2024-01-30; City Council; 02; 2021-2029 Housing Element Rezoning Program (GPA 2022-0001/ZCA 2022-0004/ZC 2022-0001/AMEND 2023-0008/AMEND 2023-0009/AMEND 2023-0010/AMEND 2023-0011/AMEND 2023-0012/LCPA — Carlsbad City Council, January 30, 2024 (part 1 of 8)

CA Review __AF_
Meeting Date: Jan. 30, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Eric Lardy, City Planner
[email protected], 442-339-2712
Robert Efird, Principal Planner
[email protected], 442-339-5148
Subject: 2021-2029 Housing Element Rezoning Program (GPA 2022-0001/ZCA 2022-0004/ZC 2022-0001/AMEND 2023-0008/AMEND 2023-0009/AMEND 2023-0010/AMEND 2023-0011/AMEND 2023-0012/LCPA 2022-0015/EIR 2022-0007 (PUB 2022-0010)
Districts: All
Recommen
ded Action
That the City Council hold a public hearing and:

1. Adopt a resolution certifying the final environmental impact report and adopting the findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element (Including the Land Use Map), Public Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Bressi Ranch Master Plan, Green Valley Master Plan, Fenton Carlsbad Center Specific Plan, North County Plaza Specific Plan, Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan, and the Local Coastal Program, based on the findings contained therein (Exhibit 1).

2. Adopt a resolution approving amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Land Use Map, Public Safety Element, and the Local Coastal Program to implement objectives B, C, and D of Housing Element Program 1.1 and Objective B of Housing Element Program 1.3 (Exhibit 2).

3. Adopt a resolution requiring greater affordability levels for identified properties (Exhibit 3).

4. Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, to implement portions of Objectives B, C, and D of Housing Element Program 1.1 and Objective B of Housing Element Program 1.3 for Map 1 (All Sites), (Exhibit 4).

5. Introduce an ordinance amending the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, Fenton Carlsbad Center Specific Plan, Green Valley Master Plan, North County Plaza Specific Plan, and Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan (Exhibit 5).

Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 1 of 157
Executive Summary
Under state law, the specific purposes of the Housing Element in a city’s General Plan are to assess both current and future housing needs and constraints and establish housing goals, policies and programs that provide a strategy for meeting those identified housing needs. The city’s current Housing Element, adopted by the City Council certified by the State’s Department of Housing & Community Development in 2021, establishes a comprehensive policy framework to guide city decision-making to meet identified housing goals.

A central component of the Housing Element is ensuring that there’s there is an adequate number of properties available to accommodate the city’s share of regional housing needs. As mandated by state law, for the 2021-2029 housing cycle, the city must accommodate and plan for a total of 3,873 new housing units.

One of the most labor-intensive components of this process is the inventory and analysis of adequate housing sites. The city must determine whether there is enough land available with adequate zoning to accommodate its housing allocations for varying income levels. If it’s unable to accommodate the specified housing quantities at varying income levels, the city must rezone enough land to allow for enough residential development to meet its housing allotment or face significant penalties, which are discussed further below.

Although Carlsbad can accommodate a portion of the projected future growth with the existing zoning on property already designated for homes, to meet state requirements, the city needs to rezone enough additional sites by April 2024 to accommodate about 2,600 more multifamily housing units.

The city already has the zoning capacity for about 1,300 of the required units.

After substantial input from the community, the City Council directed staff on February 15, 2022, to study the environmental impacts of 18 sites for new or expanded housing before deciding which to rezone. The proposed action includes amendments to the Land Use & Community Design Element of the General Plan, updates to related master and specific plans for consistency, and amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance.

Additionally, state law mandates that jurisdictions update the public safety element in their general plans in conjunction with updating their housing elements to include data and new information that was not available in the last update in 2015 as well as policies and programs necessary to ensure existing and future development is better protected from various natural and human-caused hazards.

The recommended action includes amendments to the city’s Public Safety Element to address state requirements.

An environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed updates and amendments was prepared and released for public review and the findings were presented before the Planning Commission on Oct. 18, 2023. Following public testimony, discussion and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the environmental documents and adopt updates to the General Plan elements, ordinance amendments and related documents that implements changes to all proposed rezone sites.

Additionally, the Housing Commission recommended on Dec. 14, 2023, that the City Council approve a minimum affordability requirement of 20% for non-city owned sites and 40% for city-owned sites identified as part of the process to rezone properties and help meet the city’s housing allotment. That means that 20% of the units in residential developments that were identified as a housing site or Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 2 of 157
received density increases as part of this rezone program and 40% of those on city-owned sites must be offered at prices that are affordable to lower income families.

The actions being presented for the City Council’s consideration are the recommendations of both the Planning Commission and Housing Commission. These actions will help accommodate the city’s housing needs under the city’s adopted Housing Element while balancing the needs of the community and potential environmental impacts with the need to remain in compliance with state housing laws and mandates.

Explanation & Analysis
Purpose of a Housing Element
Local housing is enshrined in state law as a matter of “vital statewide importance” and, since 1969, California has required all local governments to plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community through the development of a housing element. The Housing Element is the section of Carlsbad’s General Plan1 that provides a strategy for promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing.

Under state law, a city’s housing element:
• Identifies its housing conditions and needs
• Establishes the goals, objectives and policies that are the foundation of the city’s housing strategy • Provides an array of programs and opportunities to create sustainable, mixed-income neighborhoods across the city
The Housing Element must be updated at least every eight years.

The city’s current Housing Element w as adopted by the City Council on April 6, 2021, and certified by the California Department of Housing & Community Development2 on July 13, 2021. The Housing Element includes policies, programs and objectives showing how the city intends to accommodate its share of housing for the 2021-2029 housing cycle. There are 39 Housing Element programs, which are further divided into 159 program objectives. These objectives identify ongoing efforts the city must implement throughout the housing period and actions the city must accomplish at specified times.

