December 7, 2012
Van Lynch,
Senior Planner
Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Comments on DEIR
Quarry Creek Master Plan
Dear Mr. Lynch:
These comments on the Draft
EIR are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera.
Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization whose mission is to
preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of coastal north San Diego
County.
This project is the eastern
half of the Buena Vista Creek Valley. Our organization has been concerned about
a series of impacts to this valley over the last 12 years. During that time we have had numerous
meetings with the developer in an effort to try to reduce these impacts. This is the last chance for all of us to do
this right- design a development that leaves the priceless natural, cultural
and historic resources of this valley intact.
Unfortunately this developer has not risen to this challenge. We are hopeful that city staff and the Mayor
and City Council of Carlsbad will use the broad discretion they have to reduce
the significant adverse impacts of this project. Fortunately there are several alternatives to
the proposed project that have been evaluated in this DEIR that will go a long
ways toward addressing these community concerns. However, this DEIR, as presented has failed
to identify numerous direct and indirect impacts or to provide adequate
mitigation. A revised DEIR is required to satisfy both the legal requirements,
and the community concerns about this project.
Our primary concerns with the project
and the associated DEIR include the following:
-
Loss of
sensitive habitat in one of the primary core areas of the city
-
Impacts on the local and regional wildlife
movement corridors
-
Loss of the historic, cultural sense of place
-
Impacts of excessive development on the adjacent
open space and community.
Preserve Calavera is a
grassroots community based conservation organization. Many of our members who contributed to the
preparation of this comment letter have developed considerable
skills and experience through
their volunteer community work. This
layperson perspective has been expanded and clarified through additional technical
and legal input provided on our behalf by Everett Delano, Vonn Marie May and SWAPE in a separate comment letter.
5020 Nighthawk Way
– Oceanside, CA 92056
And of course many of the
concerns that we have raised have been repeated in numerous comment letters you
will be receiving from organizations and individuals throughout this
region. This is a project with far
reaching consequences in a valley many of us consider priceless. We hope that at the end of this process the
interests of all of these community stakeholders have been addressed.
The following are our specific
comments on the DEIR:
Project Description
-3-1 The off-site trail heads
on Marron and Simsbury Courts will both cause indirect impacts that have not
been identified, analyzed of mitigated.
The experience of trail use in Carlsbad is that lots of people drive to
the trail heads to walk and bike the trail. Our surveys of Calavera users on
the trail by the Lake Calavera Dam found that about half of the trail users
were not even residents of Carlsbad. In
an area like this with such a significant regional draw- a sacred waterfall- it
should be expected that many persons will be driving to these trail heads and
that there will be a high volume of pedestrian, bicycle and dog use. This is of particular concern for the Marron
trail head where the access will require walking through the BVCER- a state
reserve that has not yet been opened to the public, does not have designated
trails, and has no enforcement in place for things like keeping dogs on
leash. Indirect trail impacts include
noise, nest predation by pets, trash and litter, and nest disturbance nest
disturbance.
3-2 The boundary of the
Marron-Hayes Historic District does not coincide with the boundary of the
privately owned parcel where the adobe is located- it is significantly larger. The DEIR incorrectly characterizes this area,
both here in the project description and in the analysis of impacts to the
historic resources. Please add a figure
that shows the limits of the designated Historic District (see att) in
relationship to the property boundaries and correct the analysis to reflect the
actual boundaries of this historic resource.
-Figure 3 shows ownership of
the Master Plan land as Hanson Aggregates.
We found no explanation for why this project is being proposed by
someone who is not being shown as the landowner. Of course it is widely known that McMillin
will be acquiring this land once the mining reclamation is complete. The DEIR should identify this ownership
change and explain how it impacts this project.
Failure to do so is a significant inaccuracy in the EIR.
-Table 3-1 shows the basin at P-4 (and perhaps others since
it is describes as “basins”) as part of the Public Use Area. In the DEIR section on Public Services the
basins are also included as part of the active recreation land acreage. We do not recall any other EIR where storm
water control measures like this are classified as public use/active recreation
areas. Please provide further
explanation of this including assumptions about depth and duration of water in
these basins, type of plant cover and exactly what active recreation will be
allowed in this area immediately adjacent to hardline open space that is
designed for storm water control.
-3-10 description of allowed
uses is not consistent with the provisions of the City of Oceanside Draft Sub-Area
Plan (SAP) - for planning buffers, or the action of the City of Oceanside
Planning Commission to add a 50’ planning buffer to the 100’ biological buffer
around all wetlands. The city of
Oceanside SAP should be the reference source for this requirement and the DEIR
should discuss consistency (or in this case the lack of consistency) with this
document. Please clarify what
source was used to determine the allowed
uses, identify where these are in conflict with the city of Oceanside provisions
(it was Oceanside who imposed these as part of the adoption of the Amended Reclamation
Plan), and provide further explanation that supports why the wrong guidelines
are being used. Many of these stated
allowed uses are in fact not allowed.
This conflict is a significant land use and biological resources impact
that has not been identified or mitigated.
This 50’ planning buffer was required by the city of Oceanside because
of concerns about protecting the biological resources with an anticipated high
use public trail through this area.
-It is our understanding that
the new Park and Ride Lot will replace the existing one further east on
Haymar. Please clarify if that is the
case. If so there are additional indirect
impacts of relocating and expanding the Park and Ride lot that have not been
identified or mitigated. How many people
using the lot are expected to come from the adjacent development and will they
be driving or walking to it? Other users
of the lot will be accessing it from College- adding to the College
traffic. How was this accounted for in
the traffic study?
-The P-2 description includes
a long list of potential community uses on this site. Please clarify how the decision will be made
about the particular use, who will develop that site, timing of such
development, and what condition the land will be left in until this
occurs. Furthermore the potential uses could
have very different impacts. A day care
center generates significant peak hour trips.
A community garden may have concerns about water use and run-off. A dog park could have issues of noise and
odor. Please explain how the impacts of
this site have been assessed in this DEIR when the actual land use is not
specified.
-Figure 3-7 shows no trail
connection through OS-4 although one is clearly visible on Figure 3-2. There is already an existing trail through
that area and it is the shortest point to access the trail heading to the
viewpoint/trail head at the western tip of R-5.
History shows people take the shortest route and existing trails,
whether officially designated or not, continue to be used. Either this should be identified as a trail
with proper analysis of impacts and mitigation, or there needs to be a mitigation
measure added to restrict access and close off all such unwanted existing
trails. Posting signs alone does not
work- active control measures like fencing , patrols and revegetation are
essential or this will just remain an unintended trail through hardline with no
edge effect controls.
Environmental Setting
-Page 4-5 in describing Figure
4-2 states that it “depicts the Amended Reclamation Plan for refined
Alternative 3 as approved in the final form by the city of Oceanside”. The figure shown is in fact the version
recommended to the Planning Commission and is as shown in the staff report for
that hearing. But this was modified by
the Commission to add a 50’ planning buffer to the 100’ biological buffer
already included. This is a key
condition that impacts the boundaries of developable land. Figure 4-2 does not show either the
biological or the planning buffers and these are essential to understanding the
environmental setting and the constraints that are supposed to be addressed in
the design of this project. Please add
100’ and 50’ buffers to wetlands to this Figure and others.
-Page 4-5 states that the
hazardous material remediation is “anticipated to be completed by 2012.” That is not a correct statement for a number
of reasons. As documented in the
Clean-up Action Plan (CAP) by the County of San Diego not all of the monitoring
wells are expected to have reached an acceptable level by 2012. Several of the sites are expected to exceed
the allowed limits for several years past 2012.
The final clean-up of those locations is to be accomplished through
passive means with on-going low levels of monitoring. The Quarry Creek project has assumed that the
clean-up is completed and that is not the case, and in fact it is expected to
be several years before it is even planned to meet threshold levels of
toxicity. Furthermore achieving this
future state of clean-up is essential for this project to proceed as planned. The DEIR has incorrect statement about the
clean-up of this site, has used this to analyze potential impacts and as a
result has failed to identify all of the potential adverse impacts and has
failed to provide adequate mitigation.
The DEIR statement of actual site conditions needs to accurately reflect
site conditions at the time of the DEIR , correctly reflect on-going
remediation as assumed in the County’s CAP,
and include mitigation that assures there will be no further disturbance
of the areas still undergoing remediation until such time as they reach
threshold limits. Furthermore the
project phasing should include mitigation measures (MM) that assure homes will
not be constructed over the areas that have not reached threshold limits until
it is demonstrated that the particular area is clean.
Aesthetics
(Comments on Appendix F and
DEIR Section 5.)
-P1 states the historic
resource consultants reviewed visual simulations provided by Helix. This
provides no certainty that the locations selected by Helix for these visual
simulations are the ones that would depict the worst case impacts on the
historic resources. The historic
resources consultant is the expert on determining which parts of the project
could impact the historic resources.
They need to either select the viewpoints of concern, or in some other
way indicate that those selected by others are the correct ones to use- and not
ones that by their selection minimize the impacts.
It appears to us that these
viewpoints have in fact been selected to minimize the impacts, and not to fully
disclose them. For example everyone who
drives along # 78 EB has views of this valley, which is now seen as natural
open space. This is a public view that
is protected by CEQA. This view area
extends from west of the map used for Figure 5.1-1, along #78 up to the eastern
project boundary at the Oceanside city limit.
Only a single point is used to represent that entire view- Key 5. Furthermore the point used for the Key 5
photo was taken partially down the slope along the freeway. There is not even public access to that area-
that is not the public viewpoint. The
point that would have best represented the public view would be from the
traffic lane , much further east where one first sees the valley and the
landscape changes from the dense commercial uses along El Camino Real, to a
driving range, and then to an expansive view of natural open space. Another example of minimizing view impacts is
Key 6. Many of the streets and homes in
the Costa Serena neighborhood of Oceanside have panoramic views of the Buena
Vista Creek Valley. While private views
from homes generally are not protected, public views from streets and sidewalks
are. The DEIR selected Key 6 to
represent views from this area. However
Key 6 is at a lower elevation than this neighborhood so is not representative
of views from this area. Furthermore
the actual photo location again is not from either the public street or
sidewalk.
Key 5 also minimizes view impacts. Key 5 is the view from the cul-de-sac along
Haymar. But the angle of the view shown
is to the southeast. The most
significant view is not in that direction, it is due south. That is the view across the valley and up the
canyon – that is the longest distance view.
The existing view from this location to the south is of unobstructed
open space for about a mile. This view would be highly obstructed by the
proposed development, but that is not what is being shown- simply because of
the angle that was selected. Again the
DEIR failed to identify the most adverse condition and has therefor minimized
the impacts.
-P1 states the criteria for
significance is the view from the” historic built environment.” But
the historic built environment is not just a single point on the porch. The historic built environment at a minimum
includes the entire adobe building, the wall surrounding the adobe, and the stairs
from the adobe down to the fields described as the “planting lands” in historic
documents. The analysis of impacts
arbitrarily limited the view of concern to only one small part of the actual
remaining historic built environment.
Furthermore the Marron-Hayes Adobe is only one part of the Historic
District. The DEIR failed to evaluate
impacts throughout the District- the majority of which is not a “built”
environment.
-Page 6 states that “there is
no universal yardstick” for determining significance and that such assessments
are “difficult and complicated” and “almost always subjective.” It then proposes factors that were used in
the evaluation, but provided no justification for the factors that were
selected - or for the numerous others that were not selected. Please provide justification for the criteria
selected and an explanation for other respected guidelines that were rejected
such as those of the National Park Service.
Furthermore explain why it was determined that the only issue of concern
was the “historic built environment” when the boundaries of the Marron-Hayes
Historic District extend well beyond the limits of the built environment.
-P7 provides no identification
of the source of these factors or justification for how they have been
applied. It is clear that considerable
subjectivity has been used both in determining the factors to use and in
evaluating whether the impact is significant or not. Please provide further explanation of this. This is one of the most critical assessments
in this DEIR- it needs to be clear that it was done objectively and fairly. This is of particular concern as the lands
around the adobe are identified by Save Our Heritage Organization as one of the
top 12 most endangered historic areas in all of San Diego County. It is
a major flaw in the DEIR that it has failed to recognize the significance of
this site, or the adverse impacts caused by the project. The change to views, additional noise, and
lights will all change the experience of visiting this area that is currently
enjoyed by hundreds of persons every year. These visitors range from third graders as
part of their studies of California history, to special interest community
organizations like Buena Vista Audubon Society for birding walks, or the
Newcomer’s Club learning about local history. Opening up the waterfall to public view as is
proposed with the project will make this area a draw for even more people than
it is today. But the changes around the
historic site will completely change the experience of those visitors. Today it is like stepping back in time. The sights and sounds of the valley put
everyone who visits in touch with the rich historic and cultural experience- it
is really history coming alive and being experienced in a way that few other
places in coastal north county, in fact no other place, can provide. The other historic sites or adobes like
Rancho Carillo are already surrounded by dense suburban development. The rich experience of visiting the Buena
Vista Creek Valley will be replaced with – a view of one more So. California suburban
development that is pretty much the same as every other one. That does not preserve a sense of place; it
replaces a unique experience with one of no significance.
-Appendix F fails to mention that there is a view of the
waterfall from the grounds of the adobe- on the east side of the pepper tree
that shades the root cellar. The DEIR
needs to assess the impacts on this existing view. The att. include photos of views of the waterfall from
the front yard of the Marron-Hayes Adobe, just east of the pepper tree that is
next to the root cellar. Photos were
taken on December 5, 2012. A similar photo
is also included that was part of a
documentary on KPBS in 2009 ( http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/may/22/san-diegos-dna-mexican-american-stories/
)
-P9 states that “additional
mitigation will “undoubtedly be required and will have to be determined by the
lead agency.” It then goes on to list
potential additional mitigation measures.
There is no basis for this conclusion- decision makers have broad
discretion and can reject all mitigation.
The DEIR needs to clearly identify which proposed mitigation is
essential to reduce significant impacts to below the threshold of significance,
or if impacts are still significant but mitigation is recommended to reduce
them.
-P 10 includes several
recommended mitigation measures- but it is not clear which mitigation is for
what impact – and how each has reduced the impact and the resultant level of
significance. Please specify which
impact is addressed by which mitigation measure(s) and how much it reduces the
impact, and how it is concluded that the level of significance has been
sufficiently reduced. The photos that
are offered as proof that the view impacts from the Marron Adobe are no longer
significant in fact actually prove that they are. They show a fully obstructed view across the
entire viewshed from Key 9. These
impacts are at essentially the same elevation as the adobe rather than down in
a low point where they would be less visible, or at the top of slope where
there still would be substantial open space in the near view.
-There is no discussion of the
alternatives to the proposed project in Appendix F. Since these visual impacts and impacts on the
historic resources have been key issues of controversy there should be some
expert review of the differences for each alternative. Since this was not included in Appendix F
then who analyzed the aesthetic impacts on historic resources if not the
historic expert and what was their expertise to make this assessment?
-The attachments include
discussion about the evaluation and recognition of the Historic District. While there is text that states the District boundaries
do not extend into the project site there is no figure that shows the limits of
the Historic District. Please add a
Figure showing the limits of the Historic District. Then review these limits specifically and
provide an explanation for the conclusion that there are no impacts, direct or
indirect to anywhere in this district (in spite of the fact that there was only
one viewpoint provided.) We find there are significant impacts from numerous
vantage points in the Historic District – including from the single point used
for the aesthetic analysis.
-Figure 3-5 makes it clear
that a significant part of the view of the panhandle will be of roads- and not
just the heavily vegetated homes as is shown in the visual simulations. Please correct these views to include both
the near and distant roads- both of which would appear to be highly visible
from Key 5, 8, and 9.
-The Key 7 visual simulations
show vegetation along the creek banks that is denser at 5 years than it is when fully mature. Please explain how that occurs or correct the
simulations.
-The trail along P-4 is
described as providing views of El Salto Falls.
Views of the falls are a key issue of concern. Furthermore, providing a view should help
reduce the incidence of people traveling off trail in order to get a view. Please add a simulation that shows the view
of the falls which is a significant regional/historical cultural feature. The landscaping plans show extensive tree
planting along this area and the concern is that these may block the falls
view. Since blocking the view would be a
significant adverse impact the DEIR should demonstrate that this view is protected.
