the 2030 Forecast. demographic conditions. SANDAG provides estimates
and forecasts of employment. population, and housing for the period ranging from 2005 to 2030. These
forecasts serve as a basis for growth forecasts made by SANDA G.
SANDAG projections are available by Countywide, City, Major Statistical Areas. Subregional Areas, and
Community Planning Areas. Table 7-1 depicts the residential dwelling units, population, and square
footage associated with buildout of the City. Table 7-2 depicts the projected population and housing units
at build-out for the North County West and North County East SRA 's. The total population buildout
projections differ in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 because the projections in Table 7-1 were established prior to the
SANOAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast and utilized different growth factors. The cumulative growth for
the City of Carlsbad and Subregional Planning Areas (SRAs) 40, 41. 42, 43, 50, 51. 52, 53, 54, and 55 as
shown in Figure 7-1 is depicted in the following tables.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-1 April2006
Orange
County
·-·-·-• ~-... ... ..... . , ....... . . ......... -·-·-·-.. , ......
a FALLBROOK
PfMJUTON
D County Boundaries ·-·--. ',_.I 2000 Major Statistical Areas
D 2000 Subregional Areas
5 10 20
Riverside County
-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· -':.. .
ANlA-EJORREGO SPRINGS
EAST COUNTY
LAGUNA-PINE VAllEY
MOUNTAIN ~MPfRE
i
i
.w -·---·~·-·-·-· 1.,; ·-·-·-·-·-· _._ . .:.-·-·-·-
Mexico
JAMUL
SOURCE· SANDAG US Census Bureau and BRG Consulting Inc 2004 .. ' ' .,
3
"'0 <D ::::!,
0
()
0 c ::::l -<
7 !12/05
-m .. m-m-
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR FIGURE
SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecasts 7-1 Subregional Map ,l.~!llllii;[!l'
7-2
Chapter 7-Analysis of long-Term Effects
TABLE 7-1
Citywide Cumulative Buildout Assumptions {Year 2030)
TABLE 7-2
Cumulative Buildout Subregional Area (Year 2030)
Notes: 1 =. SRA's include SRA's 40, 41. 42, 43, 50. 51. 52, 53, 54, and 55.
SRA = Subregional Planning Area
Source: SANDAG, 2005
7.1 .2 Specific Cumulative Projects
7.1.2.1 Mandana Residential Development
The Mandana property is an approximately 195-acre ranch located in the City of Carlsbad to the east of
the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site. Any future development would consist of single-family
homes on one-half acre or greater lots, as consistent with the Sunny Creek Specific Plan. The development
would feature a wildlife corridor contiguous with the open space on the eastern portions of the. Cantarini
and Holly Springs sites (see Figure 7-2, shown as Map # 1). Although the City is aware of the property
owner's intent to develop this site, applications related to the project have yet to be filed and no details
regarding this potential project are available. The Mandana property has negotiated a "Hardline"
Preserve, and is depicted in the City's adopted HMP.
7.1.2.2 Cannon Road Sewer Lift Station
This project involves the construction of a sewer lift station in conformance with the Zone 15 LFMP build out
facilities projections. The facility is currently under construction, and will be located on Cannon Road
between El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue.
7.1.2.3 Carlsbad Unified School District Property
Approximately 57 acres of land abutting the Holly Springs property to the northwest, on the north side of the
future planned Cannon Road, is owned by the Carlsbad Unified School District with the intent that the
District would develop the site as a high school campus. Planning is still in the preliminary phase, and it has
not yet been confirmed that the site will meet District needs and whether a high school will be constructed
at this location.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-3 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7.1.2.4 Bressi Ranch Master Plan
This master plan development includes 623 residential units and 2.1 million square feet of industrial. mixed-
use, and commercial property. It is located within Zone 17 LFMP area at the southeast corner of El Camino
Real and Palomar Airport Road. It is currently under construction.
7.1.2.5 Co/avera Hills Master Plan, Phase II
This project is located to the north and northwest of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site, generally
on either side of the recent extension of College Boulevard. Phase II of the existing Master Plan will involve
the development of 781 residential units on 819 acres of land located in Zone 7 LFMP area, as well as the
preservation of a 11 0-acre open space area designated as the Calavera Hills Nature Preserve. This
development is currently under construction, with initial phases completed. Additionally, the recently
constructed extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road were included in this project.