Determining the city’s future housing needs
Providing housing to meet the needs of all income levels is critical to the social and economic health of a city, and a huge component of the Housing Element is how a jurisdiction plans to address its regional housing needs assessment. This assessment process is the part of state housing law that is used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those homes, each local government must plan for in its housing element. This process is repeated every eight years, and, for this housing cycle, the San Diego region is planning for the period from 2021 to 2029. 1 The General Plan is Carlsbad’s long-term blueprint for how it will grow and develop, a comprehensive collection of goals and policies related to a multitude of aspects of community life. In California, cities and counties are required by state law to have a general plan. The city’s General Plan is made up of nine elements: Land Use & Community Design; Mobility; Open Space, Conservation & Recreation; Noise, Public Safety; Arts, Culture, History & Education; Economy, Business Diversity & Tourism; Sustainability; and Housing.
3 Inclusionary housing is a tool of local government that requires a developer to preserve a certain percentage of units in a new housing development as affordable for people with lower incomes. The City of Carlsbad adopted its inclusionary housing ordinance in 1993. It requires that a minimum of 15% of the units within a project be affordable to lower -income families. The program has resulted in the development of about 2,500 affordable units citywide over the past 25 years.

Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 3 of 157
Responsibility for carrying out this process is shared among state, regional, and local governments.

Role of the state
The state Housing and Community Development department is responsible for identifying the total number of homes each region in California must accommodate to meet the housing needs of people across the full spectrum of income levels, from housing for very low-income households all the way to market rate housing. The state determines how much housing is needed for each region based on several factors, including demographic trends, housing conditions and population forecasts.

Role of the region
Once the statewide housing need is determined, Housing and Community Development assigns the housing units to the 21 council of governments throughout the state. Once the regional housing needs assessment is determined for the region, each council of governments develops a methodology for how the units will be distributed to its member agencies, the county and local governments. As the council of government for the San Diego region, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for developing the methodology for distributing the housing units required by the state’s assessment among the 18 San Diego cities and, for the unincorporated areas, the County of San Diego.

Role of local governments
Cities and counties are responsible for participating in the development of the housing allocation methodology and updating their housing elements and local zoning to show how they will accommodate their respective housing needs allocation.

To provide adequate housing for the full spectrum of income levels, the allocated number of housing units each jurisdiction must provide for is distributed by varying income categories. The state uses the income categories established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which groups income ranges for different household types into five income categories: extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and above-moderate household income.

HUD bases the household income for each of these categories on a percentage of a particular region’s area median income, or AMI. Carlsbad falls within the San Diego County region, which as of 2023 has a current AMI of $116,800 per year for a four-person household. To help illustrate, the following table shows the varying income categories for a family of four.

Breakdown of dif ferent income levels based on area median income Income category AMI Family of four1
Extremely low income Less than 30% AMI Less than $41,350 Very low income 30-50% AMI $68,900
Low income 50-80% AMI $110,250
Moderate income 80-120% AMI $140,150
Above moderate income More than 120% AMI More than $140,150 1Assumes income at higher end of the AMI scale
Housing and Community Development and SANDAG also use these income categories when allocating the need for housing.

Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 4 of 157
The SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation methodology for the 2021-2029 housing cycle on Nov. 22, 2019, assigning housing requirements to its member agencies. The table below reflects Carlsbad’s housing allocation.

Very low Low Moderate Above moderate Total allocation
1,311 units 784 units 749 units 1,029 units 3,873 units As the table shows, over 50% of the allocation serves the housing needs of lower income families. In total, the city needs to allow for the development of nearly 3,900 new housing units to accommodate the growth from 2021-2029 for all income groups as estimated through the housing needs assessment process.

Planning for affordable versus building affordable
As noted above, local governments are required under state law to ensure that there’s enough land available with adequate zoning to accommodate the number of units they are allocated through the regional housing needs assessment for the entire housing cycle. So, what type of zoning makes a house affordable to an income group? In a word, density.

The foundation of Housing Element Law is based on the premise that density is a proxy for affordability. The idea being, the more housing units on a site – the density – translates to lower construction costs per unit, which translates to lower rental and sale prices of those units – the affordability.

The Department of Housing and Community Development assigns the following minimum density figures to each income category:

Income category % of AMI Minimum density
(dwelling units per acre)1
Very low Less than 50% 30 du/ac
Low 50-80% 30 du/ac
Moderate 80-120% 15 du/ac
Above moderate More than 120% less than 15 du/ac or
more
1In Carlsbad, Housing and Community Development has accepted 26.5 dwelling units per acre as the minimum density for the very low- and low-income categories and

11.5 dwelling units per acre as the minimum density for the moderate-income category.

This strategy of linking density with affordability may work in areas where utility and land costs are low and market rate housing is naturally affordable to lower income families. However, most local governments, especially those in coastal cities, can attest that higher density development alone rarely — if ever — translates to housing that is affordable at the targeted lower income categories.

Given this reality, the state requires that cities develop and implement programs that will help facilitate affordable housing costs, but the programs cannot be too onerous or restrictive to make the housing development financially infeasible to construct.

Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 5 of 157
That means that while cities can impose inclusionary housing requirements,3 requiring new developments include affordable housing, Housing and Community Development generally limits the requirement to no more than 15% to 20% of the total units in the project.