-Figure 33 from the Quarry
Creek Master Plan(MP) and others show that the panhandle on the north side, the
area in the view of the Historic District has about ˝ Condition B and ˝
Condition C for fire suppression. Since
part of Street A is right next to hardline open space of the BVCER there will
not be any vegetation control on that side.
It would therefor seem that the road, which is the closest project
feature to the Historic District, would be highly visible in the foreground yet
this is not at all apparent from the visual simulation shown from the porch of
the Adobe. Please correct the visual
simulations to reflect the presence of the roads and related fire suppression
requirements that will reduce vegetation screening and provide proper analysis
of the visual and noise impacts of these roads.
- The visual simulations with
vegetation after 5 years and at full growth are intended to support the
conclusion that with the proposed mitigation of reducing R-5 heights to 2
stories, keeping paint colors to earth tones and requiring vegetation as shown
that the visual impacts will be fully mitigated. The analysis and conclusions fail to address
the following and consequently do not assure the impacts have been reduced to a
level of insignificance:
-
Neighborhood R-4, especially the western portion,
is also fully within the viewshed from the single point shown yet no mitigation
is proposed for those impacts 4. R-4
needs to include the same visual impact mitigation as is required for R-5.
-
Part of this area includes roads as part of the
fire break- this is not consistent with having dense vegetation between the
road and the residences which would reduce the value of the road as a
firebreak.
-
There are no restrictions on what homeowners can
do in their backyards- and that will have a significant impact on the view from
the Historic District. In fact
experience shows that both HOAs and individual property owners often
remove/trim vegetation that impacts their views. Their views would be enhanced by having an
expansive view of the valley and of the historic adobe. There will be constant pressure to retain the
private views at the expense of the public views. This needs to be addressed with specific conditions
in the CC& R’s for the R-4 and R-5 neighborhoods that restrict what
homeowners can do in their backyards that would impact the viewshed. This is not just paint color and building
height. It needs to include restrictions on installing anything that would be
incompatible with the historic resources including things like cell towers,
satellite antennas, basketball hoops, brightly colored canopies or umbrellas,
etc. These incompatible view impacts would
need to both be restricted and enforced.
-
There are no conditions that require a specified
level of plant density, canopy, visual screening over the life of the project-
only that the initial planting is per the landscape plans. The MM needs to provide assurances that the
specified conditions are required for the life of the project.
For all of these reasons it is
clear that visual impacts of and to the historic site will remain
significant. The only mitigation that
would reduce these to less than significant is to eliminate the obstruction to
the view by eliminating development on the panhandle.
-Historic view impacts are not
just obstruction of views from the historic resource, but also views of the
resource. Several of the key points for
visual simulations show that currently the adobe is highly visible, and in fact
a key feature of the landscape from numerous vantage points ( Key 1,2,3,7, and
10 for example). This issue is discussed as part of the criteria to be used to
evaluate impacts, but the analysis of impacts failed to analyze impacts to
views of the adobe. The comparison of
existing to proposed views shows that this existing view of the adobe, from
numerous locations, will be highly obstructed by the project. In several of the views the adobe is no longer visible. In others it has clearly changed from a
dominant feature of the view, to something in the far distance that appears
diminished in importance by being dwarfed by the size and mass of the proposed
residential development.
-Figures do not provide enough
information to assess the visual impacts of the bridge. Additional information is needed including
color, design of side rails, will there be any lights along it (no light poles
are shown). Etc. in order to determine if the view of the sacred waterfall (
which per project description will occur from west of the bridge) will be
impacted by placing a bridge right in the viewshed to the falls. Key 7 shows the bridge as just a narrow grey
horizontal line but will it really look like that?
-Views from public trails and
public open space areas are also protected under CEQA. There is a planned public trail through this valley
as shown on the City of Carlsbad master trail plan. While the exact alignment through BVCER is
not yet finalized it is clear there is the intent for public access through
this area, connecting to the project trails and connecting through BVCER to
Hidden Canyon Park. The visual impacts
on these trails has not been evaluated or mitigated. This remains a potentially significant
adverse impact.
-Figure 5.1-1 It is unclear
how the visual simulations have addressed the required firebreak from homes to
the adjacent hardline open space. This
is of particular concern when assessing the impacts from development on the
panhandle. The mitigation measure to
include dense vegetation to screen the homes from view is in conflict with fire
safety provisions for limited levels of
vegetation density to assure there is not a dense row of vegetation within the
100’ fire safety zone. Please clarify
the relations ship between this dense vegetation for visual screening and fire
safety zone with its restrictions on vegetation. Furthermore without very rigorous monitoring
and enforcement there is no assurance that these areas of dense vegetation
required to mitigate visual impacts will be maintained as proposed over
time. The mitigation measure needs to
include enforceable provisions for assuring the specified levels of screening
vegetation are in place for the life of the project. This includes both a funding mechanism and a
mechanism for monitoring and enforcement.
-Figure 5.1-3b shows landscaping on near side
of the street being used for visual screening , but this is part of the storm
water control system and planting materials specified for this area do not
match those shown in the visual simulation-
they would be much lower in height and likely would hardly be visible
from the angle shown in the visual simulation.
-Figure 5.1-8a shows a
sidewalk at top of slope that is not reflected in the visual simulations-
please correct. The effect of all of these errors in the visual simulations is
to make the visual impacts of this project appear to be much less significant
than they are. In the absence of
reasonably accurate illustrations of view impacts these must stil be considered
significant.
-Page 5.1-41 8a states that the preferred
mitigation is redesign. The simulations
all assume development will stay within the viewshed. There are redesign alternatives that would
actually eliminate these adverse impacts- yet these were all only considered as
project alternatives- and not as mitigation.
The DEIR concludes that the minimal redesign selected ( reducing height),
restricting colors and requiring vegetation screening for only part of the development area causing
a visual impact ) is sufficient to reduce visual impacts below the level of
significance. This appears to be a
completely subjective assessment using faulty visual simulations and ignoring
facts that do not support that conclusion.
Please provide sufficient discussion, including key facts that support
the selection of the minimal redesign considered. Explain why others, like removing development
from the panhandle, were not considered as mitigation, but only as alternatives
to the proposed projects.
-Page 5.1-42 We agree that El
Salto falls are not visible from viewpoints 1 and 4 that were selected for the
visual assessment, but the falls are visible from several locations on the
grounds of the Adobe, from public trails, and partially from existing public
roads. The falls are a state listed
cultural resource. The full impacts of
views of the falls should be assessed from all areas where the proposed project
will restrict such views. ( The att include photos of the falls from the
grounds of the adobe).
-Page 5.1-43 States “ the city
of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines require stringent standards …to promote
vitality of the natural features and cultural heritage of the site.” This is a conclusion that is not supported
by review of the actual Landscape Guidelines and comparison to what is being
proposed with the project. In fact we
find nothing in the Landscape Guidelines that even says this is one of the
objectives or that even mentions 'cultural heritage'; nothing on 'promoting vitality of
natural features' and nothing mentioning this specific area. The following sections from the Landscape Manual, Policies and
Requirements, February 2012 appear to be what the DEIR is referring to, but
none of these say what the DEIR concludes are included :
"Policies
Landscaping and site design help to produce character and shape the
visual image for Carlsbad, creating an enduring impression of
the community. Sustainable landscape practices ensure that threats to
health, safety, well- being, water quality, and the natural environment
are minimized.
(Note- minimizing threats is
not the same as promoting vitality)
D. Planting Policies
In general, landscaping shall:
• Enhance and be compatible with the
positive character of existing neighborhoods and Carlsbad as a whole.
• Maintain and enhance the public’s
health, safety, and welfare through proper design, selection, and location
of plant materials and other landscape features.
•
Incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials whenever
possible.
•
Ensure that invasive or noxious plants are not used.
• Feature ground cover, shrubs, and
trees to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new
improvements.
• Provide privacy where appropriate.
• Accentuate and enhance
architecture.
• Provide and enhance opportunities
for outdoor recreation, relaxing and eating.
Streetscape
Program
Visual corridors play an important role in developing an image of
Carlsbad, which in turn creates an enduring impression to aid in the
City’s sense of place and community pride. (Note: there is an
existing visual corridor along # 78 which has been ignored in the DEIR
discussion) . The streetscape program
includes requirements that ensure a safe streetscape design and contribute
to a pleasing vehicular and pedestrian experience that accentuates
the positive, natural, historical and architectural elements of Carlsbad.
(Note- this is discussing streetscape and not the overall aesthetics of project
design).
F. Streetscape
Program Policies
§ Landscaping shall accentuate positive, natural,
historical, and architectural elements of Carlsbad.
§ Landscaping shall be designed toward a goal of
providing a pleasing and safe vehicular and
pedestrian
experience."
-5.1-44 states Slope 6
Planning Area R-1 is excluded from the requirements of the Hillside Development
Ordinance (HDO) requirements per Section 21.95.130.3. Per this section areas can be excluded if
they are “ hillside areas that have unusual geotechnical or soil conditions
that require corrective work that may require significant amounts of
grading.” As part of the justification
for this exemption it is stated the slope will exceed 40’ in height, but we
could not find the actual height that is proposed. Furthermore it says that soil needs to
balanced for cut and fill, but to our knowledge there is no such
requirement. It is generally done
because of economic considerations and because export of cut material would
increase adverse traffic impacts. The
explanation provided does not support the conclusion in the DEIR that this area
is exempt from the requirements of the HDO. Please explanation specifically on
what basis it has been determined that this area is exempt from HDO
requirements.
-Mitigation Measure AES-1 is
applied to R-5 only- why? Since the
adverse impacts are to the views from the adobe and a significant part of R-4 is also impacting this
view then at least the part of R-4 effecting the view should have the same
mitigation measure applied. Failure to
address the visual impacts of R-4 on the Historic District leaves this a
significant unmitigated impact.
Agriculture
-To our knowledge the Carlsbad
zoning ordinance has no restricted agricultural zoning. Portions of the adjacent BVCER were in leased
agriculture until the land was acquired by the State of CA in 2007. Furthermore in the historic documents of the
Mexican land grant which included the project site, the Buena Vista Creek
Valley is described as “the planting lands.”
Early aerial photos show the two ponds on the project site and the
larger one on BVCER. All three of these
ponds may be artesian, but clearly the one on BVCER is. This artesian pond was used for irrigation of
farmland up until 2007 and since then has been used (and is still being used)
to irrigate the former farmlands as they are being restored to native
vegetation. It does not appear that this
historic use as farmland or the use of these ponds for irrigation has been
factored into the analysis. Please correct
the analysis to properly reflect the much more extensive history of agriculture
in this valley than described in the DEIR.
-Page 5.2-3 and the appendix
states that “ Storie Index data are not readily available for non-rated fill
that overlie much of the subject property.”
However per P3 of the Appendix 104 of the 156 acres were not impacted by
mining and fill and remained in original condition. This is a majority of the project site. It really seems like the two parcels should
have been evaluated separately, which would have resulted in different LESA
scores. It appears that combining them
has averaged the results across these two parcels in a way that reduces the
significance of the panhandle parcel as an agricultural resource.
-Page 11 of the Appendix E
describes water availability. This discussion
fails to recognize the historic use of groundwater , presence of artesian ponds
and the adjacent well on BVCER still used for residential water supply for the
adobe. The pond on BVCER is also still being used for
water supply so why is it assumed that the ponds on the project site could not
be used? The analysis of water supply is
not consistent with actual and historic water use on the site and also
underestimates the value of this land as an agricultural resource.
-The Zone of Influence
discussion also does not acknowledge the historic agricultural uses on the
BVCER lands. Clearly the land in this
valley that was not impacted by mining has a rich agricultural history. Local historian Wendy Hinman describes the
valley as a natural grange hall, the place where local farming families
gathered to discuss crops and grazing. There is no reason to expect that this land
would not support agriculture today.
Furthermore there was no discussion of the current economic factors
related to farming. Small urban/suburban
plots are becoming much more economically feasible, particularly ones like this
where there is a water supply.
Land Use
-P 5.10-2 erroneously states
the project site is “specifically identified as a SANDAG “Community Center on SANDAG
Smart Growth Concept Map.” In fact it is
identified as a “potential” smart growth site and not as an existing one as is
stated. The MP includes a lot of description of Smart Growth
principles from various sources, concluding that the project is “smart
growth.” The DEIR has accepted this
conclusion and failed to provide any explanation for how it has reached this
conclusion which is not accurate. Being
consistent with the principles as described does not make it consistent with
the specific criteria for a Community Facility smart growth site as specified
by SANDAG, the responsible regional planning agency. In
fact in their latest written evaluation of the proposed project, based on
information provided by the City of Carlsbad, SANDAG concluded that the project
fails to meet both land use and transit service criteria. (See att. for pages 6
and 7 from Jan 2012 SANDAG Report). In a
more recent review of the actual project as proposed with 656 residential units
SANDAG staff again stated this project is not in compliance with Smart Growth
criteria for a Community Center. [1] Furthermore in Smart Growth in the San Diego
Region (incorporated by reference) the
project fails to meet a third criterion
in that it does not draw from the surrounding neighborhoods because the
location of this project has no surrounding neighborhoods within the limits of
transit influence (1/2 mile) . These
conflicts with actual regional Smart Growth criteria are a significant land use
impact that should have been identified and mitigated. The DEIR at 5.10-17 has ignored the actual
SANDAG staff evaluation. Furthermore the project as proposed causes traffic
failures and is located at a potential smart growth site which if properly
developed would result in a reduction of adverse traffic impacts. Failure to meet these criteria effects
compliance with the SCS of SANDAG which is a further adverse impact which has
not been identified or mitigated. The
DEIR needs to be revised to identify these conflicts with SANDAG smart growth
criteria for a Community Center; conflicts with the land use/transportation
interface requirements of the SCS and provide adequate mitigation for these
adverse impacts. Proposed
MM: Provide subsidy for the difference between existing and required public
transit service levels to meet SANDAG transit service criteria for a Community
Center Smart Growth site and mitigate for adverse traffic impacts. The amount and duration of such subsidy to be
determined based upon the number of final units and the resultant magnitude of
the adverse traffic impacts.
-P IV-17 of MP states that
compatibility analysis of the four acre parcel adjacent to the project that is
within the city of Oceanside “shall be conducted by the city of Oceanside” and
design or performance measures “shall be incorporated into the adjacent Open
Space use, to the satisfaction of City of Carlsbad.” If the applicant wanted to restrict uses and
require design standards on this parcel it should have been included in the
Master Plan. Furthermore this requires
an adjacent city to do an expensive analysis of compatibility that should be
done by Carlsbad and would routinely be done by an adjacent city for a project
on their border as part of the CEQA and/or entitlement review. This also says future conditions may be
imposed on the Open Space in Carlsbad as a result of developing this parcel in
Oceanside. These would be additional
indirect impacts from the project as proposed.
None of these issues were addressed in the DEIR.
-P-3 on Figure 22 shows an 8
car parking lot- in a park that is restricted for local residents. This parking should be eliminated and
replaced with a small drop/off pick up zone.
All such parking/drop zones should be deducted from active recreation
acreage and should be pervious pavement. This is a project design element not
consistent with LID guidelines for water quality and is not justified to
include such a parking lot in the computation for active recreation acres of
land. These are additional indirect water
quality and recreational impacts that have not been addressed.
-Statements that trigger an
automatic gag reflex like those on page IV-29 describing pavement, a swimming
pool, tot lots and parking lots as being designed to “reflect the natural
beauty of Buena Vista Creek” should receive a minimum 10 acre Open Space
penalty.
-The MP says there will be a
bus stop on the south side of Street A at P-2.
Since Street A is only a single lane each direction this would require a
cut-out for the bus to pull over. This
reduces the size of P-2. This reduction
should be reflected in the computation of available Community Facility acres of
land.
-The DEIR has failed to
identify or mitigate numerous conflicts with provisions of the adopted General
Plan of the city of Carlsbad. Table
5.10-1 General Plan Consistency Determination concludes the project is
consistent in numerous areas where there are obvious incompatibility issues
that have been ignored. These incompatibility
issues include:
-“Protect and conserve natural resources….and
historically significant features of the community.” The project is not
consistent with the HMP as discussed in comments on Biological Resources. It has not preserved the historic sense of
place as discussed in the comments on Aesthetics. It has not protected and conserved natural
resources as discussed in comments on Biological Resources.