7.1.2.6 Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank
This property, located east of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site, and on the north of the Holly
Springs site, consists of 205 acres of land set aside for mitigation habitat for the California gnatcatcher. This
property is contiguous with an undisturbed parcel of land that was previously a component of the Holly
Springs property, which is owned by the California Department of Fish and Game. The open area
comprised of these two properties will be contiguous with the wildlife corridor created on the eastern
portion of the Cantarini and Holly Sp.rings sites {see Figure 7-2, Map #11) and the northern portion of the·
prospective Mandana development, as described above.
7.1.2.7 Carlsbad Oaks North
This project, located to the southeast of the proposed projects in Zone 16 LFMP area, proposes industrial
development on the Chang property located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino ReaL
The proposed project includes a 414-acre planned industrial park, the extensions of Faraday A venue, and
El Fuerte Street, and construction of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor. Approximately 194 acres
of the Specific Plan are proposed for industrial uses, and approximately 220 acres are proposed for open
space. Grading has recently begun for the construction of this project.
7.1.2.8 Fox Miller Property
The Fox Miller Property is located to the southeast of the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project site
in Zone 5 LFMP area. The project proposes the construction of four industrial lots and open space on 54
acres of land.
7.1.2.9 Apartment Site on BJ Detention Basin Property
An 11 .6-acre site is located at the southeast corner of College Boulevard and Cannon Road in northeast
Carlsbad. The northern 4.5 acres of the site appears to be developable with multiple family residential uses
although no formal application for development has been submitted to the City. The southern 7.1 acres
would be set aside as open space. A detention facility {referred to as the BJ detention basin) along with
3.6 acres of southern willow scrub revegetation would be located with the open space area. Detention
Basin BJ is one of four detention basins that are required by the City to reduce potential flooding impacts
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-4 April2006
Legend
0 Robertson Ranch
Key
l Mandana Residential Properly
2 Cannon Road Sewer Lift Station
3 Carlsbad Unitied School District
4 Bressi Ranch Master Plan
5 Calavera Hills Master Plan, Phase ll
Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank
7 Carlsbad Oaks North
8 Fox Miller Property
9 Aportmeni/Defention Basin Site
lO Seawater Desalination Plant
ll Canlarini/Holly Springs Developments
12 Kala Properties
(R)o ... L~oo=o=2=,o•o•o .....
SOURCE: SANDAG, 2000, Mooney and Associates, and BRG Consulting, Inc., 2004
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Cumulative Projects Map
9/14/05
FIGURE
7-2
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
on the Existing Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park that may occur in association with stormwater runoff
from future development in the vicinity.
The apartment proposal is anticipated to include four 20-unit buildings for a total of 80 units. The project
would include a pool and recreation area with parking. The complex would include 16 one-bedroom units,
48 two-bedroom units and 1 6 three-bedroom units. The project has been reviewed on a preliminary basis
by the City. However, no formal application for site development has been submitted to the City.
7.1.2.10 Seawater Desalination Plant
Cabrillo Power I, LLC and Poseidon Resources have proposed a 50-million gallons per day seawater
desalination facility to be located at the Encino Power Station to the southwest of the Robertson Ranch
Master Plan project site. A distribution system, which would convey the processed water to the local water
supply systems, would also be constructed. Construction and operation of the distribution system would be
entirely the responsibility of San Diego County Water Authority. A large diameter pipeline would be
constructed that would carry desalinated water from the Encino Power Station to the Maerkle Reservoir,
east of the project site. A section of this pipeline alignment is proposed for construction within the right-of-
way of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. The desalination project applicant would be responsible for
preparing the necessary environmental documentation and assessing potential impacts of the project
including both on-and off-site improvements.
7.1.2.11 Cantarini/Holly Springs Developments
The Cantarini and Holly Springs project sites are located to the east of the proposed Robertson Ranch
Master Plan project site. This project proposes the development of residential subdivisions on
approximately 276 acres within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The Cantarini Tentative Map
proposes development of 105 single-family units and 80 multiple family units on a 156.72-acre property.