This becomes problematic for jurisdictions: While the state requires local governments to ensure that land is adequately zoned to accommodate a total number of units, they must also ensure the constructed units align with assumed income categories. If the newly constructed housing units are not affordable at the targeted income category, the city is required under state law to find other sites to rezone to make up the shortfall. Consider the following hypothetical example:
• A city identifies a 10-acre site and applies a 30 dwelling-unit-per-acre zoning designation. In its Housing Element, 300 units are credited towards the city’s low-income regional housing needs allocation.
• Later, a developer proposes to build a 290-unit project on the site. Because the city has a 15% inclusionary housing requirement, 44 of the 290 units must be restricted as affordable for low-income.
• The project is constructed, and the 246 unrestricted units sell at above-market prices.

In this example, the city assumed 300 units would be built on this site and that all of them would be low-income units, but only 290 were constructed and only 44 were restricted for low-income, so the city is obligated to rezone another site or other sites at the appropriate density to make up the 256 low-income unit shortfall.

This is why the Department of Housing and Community Development strongly recommends that cities include buffers of at least 30% more units than they were allocated through housing needs assessment process to account for these situations. This reduces the need for the city to constantly look for sites to rezone, and it reduces the city’s risk of falling out of compliance with the state.

Addressing the city’s future housing needs shortfall
Although Carlsbad can accommodate some of its regional housing needs assessment allocation on property already designated for homes, the city must rezone additional sites to accommodate about 2,600 higher density housing units to meet state requirements and guidelines, as shown in the table below.

Very low Low Moderate Above
moderate Total
RHNA allocation 1,311 Units 784 units 749 units 1,029 units 3,873 units Current zoning 440 units 258 units 422 units 1,713 units 2,833 units Difference 871 units 526 units 327 units N/A 1,724 units +30% buffer 394 units 235 units 225 units N/A 853 units Total units needed 1,265 units 761 units 552 units N/A 2,578 units 3 Inclusionary housing is a tool of local government that requires a developer to preserve a certain percentage of units in a new housing development as affordable for people with lower incomes. The City of Carlsbad adopted its inclusionary housing ordinance in 1993. It requires that a minimum of 15% of the units within a project be affordable to lower -income families. The program has resulted in the development of about 2,500 affordable units citywide over the past 25 years.

Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 6 of 157
Program 1.1 of the city’s certified Housing Element requires the city to make land use changes, that is, to rezone property, to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing needs assessment. The rezoning effort must be considered and adopted by the City Council by April 2024.

After significant and substantial community engagement, the City Council on Aug. 17, 2021, endorsed two maps identifying potential sites for rezoning as well as an accompanying public engagement plan.

The City Council also directed staff to release the maps for public review and return to the City Council with a summary of the public input. Most of the sites on the maps had been identified in Appendix C of the approved Housing Element, which was also publicly vetted prior to adoption. At a public meeting, the City Council added four sites for the community’s consideration, all in the city’s Southwest Quadrant, for a total of 18 potential sites (Refer to the City Council staff report provided as Exhibit 8 for more information on this process).

Following City Council direction, staff initiated the public engagement plan, enabling stakeholders to participate and comment in different forms on the potential housing sites from Sept. 2 - Oct. 22, 2021. One of the more effective outreach tools was an online interactive map that identified the 18 potential sites and enabled users to click on each site to receive more information, such as a description of the property and the number of housing units possible. The map also provided both aerial and topographic imagery to help identify surrounding features.

The results of the community engagement and input effort were presented before the City Council on Feb. 15, 2022. The City Council selected two rezone map options and directed staff to proceed to the next step of the process, which included a complete environmental review of the sites slated to be rezoned. Refer to the staff report provided as Exhibit 9 for more information on this process.

Staff studied both maps fully and determined they meet the rezoning objectives. Staff’s recommendation is to adopt Map 1, which provides the city the greatest number of sites. However, Map 2 also provides enough units to satisfy the requirements of Program 1.1 and provide the 30% buffer the state recommended for a city. As an option, resolutions and ordinances to adopt Map 2 are included in Exhibits 6 and 7.

The environmental impact report did not identify any additional significant environmental impacts between the two map options. Since the environmental document studied a specified combination of sites as the Map 1 and Map 2 options in their entirety, there is only a limited ability to make changes to the maps without additional environmental review. Additionally, the maps were created to both meet the number of units specified in Housing Element Program 1.1, but also the required distribution of sites in different locations throughout the city. Any action different from adopting one of the two maps would need to be evaluated for compliance with these requirements, and resolutions to adopt the associated documentation would need to be prepared for the City Council’s consideration at a later meeting.

Commission disc ussions & recommendations
• Planning Commission
On October 18, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the environmental documents and adopt the plan and ordinance amendments corresponding with the Map 1 scenario, including all 18 sites analyzed. Eleven speakers commented, expressing support and opposition to some of the sites and concerns about traffic, safety, whether there Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 7 of 157
was adequate infrastructure and compliance with the city’s Growth Management Plan, among other issues.
• Housing Commission
On Dec. 14, 2023, the Housing Commission received a staff report providing information only on the site rezoning process and also proposing a greater minimum affordability requirement for city-owned parcels and all other parcels identified as part of the process to rezone properties and help meet the city’s housing allotment. The proposed affordability requirement would require a certain percentage of units in a development to be affordable to lower-income households through rental or deed restrictions and would exceed the 15% affordability requirement of the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

The commission passed a resolution recommending that a minimum affordability requirement of 20% apply to all non-city owned sites and a 40% requirement apply to city owned sites. The city owned sites include Site 2, The Shoppes at Carlsbad parking lot; Site 6, the Crossings Golf Course Lot 5; and Site 15, the Oak Maintenance Yard. Land value is one of the main contributors to housing cost in the region. This requirement for a higher percentage of affordable housing allows the city to leverage the property ownership by using the land value to offset development costs to provide affordable housing and help meet housing production goals. The commission also recommended that if the amount of required affordable housing is achieved within the current housing cycle, that the City Council may consider reducing the recommended affordability requirement to 15%.