-“Balance vehicle requirements with the needs of pedestrians,
including children, elderly and the disabled.”
It has not provided adequate pedestrian safety as discussed in the
comments on Transportation and Public Services (traffic congestion will
increase emergency response times). It also has not met basic public safety requirements
by having only 2 vehicle ingress/egress
points within a few hundred feet of each other along an already highly
congested road and fire and emergency medical vehicles can only access the site
from this same highly congested road.
Emergency response times were assumed to be the same which fails to take
into account the increasing traffic congestion along this roadway segment and
at both of the intersections emergency response vehicles would be required to
use.
-“provide an adequate amount and variety of open space”-
Project has not met active recreation requirements because required parks will
not be built for years after project occupancy.
--“preserve as open space hillsides…”- The table is not
consistent with the discussion on page 5.10-25 that describes proposed
exemption from HDO – it can’t both be consistent and get an exemption.
In addition, there are
numerous specific provisions in the GP that were ignored in Table 5.10-1 and
are not discussed elsewhere in the DEIR.
These are additional conflicts that should have been discussed in the
DEIR. These conflicts include :
• “C.5 Combine historically significant sites
with recreational learning opportunities, where possible.” This is a historically significant site with
such opportunities. The adjacent land at
the Marron Adobe is already used for 3rd grade history field trips
for the local public schools and by numerous other community
organizations.
• “C.7 Utilize community parks in support
of historical and cultural programs and facilities when feasible and
appropriate.” The project site includes
a historic site of state-wide significance (El Salto Falls) and the land
adjacent to it includes a regionally significant historic area. Neither of these has been integrated into
park plans. The park which might provide
a focus for such programs, P-3, is
restricted to residents of the area thereby precluding its use as a
community-wide park which could support such programs. The trail through P-4 which provides views
of the falls includes no space designed to serve broader historical/cultural
programs. Furthermore, considering park requirements
as just 3 acres/1,000 residents fails to consider how parks could be created to
provide such opportunities for the entire community- in places like this with
unique historical/cultural resources.
•” C.8 Coordinate the efforts of the
Historic Preservation Commission on the sighting and care of historic
ruins within parks.” There is no
discussion in the DEIR of any such coordination with the Historic Preservation
Commission.
·
” C.9
Enhance the availability of special resource and or open space areas
and promote awareness of the educational opportunities associated
with them.” The project developer,
McMillin, proposed a Special Resource Park at R-5 at community meetings that
included city staff. However this was not discussed in the DEIR.
This should have been identified as potential impacts to and Use, recreation,
and as part of the Alternatives analysis.
•” C.11 Work cooperatively with the
Historic Preservation Commission and Cultural Arts Commission to
effectively sustain and promote awareness of historically
and/or culturally significant facilities and programs.” This area remains one of the most significant
historic sites in the City, yet there was no discussion of any such
cooperation.
-P 5.10-5 states that the
Hillside Development regulations were established to “ preserve and/or enhance
the aesthetic quality of natural hillsides….assure that the alteration of natural
hillsides will be done in an environmentally sensitive manner…and no
substantial impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habits or native
vegetation areas will occur.” It is a
complete contradiction to say the project is in full compliance with the intent
of this ordinance when it has destroyed acres of sensitive habitat, and placed
hundreds of homes and a road in the viewshed
of the historic district.
-P5.10-6 notes that LFMZ 25
anticipated a maximum of 665 homes so the project is consistent. However that maximum was based on zoning that
allowed over 100 units to be built on the former Sherman land. The revised LFMZ has taken all of the units
from the Sherman property and moved them onto this project. This is a significant change from the existing
LFMZ and should have been identified as such.
This change has resulted in differential impacts on adjacent parcels
that have been ignored. There would not
have been the same conflict from residential land next to to residential land-
but now this is open space land next to
residential land.
-P 5.10-10 identifies SB375
as one of the regulatory requirements and states “ MPO’s are required to
develop the Sustainable Communities Strategies through integrated land use and
transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed
reduction targets by 2020 and 2035.” The DEIR states this does not impose any
specific requirements on this project.
However the DEIR should have
evaluated whether this project is consistent with the SCS or not. If it is not consistent then it reduces the
ability of SANDAG (the MPO) to reach the targets. We conclude the project is not
consistent as it does not meet the land use or transit criteria for a Smart
Growth project and it contributes to failing traffic conditions on a regional
arterial road. This is poor integration
of land use and transportation planning.
This is in conflict with SCS and
therefor will indirectly impact the ability of the MPO to reach their targets
for GHG reductions. This is both a land
use and GHG conflict that the DEIR failed to identify or mitigate.
-P5.10-12 discusses
compatibility with adjacent open space land uses and concludes it is compatible
because “The proposed project includes extensive open space that would buffer
the proposed development from the adjacent undeveloped lands to the west and
north.” What the project actually does
is stick a long peninsula of dense residential development right into the
middle of sensitive habitat. On the
North side this peninsula extends about 2,000 feet into the existing open
space. Along that 2,000 foot border the
vast majority of the land use is not compatible and is not buffered with the hardline
open space in the BVCER. The first 700
feet (approx.) has a road about 20’ from the hardline open space- that is not a
buffer. The next 800 feet is a brush
management zone that will have vegetation clearing and thinning for 60 feet and
then backyard fences- that is not a buffer.
The next 300 feet is a Community Facility with turf that allows active
recreation and a parking lot- that is only occasionally a buffer. Only about 200 feet will remain as natural
open space of the 2,000 feet- about 10%.
In numerous other developments in the city of Carlsbad where there is
sensitive open space the development has been moved away from the edge by at
least 300’ (see requirements for Cantarini-Holly Springs and Carlsbad Oaks
North as two examples). The project has
not provided adequate buffers for the adjacent sensitive natural resources – as
has been done for numerous other projects in the city. (See Figure 3-4 Master Plan Land Use for a
better representation of this border).
Furthermore adding this
peninsula of development into the middle of this area of natural open space
greatly increases the area impacted by the edge effects of adjacent
development. This peninsula on the panhandle
adds about 4,000 linear feet of edge, OS-2 adds about 1,000 feet of edge along
Street B, and OS-3 adds about 2,000 feet of edge along borders with R-1/2 and
R-3. Furthermore most of these edges now
include roads which makes the edge effects even greater. The MHCP concluded that edge effects extend
about 200m out from the edge of development.
This configuration of open space has greatly increased this edge effect area which is a significant indirect impact that
has not been addressed.
Air Quality
-The DPM cancer risk is
supposed to be evaluated at “the point of maximum exposure.” Please identify where that “point” was
assumed to be for the purposes of this analysis. The concern is that for temporary construction
impacts this needs to be where actual impacts will be highest. This should also clarify how large an area is
impacted.
-It appears that the
computations shown on Table 5.3-5 assume that no other construction is
occurring at the same time as this construction. This assumption is contradicted by the long
list of other known nearby construction projects. Since emissions are close to the threshold
for NOX there is also a concern about the sensitivity of this measure. What is the margin of error and what are the
key factors that could impact this?
Construction emissions have been underestimated if they assume no other
construction is occurring simultaneously or the analysis has failed to consider
areas of overlap of emissions from nearby construction sites. This could be a significant cumulative impact
even if the individual project impacts are below threshold limits if there is
any overlap in the areas where there is an increase in emissions.
-The noise analysis indicates
that an unknown number of residences may need to use mechanical
ventilation. Please explain how this has
been reflected in the computations for air quality as this is not mentioned as
one of the considerations in the discussion of key assumptions in App G. (IE there will be more operational emissions
as homes in the noise impact area will be using mechanical ventilation all the
time resulting in significantly higher emissions than has been assumed for
homes that meet current energy requirements.
-The grading portion of the construction
air quality impacts are based on 610,000 CY balanced cut and fill including
27,000 CY from blasting. We could not find the basic arithmetic to convert this
to tons as is required to compare emissions from this amount of grading to the
threshold limits for pollutants of concern that are expressed as pollutants per
ton. to threshold limits. Our gross
computations are 610,000 CY x2 (for cut and fill) x 1.3 tons/ CY x .6 (60% of
material generating PM 10) / 120 working days ( 5 months at 6 days/week) or
7,930 tons per day. This gross
computation then needs to be adjusted for numerous factors identified in App
J-2 that would require additional material handling including:
-p11
“oversize material may be generated which would require special handing or
exportation from the site.”
-p12
canyon sub drains are necessary “
- p13
“deleterious material generated during strip and or site demolition should be
exported from the site”
-
p13-14 “overly wet surficial materials, when encountered, will require drying
and mixing with drier soils…”
-p 15
“base of overexcavations … should be
scarified…”
-p15
soil within 3 feet of finished grades should consist of “very low to medium
expansive soils.’
All of
these, and other special considerations, will increase the amount of material
handing on site and the resultant release of pollutants of concern. Please provide basic math used to convert
grading and construction activities to tons of pollutants and explain the
factors that were used in these computations.
It appears that construction emissions have been substantially
underestimated.
-The operational emissions are
close to the thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10.
It appears that operational emissions have been understated. App A to App G Table 3.2 Proposed Trip
Breakdown includes the assumption that .1 ADT is from urban busses. This is based on the traffic study projection
of 5,578 ADT. This also states on page 21 that there has
been no reduction for mass transit. This
.1 % would be 5.6 urban bus trips/day. (
Also of note is that this low level of bus service is not consistent with Smart
growth criteria ) Table 4.1 of App P Traffic Study confirms this
5,578 ADT number. However it indicates
there has been a 5% reduction in the traffic impact analysis for peak hour
trips from R-1, 2, and 3 because of the public transit service to the project
site. Since it is the peak hour ADT that determines
the significance of the traffic impact this reduction for public transit has
reduced the reported traffic impacts. While the Air Quality analysis is based on the
full ADT of 5,578 trips this is actually including more auto trips than the
traffic study. Of concern for the air
quality analysis is that this is not accounting for enough bus trips and busses
generate a lot more pollutants of concern than passenger vehicles- and their
trip length is much longer than the 8 + miles/trip assumed for an
automobile. The project site will have a
bus stop at P-2 and a bus stop and layover at P-1.
Operational emissions are also
understated as there has been no consideration of the urban heat island effect. The project proposes to convert about 74
acres of open space to roads, buildings and parking lots. Such conversions indirectly increase ozone by
replacing open space with blacktop or other heat increasing surfaces from
roads, parking lots and roofs thereby increasing temperatures and contributing
to the urban heat island effect. This
heat island effect would exacerbate existing violations of ozone standards in
the project vicinity. This is an
additional operational impact that was not discussed in the DEIR.
Please clarify the assumptions
related to busses on the project site, the analysis of urban heat island effect,
identify the margin of error built in to this model and provide sensitivity
analysis of the results. Correct the
analysis to account for all of these factors and provide further mitigation as
required.
-P5.3-15 states “The proposed
project would not cause either existing or near term intersections to operate
at LOS E or worse and would not be required to conduct Hot Spot Analysis.” Please explain why the large number of
sensitive receptors from the senior housing areas along Lake Blvd would not
result in further localized CO2 analysis.
-P5.3-15 states “ “worst case
contours are not known” for nearby
cumulative projects. Please explain how
the analysis can then conclude the cumulative impacts are not significant? It also says worst case only extends 387
meters from the project. However lesser
levels would certainly extend much further so the combined impacts of even
these lesser levels could be significant. None of this was evaluated in the
DEIR.
-AQ-1 does not indicate how
much reduction would be achieved from the four very minimal actions that are
proposed- all of which only address fugitive dust to any significant
degree. These include :
-
apply water during construction activities
-
apply soil stabilizers
-apply
water to on-site unpaved roads
-
reduce construction equipment traffic speeds to under 15 mph.
Provide calculations or some
other means that explains the amount of reduction provided by each of these
measures so it can be determined that this reduces emissions below the
threshold of significance.
-Given the lack of information
on cumulative impacts, lack of sensitivity analysis and margin for error
additional air quality mitigation measures should be included. Common ones that are feasible and have been
used in numerous other southern California projects include the following:
A. For fugitive dust from construction:
1. prewet surface soils prior to
clearing and grubbing
2. stabilize soil surface with
palliative to form crust immediately after clearing
3. grade each phase of project
separately
4. dig test holes to determine if
prewatering is sufficient
5. cover backfill material when not
actively handling
6. empty loader bucket slowly
7. minimize drop height from loader
bucket
8. install perimeter wind barriers
9. limit size of equipment staging
area
10. remove materials from downwind side of stockpiles
11. clean wheels and undercarriage
of haul trucks prior to leaving the site
12. install and maintain trackout
control devices where paved and unpaved travel routes intersect
13. pave construction roadways as
early as possible
14. avoid use of high pressure air
to blow soil and debris from forms
15. post a public sign with name
and telephone number of who to contact for dust complaints
16. require corrective action
within 24 hours.
B. For diesel exhaust mitigation:
1. implement construction
management techniques
2. use CARB certified off road
engines or alternatively fueled construction equipment
3. require a buffer zone to
sensitive receptors
C. For operational traffic impacts
mitigation should include:
1. provide public transit subsidy
through direct payment or provision of transit passes
2. provide preferential
carpool/vanpool parking
3. provide direct pedestrian
connections to transit stops
4. implement parking fee programs
D. For stationary source emissions, mitigation should include the following
feasible measures:
1. increase wall and attic
insulation beyond Title 24 requirements
2. plant shade trees in parking
lots
3. install solar cooling/heating
4. reduce standard paving by 20%
5. use electric lawn and garden
equipment for landscaping
6. pay an air quality mitigation
fee and secure emission offsets
Biological Resources
Comments on Appendix H
-P1 states there are three
important environmental resources on the site- but fails to mention that this core area is a
critical part of the regional north/south wildlife movement corridor. Figure 3 does not locate these three areas of
important resources and consequently it is not possible to assess how these
most important areas are impacted by the project- all areas are treated the
same and assumed to be addressed through the specified habitat mitigation which
fails to assess the impact on the most important features of the site.
-P3 Notes there will be a
requirement for a PMP, but fails to note there is a required PMP for the Reclamation
Plan or to evaluate the relationship of these two PMPs. Just saying there will be a PMP does not
assure impacts will be addressed- the DEIR needs to specify what must be
included in the PMP to assure these impacts have been reduced and that this
reflects the conditions required by the Reclamation Plan PMP.
Review of the Reclamation Plan
PMP raises a number of concerns about its adequacy to protect the
resources. It only addresses the 2
parcels on the east that were part of the mining operation, and includes the 4
acres in Oceanside. It specifically
references that there is an expectation of future development that will change
site conditions, but has inconsistently addressed the need for changes to
respond to this once this development proceeds.
For example :
- it
identifies no issues with adjacent land uses as current adjacent land is
undeveloped but says this may change in some unknown way. Dense residential development will bring
numerous edge effect conditions- none of which were anticipated or
addressed.
-unauthorized access is to be controlled through fencing, signage and a
once a quarter patrol. It says 20
perimeter signs will be installed, but does not say where. Fencing is to be installed by landowner or Project
Proponent, but it does not say when.
Furthermore the land history of this area has shown even when there was
security on site there was on-going illegal access- from fishermen, homeless
and taggers. Given this history once a
quarter is grossly inadequate to protect the resources. The adjacent BVCER reserve has weekly
patrols- and even that level has not been enough to prevent things like
homeless encampments.
- It noted that there is a Falls Management Plan (FMP) , but there was no
discussion of the content or interface with the FMP. Where is access to the Falls allowed- since
there are no public trails what it the route to get to the access point? How will fencing accommodate this access? For example will there be a locked gate with
authorized key distribution?
-Public access is completely restricted, except for Tribal access to the
falls area. It acknowledges that in the
future public trails are anticipated and that there will be community outreach. However this is limited to a once a year
meeting with community representatives and once a year submitting an article
for inclusion in things like HOA newsletters.
This does not even accommodate involvement with the City of Carlsbad trails
volunteer program or any of the trash pick-up, invasive weed removal projects
that are routinely done by volunteers in other Carlsbad preserves. There will be a much greater need for such
community involvement and education programs with the project- but this was not
discussed. It fails to identify any edge
effect issues related to trails or changes in management that will be
associated with heavy public use.
- There are no species specific management actions although there are 6
sensitive species listed and such actions are required in the HMP.