One lot would be developed with 80 multiple family units on 7.2 acres. Grading for residential and
roadway uses would be completed on 95.9 acres of the site. A total of 59.14 acres would be placed under
a conservation easement as permanent open space. The Holly Springs Tentative Map would create 43
single-family residential lots. A total of 43 single-family residences would be developed on 0.5-acre lots over
approximately 24.40 acres of the 119 .85-acre property.
7.1.2.12 Kato Property
The Kato property is located in the City of Carlsbad to the east of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project
site and north of the Mandana Residential property. Any future development would consist of single-family
homes on one-half acre or greater lots, as consistent with the Sunny Creek Specific Plan. The development
would feature a wildlife corridor contiguous with the open space on the eastem portions of the Cantarini
and Holly Springs sites (see Figure 7-2, Map # 12). Although the City is aware of the property owner's intent
to develop this site, applications related to the project have yet to be filed and no details regarding this
potential project are available.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-6 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7.1.2.12 Geographic Scope for Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis varies depending upon the environmental issue
being analyzed. For the purposes of this EIR, the city limits of Carlsbad define the geographic scope for the
analysis of cumulative land use and planning, public services and utilities, and visual aesthetic grading. The
City's General Plan, the Growth Management Plan, and development policies address land use, public
services and utilities, and aesthetic and grading issues. The City limits also define geographic scope for
cultural resources and hazardous materials and hazards since the proposed project does not require any
grading or development that would contribute to cumulative cultural resources or hazardous materials and
hazards impacts outside of the City limits.
The City limits also define the geographic scope for biological resources as the City's HMP provides
guidelines for the regulation and management of biological resources within the City limits of Carlsbad.
The neighboring parcels and the County of San Diego define the geographic scope for the cumulative
impact analysis of agricultural resources. Loss of agricultural land is considered on a County-wide basis.
The North County sub-regional area is used as the geographic scope for the analysis of geology/soils due
to the location of existing faults in the region.
The San Diego Air Basin is used as the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative air quality impacts
due to the existence of Regional Air Quality Strategy Plans and requirements set forth by the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, which apply to all cumulative projects within the San Diego Air Basin.
The Agua Hedionda Creek watershed defines the geographic scope related to hydrology and water
quality as cumulative development in these watersheds could impact the drainage and water quality of
the watershed and downstream water bodies.
The geographic scope for traffic/circulation is defined on Figure 5.2-1 in Section 5.2 -Traffic/Circulation of
this EIR. This study area includes roadways in Carlsbad and Oceanside to which the project will contribute
traffic.
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative noise impacts is also defined by the circulation study
area as shown on Figure 5.2-1.
7.1.3 Land Use
Land uses in the City will significantly change during buildout of the area. Achievement of orderly growth
will be dependent upon development in the future occurring in a manner consistent with the City's
General Plan, Growth Management Plan, and development regulations. Because the City has adopted
these plans, and will continue to implement these plans, which will, in turn, avoid significant land use
impacts, no cumulative impact will occur. The project-level land use impact is considered less than
significant. The project will not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to land use.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-7 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of long-Term Effects
7.1.4 Traffic/Circulation
The proposed project traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts are evaluated in Section 5.2
Traffic/Circulation of this EIR. As discussed, the SANDAG/Combined North County Transportation Forecast
(June 20. 2004) was used to determine Year 2030 traffic volumes. Traffic model peak hour turn volumes
were adjusted to account for existing condition volumes and reasonably expected growth in future traffic
volumes.
7. 1.4. 1 Street Segments
With implementation of recommended mitigation, all segments evaluated in the traffic analysis are
expected to meet the Growth Management Program criteria of not exceeding level of service "D" during
peak hours. No significant project traffic impact is anticipated in Year 2030 at these locations.
7.1.4.2 Intersections
A majority of the study area intersections are expected to operate at least at level of service "D" during .
peak hours as required by the City's Growth Management Program. No significant project traffic impact is
anticipated in Year 2030 at these locations.