Four speakers at the meeting provided input on various topics, including support for the greater requirement and concerns about future housing and adequate parking, increased traffic, and short-term vacation rentals. A speaker also expressed concern about a concentration of affordable housing near Site 8, Cottage Row, which is on the west side of Aviara Parkway south of Palomar Airport Road.

Failing to comply with state housing law
By not approving the rezones necessary to accommodate the city’s housing unit shortfall by April 2024, the city would be out of compliance with Program 1.1 - Provide Adequate Sites to Accommodate the RHNA of the city’s state-certified Housing Element.

Assembly Bill 72, which passed in 2017, authorized Housing and Community Development to review “any action or failure to act” by a city that it determines “inconsistent” with the city’s adopted housing element or Government Code Section 65583 (part of the state’s Housing Element Law), including any failure to implement any programs included in the jurisdiction’s housing element.

If Housing and Community Development determines that the city’s action or failure to act does not “substantially comply” with the state Housing Element Law, or the city’s adopted housing element as certified by the state, or the department finds that a city has taken or failed to act in violation of the state Housing Accountability Act, then it may revoke its certification until it determines that the city has come into compliance. Additionally, Housing and Community Development may also notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the city is in violation of state law, and that office may take legal action against the city.

Should Housing and Community Development decertify a city’s housing element, the city is then subject to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5), known as the "builder's remedy." This is a Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 8 of 157
provision of California's Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying approval for certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance or general plan. In other words, developers would be allowed to place housing anywhere in the city, at any density without any discretionary review or approval by the city.

Community Engagement
Community engagement has been an important part of the Housing Element update process since it began. This has included:
• 14 meetings of the Housing Element Advisory Committee, which were promoted as opportunities for community input and livestreamed.
• Nine news releases announcing opportunities for input or sharing updates throughout the process.
• 31 email updates to a list of approximately 3,100.
• 48 posts on social media, including Nextdoor, with a total reach of more than 102,000. • Direct mail notices to more than 4,000 residences six times. • Two online surveys with 5,202 total participants and 4,086 comments. • Two online public workshops with 71 total participants. • Three environmental scoping meetings with 50 total participants. • 300+ flyers announcing opportunities for input distributed to city libraries and community centers four times.

Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The requirement to build additional housing units in the city will generate additional revenue; however, the timing and amount of this revenue are difficult to predict, so it will be incorporated into the city’s budget on an annual basis.

Next Steps
Following the City Council’s introduction of the ordinance, it will be scheduled at the City Council’s next meeting for adoption. Thirty days following adoption, the proposed code amendments will become effective outside of the Coastal Zone.

The code amendments will not become effective within Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone until the California Coastal Commission approves an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, the planning document for the Coastal Zone. Staff will submit an application to the Coastal Commission for a local coastal program amendment following the City Council’s adoption of the ordinances.

City staff will work with Coastal Commission staff to resolve any areas of concern before the Local Coastal Program is presented to the Coastal Commission for its review at a public hearing. Any revisions to the city’s Local Coastal Program that the Coastal Commission approves during its public hearing process will be brought back to the City Council as suggested modifications. The City Council will be able to approve or reject the suggested modifications; however, they would need to be Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 9 of 157
approved by the City Council in order for the Local Coastal Program to be certified by the Coastal Commission and effective for use in the city.

Once the application is deemed complete, the Coastal Commission has 90 days to act on the application. However, Costal Commission staff can administratively extend that deadline by up to 12 months. Considering the size and complexities of the city’s rezoning program, staff anticipate that an extension will be applied, and the Coastal Commission will not act on the proposed amendments until sometime in the fall or winter of 2025.

Environmental Eval uation
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental protection procedures of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 19), city staff have prepared a supplemental environmental impact report. This supplemental environmental impact report addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and analyzes impacts associated with the rezoning program (both Maps 1 and 2 as directed by the City Council).

The supplemental environmental impact report outlined five issue areas that are considered significant and unavoidable: air quality, cultural and tribal cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. As a “programmatic” document, it assessed the overall impacts of the land use changes, the overall program. Site-specific designs will be required before any of the potential projects can be built and will reduce the impacts for each individual project.

The purpose of a CEQA document is to complete analysis and inform decision makers and the public of environmental effects of a proposed project. The supplemental environmental impact report and supporting documentation was available for public review from July 14 through August 28, 2023. There were 39 comment letters received and a response to comments document was prepared. The document satisfies all legal requirements to approve the proposed project. Exhibit 1 includes the required findings to certify the supplemental environmental impact report, the mitigation and monitoring program, response to comments, findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations for the listed impacts.

Exhibits

1. City Council resolution - Environmental impact report

2. City Council resolution - Map 1

3. City Council resolution - Minimum affordability requirement

4. City Council ordinance - Map 1

5. City Council ordinance - Master and specific plans

6. City Council resolution - Map 2

7. City Council ordinance - Map 2

8. City Council staff report dated Aug. 17, 2021 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

9. City Council staff report dated Feb. 15, 2022 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7497 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7498 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7499 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

13. Housing Commission Resolution 2023-012 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

14. Planning Commission staff report dated Oct. 18, 2023 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

15. Planning Commission minutes dated October 18, 2023 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

16. Housing Commission staff report dated Dec. 14, 2023 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 10 of 157

17. Housing Commission minutes date d Dec. 14, 2023

18. State Board of Forestry finding regarding the draft Public Safety Element

19. Public comments re
ceived
Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 11 of 157
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 2022-0007) AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT, LAND USE