-P4 states “the project area
has been extremely modified by previous mining activities…” This is misleading and is not true for the
majority of the site. The eastern parcel
of 56 acres was never mined and portions of the northern and western 100 acre
parcel also were never mined. These
unmined areas constitute about ˝ of the total project area. The unmined areas still have natural
topography and in many cases healthy native vegetation. The DEIR has overstated the impacts of mining
and consequently understated the value/condition of the existing habitat on much
of the project site.
-P4 erroneously states that
the Marron Adobe is included in the Buena Vista Conservation Area. These are two separate parcels, with
different direct and indirect impacts from the proposed project which need to
be described separately. Furthermore the
correct name for the State of CA owned land is Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve –
which needs to be corrected throughout the DEIR.
-P5 states that the large area
of wetlands vegetation in the northwestern portion of the site was excluded
from the wetlands delineation” because there are no proposed impacts in this
area.”
However there are impacts
right on the edge of this hardline open space area. In the absence of wetland delineation it is
not possible to determine that there are no impacts. At the small scale of these maps it looks
like there could be impacts within the 100’
biological buffer and/or the adjacent 50’ planning buffer. The wetlands delineation is necessary to
determine the boundary of the wetlands.
The buffers are then properly measured out from the limits of these
wetlands. Furthermore the wetlands
buffer requirements per the Reclamation Plan EIR include not just Buena Vista
Creek, but all on site wetlands. This
would include the two ponds within this area and all other wetlands. The DEIR has failed to provide the wetlands
delineation that is essential to support the claim that there have been no
adverse impacts. There needs to be a delineation of these
wetlands and the associated buffers in order to determine that there are no
impacts- please provide the proper wetlands delineation.
-P14 table 5 should include
sub-totals for wetland and upland habitats to be more consistent with HMP and
mitigation requirements that are based on these important distinctions.
-p14 it is unclear exactly
which non-native species are to be removed.
Is it just the two listed or all that are invasive or whether this in
fact has been done? Please clarify
exactly which species are to be removed,
the reference source for determining which species are invasive, the status of this removal and how the schedule
for removal interfaces with project schedule (i.e. will all be removed prior to
initiation of construction?) Given the
significance of the biological resources on the project site to the regional
conservation plan, the most stringent guidelines should be used. In addition to CA-IPC which is the common
source for species throughout the state, this should also include those known
to be invasive in San Diego County per the San Diego Natural History Museum
database.
-P14 text says 9.39 acres of “southern
cottonwood riparian forest” but there is no such habitat shown on the key for Table
5. We assume this is shown on the figure
as “southern riparian woodland.”
Furthermore neither of these habitat terms is used in the HMP Table 1
page C-9 that describes required mitigation ratios. Please correct text and figures to use
consistent terminology- and if this is not consistent with terms for habitat in
the HMP add text that explains these
differences. These inconsistencies
throughout the BTR and DEIR make it impossible to evaluate both the analysis of
impacts and the proposed mitigation.
-P 22 and others plus
Appendices. Text mentions several
surveys of biological resources done on the project site over several
years. For some of the species it
identifies presence numbers by survey date, for others the survey date is not
indicated. Furthermore it is not clear
what is being shown on the Figure- is it location /presence every time a
species was identified on any of these or has it eliminated what are considered
repeat survey locations, or what? Please
add notes to the Figure that clarify this and correct text for each species to
indicate on which survey it was found.
This is necessary to determine consistency/ changes in species
distribution over the 14 years of data collection. Since all of the surveys are presumably
included in the DEIR analysis sufficient information needs to be provided to be
able to verify that all of this data has in fact been considered. The figures and tables are not consistent
with each other and therefor do not support the conclusions made from what is
incomplete and conflicting information.
-P27 The description and
analysis of impacts to local wildlife movement corridors basically ignores the
key corridor connection to the west which extends to Buena Vista Lagoon. The Wildlife Agencies (WLA) in their comment
letter on the NOP specifically identified the need to discuss impacts on this
east/west corridor along Buena Vista Creek- the DEIR has failed to do so. There is a general comment that movement to
the west is “most likely” but there is no mapping of this, no assessment of
actual wildlife movement through the landscape, nor any basis for conclusions
that impacts to this local linkage are not significant and do not require any
mitigation. Numerous studies have
assessed buffers and the conditions necessary to support wildlife
movement. . Fischer and Craig discuss the differences
between buffer strips and wildlife corridors.[2] Riparian buffers are intended to protect
water quality while corridors along a creek are intended for wildlife
movement. A vegetated strip along a creek
can meet both objectives, but needs to be designed to do so. They make it clear that there is no “one size
fits all” description.[3] They recommend establishing buffer
composition with a mix of trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants with a relatively
large number of species. [4] They include more detailed considerations for
type of planting, spacing of plants, sequencing. They conclude that “The ability of a riparian
buffer to provide various functions (e.g. attenuate floods, protect water
quality, provide habitat or wildlife movement corridors) depends upon such
factors as width, length, degree of fragmentation, and type, density and
structure of vegetation. [5] The DEIR assumed that the provision of a 100’
biological buffer was sufficient with no consideration of any of these other
factors that determine the adequacy of such a buffer. This 100’ buffer was established as a minimum
width for the mining reclamation, prior to this development proposal. The DEIR should have relooked at the adequacy
of this buffer in light of the site specific impacts of the proposed
project. The DEIR has failed to evaluate
the adequacy of the buffer for this particular project. This remains a potentially significant
impact.
- The DEIR has
concluded the project will have no adverse impacts on wildlife movement but has
failed to provide adequate analysis to support that conclusion. This should include at least minimal
discussion of barriers to movement. The
DEIR says since roads will not extend through the primary corridor they will
not present a problem for wildlife movement.
However there will be roads adjacent to hardline open space, across
Buena Vista Creek which is a local corridor, and across portions of the
existing regional movement corridor.
How will wildlife that are following the creek be prevented from going
up the bank and getting onto the road?
Is the height of the bridge over the creek on land high enough to allow
deer to pass?
In Best Management Practices for Wildlife, Beier et al
specifically discuss design issues related to roads and bridges. They found that “For ungulates such as deer
that prefer open crossing structures, tall, wide bridges are best. Mule deer in
southern California only used underpasses below large spanning bridges(NG et
al. 2004), and that “Because most small
mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects need vegetative cover for security,
bridged undercrossing should extend to uplands beyond the scour zone of the
stream, and should be high enough to allow light for vegetation to grow
underneath.” [6] The DEIR discussion is incomplete as it
failed to discuss current standards to support successful movement, including
those for deer. Coyotes
are the top meso-predator in this area and providing for their movement is also
a significant issue for the health of local ecosystems. (See Crooks and Soule
for more detailed discussion of the importance of meso-predators.)
In Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design, Monica Bond
identifies a 6 step process developed by Beier and Lee (1992) to evaluate the
effectiveness of a wildlife corridor.
These include:
- Identify the habitat areas
the corridor is designed to connect.
- Select several target species for the
design of the corridor.
- Evaluate the relevant needs of the target
species.
- For each potential corridor, evaluate how
the area will accommodate movement by each target species.
- Draw the corridor on a map.
- Design a monitoring
program.[7]
The DEIR has
failed to provide any basis for its conclusion that the proposed corridor is adequate,
describe what factors were used in the analysis or provide any standards that
were applied. The project will
significantly reduce the size, width, and visibility of the connecting linkages
of the existing corridor which extends the full width of the panhandle. This remains a potentially significant impact
to wildlife movement.
- Numerous studies have documented a whole series of
adverse impacts on biological resources from roads and other linear
developments. These are summarized in
Spellerberg 1998 and included as Attachment 1.
The FEIR has not considered the full range of adverse impacts to
biological resources related to the construction of roads
and has failed to provide adequate mitigation for these including all of those
shown on Attachment 1.
-P27 The BCLA map scale in the
MHCP is too small to fully understand the impacts from the proposed project. Furthermore the project site appears to all
be identified as Core Area 2 on the HMP and
not a connecting linkage as has been described. ( See HMP Figure 4 Focus
Planning Area att.) The regional
wildlife movement corridor goes north/south and this project is the critical link
across # 78 which must provide connection to a much narrower corridor on the
north side of the freeway. How the
Carlsbad connection lines up with the land in Oceanside is critical- this
assessment cannot just be lines on a map- there needs to be a physical
assessment of the functionality of the corridor through this area. Please use an overlay of the BCLA and
connecting wildlife corridor linkage parcels in Oceanside with the proposed
project impacts- that is the only way to assess landscape level impacts on the
regional wildlife corridor.
-P29 states there will be impacts
to 1.6 acres of disturbed land in Oceanside adjacent to the creek and in the
biological buffer. In the case of the
land in Carlsbad these are shown as revegetated native habitat. We believe these 1.6 acres in Oceanside are
also required to be revegetated in native habitat. Please confirm this and correct text and
figure.
-Figure 5 needs better explanation for the purpose and width
of the connection to Tamarack (one of the two offsite areas of impact). In
other places in the DEIR it describes two connections at Tamarack- one for
water/sewer lines and the other for recycled water. Please clarify what connections are needed at
Tamarack, and the justification for the width/location of the connection that
demonstrates impacts have been minimized.
-P33 States “The project
results in an overall increase in wildlife functions over the current HMP
Hardline Preserve.” This statement fails
to recognize that the original HMP boundaries through this area were based on a
different set of site conditions- with the waterfall gone, the creek realigned,
no bridge over the creek and only 293
maximum housing units allowed. Of course
the HMP hardline boundaries need to be modified to reflect all of these
conditions. The required HMP consistency
evaluation is intended to evaluate the value of the proposed new boundaries
with the new conditions to the old boundaries with the old conditions. What the DEIR has done is just assess the
boundaries without regard to these changed conditions. The key issue is whether the new boundaries
are sufficient (to the standards required in the HMP) for wildlife movement and
all other life cycle functions under the new conditions that are present on the
project site and surrounding area. Our
conclusion is that they are not equivalent.
The wider and improved function of the creek corridor on the eastern
part of the site was mandated by the Reclamation Plan. This will support increased wildlife
movement, and expanded territory for the LBV which are now present in
increasing numbers adjacent to the project site in the BVCER and downstream. Increasing
the number of residential units so dramatically increases all of the indirect
impacts of human and domestic animal impacts that functionally constrain a
wildlife corridor and disrupt wildlife.
These impacts include things like
increased predation on birds and small mammals from domestic cats that are
allowed outdoors at night; dog disturbance of nesting and denning sites; spread
of disease from domestic pets and their feces; disruption of nests from noise
along trails and in yards and public areas; etc.
Numerous studies have
evaluated the impacts of domestic cat predation on wildlife. As discussed in a paper by the American Bird
Conservancy it is estimated that cats kill hundreds of millions of birds and
more than one billion small mammals each year.[8] They cite a 1997 nationwide poll that found
only about 35% of the 77m pet cats in
the U.S. are kept indoors. Since
there is about 1 cat for every 3 residential units, adding 656 units will add hundreds
of cats to this area. The Crooks study
in San Diego found that the average cat returned 24 rodents, 15 birds and 17
lizards per year” and concluded “ This
level or bird predation is not sustainable.” [9] Many of
these additional cats will be hunting in the hardline open space which has not been
increased to accommodate this expansion of the predator population.
Furthermore there is a
critical need to greatly improve pedestrian/bicycle connections through the
project site because the project will
cause failing traffic conditions along College Blvd. This project is designed to have greatly
increased pedestrian use, and needs to have much improved bicycle connections,
especially to El Camino Real and the adjacent neighborhoods. The DEIR has failed
to consider the impacts of all of these changing conditions. These changing conditions should have
resulted in additional modifications to the hardline boundaries as well as
greatly expanded mitigation measures to reduce these potential impacts. The revisions to hardline boundaries have not
resulted in a net improvement. They in
fact have not adequately responded to the changing conditions and have left the
area in worse condition than was originally planned for in the HMP. Also we
could not find a breakdown that shows how much of the hardline increase is
required by conditions in the Reclamation Plan EIR, how much is a straight tradeoff
to accommodate the developer’s preferred boundary changes, how much is required
to mitigate for the impacts of the bridge across Buena Vista Creek. It appears that all of what has been
described as increases in hardline boundaries are in fact necessary to respond
to changing project conditions imposed by either the Reclamation Plan or
proposed by the project.
-P34 concludes that because
there are no invasive plant species included in the landscaping or erosion
plans the potential for adverse impacts associated with invasive plant species
are not significant. This does not
address the potential for homeowners to plant invasive species in their yards,
or for the ground disturbance associated with construction to result in
increased spread of invasives, particularly
since numerous such species are shown as present in the appendices. The seed of invasive species can be spread by
pets, birds, attaching to humans walking the trails and just by the wind. The land manager on the adjacent BVCER spends
thousands of dollars every year removing invasive plant species- and none have
been planted there- they are being spread onto this site primarily from plants
on the adjacent lands. Additional
mitigation is required to assure there will be no spread of invasives onto the
hardline open space. This should include
things like restricting the use of all known invasive species anywhere on the
project site, immediate revegetation of disturbed areas; requirement for HOA to
control all invasive plants within their areas of control, and adequate funding
for hardline open space invasive plant monitoring and control- based on the
experience in the adjacent reserve and other comparison sites.
-P34 Fencing as a construction
design measure is completely insufficient to assure that these impacts are not
significant. There need to be specific
restrictions in the CCR’s and lease conditions for apartments or areas not
subject to CC& R’s that both specify restrictions and include enforcement
and penalties for violations. For
example this must include that no gates can be cut in fencing that abuts
hardline open space, no invasive plant species are allowed to be planted
anywhere on-site, including private yards, and that there is some monitoring
for spread of Argentine ants.
-P36 (5.2.6 in DEIR) wildlife continues to use the paths
they have historically used- usually for at least a generation after corridors
have been revised by man. Road kill can
occur wherever roads cross wildlife movement corridors. The entire panhandle has functioned for
wildlife movement historically. It will
continue to be used by wildlife during and after construction until new pathways
are established. Road kill of the more opportunistic species may likely
occur within the project, particularly by the southern boundary near Simsbury
Court. It does not have to be a listed species to cause problems. Temporary construction roads
as well as roads associated with the project could become road kill sites as
wildlife continues to move through this area.
The mitigation measures need to include that the project biologist will
monitor wildlife movement during construction and take measures as needed to
assure there are viable corridors and unintended barriers are addressed.
Furthermore deer moved back into Core Area 5 and from
there to Link C and Core Area 3 over the last 4 years. [10] There
have now been reports of two years of sightings of does with fawns. It is only a matter of time before they
disperse through Link A to this Core Area 2.
This key change in local wildlife populations was not identified or
evaluated in the DEIR. Conflicts with wildlife should be expected given the
proximity of riparian and regional wildlife movement corridors with hundreds of
residents. Education on the value of wildlife and learning the fundamentals of
coexistence is key to reducing such conflicts. The elimination of perceived pest/threatening
wildlife by lethal means should never be the first course of action. This
includes coyote, the top predator and an essential player in the health of the
overall wildlife community, as well as snakes.
None of these conflicts are addressed in the MP, nor are there
provisions for dealing with the reasonably expected conflicts between wildlife
and people.
How are animals prevented from
moving from what is assumed to be their “corridor” into yards and particularly onto the streets adjacent to hardline preserve
lands?
-P36 discussion of road kill
assumes that roads are the only adverse impact in what is defined as the
wildlife movement corridor. There is the
potential for extensive pedestrian and bicycle movements on trails that are
planned to connect from the project through the BVCER- hopefully one day all
the way to the coast. Increasing human
use of these trails is anticipated over the life of this project and there are
edge effects along the entire trail. Studies
of trail edge effects have found that the area of impact can vary up to 200m from each side of the trail, depending upon
site specific conditions and volume and type of trail use.[11]
-Page 5.4-27 Regional
Context/Wildlife Corridors, paragraph 1 says grading will occur in first 20 feet
of biological buffer. We understand that
this was an approximate boundary per the Reclamation Plan EIR. Please clarify the process for determining this
boundary and that impacts are no greater than this. If impacts should exceed this please specify
what additional mitigation will be required.