The following seven intersections are expected to operate at levels of service "E" or "F" without mitigation:
1. INTERSECTION #1 -Vista Way /College Boulevard
The PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030 with or without'the proposed project traffic
added. Since the increase in intersection delay resulting from the project traffic is less than two seconds.
the direct impacts resulting from the project are less than significant. The cumulative impacts; however,
are significant. Since direct impacts associated with the proposed project are not significant, no project-
only mitigation is required. With respect to the cumulative impacts, which are regional, the changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside
does not appear to have adopted a program to construct necessary improvements and there does not
appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the impacted
intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad, these
impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
2. INTERSECTION #4-College Boulevard/Lake Avenue
The PM peak hour is projected to be LOS "F" in the Year 2030 with or without the project traffic added only if
Marron Road is extended westerly to connect with El Camino Real. If Marron Road is not extended, 2030
projections conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection. Direct impacts of the project on this
intersection are considered significant. The cumulative impacts also are significant. The significant impacts
identified are primarily a result of regional traffic and the unknown extension of Marron Road. With respect
to impacts to this intersection, the changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have adopted a program to construct the
necessary improvements and there does not appear to be a program to accept payments in lieu of
construction. Due to the fact that the subject-impacted intersection is located outside the jurisdiction and
regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad, these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-8 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
3. INTERSECTION #14-El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue
The AM and PM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS "F" or "E" during the Year 2030, without
intersection improvements. Direct impacts of the project on this intersection are considered significant. The
cumulative impacts are also significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-5 would reduce the
impact to a level less than significant.
4. INTERSECTION #25 -El Camino Real/Kelly Drive
The AM peak hour level of service is projected to be at LOS "F" and the PM at LOS "E" during the Year 2030
without intersection improvements beyond those described for Year 2010. Direct and cumulative impacts
of the project on this intersection are considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-7
would reduce the impact to a level less than significant.
5. INTERSECTION #23-El Camino Real/Cannon Road
The PM peak hour is at LOS "F" in the 2030 projection with or without the project traffic added only if
Cannon Road Reach 4 is extended easterly to connect with Cannon Road in Oceanside. If Reach 4 is not
extended, 2030 projections conclude an acceptable LOS at this intersection. Direct impacts of the project
on this intersection are considered significant. The cumulative impacts are also significant. Project
mitigation requires that the developers of the West Village shall make their fair share contribution through
the TIF program toward construction of a separate right-turn lane from northbound El Camino Real to
eastbound Cannon Road. The City is in the process of updating their TIF program. If this project is included
in the TIF program prior to issuance of building permits for the West Village then the impact is considered
mitigated to a level of insignificance. If the project is not included for funding in the TIF program, then the
impact is significant and unmitigated in 2030.
6. INTERSECTION #15-El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue
The AM peak hour would be at LOS "E" and the PM peak hour level of service in Year 2030 would be at LOS
"F" with or without project traffic added. Direct and cumulative impacts would be considered significant.
The AM and PM peak hour levels of service would be at LOS "D" with widening westbound for a separate
right turn only lane. Also required would be restriping in the eastbound direction for a single left turn lane,
one through lane, one through shared-right lane, and a separate right turn only lane. Project direct and
cumulative impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. The City is in the process of updating
their TIF program. The developers of the East and West Villages shall make their fair share contribution
toward construction of a westbound right-turn only lane and re-striping in the eastbound direction of a
single left-turn lane, one thru lane, one shared thru/right-turn lane. and a separate right-turn lane, all of
which shall be installed by the City of Carlsbad or their designee when determined by the City to be
needed. The City is in the process of updating their TIF program. If this project is included in the TIF program
prior to issuance of building permits for the East and West Villages then the impact is considered mitigated
to a level of insignificance. If the project is not included for funding in the TIF program, then the impact is
significant and unmitigated in 2030.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-9 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7. INTERSECTION #33-Palomar Airport Rd./Melrose Drive
The PM peak hour is at LOS "E" in the 2030 projection with or without the project traffic added. Since the
increase in intersection delay resulting from the project traffic is less than two seconds, the direct impacts
resulting from the project are less than significant. The cumulative impacts, however, are significant. Since
direct impacts associated with the proposed project are not significant. no project-only mitigation is
required. The developers of the East and West Village shall make their fair share contribution toward
construction of a fourth northbound thru-lane, a separate eastbound right-turn only lane and dual
southbound right-turn only lanes. This project may be funded through the TIF program. The City is in the
process of updating their TIF program. If this project is included in the TIF program prior to issuance of
building permits for the East and West Villages then the impact is considered mitigated to a level of
insignificance. If the project is not included for funding in the TIF program, then the impact is significant
and unmitigated in 2030.