MAP, AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND

ZONING MAP, THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND VARIOUS MASTER AND

SPECIFIC PLANS
WHEREAS, the City Planner has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element (including the Land Use Map), Public Safety Element, and associated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Local Coastal Program, and various Master and Specific Plans ("project"), which affects properties citywide; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), State Clearinghouse No. 2011011004 (City Planning Case No. EIR 13-02), was prepared and the City Council certified it as complete by City Council Resolution 2015-242 on Sept. 22, 2015, for the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the first addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update, and was adopted by City Council Resolution 2020-0146 on July 14, 2020; and WHEREAS, the second addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Housing Element Update 2021-2029, and was adopted by City Council Resolution 2021-073 on April 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the third addendum to the Final EIR 13-02 was prepared for the Jefferson Mixed Use: Town home and Professional Office Project, and was adopted by City Council Resolution 2022-256 on Nov. 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an EIR has been certified, the Lead Agency is required to review any changed circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, City staff evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed modifications to Exhibit 1
Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 12 of 157
the project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As a result of the proposed modifications to the project, and to document staffs evaluation of the environmental impact of said modifications, staff prepared a Supplemental EIR (EIR 2022-0007) to the Final EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Planning Case No. EIR 2022-0007 (SCH #2022090339) supplements EIR 13- 02 (SCH #2011011004), certified by the City Council on Sept. 22, 2015, for the General Plan Update (GPA 07-02 and other case files); and
WHEREAS, the primary purposes of the project analyzed by EIR 2022-0007 is to comply with state law by implementing Housing Element Program 1.1 (provide adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA) and update the Public Safety Element as necessary to comply with recent state legislation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000, et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City of Carlsbad published and distributed a Notice of Preparation of EIR 2022-0007 for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on Sept. 14, 2022, and ending on Oct. 14, 2022.

The city held two scoping meetings on Sept. 26, 2022 (in-person) and Sept. 28, 2022 (virtual). On Oct. 13, 2022, the city issued an amended Notice of Preparation extending the public comment period to Oct. 26, 2022, and adding a third scoping meeting on Oct. 19, 2022 (in-person). The scoping meetings were aimed at providing information about the proposed project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders, residents, and community members; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation, amended Notice of Preparation _and comments received during the extended review period are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR and summarized in Section 1.6 of the Draft EIR 2022-0007; and WHEREAS, also pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Carlsbad prepared Draft EIR 2022-0007 and made it available for public review and comment as required by law beginning on July 14, 2023, and ending on Aug. 28, 2023; and WHEREAS, the first two Notice of Preparation scoping meetings and public review, and the public review period for Draft EIR 2022-0007, were provided via mailers to all property owners and residents within a 600-foot radius of each housing site. The Notice of Preparation was also filed with the County Clerk, published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, and posted on the city's website. A project-specific page on the city's website, fliers, and social media also aided in general project Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 13 of 157
awareness; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad received comments concerning the Draft EIR 2022-0007 from public agencies, organizations, businesses and individuals, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Carlsbad prepared responses to all written comments received on the Draft EIR 2022-0007 that raised environmental issues; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined that the comments received on the Draft EIR 2022-0007, as well as minor revisions made to the project since the release of the Draft EIR for public review, do not contain any significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and, therefore, recirculation of Draft EIR 2022-0007 is not required; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has prepared a Final EIR 2022-0007, which contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including the Draft EIR 2022-0007 and the revisions thereto, the technical appendices and referenced documents, and the public comments and the city's responses thereto, and which has been filed with the Clerk of the City of Carlsbad; and >-
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15093 and 15097, the City of Carlsbad has prepared Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reportin� Program, which have been filed with the Clerk of the City of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, all materials with regard to the project were made available to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad ("Planning Commission") for its review, consideration and its recommendation to the City Council of the project including, but not limited to: the Final EIR 2022- 0007, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the environmental consultants and the City of Carlsbad that are before the city decision makers; all documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies in connection with Final EIR 2022-0007; and matters of common knowledge to the City of Carlsbad which they may consider, including but not limited to, the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and various master and specific plans; and WHEREAS, the city duly noticed a public hearing of the Planning Commission on October 18, 2023, to consider the project and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 7497 recommending certification of Final EIR 2022-0007 and adoption of CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 14 of 157
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the City Council did, on January 30, 2024, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Planning Commission recommendation to certify Final EIR 2022-0007 and adopt CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments, of all persons desiring to be heard, and examined the Final EIR 2022-0007, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, analyzed the information submitted by staff and considered any written and oral comments received; and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the City Council bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) the Final EIR 2022-0007 and the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (2) the staff reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the city relating to the Final EIR 2022-0007, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the city in connection with the Final EIR 2022-0007, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the project itself; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, or hearings or submitted to the city during the comment period relating to the Final EIR 2022-0007, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and/or elsewhere during the course ofthe review of the project itself; (7} all other matters of common knowledge to the to the city, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the city and its surrounding areas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:

Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 15 of 157

1. That the above recitations are true and correct and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. That the City Council has considered the full record before it, which includes the Record of Proceedings.

3. Final EIR 2022-0007 {Attachment A) consists of the Draft SEIR and technical appendices {Attachment B), written comments and responses to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR and a description of revisions to the project, including but not limited to Land Use and Community Design Element and Zoning Ordinance changes and minor revisions to site descriptions, and is hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings into the Final EIR 2022-0007 {Attachment A), on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by this reference.

4. That in determining whether the project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City Council has based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15901{b). Mitigation measures were developed in order to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than-significant level, in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program {Appendix A to Attachment A), on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by this reference.

5. That Final EIR 2022-0007 is adequate and provides good-faith disclosure of available information on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto. Final EIR 2022-0007 has determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

6. The findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7497, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council.