-The analysis of the primary
and secondary wildlife movement corridors fails to comply with the basic requirements
of the regional conservation plan. These
specify that “Functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages shall be assessing
the dispersal characteristics of the target species (habitat preferences,
dispersal capabilities, structural and spatial characteristics of the
landscape, distance between batches of suitable habitat…” [12] The DEIR has failed to identify target
species, assess their species related movement requirements, and then evaluate
the proposed corridor for its ability to meet the requirements of the target
species. Paragraph 2 on page 5.4-27 describes the remaining
wildlife corridor as “Pinch point of 85 ft. at its narrowest for a distance of
approx. 890 ft. will be improved by grading to approx. 300 ft. for 500 ft.
length” still does not meet the MHCP Biological Goals, Standards and Guidelines
for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design which states “constricted sections of a
corridor should have a maximum length of less than 500 ft. and a minimum width
of 400 ft.”. [13]These
guidelines also say that “ the width of a corridor should be based on
biological information for the target species (e.g. home range size and
dispersal capabilities), the quality of the habitat within and adjacent to the
corridor, topography, and edge effects of adjacent land uses.” [14]The
function of this area is further compromised by the edge effects of a proposed
trail, road and housing. The proposed
corridor widths as illustrated in Figure 5.4-6 still do not meet the MHCP
Guidelines (cited above) of a width greater than 1,000 ft. This section of the
corridor should meet those standards given this is a fairly long corridor that
is much narrower than 1,000 ft. to the south.
This is really a pinch point along a pinch point and not a fully
functioning corridor.
Furthermore these guidelines
specify that “A corridor should maintain visual stimuli (E.G., vegetative
cover) along its entire length, or at least continually within site, to keep
animals moving through it. Developments along
the rim of a canyon used as a corridor should be set back or visually screened
to minimize their visual impacts and possible edge effects.” [15] The project as proposed does not meet these
guidelines from the MHCP. This remains a
significant adverse impact that has not been addressed.
Pg. 5.4-28 Buena Vista Creek
Biological Buffer- this needs to acknowledge the additional planning buffer.
Presumably this planning buffer is also subject to further grading but this should
also be clarified.
Pg. 5.4-35 Indirect
Impacts-Human Activity and MM Bio-5 thru 7 mostly address impacts associated
with construction activities. The edge effects of this huge development and
hundreds of residents are supposed to be addressed by the Master Plan. However the Master Plan is not written to
specifically address these issues.
Please specify each potential impact and identify the exact provision in
the MP that addresses it.
-Section 6.1.1 provides
mitigation for Baccaris scrub at 1:1. It
also provides that .02 acres of Coastal sage scrub/chaparral and .1 acre of southern
mixed chaparral will be mitigated at 1:1.
These habitats are contiguous with CSS which is all considered
occupied. Please provide better
explanation for why these habitats have been assumed to be unoccupied when in
fact they are likely to provide same habitat value as other degraded CSS on
site.
-The 5.1 acres of CSS that is
required for mitigation of the Reclamation Plan impacts needs to be
specifically identified on the Figures.
By failing to show these boundaries of this land it is not possible to
determine if there are any impacts to it- in which case mitigation requirements
would be 5 times what have been proposed.
Please clearly indicate the
boundaries of this mitigation land on the Figures.
-P 45 The DEIR assumes somehow
that “education” will address all of these potential indirect impacts of human
activities on the sensitive biological resources. Things like no feeding of birds, keeping dogs
on leashes, etc. require much more active enforcement. Our surveys of the Calavera preserve, an area
that is actively managed with regular range patrols, after years of public
education about leash laws still has almost 50% of dogs off leash. ( 150 of 302
dogs observed) (See referenced survey
results) Since about 1 out of three
residents have a dog there could be over 200 dogs a day in this area just from
nearby residences. All of these human
activity related impacts require much more mitigation. As discussed above, this
must be addressed in CC& R’s, lease terms for apartment dwellers, posted signs
on the trails and through extensive ranger patrols and enforcement.
-P46 concludes that the
hardline boundaries that increase the area conserved by 9.4 acres, have
improved the function of the corridor. This is because they “increase the size of the corridor, remove
impacts to riparian habitat in the corridor and minimize edge effects “. However none of these factors have been
accurately stated. The project area is
not technically a “corridor”. On the HMP Figure 4 all of the project land is
identified as core area- the corridor is further south on the other side of
Carlsbad Village Dr. The Core area has
been slightly increased but the DEIR has not evaluated its function as a core
area, which is different than that of a corridor. As shown on Figure 5 (Figure 5.4-5 in the
DEIR) there are areas of wetlands loss with this change. Furthermore essentially all of the
non-wetland WUS on the eastern part of the panhandle are now lost in the
development footprint. In addition, the
mitigation as proposed as not minimized edge effects- in fact these are
substantially worse because the number of residential units have more than
doubled and these has been not additional mitigation to offset for this
increased impact.
-Section 5.4-27 of the DEIR
describes changes to the “corridor” as shown on Figure 5.4-6. The widest part of the “corridor” shown on
the figure is not even on the project site- it is on the BVCER. The key issue with functionality of this corridor
is the connection further south. There
are actually two sub links in what is shown on the HMP Fig 4 as Link A. One of them, through Village H has now been
fenced and gated. While there are gaps
under this fence it has become a barrier to movement as documented by road kill
along that section of Carlsbad Village Dr.
The second connection requires crossing numerous roads that do not have
undercrossings or any other wildlife movement design features. Further constraints as proposed by this
project will just add to the cumulative impacts to wildlife movement. The project will add hundreds of homes onto
the panhandle. The entire panhandle now
functions for wildlife movement. The
DEIR has failed to assess the cumulative impacts on wildlife movement.
-P47 Evaluates consistency
with HMP related to wetlands impacts. It
concludes that while there is a significant impact from the development through
the south/central portion of the site that it is not feasible to eliminate
these impacts. Part of these impacts is
associated with the bridge crossing of Buena Vista Creek. While it may not be feasible to eliminate all
impacts associated with the bridge, the DEIR has failed to discuss what efforts
have been made to fully avoid and minimize such impacts- as is also required
for HMP consistency. There is also no
analysis that supports the conclusion that it is not feasible to avoid all
impacts to the eastern wetlands on the panhandle. It looks like reconfiguring project
boundaries slightly could eliminate all impacts to these wetlands- perhaps
losing 10 housing sites out of 656. This
seems a perfectly feasible modification- particularly since the project
proposes increasing the number of units from 293 to 656. Or if it can be demonstrated that complete
avoidance is indeed not feasible, then surely these impacts could be
reduced. The eastern most reach of these
wetlands has a 6’ wide channel- this is a pretty substantial area.
-The HMP consistency review
concludes the project is consistent with provisions to protect the least Bell’s
Vireo (LBV). It bases this on the
conclusion that the project “is not creating conditions conducive to
cowbirds.” However this ignores the fact
that cowbirds are already present and that the project is in in fact creating
conditions that support cowbirds. Cowbirds are documented as present in the
appendix to the biological technical report, and in the HMP reports by the
BVCER Land Manager. Likely the reason
they were noted as not present in the 2011 project survey is because the first cowbird trapping
and eradication program occurred on the adjacent BVCER land in 2011 and again in 2012. (See
referenced report for documentation of the 25 cowbirds removed each year from the
two traps in the BVCER) The most recent
cowbird trapping program report for 2012 summarized other studies that identify
cowbird predation as a concern for every cup nesting passerine species in North
America, particularly LBV and CCG- two listed species with particular
requirements for protection in the HMP.
The report included recommendations that all need to be incorporated as
part of the MM for this project.
Furthermore the project does
create conditions for increased cowbirds.
This includes picnic area at P-5 and increased outdoor areas (including
backyards) where food and trash could be present. LBV populations are increasing in the
BVCER. The creek channel improvements
required by the Reclamation Plan will increase the potential for further LBV
expansion onto the project site. The PAR
needs to include funding for on-going cowbird monitoring and fair share
contribution for cowbird trapping programs.
-The
HMP consistency review for California Coastal Gnatcatchers (CCG) failed to
address species specific issues related to CCG dispersal. CCG are present on the slopes behind the
Marron Adobe near the bell curve of Vista Way and throughout the CSS on
BVCER. Construction of R-4 and R-5 on
the panhandle will force CCG to move further west rather than toward the
regional corridor to the north. According
to Ogden “ Gnatcatchers likely prefer to
disperse through coastal sage scrub, but will use riparian scrub, riparian
woodland, and chaparral as well. Continuous corridors are probably more
reliable than stepping stone corridors.”[16] They also provide guidelines for delineating
corridors that should move from general to specific “until adequate data have
been collected on a site to determine the habitat linkage value of a site,
regional corridors that pass through the site corridors linking resources
within the site.”[17]
They then list detailed techniques for delineating corridors. There is no evidence in the DEIR that any
such process has been used to determine that CCG will be able to disperse
through this area with the development as proposed. The
DEIR has also failed to evaluate actual line-of-site potential dispersal for
the CCG through this area to the limited patches of CSS on the north side of 78. This line of site to the next patch of CSS is
the key factor in making movement along the regional corridor viable. There
is no discussion of line of sight dispersal routes to the stepping-stone
patches across RT 78 in Oceanside. Failure to provide such analysis of the
function of the corridor, and the line of site for dispersal in the
reconfigured movement corridor remains a potentially significant impact that
has not been addressed and is a further inconsistency with the HMP.
-CCG protection also requires fire management to protect
CSS habitat. Fire management and
response to fire has not typically been part of PAR’s. The HMP page F-17 says “Where new development
is planned, brush management will be incorporated within the development
boundaries and will not encroach within the preserve.” The management recommendations for fire
management in the HMP state that “A detailed fire management plan should be
prepared by the City, so that both biological and safety goals are met.” ( HMP at F-16) This is not a requirement for a project specific
fire management plan; it is a city wide plan presumably because fire does not
respond to project boundaries that are the only way it makes sense. The HMP goes on to say that this plan should
meet both biological and safety goals.
It is now almost 8 years since the HMP was adopted. Has this plan been prepared? We asked several staff for access to this
plan and none were aware if it has been prepared or not. In the absence of such a plan there are no assurances
that fire management will not compromise the biological goals. This remains a potentially significant impact
for CCG and for consistency with the HMP.
- The HMP species consistency review also notes the
requirement to conserve 2000 acres of CSS and 700 of chaparral for protection
of the orange-throated whiptail. It
assumes that since the project proposes to conserve 40.23 acres of CSS that
this is sufficient. However this does
not assure protection of this species.
How many total acres have been conserved? How much will be lost with this project and
what assures that these losses will be made up at another site so the total
number of required acres will be conserved?
- The project fails to comply with the
provisions of the city’s Guidelines for Wetland and Riparian Buffers, April 9,
2010. Among others these include : p6 “minimum 100’ in width surrounding all
non-estuarine wetlands or riparian habitats, ”, p 9 at least 100’ around
occupied habitats of least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, p10
“should be expanded to encompass the entire 100 year floodplain surrounding a
stream or wetland where the floodplain extends more than 100’ from the wetland”,
Table 1 “prohibit fill or development within existing floodplain (except for
essential infrastructure)”, requires
habitat enhancement and restoration in the riparian and buffer areas (emphasis added), requires an Alternative Buffer
Configuration(ABC) if standard design is
not complied with, and specifically restricts ABC if the wetland drains to an
impaired water body. The guidelines go
on to describe specific requirements for each of the three zones of the buffer:
Protection, Separation and Transition.
The Atts include pages 12 and 13 from these Guidelines which include 5
of the 6 zone specific requirements which also have not been complied
with. The general and zone specific
guidelines have been ignored, the DEIR does not include an ABC and furthermore
an ABC is prohibited because the project drains to Buena Vista Creek which is a
303(d) listed impaired water body. The
project needs to be revised to comply with all of the Guidelines for Wetland
and Riparian Buffers.
- The MM’s need to add the
specific wetland buffer monitoring conditions included in Section 7.2 of
the Guidelines for Wetland and Riparian
Buffers.
-The DEIR states there are
several areas where no wetlands delineation was done and where other protected
wetlands on the panhandle were ignored.
The DEIR has failed to justify elimination of these areas from the
conditions and mitigation described in the city’s Guidelines. This is of
particular concern considering the type and density of development that is
being proposed as there will be significant indirect impacts from the addition
of so many adjacent residential units.
Please add a figure that shows
where all 100’ of wetlands vegetation buffers would be located in accordance
with the guidelines, if provided, and the variations to such buffers that are
being proposed. Revise the analysis of
impacts to address both the impacts of failing to fully comply with these
guidelines, and the conflict with the guidelines. Improved buffers should also be included in a
biologically preferred alternative.
-Trails cause significant
indirect impacts which have not been identified or mitigated. The WLA’s raised concerns about this in their
prior comments, particularly the connection to the west through BVCER. While
trails on BVCER have not been officially identified or opened to the public,
they are numerous and existing. (See attachments for aerial map of BVCER). Such trail connections are also critical to
provide some mitigation for traffic impacts. These
off site trail connections and impacts need to be evaluated in the DEIR. Both the direct and indirect impacts of
trails within the project boundaries as well as connecting trails to the west
through the BVCER. The DEIR should specifically
identify acres of direct impact, edge effects along trails and appropriate
mitigation. This remains a potentially significant
direct and indirect impact.
-There is a consistent problem
throughout the biological resources assessment of not identifying the
boundaries of the 100’ biological buffer and the 50’ planning buffer as well as
the constraints that are required to be in place with each of these
buffers. The Figures need to be modified
to show both of these buffer lines and the analysis and mitigation needs to
assure that all impacts within these buffers have been limited as is required
by the HMP, the city of Oceanside draft
SAP, and the regional MHCP.
-The Reclamation Plan deferred
revegetation of the outer 20’ of the biological buffer as the exact boundaries
would not be known until final grading is complete. The project needs to address this deferred
requirement and include this as a specific mitigation requirement that is
carried forward from the previously approved Reclamation Plan EIR.
-The boundaries for the impact
on biological resources arbitrarily stopped at the project boundaries. The project site is contiguous with protected
habitat at Village H to the south and the BVCER to the west and north. There has been extensive data collected
about sensitive species on these adjacent lands. These are reported by the land managers and
included on the City of Carlsbad website as part of the HMP annual reporting
system. They have also been documented
in numerous additional EIR’s/MND’s in the project area including the RDO
interchange, condos at the Summit, Calavera Hills Phase II and others. Wildlife are mobile and do not respect
arbitrary boundaries. The analysis of
impacts should have identified a sphere of influence as is typically done for
projects like this. This sphere would
include a reasonable boundary beyond the project limits in order to identify potential
indirect impacts on the adjacent hardline preserve lands.
-Please add a table that clarifies
the acres of conserved HMP habitat types for each of the OS designated
areas. Without that information it is
hard to understand how the impacts are distributed throughout the project site.
-The MP states that the Falls
Management Plan that was required by the Amended Reclamation Plan will impact
portions of R-1, R-2, R-3, and OS-3 yet it is only discussed in detail on p
IV-14 for R-3. Provide a Figure that shows the boundaries
of the Falls Management Plan and describe how this will interface with the
trails and fencing plans.
-MP IV-12 says “landscaping in
areas adjacent to open spaces shall be compatible with preserved native
vegetation. “ It is not clear if this is
referring to the “Zones” described later, the 10’ planted areas shown on Fig 17
or what. Please clarify where areas of
planting restriction to protect hardline open space are proposed and the nature
of such restrictions as “compatible” is too vague to be enforced.
-50’ Planning Buffer allows
rear yards of private residences. Such
areas cannot be included in buffers as they don’t contribute to the function of
the resource being protected because they are physically separated (through use
of solid fencing), and there are no restrictions on what can be placed within
them. Things like trash control which
could be an issue for cowbirds could occur.
Invasive plants can be used; bird feeders and pet food left out can
cause impacts. If it is the intent to
allow rear yards of private residences as part of the 50’ buffer please explain
how this is consistent with the Oceanside SAP and how such areas could actually
function as a buffer.
-PIV-33 of MP says that access
to BVCER from the P-5 trailhead will not allow motorized vehicles. It is intended that in the future BVCER will have trail connections, and given
the expected high use and terrain such trails typically are wide enough for
motorized vehicles , but this is restricted to maintenance vehicles. Such maintenance access is routinely done on
trails included on the city of CB master Trails Plan. This kind of vehicle access will occur in the
future and its impacts should be identified and mitigated with the
project. Furthermore if it is
anticipated that trails through BVCER will not open by the time P-5 is
developed then there needs to be much better control of vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle access during this interim period until such trails are connected.