Other Robertson Ranch mitigation only includes installing traffic signals at project access roadways as
warranted, and frontage improvements along El Camino Real, Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
7.1.5 Air Quality
The San Diego Air Basin is in transitional-attainment for ozone (smog) and is either in attainment or
unclassified for federal standards of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02). nitrogen dioxide (N02).
fine particulate matter [PMw). and lead. Development forecasted for the region will generate increased
emission levels from transportation and stationary sources. Potential cumulative air quality impacts will be
partially reduced through implementation and achievement of emission levels identified in the Regional Air
Quality Strategies [RAQS) and General Plan air quality elements of local jurisdictions. Based on the
expected reductions in emissions due to implementation of these plans, vehicle emissions are anticipated
to gradually decrease dependent on the type of pollutant. However, combined emissions from the project
site and other developed areas in the Basin are expected to continue to exceed state and federal
standards in the near term and emissions associated with these developments will exceed threshold levels.
The cumulative impact to air quality is significant and unavoidable.
7.1.6 Noise
The proposed project will contribute to an increase in vehicular-generated noise along roadways in the
Project Area and surrounding areas. As indicated in Tables 5.4-3a, 5.4-3b, and 5.4-3c (provided in Section
5.4-Noise of this EIR) land uses adjacent to major roadways will be exposed to roadway noise levels that
exceed City noise standards. However, the project's contribution is less than significant. accounting to an
increase ranging between 1 to 3.7 dBA (2.5 dBA from Existing Conditions) on the study area roadways.
Mitigation measures proposed in Section 4.4 will reduce the impact as a result of cumulative traffic noise
within the project area to a level less than significant.
7.1.7 Biological Resources
The increase in urbanization of currently vacant land will impact existing natural habitats and biological
resources. The City's HMP anticipates future development within the City, and addresses biological
impacts on a cumulative level by implementing a habitat plan that will ensure preservation of important
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-10 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
biological resources and maintenance of habitat connectivity. The various cumulative projects include
substantial open space in conformance with the City's General Plan and HMP which will ensure biological
preservation within the City. Wildlife corridors will be established in accordance with HMP hardline preserve
areas that will connect open space on the respective properties in order to preserve a maximum amount
of confluent habitat for local biological resources. This corridor will ultimately adjoin with the large open
space areas of the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank, Calavera Heights Mitigation Site, and Lake
Calavera City Mitigation Bank to the north, and with the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve to the east of the
project sites. The cumulative impact to biological resources will be mitigated to a level less than significant
through implementation of the Concurrence Letter and the HMP.
7.1.8 Cultural Resources
Cumulative development is expected to impact existing cultural resources in the region. The project's
compliance with the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.6 -Cultural Resources of this EIR will ensure
that the project-specific impact to significant cultural resources is mitigated to a level less than significant.
On a broader scope, archaeological and cultural resources are protected through Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines, other federal and state laws, and local ordinances, including the City's Cultural Resource
Guidelines. Future cumulative development within the region would be subject to review under CEQA and
compliance with federal, state, and local regulations protecting cultural resources. Impacts to cultural
resources as a result of development in the region would be reduced to a level less than significant through
implementation of mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis.
7.1.9 Geology /Soils
Cumulative development would result in an increase in population and development that would be
exposed to hazardous geological conditions. Geologic and soils conditions are typically site specific and
can be addressed through appropriate engineering practices. Cumulative impacts to geologic resources
would be considered significant if the proposed project would be impacted by geologic hazards[s) and if
the impact could combine with offsite geologic hazards to be cumulatively considerable. However, there
are no unique geological characteristics on the project site that would pose this type of hazard. Geologic
and soils conditions on the project site will result in a significant, but mitigable geology/soils impact. The
proposed project's incremental effects are not cumulatively considerable. Geologic conditions in the
Southern California region will essentially be the same regardless of the amount of development and the
cumulative geologic impact is considered less than significant.