7. Final EIR 2022-0007 {Attachment A), on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by this reference, evaluated as stated above, is certified.

Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 16 of 157

8. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment C), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Appendix A of Attachment A), on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by this reference, are adopted.

9. This action is final on the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE"
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the
ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shaU be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, 92008.

Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 17 of 157
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 30th day of January, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Burkholder, Luna.

None.

KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Jan. 30, 2024 Item #2 Page 18 of 157
{k ~ iv
Attachment A
Jan. 30, 2024
Item #2 Page 19 of 157
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety
Element
Update - Final EIR 2022-0007
(
on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Housing Element Implementation and
Public Safety Element Update
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339
prepared by
City of Carlsbad
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Contact: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
October 2023
Attachment A
r
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

Housing Element Implementation and
Public Safety Element Update
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022090339
prepared by
City of Carlsbad
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Contact: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
October 2023
r
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Final SEIR Contents ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Draft SEIR Public Review Process .................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 SEIR Certification Process and Project Approval ............................................................. 1-2

1.4 Draft SEIR Recirculation Not Required ............................................................................ 1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Public Agency Comments and Responses ....................................................................... 2-2

2.2 O rganization Comments and Responses ...................................................................... 2-36

2.3 Individuals Comments and Responses .......................................................................... 2-72 3 Revisions to the Draft SEIR ......................................................................................................... 3-1 4 CEQA Implications for Changes to the Proposed Project ........................................................... 4-1

4.1 Project Changes and Clarifications.................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Environmental Implications ............................................................................................ 4-1 Appendices
Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

This page intentionally left blank.

In
troduction

Fin
al Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Intr
oduction

1. 1 Fi
nal SE
IR Co
ntents
This Final Su
pplementation En
vironmental Impact Report (Final SE
IR) has been prepared by the Ci
ty
of Carlsbad to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Ho using Element
Implementation and Public Safety El
ement Update Project (“
proposed project”).

Pursuant to the Ca
lifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Gu
idelines Se
ctions 15088 and 15132,
the lead agency, the Ci
ty of Carlsbad, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft SE
IR and to prepare written responses to those
comments. This document, together with the Draft SE
IR (incorporated by reference) comprise the
Final SE
IR fo
r this pr
oject. This Fi
nal SE
IR includes in
dividual responses to each letter received during
the public review period for the Draft SE
IR. In accordance with CEQA Gu
idelines Se
ction 15088(c),
the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.

The Ci
ty ha
s pr
ovided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. Th
e Final SE
IR also includes amendments to the Draft SE
IR consisting of changes
suggested by certain comments, as well as minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft
SEIR. Th
e Fi
nal SE
IR in
cludes the following contents:
 Ch
apter 1:

Introduction
 Ch
apter 2:

Responses to Comments on the Draft SE
IR, wh
ich also includes a list of all
co
mmenters and public comment letters
 Ch
apter 3: Re
vision to the Dr
aft SE
IR
 Ch
apter 4: CE
QA Implications for Changes to the Proposed Project
The Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) is included as Appendix A to this do cument.

1.2 Dra
ft SE
IR Public Review Process
The City fi
led a notice of completion (NOC) an
d posted the Notice of Availability of a Draft SEIR
(NOA) and the Draft SEIR wi
th the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on Ju ly 14, 2023 an
d
ended on Au
gust 28, 2023. Th
e NOA wa
s published on July 14, 2023 in th
e Co
ast News an
d the Sa
n
Diego Union Tribune an
d filed with the San Diego County Clerk. Co
pies of the Draft SEIR we
re made
available at th
ree libraries (Carlsbad City Library, 1775 Dove Ln.; Georgina Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Dr.; and the Carlsbad City Library Learning Center, 3368 Eureka Pl.) and at the city’s Faraday Center, 1635 Faraday Ave. The Draft SEIR wa
s al
so available on
line at
www.carlsbadca.gov/housingplan an
d the Planning Division’s webpage at
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minutes- notices. Ad
ditionally, the city notified all property owners and occupants within 600-feet of each housing site of the availability of the Draft SEIR and comment period.

As a result of these notification efforts, 39 wr
itten comments on
the content of the Draft SE
IR we
re
received. Chapter 2,
Responses to Comments on the Draft SE
IR, id
entifies these commenting
parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments 1 City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

1-2
received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).

1.3 SEIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before adopting the proposed project, the lead agency is required to certify that the SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the SEIR, and that the SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

Upon certification of an SEIR, the lead agency makes a decision on the project analyzed in the SEIR.

A lead agency may: (a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the SEIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Per PRC Section 21061.1, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.

If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the SEIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]).

1.4 Draft SEIR Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires Draft SEIR recirculation when comments on the Draft SEIR or responses thereto identify “significant new information.” Significant new information is defined as including:

A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

1. 2.

3. 4.

Introduction

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3
The comments, responses, and Draft SEIR amendments presented in this document do not constitute such “significant new information;” instead, they clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the Draft SEIR. For example, none of the comments, responses, and Draft SEIR amendments disclose new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects of the proposed project, or new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those analyzed in the Draft SEIR that would clearly lessen the proposed project’s significant effects.

City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

1-4

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Responses to Comm ents on the Draft SEIR
This chapter contains copies of the comment letters received during public circulation of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Project (proposed project). The City of Carlsbad received 39 comment letters on the Draft SEIR during the 45-day comment period.

Comments and responses to comments are organized by public agency comments and responses (Group A), organization comments and responses (Group B), and individual comments and responses (Group C).

The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

Letter Number and Commenter Page No.