-Planting area in P-4 is
described as “natural” but the planting palette is not using all native
plants. This area that is only separated
by view fencing from OS-3 should use all locally sourced So CA native
plants. Given the high level of
anticipated public use and open view fencing there is a high potential for seed
/plant dispersal into the open space area.
This is a potential significant impact that could be addressed through
such landscaping restrictions.
-The MP on page VI-19 only
restricts invasive plants from Zone 4 – they should be restricted from the
entire project site.
-P-5 shows several picnic
areas on a point of land surrounded on three sides by hardline open space, and
where it will be difficult to access for maintenance staff for intensive trash pickup
that is always associated with picnic areas.
Furthermore this is near LBV nesting areas and trash is an attractant
for cowbirds that predate on LBV nests.
Closed top/animal restricting trash cans need to be provided at the street
entrance of pedestrian trails- but should not be placed out on the trail. All picnic facilities and trash cans need to
be removed from this area and restrictions need to be in place so this cannot
be added in the future.
-P-5 includes an open
turf/play area which could attract noisy activities like soccer games (as there
is only one other place in the entire MP area where it appears this kind of
recreation use could be accommodated.
Use of this area needs to be restricted to daylight hours so that noise
does not impact wildlife in the adjacent open space area.
-MP p IV-39 states that OS-2
will include a sewer maintenance road.
From the figures of the sewer lines it appears this is city of Oceanside
sewer line. Please clarify the location
of the road and size of this easement, and what the maintenance impacts will be
for the sewer line and the associated maintenance access road. This is a potential adverse impact that has
not been identified or mitigated. This
is of particular concern as we are aware of three instances in the last few
years where city of Oceanside staff went out to inspect sewer lines in this
valley and caused significant damage.
Furthermore there was a recent Oceanside sewer pipe break and spill just
downstream from the project because this is a 50 year old sewer line.
-MP Figure 49 shows there will
be connections through OS-1 for a water and sewer at one location along
Simsbury, and at another location for recycled water. On the impact analysis it only shows the
water/sewer area. Please explain why no
impacts are identified for the recycled water connection. This may be because the recently adopted
recycled water master plan says that recycled water lines through open space
will be done with lateral drilling- but if that is the case it should be so
stated. Furthermore this would be in
conflict with statement on p5.11-20 that says the reclaimed water line construction
would include trenching and a backhoe. )
-MP p IV-40 says “Fences
located at the interface between the residential development and the preserve
will be erected if deemed necessary by the developer of the adjacent planning
areas.” This seems in conflict with
other places in the MP and DEIR. Please
clarify if fencing is included in all areas where residences abut natural open
space. If there are areas without fencing explain how the biological resources
are being protected. Furthermore the
decision to provide such fencing should be by the Open Space Land Manager and
not by the residential developer.
-Fencing on Open Space areas
is usually the responsibility of the open space land manager to maintain. The fencing design for this project is very
expensive and not what it typically used. Please explain who will be
responsible for maintenance of all of the trail fencing and how funds for this
purpose are assured.
-Fencing plan through open
space areas needs to indicate where it is single side or both sides of the
trail. Also portions of P-4 show both
view and trail fencing right next to each other. Excessive fencing can lead to
erosion and create a maintenance issue.
Further detail should be provided of fencing between P-4 and OS-2 and
unnecessary redundancy should be eliminated. .
- The MP at IV-40 and DEIR
assume that trespassing will be controlled by fencing and education
outreach. Experience with areas like
this throughout North County makes it clear that is not sufficient to deter
trespassing. There is historic high
transient use of the Buena Vista Creek valley with an on-going history of
illegal encampments. In spite of the
increased level of enforcement since the adjacent BVCER was acquired, new camps
continue to crop up. There are
accessible food sources behind the stores along El Camino Real and a Goodwill
drop off site at the Park and ride Lot along Haymar. These two areas attract transients. This area will require a high level of patrol
and enforcement. This needs to be
specifically addressed in the PAR for the open space management or this will
remain a significant unmitigated impact.
(This is another reason why picnic areas should not be included at P-5)
-NCTD staff stated that the
Park and Ride lot will include bus layovers.
Such facilities are usually lit at night and often include
restrooms. Furthermore, depending upon
the duration of layover buses might idle engines. All of this can result in additional indirect
impacts for lights, noise, trash, and air quality- particularly to the CSS
habitats along Haymar to the west.
Please discuss bus routes, storage, layover and operating rules that
would be operative and provide appropriate mitigation for any such
impacts.
Noise
-P5.11-7 list of sensitive receptors needs to also
include senior housing at College/ Lake and the additional senior housing
further east on Lake.
-P 5.11-8 blasting
notification is proposed to follow that of the County of San Diego. This site has a history of community concerns
about blasting that included noise, dust and air quality. Some of the seniors that lived in the
Oceanside neighborhood of Costa Serena reported they needed to vacate their
home during blasting days because of difficulty breathing. These concerns existed both with the first
phase of reclamation in Oceanside and again with the construction of the Quarry
Creek Shopping Center. The landowner at
that time, Hanson Aggregates, expanded the blasting notification to include
anyone who requested to be notified. We
request that this courtesy be extended again with a standard procedure for such
notifications.
-Please explain why point
source location for noise assessment is 310’ from the nearest property
line? If the intent is to assess worst
case conditions then shouldn’t the noise assessment be done where project
construction will be closest to property line?
This appears to be the portion of R-4 that is closest to Simsbury. The next closest adjacent residential area
would be by P-2. Please include noise
analysis from at least these two property lines as this is where construction
noise will have the greatest impact on adjacent residences.
-The project description on
page 1 of the noise appendix does not match the actual project description in
the DEIR or Master Plan and appears to have not considered several potentially loud
noise generators. For example the noise study description fails
to mention the outdoor swimming pool at P-3, the bus stop at P-2, the bus
layover at the P-1 park and ride lot and the turf area at P-5- all of which
include significant noise generation.
-Why was there no ambient
noise monitoring at the Historic District or the Simsbury neighborhood? This
is essential to determine if the additional noise from the project is significant.
-The noise analysis identifies
several sensitive receptor locations, but fails to discuss the results of the
noise analysis as it impacts these sensitive receptors. Furthermore there is no
threshold related to noise impacts on sensitive receptors. Please
provide thresholds for sensitive receptors and specific discussion of any noise
impacts on sensitive receptors,
-The project related off site
noise impacts assessment has considered only one type of project noise-
traffic. Please discuss other noise
sources and levels related to operation of the project. While each of these noise sources may not be
significant individually, failing to identify any of them except traffic is
ignoring the combined impacts of all such reasonably expected increases in
noise related to the project. This
should include things like idling busses, lawn equipment, playing groups of
children, outdoor announcements, etc.
-The description of how noise
is dispersed fails to provide adequate discussion of the effects of
topography. This site is in a
valley. Canyons and hard surfaces (like
rock walls) often amplify noise. Noise
from outdoor activities at the day care center at P-2, pool at P-3, and turf
area at P-5 could also be very loud.
-There is no discussion of
noise impacts on sensitive species in the adjacent BVCER and along the riparian
corridor on the project site and throughout the hardline preserve areas. Noise impacts for LBV and CCG are usually
evaluated at the same thresholds as people- 60 dBL. Please add analysis of impacts on these
sensitive species- particularly since there is a grassy area included at P-5-
an area surrounded on three sides by hardline open space.
-The Historic District would
be adversely impacted by a significant increase in project related noise levels
yet there has been no assessment of this.
Please provide analysis of noise impacts on the Historic District- not
just from traffic noise, but from all of the uses in this area which are above
the creek, and in a canyon. The
topography of this area will amplify and transmit the noise generated
throughout a much larger area than if this were flat land. It does not appear that this noise analysis
has taken the topography into consideration at all.
-Figure 5.11-3 shows that one
of the areas of potential blasting of hardrock is just outside the biological
buffer for the creek and near El Salto Falls on R-3. Please provide analysis of potential
noise/vibration impacts on sensitive species and habitat from such blasting-
including dust. This is of particular
concern because up until the 1970’s the waterfall was much higher than it is
today. Local historians report a major
flood resulted in significant landform changes.
The falls were further impacted by the Phase 1 reclamation and building
of the retaining wall so close to its southern bank. The most recent reclamation also included
substantial soil removal, replacement and recompaction very near the north bank
of the falls. Now this project proposes
further work near the south bank to address the aesthetics of the retaining
wall. This is several rounds of impacts
over a few years. Our concern is that so
much earth moving and heavy equipment on this area could damage the stability
of the banks along the falls.
-The noise contour along
College between Vista Way and Plaza is described as 497’ and from Plaza to
Marron 433’. Please provide a figure
that shows the key noise contours and discuss presence of any sensitive receptors
with the area of impact. It appears that
both the Kinder Cars and one of the senior residential facilities are located
within this boundary and both are sensitive receptors.
Public Services
-5.13-5 description of school
availability is incorrect when it says Carlsbad is “developing” a second high
school- which sounds like it is years in the future. It is well along in construction with an
expected opening of fall 2014. This is
important as both of the two high schools have been designated as choice
schools- meaning students from anywhere in the city can choose to attend either
school. Since this school is opening
prior to occupancy of homes in the Quarry Creek project there may be some
changes in attendance at the two high
schools, and changes in related traffic patterns that will occur as Quarry Creek
is built out. Please clarify what
assumptions have been made about which school will be attended by residents of
Quarry Creek and how this will impact the two high schools over the period of
project build-out.
-Fire service response was
based on the average response per thousand residents in the city of Oceanside. (.92
calls/1,000 residents or .92 x 1541 = 141 calls/year). This is a Carlsbad project so Carlsbad
numbers should be used to assess the service demand. What is the Carlsbad data for number of
fire response calls/1000 residents? If
this number is different from the experience in Oceanside provide further
explanation of potential impacts.
- The fire service analysis
failed to consider the impacts of adding so many residential units in what is
considered the Wildland/Urban Interface Zone.
Recent updates of fire severity zones have classified homes in areas
like this as in the severe hazard area.
Such a designation is based on both increased risks for frequency and
severity of fire. Local studies by the
San Diego Foundation and others conclude that by 2050 “Wildfires will be more
frequent and intense.” (San Diego’s Changing
Climate, page 10.) The fire analysis
failed to consider the increasing demand placed on fire service overall because
of the impacts of global warming. They
also failed to consider the increased risks of placing so many homes in what
will be rated as a severe hazard zone.
The DEIR analysis is incomplete and no mitigation has been provided for
these significant impacts.
-Page
IV-37 in MP indicates development may be allowed in the fire suppression zone.
It says any such development should use fire resistant materials, but that
alone is insufficient to assure the adequacy of the fire zone- Would such
development restrict access for firefighting?
This issue is not identified in the DEIR and therefor remains a potentially
significant impact. Please clarify if
the project proposes development in the fire suppression zone as is allowed in
the MP and if so clarify exactly what and where such development is proposed.
-It is our understanding that
the boundary drop agreement between the two cities is an informal one and there
are no assurances that this would continue for the life of this project. This is of particular concern because the
city of Oceanside has had several years of declining revenues with significant service
reductions while the city of Carlsbad has had only minimal financial impacts
from the current economic downturn. This
makes it much more of a burden for Oceanside to meet emergency response demands
for an adjacent city- while they cut services to their own residents. There must be a contingency plan for Carlsbad
to provide this service if Oceanside is no longer able or willing to. Please evaluate the ability of Carlsbad to
provide this service, and contingency plans should Oceanside decide to stop
providing this service.
- Please explain how response
times will still be met for emergency personnel when College Blvd is in traffic
failure and gridlock. The failing
traffic will certainly adversely impact these response times. That increase in response
times does not just impact this project- it will impact service to all areas
where access is required from College Blvd.
Please correct the analysis of response time to account for changing
traffic conditions- which also must include the new Sage Creek high School,
expansion for Tri-city Hospital and all cumulative impacts in the project area.
-5.13-11, 12 this description
of police services implies that police response time is a function of having
constructed police facilities. Response
time is actually a function of staffing and vehicles most of which on a shift
are in the field patrolling and not parked at a station. There is nothing in the analysis of police
services that supports the conclusion that there are no adverse impacts. Please provide some valid discussion of
police staffing/distribution and response capabilities that is relevant for determining
the response time to this area.
Furthermore doesn’t the informal agreement with Oceanside also apply to
police services? We are aware of
numerous times where Oceanside police are first responders to incidents at the
Adobe and in the BVCER. Please explain
how current service is provided to this area and how this is anticipated to
change with this development. Also
provide some discussion of staffing levels and computations that support the
conclusion that there will be sufficient staff to meet the 6 minute response
time standard.
-5.13-12 on school
availability states that “all facilities are at capacity” and then later
concludes “The proposed project would not require the provision of new or
physical alteration of existing school facilities.” Please explain this apparent conflict – if
schools are all at capacity by 2014 and the only addition is the new Sage Creek
High School then how will the 106 additional elementary and 53 middle school
students be accommodated?
-Part of the analysis of
recreation facilities includes what is shown on Table 3-1 as “basins.” Please identify how many acres of the 3.9
acres counted as recreational open space is actually detention basins required
for storm water control and water quality.
Exactly what recreational value do these basins have?
- Park access is not just a
function of number of acres of parkland per 1,000 residents- it is the ability
of the population to access parks. The
San Diego Foundation did a recent study of park and open space supply and
demand. They include ethnic group,
income levels, and distance to a park.
Based on their analysis there are several neighborhoods in Carlsbad that
are deficient in parks and open space. (See
the attachments) Please provide further
discussion of this issue of access to parkland and whether this project will
improve current access conditions or actually contribute to increased access
problems.
-At least 506 of the homes
that are proposed to be built at Quarry Creek will meet the density levels for
affordable housing per the State of CA Division of Housing guidelines (12 and
20 units/acre). While it is likely that
only 15% may end up with actual low income residents per Carlsbad requirements
for inclusionary housing this will still be a significant number. What is the distance to a ball field for
these low income residents? The ball
fields at Robertson Ranch which seem to be the ones assumed to serve these
residents are not scheduled to be built until at least 2020- and these are
stills several miles away.
-Table 20
in the LFMZ shows a park deficit from 2014- 2018. Without allowing credit for
future planned parks that are not scheduled to be constructed until 2023, there
is an actual deficit for at least 9 years.
This assumes the park is actually built in the first year of the 5 year
period it is scheduled to be constructed.
The DEIR includes crediting 2.8 acres of playgrounds from Hope School
toward the required acres of parkland.. Since
there is no space designated for the
additional elementary and middle school students associated with the project it
certainly seems feasible that additional temporary facilities would be needed-
which would reduce the available school yard land. Excluding this school yard the park standard
would not be met beginning in 2017. This
potential shortfall of parkland should be mitigated by moving the schedule for
park construction in this quadrant up to 2017.
The children and adults in this development will still need active
recreation land during these years of shortfall. Given the adjacent natural open space, and
experience of other neighborhoods, people will use this adjacent land for
active recreation whether it is allowed on not ( look at the use of land at Calavera
by the adjacent residents of Oceanside along Skyhaven). This is a potential significant impact that
has not been addressed. Failure to
provide adequate parkland results in potentially significant indirect impacts
on the adjacent hardline open space.
-The P-4 area is not treated
consistently in the DEIR public services section and the MP page IV-31. This is a trail below a hydromodification
basin which should only be considered passive recreation. Please correct this inconsistency and make
sure this is correctly reflected in the required number of acres of active
recreation.
-The analysis of Open Space in
the LFMP concludes there are 140.1 acres in the zone that qualify as
unconstrained open space. This number
really makes no sense. The BVCER alone
has 134 acres of land that is all environmentally constrained and
undevelopable. The adopted HMP for the
proposed project shows other acres of hardline open space, all of which is
environmentally constrained and cannot be developed. Please show the detailed calculation of
unconstrained open space by parcel so the source of this discrepancy can be
identified.
Traffic
-The only referenced traffic
study for the project is the Traffic Impact Analysis for Quarry Creek Master
Plan Oct 5, 2012. It is our
understanding that there have been numerous traffic studies for this project
that evaluated impacts of extending and not extending Marron Rd. The DEIR must identify these other sources so
it is possible to evaluate consistency or conflicts with the single study that
is referenced.