7.1.10 Paleontological Resources
As identified in Section 5.8 -Paleontological Resources, geologic formations within the project site have the
potential to contain paleontological resources. Any earthwork involving these formations has the potential
to impact paleontological resources. Mitigation will reduce the impact to paleontological resources to a
level less than significant. Implementation of paleontological studies, monitoring during construction, and
recovery of important fossils would reduce the cumulative impact to paleontological resources to a level
less than significant.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-11 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7.1.11 Agricultural Resources
Continuing development within the County will result in the conversion of land currently utilized for
agricultural production to urban uses. This agricultural conversion has been a continuing trend in the
County; however, the County's agricultural production in certain specialty crops has increased. It is
possible that the overall loss of agricultural lands within the County over the next 30 years would
significantly impact the County's agricultural industry. The proposed project's contribution to the
cumulative loss is considered less than significant on the project leveL and as compared to the County as a
whole (approximately .009 percent Prime Farmland, .007 percent Farmland of Statewide Importance, and
.0006 percent of Unique Farmland). While the cumulative development in the area may represent an
overall substantial loss of Important Farmlands, the transition of agricultural land to urban use is part of the
established policy of the City, the impacts of which have been previously considered in the City's General
Plan Master EIR. Agricultural use of land within the City is intended as an interim use until proper planning
for feasible land use can be performed. Additionally, a Land Evaluation Site Assessment analysis has been
prepared in accordance with the methodology recommended by California Department of Conservation
and the proposed conversion of existing agricultural land on the project site to other uses has been
determined to not be significant. Therefore, the cumulative impact to agricultural resources is not
considered to be significant.
7.1.12 Hazardous Materials and Hazards
The development of cumulative projects has the potential to result in impacts related to hazards/hazardous
materials. Preparation of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, and if necessary, additional assessment
(Phase II) and site remediation would mitigate the potential impact as a result of each project. The sale
and transfer of property involves assessment of hazardous materials and compliance with federal, state,
and local regulations for the use, disposaL transfer, and clean-up of these materials. As such, the proposed
project is not anticipated to contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and
hazardous materials.
7.1.13 Grading and Aesthetics
Cumulative development will result in the continued alteration of the visual setting and topography of the
area. Local planning policies and development standards, including specific policies related to visual
resources and grading will reduce potential aesthetic impacts of individual developments. No significant
project-level grading and aesthetics impact has been identified for the proposed project as well as the
cumulative projects identified in the area. Cumulatively, since individual development proposals will
conform with the goals, policies, and recommendations of the General Plan, the cumulative impact is
considered less than significant. Individual development proposals will be assessed by the City to
determine consistency with the applicable development regulations and design guidelines. No significant
cumulative impact to aesthetics of the area will occur.
7.1.14 Hydrology /Water Quality
Development of cumulative projects have the potential to increase the amount of erosion due to the
alteration of drainage patterns and increased amounts of impervious surfaces. Specific cumulative
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-12 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
projects within the Agua Hedionda Creek watershed are depicted on Figure 7-2. The mitigation measures
identified in Section 5.12-Hydrology/Water Quality will reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
Cumulative projects will be subject to the same local, state, and federal regulations with respect to
hydrology and water quality, and appropriate best management practices will be implemented to ensure
no significant impact occurs. Proposed drainage improvements identified in Section 5.12 would
adequately control hydrology within the watershed, which assumes future development in accordance
with proposed project. Regional pollution control facilities, including the proposed on-site water quality
facilities will ensure no significant water quality impact occurs.
7.1.15 Population/Housing
As identified in Section 5.13 -Population/Housing, the project will not result in a significant
population/housing impact. The population growth associated with the proposed project is within
projected population levels as contemplated in the City's Growth Management Plan. Cumulative projects
would not displace people as a result of removing residential units nor will the projects add people beyond
the levels contemplated in existing plans as a result of the development of new residential units. No
cumulative population/housing impact is anticipated.
7.1.16 Public Services and Utilities
Cumulative development will substantially increase the local population, resulting in an increased demand
on public services and utilities. However, the City of Carlsbad has established the LFMP as part of the City's
Growth Management Program in order to anticipate and prepare for this future growth and any potential
strain on services. Conformance with and periodic review of the LFMP for each respective zone will ensure
the adequate provision of public services and utilities.
7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts
Discussion of growth-inducing impacts is required by the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d).
Growth inducement refers to the "ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth, or
the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." This
typically includes projects that will remove obstacles to population growth, for example, as a result of the
provision of public services to undeveloped areas. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is
necessarily beneficial or detrimental in its effect on the environment, or that it has an insignificant effect.
Each project must be evaluated on its own merit.