Public Agencies (Federal, State, Regional, Local, Tribal) (A) A1 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2-3
A2 Calif
ornia Geological Survey (CGS) 2-5
A3 Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians 2-8
A4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2-14 A5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2-23 A6 North County Transit District (NCTD) 2-29
Organizations (B)
B1 Colleen Reilly, Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association Board of Directors 2-37 B2 Saahi
l Khandwala, Alps Group 2-41
B3 Tony Pauker, Brookfield Properties Development 2-61
B4 Raymond Bower, Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association 2-67 Individuals (C)
C1 Donald Sonc k 2-73
C2 Larry
Hammer 2-75
C3 Megan Gonzalez 2-77
C4 Kervin Krause 2-79
C5 Michelle Miller 2-81
C6 Vicki Robertson 2-83
C7 Kim Geraghty 2-85
C8 Sharyl Hess 2-87
C9 Lori Robbins 2-90
C10 Christine Amato 2-92
C11 Laurie Weinberger 2-95
C12 Liberato Tortorici 2-97
C13 Robert Rodewald 2-113
C14 Yolanda Higgins 2-115
C15 Michelle Soos 2-117
C16 Christopher Byrum 2-119
2-1
2 City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter Number and Commenter Page No.

C17 Cheri White 2-121
C18 Bradford Robbins 2-123
C19 D. Lech 2-125
C20 Luigi Persico 2-129
C21 Jeff Johnson 2-131
C22 Chris Galindo 2-134
C23 Mike Geraghty 2-137
C24 Dale Ordas 2-142
C25 Teri Jacobs 2-146
C26 Ellen Fawls 2-148
C27 Christine Amato 2-150
C28 Annette Swanton 2-152
C29 Patrick Kerins 2-154
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters are numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter A1).

Responses focus on comments that raise important environmental issues or pertain to the adequacy of analysis in the Draft SEIR or to other aspects pertinent to the potential effects of the proposed project on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Comments that address policy issues, opinions or other topics beyond the purview of the Draft SEIR or CEQA are noted as such for the public record.

Many commenters provided comments on the proposed project, rather than on the adequacy of the information or analysis in the Draft SEIR. Where comments are on the merits of the proposed project rather than on the Draft SEIR, these are also noted in the responses. While the commenters’ statements related to the proposed project are noted, they do not address the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR specifically. As stated in Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft SEIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period…” As stated in the Guidelines, the lead agency is only required to evaluate comments on environmental issues.

Nonetheless, all comments will be forwarded to the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration.

Where appropriate, the information and/or revisions suggested in the comment letters have been incorporated. These revisions are included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this Final EIR.

2.1 Public Agency Comments and Responses
This section provides each letter received from public agencies in response to the Draft SEIR, with specific comments identified with a comment code in the margin. Public agencies include federal, state, regional or local agencies as well as tribal governments. Following the letters, responses to the comments are provided.
2-2
1 From: Gowens Ed <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: RE: Housing Element SEIR Notice
Hi, Scott,
We are in receipt of the notice sent to our agency via certified mail about the availability of the supplemental EIR for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update.

It went through another department to get to us, so, if possible, I recommend that “Airport Land Use Commission” be appended as a second line to Airport Authority on your mailing list for our agency address to ensure proper routing of any future mailings regarding our ALUC function.

As I had advised in my earlier message, I understand from the project description that this will involve rezones and amendments of land use plan designations, and, if any of those subject properties are located within the noise contours and/or safety zones of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area, those will require a consistency determination from us before Council action.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Ed Gowens
Senior
Airport Planner
Airport Land Use Commission
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 
Post
Office Box 82776
San Diego, California 92138-2776
voice (619) 400-2244
All correspondence with this email address is a matter of public record subject to third party review.

Is it worth a tree to print me? 
From: Sco
tt Donnell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 7:52 AM
To: Gowens Ed <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: General Plan & Zoning Ordinance Update
Hi Ed,
Yes all is well and always good to hear from you. Thanks for the reminder about the consistency determination. Getting the NOP out was important, but I know there’s much additional work to do such as this consistency determination.

Thanks.

Letter A1
1 2
2-3
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A1
COMMENTER: Ed Gowens, Senior Airport Planner, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority DATE: July 27, 2023
Response A1-1
The commenter states they received the notice of availability (NOA) for the Supplemental EIR through another department. The commenter requests that “Airport Land Use Commission” be appended as a second line to Airport Authority on the city’s mailing list for the San Deigo County Regional Airport Authority’s address to ensure proper routing of any future mailings.

This comment is noted and future correspondence will be directed to Airport Land Use Commission as requested.

Response A1-2
The commenter states that if any of the properties subject to rezones and land use designation changes are located within the noise contours and/or safety zones of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area, they will require a consistency determination from the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority before Council action.

Subsection 2.6, Required Approvals, in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR acknowledges that the proposed project would likely require approval from the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Airport Land Use Commission) and the Federal Aviation Administration.

As discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft SEIR, a portion of Site 10 is within Zone 2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone, and a portion of Site 9 is within Zone 3 - Inner Turning Zone. In addition, the remaining portions of Sites 9 and 10 as well as Sites 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are within Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone. For development within the Review Areas, new development proposals must process a site development plan or other development permit and be found consistent or conditionally consistent with applicable land use compatibility policies with respect to noise, safety airspace protection, and overflight, as contained in the ALUCP. The project would be subject to the land use compatibility policies 2.6, 3.5, and 3.6 in the McClellan–Palomar ALUCP, directing the Airport Land Use Commission to review land use actions which may have noise or safety concerns and real estate disclosures regarding overflight compatibility for sites in the Airport Influence Area. Additionally, as discussed in Table 4.7-1, the proposed project would be consistent with policies within the ALUCP.