-P5.14-10 statement about
smart growth is untrue. SANDAG has only
identified this as a “potential” smart growth site and their most recent report
clearly states that this area fails to meet both the land use and the transit
criteria to qualify as a Community Center smart growth area. (See prior
discussion and att). The DEIR has falsely concluded that this
project is in compliance with these SANDAG criteria. This should be called out as an area of conflict
with regional plans and not be cited as justification. This conflict is a significant adverse impact.
-The text indicates that for
Alternative 2 the RDO interchange is assumed to be constructed, but without the
connection to Marron Rd or the extension of Marron in Carlsbad. Please clarify exactly how this traffic
analysis assumed this interchange would be configured without such connections
and the source of a conclusion that this is a reasonable assumption. It is our understanding that the City of
Oceanside adopted no such RDO interchange design and that Caltrans criteria
also do not support constructing new interchanges that only provide single
direction entrance and exit as is assumed in the project traffic study.
-Figure 5.14-3 and others
should include the Haymar/College intersection for existing conditions. It is shown on some of the subsequent figures
but needs to be shown consistently in order to identify project related and
cumulative impacts.
-5.14.3 lists a whole series of measures and
thresholds of significance, but only two are actually discussed in the DEIR-
and these are both limited to automobile traffic. These thresholds include requirements “taking
into account all modes of transportation”, “conflict with adopted policies”,
and “decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.” It is clear the intent of CEQA is to consider
the entire transportation/circulation system- and not just automobiles.
The city of Carlsbad has
adopted “complete streets” guidelines in compliance with recent state laws. The recently adopted Circulation Element (CE)
of Oceanside also discusses multi-modal design criteria. Compliance with these local and state
provisions is not discussed in spite of there being numerous areas where the
proposed project fails to comply with such requirements. The entire
transportation analysis needs to be revised to fully address all modes of
transportation- with clear thresholds for significance that are actually
addressed in the analysis.
-Table 5.14-8 Project Trip
Generation shows 28 automobile parking spaces in the Park and Ride Lot but
fails to indicate the number of bus parking spaces. The ADT computation has reduced the number of
auto trips for R-1, R-2 and R-3 by 5% because of transit service, but has
failed to account for the offsetting bus trips.
-Please clarify assumptions
about school attendance, the new high school at Quarry Creek and how this has
been reflected in the traffic study. The
two Carlsbad high schools are designated as schools of choice so attendees can
come from anywhere in the city.
- There are a number of
inconsistencies in the traffic study used for the Sage Creek High School and
the one used in this DEIR. For example
the near term intersection analysis without the project
-As a result of settlement
agreement with Preserve Calavera the CBUSD was obligated to do a Transportation
Demand Study with the objective of reducing single occupant auto trips to the
new high school. As of Nov 6, 2012 per NCTD
staff the CBHS has not requested any public transit service to the new high
school. Please clarify what assumptions
have been included for mode split for the new high school, whether any transit
service has been included in the analysis and how this might impact traffic
congestion if it were to be included.
-It appears that the project
assumes there will be no trips generated, even in cumulative conditions, for
the 4 acres of land included in the city of Carlsbad. Staff of McMillin has been discussing the use
of this land for a Native American cultural center. Since this would be the
only such Center for the unrecognized Mission Band of San Luis Rey Indians, a
tribe of about 400 members, it should be assumed there will be some traffic
generated by such a cultural center.
Please revise the traffic analysis to properly account for traffic from
this site.
-No parking analysis has been
provided for this project. Per MP page
IV-5 the city “may allow “reduced parking because of the availability of
transit service. Please provide a
parking study for this project that addresses the removal of public parking
along Haymar, project specific parking demand and how the required parking
spaces will be distributed on the project site.
Further explain where such parking is not in full compliance with City
of Oceanside and Carlsbad provisions.
- Provide a full description
of pedestrian movements throughout the project area, connections through
adjacent land uses and through the key intersections that will be impacted by
project traffic. The MP page IV-12 and
others says there will be pedestrian connections but there are no guidelines
provided about width, markings safety considerations.
-There is an existing hazard
along Haymar Dr. where there is no shoulder and a steep drop-off onto the site.
(See att Photos) Please clarify how
project will impact this existing hazard, particularly since traffic volumes
will be substantially increased along Haymar.
-Project figures (MP Figure
3-4 and others only show a small section of Haymar that is parallel to the new
Park and Ride Lot. Please clarify the
all changes proposed along Haymar from the intersection of College east to the
boundary with the BVCER.
There is a major safety issue
with pedestrian crossings of College Blvd- even under existing conditions. There are now four senior housing complexes
along Lake Blvd just east of the intersection of College. On any day one can see mobility restricted
seniors, often in wheelchairs or using walkers, trying to cross this
intersection. There is no pedestrian
median or crosswalk markings, and signal timing is too short to allow pedestrians
to cross with the duration of the walk signal.
These seniors are moving between their residences and shopping at the
Quarry Creek Center. In addition to the
road crossing issues at College, there are numerous problems with pedestrian
movement within the Quarry Creek Shopping Center. All of these conditions are in conflict with
both regional and local complete streets and pedestrian safety guidelines.
SANDAG’s model guidelines for
pedestrians include specific consideration access for persons with
disabilities. These include “Consideration
must be provided to ensure that persons with disabilities are provided equal
access to work, home, shops…”. It also
addresses ease of street crossing “Wide streets can be intimidating and more
dangerous for pedestrians to cross.
Methods for shortening crossing distances, providing a safe transition
and building stronger visual connections must be employed.” (See references below)
-P IV- 29 description of Park
and Ride is unclear if this is just for residents of the project or for the
general public and if this will replace the existing park and ride lot further
east on Haymar. Please clarify the
number of parking spaces, bike rack spaces and buss parking spaces as all of
this effects traffic to this land use.
- P5.14-24 notes that the city
of Oceanside has five “planned but mostly unfunded improvements for near term
conditions. ”
- Haymar Rd will remain one lane
each direction, but the configuration is changing and parking will be
eliminated on both sides. Mossey Nissan
currently uses parking on both sides of Haymar for employee and often for
spillover customer parking. The Executive
Manager of the Mossey N Nissan dealership stated he has alternate plans to rent
space for employee parking.[18] The elimination of public parking along a
public street is an adverse impact that has not been identified, analyzed or mitigated. Furthermore relocating this employee parking
is an indirect impact that has also not been identified or mitigated.
-Bike lanes are provided on
all of the public streets, but it appears that all of the areas designated as
Pedestrian Trails are pedestrian only and not multi-use trails that would allow
bikes. Since this project proposes to
use Overriding considerations for adverse, unmitigated traffic impacts further
mitigation is required to reduce these impacts.
Improved bicycle/pedestrian connections would help shift some auto traffic
off of College and in effect connect the project to El Camino Real. It is therefore critical that full
bicycle/pedestrian connections be provided from Simsbury, and from the
trailhead at P-5 through the BVCER. This
of course will cause significant indirect impacts to the BVCER- but these
impacts need to be accounted for as part of this project and the necessary
connections provided. It does not make
sense to build trailheads at both sides and then assume that the connecting
link will not be used.
-Provide further details about
planned bicycle facilities. The MP page
IV-11 indicates storage at R-1, R-2 and R-3 only and that this is limited to
25% of lots. Please describe further
actions to support extensive bicycle use, as an alternative means of
transportation, and not just limited recreational bicycle use. Furthermore since the El Salto waterfall is
a regional destination this needs to fully address potential regional
connections such as to the planned multiuse trails through Vista from east of
Brengle terrace park along Buena Vista Creek all the way through that city.
-There are some discrepancies
in the traffic studies for the Sage Creek High School and for this project in
numerous areas where the same streets/intersections have been considered. For example on near term impacts without the
project we found the following:
Intersection Time Sage Creek FEIR[19] This DEIR
·
Sec LOS Sec LOS
College/CBV
Dr AM Peak 21.0
C 42.9 D
PM
Peak 27.1 C 19.9 B
College/Cannon AM Peak 18.3 B 29.6 C
PM Peak 14.6 B 35.6 D
We recognized that the few
years that intervened between the two studies which would account for an increase in traffic. But how is traffic projected to improve so
dramatically in the PM peak at College/Carlsbad Village Dr? Please
compare the traffic studies for these two projects and explain the apparent
discrepancies in results- particularly in cases like that cited above where traffic
is now shown to be significantly better.
Soils and Geology
-We thought the EIR is
supposed to be an independent third party review of environmental conditions? This section shows no evidence of any
independent review. In fact the same firm doing the reclamation work is then
hired to evaluate the reclamation grading and is then doing the review for the
DEIR. Please clarify how this is an
independent review- and not a biased review by the technical expert working for
the developer.
-Cover letter to Appendix J
states “currently reclamation grading is occurring on this portion of the
site.” Site conditions clearly were
changing at the time of the review. How
will it be determined that final reclamation site conditions are as they were
assumed to be at the time this evaluation was done?
-There is no mention in this
of the areas with soil and water remediation still underway. Please explain why grading for the site has
ignored this condition.
-Page 3 indicates there is
3-5’ of undocumented fill left below groundwater in some areas and that they
“will provide recommendations for settlement monitoring and surcharging, if
needed, in updated technical reports…” This
identifies a need for specific condition monitoring and follow-up that we did
not see addressed in GS_1. Please
identify exactly where the requirement for such monitoring and updated reports
is addressed. Failure to include this leaves
this a potential unmitigated impact.
-
-P4 describes areas of
colluvial deposits that are loose and undocumented and that their removal and
compaction will be required. In several areas
such solid deposits extend from the areas where project grading will occur into
areas of hardline open space where no grading will be done for the
project. Please clarify what happens at
the boundary lines. This is of concern
because several of these are steep slope areas and it does not seem like you
can remove soil up to an imaginary line without impacting the area on the other
side of the line.
-The soils mapping shown on
Figure 5.6-1 does not match that shown on figure titled Geologic Map in
Appendix J. For example on App J there
is an area of Qcol soil mapped very close to the Simsbury neighborhood. No such area is shown on Figure 5.6-1. This particular area is of concern because
the project shows there will be impacts from the connection water, sewer and
recycled water to the project through these slopes near Simsbury. Please explain the discrepancies between
these two figures, and exactly what the soils/geology recommendations are
related to this area of Qcol soil by Simsbury.
Hazardous Materials
-The MP has not considered hazardous
materials in phasing plan description.
Hydrology/Water Quality
- P 5.9-16 Groundwater Supply - Please analyze project impacts of absorption
and infiltration in the sub watershed also, not just the entire CHU as this is
prime absorption/infiltration land and the majority of flat land onsite is
being developed.
-P 5.9-17 Drainage Pattern Alteration states that the mass grading required to
return the Quarry site to its premining condition is a "manufactured
condition" thus the post project condition should be compared to the
natural watershed characteristics to which the receiving channels have been
historically responding and use
topographic maps created from an aerial photograph dated Sept 2006.
Mass grading of the Reclamation part of the quarry site was
required by law to return this previous mining site to premining
conditions. Premining conditions are an
IDEAL comparison to the post project condition for hydromodification and other
studies. Choosing an arbitrary date in
Sept. 2006 (hardly historical) that was
about the time the large Quarry Creek Plaza was built directly east of and
adjacent to project site, would seem to be a poor choice of reference point for
project studies. All uses of data from
an arbitrary date in Sept 2006 "chosen" as baseline including
hydromodification need to be redone referencing site as it currently exists.
-P 5.9-20 100-year
Flood Plain states "the noted 100-year floodplain would be
contained within the proposed channel in all on-site areas located upstream of
the proposed drop structure." Please clarify as there is little room on-site
upstream of the drop structure in creek, and there is already pooling.
-P 5.9-25 Please
explain why the CLOMR for the reclamation grading was withdrawn. The CLOMR also would need to use the existing
onsite conditions (ie: mass graded).
Flood protection for the proposed development needs to also consider increases
in peak flows and duration from future upstream development as it all drains
thru BV Creek to the Lagoon where a weir
stops flow to the ocean.
- P 5.9.4 Level of Significance "Therefore, the proposed
project has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts related to
erosion and siltation". Comment:
Pollutants also need to be added.
- P 5.9-27 WQ-2 needs to specify that vegetated buffers need to be comprised of
local native plants.
-Site design is the preferred
method to assure hydrologic conditions are not adversely changed by a
project. While there has been some
attention to water quality impacts in project design (for example, use of DG
trails along open space instead of impervious sidewalks) there are still several
areas where improved LID design would benefit the watershed. For example- eliminating parking lot at P-3, and
replacing much of the onsite parking with permeable cover.
-There are three proposed
outfalls to Buena Vista Creek or tributaries to the creek. The project site is just upstream from the
Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve and only about one mile inland from the
impaired Buena Vista Lagoon. . Since this area is just upstream from the
recently created preserve at BVCER there should be specific analysis/discussion
of any potential downstream impacts- in a simple accessible way where it can be
understood by decision makers without pouring through detailed technical
appendices. There were significant
modifications made to the creek channel for the reclamation of the old mined
portions of the site. These changes
resulted in changes to the downstream hydrology. We have personally observed the results of
these changes on the downstream area in the BVCER. The primary creek crossing in the BVCER was
used for years by the prior farming operation and more recently with a
temporary bridge by the Land Manager when the area was acquired and became the
BVCER in 2007. Last winter was the
first winter post completion of the changes to the upstream creek channel. We observed changes to the creek channel
downstream with such significant undercutting that the bridge supports
completely washed out on the north side.
Flooding post rainfall that previously would have extended several
hundred feet inland is now remaining within just a few feet of the creek
bank. Further analysis is required to
evaluate if these major modifications to the creek channel made with
reclamation are performing consistent with their design and to provide
explanation of the observed downstream conditions.
We have observed major
downstream changes, but in the absence of analysis it is not clear if these are
positive or negative, whether the planned changes made to site hydrology with reclamation
are performing as planned, and whether
the further changes to site hydrology proposed for this project will exacerbate
any unforeseen impacts. Please clarify what has been done to assess
specific downstream impacts considering these changed upstream conditions, and
explain how the analysis supports the conclusion that there are no adverse
impacts.
-There is a levee mentioned
for R-1 but we could not find details related to this. There are floodwalls upstream from the
project behind the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center. Changes were made as part of the site
reclamation to the berm on the south side of the falls and along the border
with Mossey Nissan on the Oceanside portion of this site( that is not part of
the Master Plan). Further changes are
proposed with this project to the retaining wall on the south side of the creek
at the boundary with the shopping center.
We have observed numerous failures of storm drain facilities over the
years of this site. These resulted in several on-site meetings
with Oceanside and Carlsbad staff, and several modifications to these
facilities. We still observe extremely
high volume and velocity of flows coming off the restored steep slopes behind
Walmart through the concrete brow and collector ditches into the facility along
the base of the stepstone wall. This area
has been reviewed by engineers numerous times, and has failed numerous
times. This has occurred over the last
few years where the greatest storm was about at a projected 25 year level- far
from the design thresholds for a 100 year flood. Please explain how this existing problem
area has been integrated into the current plans, how this will improve current
observed conditions of discharge from this huge, steep slope, and what margin
of error has been provided. This is of
concern for erosion, water quality, and because such hydrologic changes could
undermine the appearance and function of a state designated sacred site- the El
Salto Waterfall.
Population and Housing
-Project proposes to remove
363 residential units from the EDUB.
This same developer is using about
400 units from the EDUB for the Robertson Ranch project. If the remaining units in the EDUB were
allocated proportionately for the 4 quadrants, there would be about 751 units
for this NE area (3006 remaining city wide as of 10/31/12[20] . These
two projects, all by a single property owner
would account for more than 100% of the total units remaining. Of course the policy allows for these units
to be distributed anywhere in the city, but allowing such large allocations of
units to these 2 projects is potentially violating two of the thresholds of
significance- it results in a substantial increase above what is currently
approved for the LFMZ and it would result in a change in population/growth
patterns by putting a disproportionate share of the growth in this
quadrant.
. This will prevent other projects, especially
ones that might actually be able to achieve compliance with SANDAG smart growth
criteria, from being able to achieve the necessary project density. This in effect assures less smart growth in
Carlsbad than could be achieved without this project. This is an indirect impact that has not been
identified or mitigated. Furthermore,
one questions why a single developer is given such windfalls- twice- when
numerous other landowners are denied such up zoning of their properties.