The proposed project is consistent with the growth projections for the northeast quadrant of the City. The
proposed project will not result in an increase of the number of dwelling units and population above the
level anticipated by the City's General Plan, Growth Management Ordinance. Implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the alteration of growth patterns within the City from that anticipated
in the adopted General Plan. The project site is located in an area served by available infrastructure and
utilities, including the recently constructed segments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-13 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental
Changes
Development of the proposed project will result in the consumption of non-renewable energy resources
including, but not limited to, the following: lumber and other forest products; sand, gravel, and concrete;
asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel, cooper, lead and other metals; and water
consumption.
7.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental
Impacts
Analysis of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project has been performed, and is contained
in Section 5.0. Unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified for the following impact
areas and were analyzed as part of this EIR:
•
Transportation/Circulation -With the addition of project traffic, several intersections within the
Project Study Area would experience a LOS of E or F. These intersections include: Intersection #1
Vista Way/College Boulevard; Intersection #3 College Boulevard/Plaza Drive; Intersection #4
College Boulevard/Lake A venue; Intersection # 15 El Camino Real/Faraday A venue; Intersection
#23 El Camino Real/Cannon Road; and, Intersection #33 Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive.
With respect to Intersections # 1, #3 and #4, the changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not appear to have
adopted a program to construct such improvements and there does not appear to be a program
to accept payments in lieu of construction. Due to the fact that the subject-impacted
intersections are located outside the jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the City of Carlsbad,
these impacts are considered significant and unmitigable. With respect to Intersections #15, #23,
and #33, the City of Carlsbad is in the process of updating their TIF program. If these projects are
included in the TIF program prior to issuance of building permits for the East and West Villages then
the impacts are considered mitigated to a level of insignificance. If the projects are not included
for funding in the TIF program, then the impacts are significant and unmitigated in 2030.
Air Quality-The addition of project traffic will increase air quality emission~ within the Project Area .
The long-term air quality impact is considered significant and unavoidable, as no available
technologies exist to reduce the future operations and vehicular related air pollutant emissions to a
level less than significant.
Mitigated to a level less than significant:
• Air Quality (short-term construction)
Noise
• Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
• Geology /Soils
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Paleontological Resources
Hazardous Materials and Hazards
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Public Services and Utilities
Grading and Aesthetics
7-14 Apri12006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
7.5 Effects Not Found to be Significant
The following environmental issue areas were analyzed as part of this EIR and were found to be less than
significant:
• Land Use
Agricultural Resources
Population/Housing
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-15 April2006
Chapter 7-Analysis of Long-Term Effects
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 7-16 April2006
Chapter 8-References
8.0 REFERENCES
8.1 Persons Responsible for Preparation of this EIR
City of Carlsbad:
Barbaro Kennedy, Associate Planner
John Moshoff, Associate Engineer
BRG Consulting. Inc.:
Tim Gnibus, AICP, Senior Project Manager
Kathie Washington, Assistant Project Manager
Mary Brody, Production Manager
Anno Buzoitis, Research Assistant
Mettjo Kuno/Zoch Leigh, Grophics/GIS
BRG was assisted by the following consultants:
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Cultural Resources
Brion F. Smith, Principal Investigator
Geosolls, Inc., Geology
Robert G. Crismon, Engineering Geologist
Geosolls, Inc., Hazardous Materials
Edward P. Lump, Director of Environmental Services
Glenn Lukos Associates, Wetland Delineation Report
David F. Moskovitz. Regulatory Specialist
Investigative Science and Engineering. Inc., Air Quality and Noise
Rick Tavares, Ph.D., Project Principal
Merkel & Associates, Biological Resources
Melissa Booker, Senior Biologist, Keith Merkel. Principal Consultant
O'Day Consultants, Hydrology and Water Quality
Keith Hansen, Project Engineer
Planning Systems, LFMP, LESA Analysis, Land Use Analysis
Paul Klukas, Director of Planning
T&B Planning Consultants, Land Use Analysis
Joel Morse, Principal
Urban Systems Associates, Traffic
Sam Kob, Project Engineer
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 8-1 April2006
Chapter 8-References
8.2 Persons and Organizations Contacted
During preparation of this EIR, the following individuals and organizations were contacted:
Lynn Diamond, City of Carlsbad Police Department
Beverly Blessent, San Diego Gas and Electric
Rodrigo Hutero, Allied Waste
8.3 Documents
City of Carlsbad, 2003
Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, June 2003.
City of Carlsbad, 1995
City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, September 1995.
City of Carlsbad, 1994
Final Moster EIR, City of Carlsbad General Plan Update, March 1994.
City of Carlsbad, 1994a
Master Drainage and Storm Water Management Plan for the City of Carlsbad, California, March
1994.
City of Carlsbad, 1994
City of Carlsbad General Plan, September 1994 (as amended).
City of Carlsbad, 1992
Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, June 1992.
City of Carlsbad, 1990
Landscape Manual, November 1990.
City of Carlsbad, 1990
City of Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data
Recovery Program Phase Ill, December 1990.
City of Carlsbad, 1988
Scenic Corridor Guidelines, July 1988.
City of Carlsbad, 1986
Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 14, September 1986.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 8-2 April2006
Chapter 8-References
City of Carlsbad, 1984
El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, February 1984.
Demere and Walsh, 1993
Demere, Thomas and Walsh, Stephen, San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of
Paleontology. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego, 1993.
Dudek & Associates, Inc., 2005
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant EIR 03-05 SCH#2004041081, May, 2005.
Geosoils, Inc., 2004
Updated Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, September 20, 2004.
Geosoils, lf!C., 2003
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality Division Site
Assessment and Mitigation Program P.O. Box I 2961, San Diego, California 921 I 2-9261, November 5,
2003.
Geosoils, Inc., 2001
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Robertson Ranch Parcel 1 City of Carlsbad, San Diego
County California 92008, Revised September 13, 2001.
Geosoils, Inc., 2001
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Robertson Ranch Parcel 2 City of Carlsbad, San Diego
County California 92008, Revised September 13, 2001.
Glenn Lukes Associates, 2004
Wetland Delineation Letter Report Robertson Ranch Property, Located in the City of Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California, August 18, 2004.
Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., 2005
Air Quality Conformity Assessment, Robertson Ranch East and West Village -Carlsbad, CA. ISE
Report #02-004b, Investigative Science and Engineering, August 12, 2005 (Revised).
Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., 2005
Acoustical site Assessment, Robertson Ranch East and West Village -Carlsbad, CA. ISE Report #02-
004c, Investigative Science and Engineering, August 12, 2005 (Revised).
Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., 2005
Onsite Blasting Ground Vibration Assessment Robertson Ranch East & West Village -Carlsbad, CA.
ISE Report #02-004d, May 4, 2005 (Revised).
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 8-3 April2006
Chapter 8-References
Merkel & Associates, 2005
Summary Report of Winter Season Surveys for the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) on the
Robertson Ranch Project Site, Located in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, February 28,
2005.
Merkel & Associates, 2004
Biological Resources Report for the Robertson Ranch Project, October 5, 2004.
Mooney & Associates, 2003
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cantarini/Hol/y Springs Development, June 2003.
O'Day Consultants, Inc., 2005
Drainage Study for Robertson Ranch, June 28, 2005.
O'Day Consultants, 'Inc., 2004
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Robertson Ranch East Village 84" RCP Alternative,
April 8, 2004.
O'Day Consultants, Inc., 2004
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Robertson Ranch East Village 84" RCP Alternative,
April 8, 2004.
Pacific Trans Environmental Services, Inc., 2003
Hazardous Waste Report Robertson Ranch City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92008,
2003.
Planning Systems, 2005
Zone 14 local Facilities Management Plan and Finance Plan Amendment. July 22. 2005.
Planning Systems, 2005
California Agricultural land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Analysis, June 29, 2005.
Recon, 2001
Co/avera Hills Master Plan Phase 1/, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, & Detention Basins Final
EIR, November 2001.
San Diego Association of Governments, 2005
San Diego County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document (March 2005 Draft), March
2005.
San Diego Association of Governments, 1994
Comprehensive land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California, April 1994 .
•
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 8-4 April2006
Chapter 8-References
Smith and Buysse, 2002
A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Proposed Robertson Ranch Project, Brian F. Smith
and Associates, June 17, 2002.
T&B Planning, 2004
Draft Robertson Ranch Master Plan, August L 2005.
Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
Transportation Analysis for Robertson Ranch, September 1, 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 8-5 April2006
Chapter 8-References
This page intentionally left blank.
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 8-6 April2006