-The DEIR
has incorrectly assumed that this increase in population in this quadrant would
not adversely impact the ability to provide public services as discussed in
other sections. However this assumption
is not correct as included in comments on public Services for Parks, Fire and
Police. These public services will all be adversely impact by increasing the
population so dramatically in this LFMZ.
In addition the DEIR failed to
assess the impacts of this increase in localized population on traffic. The most recent GMP annual report posted on
the city website for 2010 includes the following performance standard “No road
segment or intersection in the LFMZ nor any road segment or intersection out of
the zone which is impacted by development within the zone shall be projected to
exceed a service level of C during off peak hours, nor service level D during
peak hours.. [21] The report goes on to clarify that “impact”
means 20% of the traffic generated by the LFMZ will use the road segment. Since 100% of the traffic generated by this
LFMZ will use the road segments and intersections on College between Marron and
Vista Way and this traffic fails to meet the service threshold this is a
significant impact that was not evaluated in the DEIR or mitigated. Note- this is a failure to meet the GMP
standard, a conflict with the GMP, a housing impact, and a traffic impact. None of these have been adequately
addressed.
-The DEIR concludes that the
EDUB will easily accommodate the allocation of the 363 units for this
project. That is not consistent with the
discussion of this issue in the most recent presentation to the City Council on
September 11, 2012 and the staff report for this meeting on the Envision
Carlsbad Preferred Plan. (See attachments
for Att 7 from AB#21,003). This states that the preferred plan cannot be
accommodated with the proposed 363 units at Quarry Creek and then proposed 2
ways to reduce the allocations to other projects so that there would be
sufficient units to allocate to Quarry Creek.
This high allocation to Quarry Creek is already impacting decisions
about other projects, not just in this LFMZ, or even this quadrant of the city-
it is impacting options for rezoning other properties all over the city.
Green House Gasses
-The thresholds for evaluating
significance should include compliance with regional plan Sustainable Community
Strategies which are considered to be the means to achieve the regional
reduction in GHG assumed with the 2050RTP.
The DEIR has ignored this major regional measure of compliance with AB
375.
-SANDAG adopted the
Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) in order to demonstrate the ability for
the region to achieve the local CARB required reductions. Several of the SANDAG member agencies have
adopted local Climate Action Plans or SGS or are in the process of doing
so. Carlsbad has not adopted such plans
and to our knowledge they have not established
a date by which they intend to have them in place. In the absence of such plans, by Carlsbad and
other member agencies, there is no assurance that the region will meet the
required GHG reductions. This remains a significant indirect impact.
-The redistribution of excess
dwelling units from the EDUB as discussed in these comments on Housing is a
further indirect impact on GHG that has not been evaluated. Per SANDAG staff the
proposed project is not smart growth.
There are other existing and potential smart growth sites in the city of
Carlsbad where adding such units would result in less congestion, would meet
the guidelines of the SCS, and would therefor contribute toward the regional
reduction in GHG. By allocating excess
units to this project the city has reduced its ability to contribute to the
regional reduction in GHG. The proposed
project will increase GHG and violates the guidelines in the SCS- both of which
are significant impacts that have not been addressed.
-The noise analysis indicates
that an unspecified number of the
residential units may require mechanical ventilation. Please explain how this has been factored in
to electric or natural gas usage and the resultant GHG- certainly this would
offset what is shown as a reduction for building efficiency improvements.
-There will be a bus stop
added at P-2 and bus stop and bus layover at the P-1 Park and Ride lot. The majority of the NCTD fleet uses diesel
fuel. Please explain how this has been
factored into the operational vehicle emissions.
- Please provide further
justification for including blasting emissions that will occur over 10 days
into the 30 year average of such emissions.
This is one more way the DEIR has minimized the actual impacts of the
project.
-The conclusions fail to identify
or evaluate the non-compliance with SANDAG SCS.
Please provide further analysis of this as it is a land use conflict and
a potential GHG impact.
-GHG-1 provides for
verification of only the two building efficiency GHG reductions. These only account for 5.7% of the projected
GHG (257.91 electricity + 377.51 natural gas = 635.42/11,118.12 = 5.7%). Since much of the reduction relies on
statewide, or even national actions (like fuel efficiency standards), which are
completely out of the control of the lead agency, please explain how there can
be any reasonable assurances that these will be met?
Alternatives Analysis
The analysis of impacts is so
flawed throughout the DEIR it is not possible to do a meaningful review of the
proposed alternatives. The following
comments are just a few examples of the problems throughout the document that
have been carried forward to the review of alternatives.
-The project objectives have
been defined in a biased way that incorporates the faulty analysis. For example one objective is to “Establish
sufficient land use intensity on the site to support the “Community Center” designation
on the Smart Growth Concept Map.” The evaluation of alternatives states that
the existing project and several of the alternatives meet this objective. In fact neither the project nor any of the
alternatives meet it as discussed previously.
Objective 4 includes to “respect the history of past generations”. The analysis again concludes that the
proposed project and several of the alternatives meet this objective. Since the key historic resources are the
Historic District and cultural corridor only alternatives 6-2, 6-6, 6-7, and
6-8 have avoided adverse impacts to the viewshed of the historic resources,
views of the historic resource and provided compatible land uses. The analysis of the DEIR favors the proposed
project and fails to properly identify key differences between the
alternatives. These objectives were
defined so narrowly that only the proposed project meets all of them. The number of objectives not met by the other
alternatives varied from 2 for 6-4 to 19 for 6-2. The challenge for alternatives analysis is to
define an alternative that substantially meets the objectives while
significantly reducing the impacts. The
alternatives analysis, while considering a broad range of options, did not come
up with such an alternative. It appears
the difficulty in doing that was the definition of project objectives which
were intentionally manipulated so only this project was viable. \
- The DEIR has defined several
of the alternatives in a way that makes them infeasible. For example 6-4 Existing HMP/Circulation Element
assumes road extensions that are not feasible.
The extension of Marron Rd is not consistent with the HMP, would not
receive permits by the Wildlife Agencies and would impact the economic
viability of the project. The HMP
Special Terms and Conditions for TE-022606-0 state that before proceeding with
plans to construct the Marron Rd extension (and others); Carlsbad is required
to consult over with the WLAs “to ensure that all potential alternatives to
construction of these roads are fully considered.” Any such alternatives must also have been
preceded by a “wildlife movement study that gathers wildlife movement data for
at least one full year ‘in order to
design any road undercrossing.”[22] There is no mention in the DEIR of any such
consultation, that all alternatives to this road extension have been considered
or that this wildlife movement study has been done. Including this infeasible alternative appears
to just be a way to include an alternative worse than the proposed project to
make it look better by comparison.
Alternative 6-5 would require
the city to approve adding parkland when their analysis says there is no need
for this, and to allow this excess land instead of paying impact fees which
will be needed to build out the parks.
This would require a change in city policy related to parkland impact
fees. This policy change was not
discussed in the DEIR. Furthermore city staff
has said “ The city has not been receptive to the idea…” and City Council
members have confirmed this objection to the concept of allowing a trade-off of
this parkland for the required park impact fees.[23] This alternative is infeasible as
proposed.
- The alternatives analysis
has failed to consider the importance of reduction/avoidance of unmitigated
impacts. For example Traffic impacts
will remain significant and unmitigated with the proposed project. Only
two alternatives, 6-2 No Project/No Development and 6-8 Traffic Impact Avoidance
avoid these adverse impacts. However
alternatives 6-1 and 6-7 reduce the number of units and thereby will reduce
traffic congestion. Reducing congestion will reduce the amount of the impact, yet
these two alternatives are evaluated as “similar.’
Long Term/Cumulative Impacts
-The
geographic scope for each of the environmental issues evaluated is described in
section 7.1. However Table 7-1 does not
match the scope for any of the areas described (city of CB, SD Air Quality
Basin, etc.) as it includes projects in both Oceanside and Carlsbad, but not
the entire air basin. Furthermore the
general statements in section 7.1 about the geographic scope of the evaluation
do not match those within each of the individual sections that follow. For example 7.1 says that the geographic
scope for aesthetics will be the city of Carlsbad but the description in 7.1.3
includes the viewshed and the viewshed clearly includes portions of Oceanside
which were actually included as key locations in the visual simulations. The cumulative impact needs to include the
entire viewshed and this includes at a minimum portions of Oceanside.
-Aesthetics. Village H appears to be within the viewshed
from the adobe and has not been included on the project list. Depending upon the nature of that development
it could be an additional cumulative impact and this should be included on the
list of cumulative projects considered.
-Biological resources- Since
the project is not in compliance with the HMP as discussed previously this
could contribute to the failure of the MHCP to meet all of its goals for
protection of species. Several of the
species of concern require conservation in Carlsbad in order for the region to
achieve its goals.
-GHG. The GHG analysis is
faulty as discussed above. The DEIR
concludes the project achieves a reduction from Business as Usual emissions. However, existing site emissions are zero so
all emissions from the project are in addition to current conditions. Furthermore, since the project does not meet
SANDAG Smart Growth conditions and fails to comply with the SGS it in fact will
make it harder for the region to meet their target GHG reductions. Even compared to the existing General Plan
the project will result in a significant increase in GHG as it increases the
number of units from 293 to 656. This is
a significant cumulative impact.
-Hazards. The DEIR has not discussed the effect on
regional evacuation/emergency response.
Highway # 78 is already highly congested and congestion will continue to
get worse. College Blvd in the project
vicinity will fail with no assurances of mitigation. And according to the city of Oceanside
Circulation Element Vista Way will also be in failure prior to 2030. This project will contribute to the
cumulative impacts on all of these roadways.
The mitigation proposed fails to consider anything other than roadway
changes. The state of CA Complete Streets requirements, SANDAG’s SGS, complete streets policies of the
City of Carlsbad, and the Circulation Element of the City of Oceanside all
include provisions for a multi-modal approach to reducing traffic
congestion. The DEIR has failed to
consider or include any no-roadway related mitigation measure. Many such measures could result in a
significant reduction in traffic congestion and might even reduce it in some
areas below a level of significance. But
the DEIR has failed to even consider such action. These should include subsidies for public
transit , coordinated TDM planning with the nearby Sage Creek high School, and improved bicycle and pedestrian access. Since these impacts are to regional roadways
the mitigation needs to extend to these areas as well and not just be limited
to the project boundaries. Having a bus
stop within the project, but having no funding to pay for a level of service
needed to attract riders will not result in any traffic reduction. There needs to be a meaningful evaluation of
options like providing high frequency transit service, and then computing the
reduction in ADT and related traffic congestion.
-Land Use. As discussed previously this project does not
meet either the land use or transit criteria to be considered a smart growth
site. Allowing this project that is not
smart growth to take over 300 units from the EDUB will not allow these 300
units to be allocated to a real smart growth site. This is both a cumulative impact to Land Use
and GHG.
-Population and Housing page
7-10 says “ as identified in Table 7-1 there are 19 other projects that are in
the planning process or under construction in the city of Carlsbad.” In fact Table 7-1 only lists 9 projects, and
2 of them are not even located in the city of Carlsbad. Please
clarify what has been used as the cumulative projects considered for Population
and Housing, and correct this for consistency with Table 7-1. Furthermore the Pending Planning Projects
list includes 80 projects already pending in the City of Carlsbad alone. [24] Please update the list of cumulative projects
to be included in the analysis and explain the rationale used for excluding any
of those already pending, or those future projects that could contribute to
cumulative impacts but for which applications have not yet been filed.
Public Services. Section 7-1
says the geographic area for this is the city of Carlsbad. This does not make sense since the project
has assumed that 100% of EMS services will be provided by the City of Oceanside
as the nearest station. There is nothing
that indicates any change in this throughout the life of the project. On what basis can this project assume, that
in spite of full build out by both Oceanside and Carlsbad, that Oceanside will still
be willing to continue to provide this service?
How can the geographic area for analysis be limited to Carlsbad when the
public service is being provided by the city of Oceanside?
Effects Found to Not Be Significant
-The DEIR concludes that
impacts to Agriculture, Land Use, Population and Public Services are not
significant. As discussed above we
disagree with this conclusion which has not been adequately evaluated in the
DEIR. All of these areas have potential
adverse impacts that have not been adequately mitigated.
Conclusions
The DEIR has failed to
identify numerous adverse impacts, has failed to adequately evaluate or
mitigate for both those reported and those not reported and consequently has
not met the basic requirements of an EIR.
The numerous issues raised in this comment letter, the attached comment
letter on historic resources by Vonn Marie May, and the additional technical
and legal issues raised in other letters submitted on our behalf by Everett
Delano fully support our conclusion that this DEIR in unacceptable. An amended document must be prepared that
completely and accurately assesses the numerous adverse impacts associated with
this project and provides a reasonable level of effort toward actually
addressing them.
Thank you for your
consideration of these comments. We look
forward to working with you to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard
,
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
CC: Libby Lucas, USFWS, Janet Stuckrath
USFWS
References – All Incorporated by Reference in this DEIR
Parks are For Everyone, Green
Access for San Diego County, The San Diego Foundation
San Diego’s Changing Climate: A
Regional Wake-up Call, the San Diego Foundation and back-up reports at www.sdfoundation.org
Planning and Designing for Pedestrians:
Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region, SANDAG June 2002
Smart Growth in the San Diego Region,
SANDAG Jan 2012
Trail User Counts Lake
Calavera Dam 1/8- 2/5/11 Diane Nygaard (Report submitted previously to City of
Carlsbad)
Brown headed Cowbird Trapping
Program Report for North San Diego County Preserves 2012, Leatherman Biological
Consulting, Inc., August 2012.
Crooks, K.R., and Soule, M.E., 1991.Mesopredator release
and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563-566.
Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L., and Miller, C.K., Wildlife
response to Pedestrians and Dogs, 2001, Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, pp.
124-132.
MHCP, Biological Goals, Standards, and Guidelines,
Ogden, 1998.
Quarry Creek Preserve Management Plan, Helix, June 16,
2011.
Reed, Sarah, and Merenlender,
Adina M., Quiet, Non-Consumptive Recreation Reduces Protected Area
Effectiveness, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, submitted January 28, 2008.
Spellerberg, I.F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and
traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biography Letters.
&:317-333.
Taylor, Audrey R. and Knight, Richard L., Wildlife
Response to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions, Ecological
Applications, 13(4) 2003, pp. 951-963.
Guidelines to Wetland and Riparian Buffers, City of
Carlsbad April 9, 2010
City of Carlsbad, Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Summary
October 2012
City of Carlsbad 2010 Growth
Management Plan Monitoring Report
City of Carlsbad, Development
Monitoring Report October 2012
Attachments
Summary of Negative Ecological Effects of Roads and Traffic
and Other Linear Developments
Aerial of Buena Vista Creek
Ecological Reserve Existing Trails
Smart Growth Concept Map-
Site Descriptions Last Updated Jan 27, 2012, p6 and 7
A Look at Green Access Today,
p11 from Parks for Everyone, San Diego Foundation
Envision Carlsbad Draft
Preferred Plan, Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) Availability and Demand,
Attachment 7 to AB 21, 003 September 11, 2012.
Guidelines to Wetland and
Riparian Buffers, City of Carlsbad April 9, 2010, p. 13
Attachment 1
Summary of
negative ecological effects of roads and traffic and other linear developments
Short Term Effects
-
Direct loss of wildlife(road kill) and their habitats
-
Immediate habitat fragmentation(loss of feeding, watering or breeding
areas)
-
Damage and direct loss of soil and flora
-
Increased run-off
-
Air and water pollution
-
Microclimate changes
Long Term Effects
-
Continuing direct loss of wildlife (road kill)
-
Greater habitat loss due to light and noise disturbance extending into
undeveloped areas
-
Developed road avoidance by wildlife
-
Decreased reproductive success
-
Population fragmentation possibly leading to interbreeding complications
-
Increased dispersal of non-native plants extending into undeveloped area
and leading to further loss of habitat and wildlife
-
Further increased run-off, air and water pollution
-
Decreased biodiversity
Spellerberg,I.F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and
traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biography Letters.
&:317-333.
El Salto Falls Taken from
Front Yard of Marron-Hayes Adobe Dec 5, 2012
Close-up
El Salto Falls Taken from Front Yard of Marron-Hayes Adobe Dec 5, 2012
El
Salto Falls Taken from Front Yard of Marron-Hayes Adobe May 22, 2009
From
KPBS Documentary