As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft SEIR, Sites 6, 8, 9, and 16 are located within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. None of the sites are located within the noise contours above 65 dB CNEL except for a small portion of northern corner of Site 9 which is within the 65-70 dB CNEL noise contour. Although a small portion of Site 9 is within the 65-70 dB CNEL noise contour, a project has been approved at this site for 192 units that included its own project-level CEQA review. The portion of the project site in the 65-70 dB CNEL noise contour is also within Safety Zone 3 and would include low density units to comply with ALUCP policies. The project was found not to conflict with ALUCP policies related to safety or noise.

Overall, the Draft SEIR acknowledges that approvals from the Airport Land Use Commission would be required for the proposed project and no changes to the SEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-4
1 From: Olson, Brian@DOC <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 4:31 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Cc: OLRA@DOC; OPR State Clearinghouse; Schmidt, Anna@DOC Subject: City of Carlsbad - Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update SCH Number
2022090339
Lead Agency
City of Carlsbad
Document Title
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update Document Type
SIR - Supplemental EIR
Received
7/13/2023
Hello Scott,
Thank you for providing the City’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental EIR for our review. This email conveys the following recommendations from CGS concerning geologic and seismic hazard issues in the provided General Plan documents:

1. Tsunami Hazards
 The EIR provides a discussion of tsunami inundation hazards within the City of Carlsbad and provides a figure depicting “Maximum Tsunami Projected Runup” zones mapped by the County of San Diego. The Supplemental EIR should also discuss and depict CGS Tsunami Hazard Areas (THAs), which are mapped along the entire California coast. The purpose of a THA is to assist public agencies in identifying their exposure to tsunami hazards. It is intended for local jurisdictional, coastal evacuation planning uses only.

Additional information and map files can be found at the links below:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Tsunami- Maps/Tsunami_Hazard_Area_Map_San_Diego_County_a11y.pdf
 The City should also check to see if any re-zone sites are included in a Tsunami Design Zone established by the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC requires certain design standards for essential/critical or larger structures within these zones. The following website provides additional information regarding Tsunami Design Zones: https://asce7tsunami.online/.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
1 Letter A2
2 2-5
2 @CA
geosurvey
FOLLOW US!
Brian Olson, CEG
Senior Engineering Geologist
Seismic Hazards Program
Cal
ifornia Geological Survey
320 W. 4th Street, Suite 850, Los Angeles, CA 90013
M: (213) 507-1080
E: [email protected]
“A team is not a group of people who work together.

A team is a group of people who trust each other.” – Simon Sinek ONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2-6
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A2
COMMENTER: Brian Olsen, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Geological Survey DATE: August 16, 2023
Response A2-1
The commenter states that the Draft SEIR includes a “Maximum Tsunami Projected Runup” zone map as mapped by the County of San Diego. The commenter states that the SEIR should discuss and depict California Geological Survey (CGS) Tsunami Hazard Areas (THA). The commenter states that the purpose of the THA is to assist agencies in identifying their exposure to hazards.

The commenter’s request has been noted and Figure 4.8-4 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to include CGS mapping. The revised Figure is included in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response A2-2
The commenter states that the city should check to see if any housing inventory sites fall within a Tsunami Design Zone established by the California Building Code (CBC).

None of the rezone sites are located in a Tsunami Design Zone established by the CBC.1 Nonetheless, all specific project development would be required to comply with all regulations and requirements set forth by FEMA and the CMC, as well as policies 6-P.1 through 6-P.12 of the Public Safety Element Update which would implement and develop flood control programs and require installation of protective structures to minimize impacts of flooding. 1 CBC Tsunami Design Zones: https://asce7tsunami.online/ 2-7
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082 (760) 749-1092 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
Joseph Linton
Council Member
August 16, 2023
Sent via email: [email protected]
City of Carlsbad
Mr. Scott Donnell
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: GPA2022-0001 Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update, City of Carlsbad, California (GPA 2022 -0001/ZC 2022 -0001/ZCA 2022 -0004/LCPA 2022 -0015/EIR 2022 -0007 (PUB 2022 - 0010)
Dear Mr. Donnell,
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “ Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for providing us with the Notice of Availability of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and ongoing consultation on the City of Carlsbad Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update project.

The Tribe would like to r emind the city that u nder the CEQA Guidelines, generally an EIR may not include or publicly disclose information that is protected against disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Govt C §§6250–6276.48). The following information has potential to identify locations of tribal cultural significance and we ask for omission or reduction of the letter for the public record. Rincon’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) has reviewed the draft SEIR and we have the following project specific concerns and comments:

The Tribe asks that the SEIR will state that proposed housing sites will require a complete environmental review under the California Environmental Qu ality Act (CEQA) i ncluding Letter A3
1 2
3 4
2-8
consulting with the Rincon Band under AB52 to provide the opportunity to further identify and assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources and historic properties.

The Tribe understands that the “city proposes under this project to undergo both General Plan land use and zoning map amendments as necessary to permit housing on the 18 rezone sites identified in the Housing Element and as directed by City Council in February 2022”.

Again, the Tribe would reiterate that we request that no CEQA exemptions will apply as proposed construction may impact tribal cultural resources and historic properties. Additionally, we understand that the city anticipates that future construction projects within the proposed housing sites, will potentially be CEQA exempt. The Tribes would like to learn how the City will address such project proposals that have potential to impact tribal cultural resources under their grading policy and other regulations.

As stated throughout our consultations, the Tribe recommends further consultation with the Rincon Band on Open Space designations within the City of Carlsbad. This would allow further protection of the city’s cultural heritage to dedicate Open Spaces on properties with known significant cultural resources.

The Tribe has also general concerns regarding the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017)1 which have been referenced in the SEIR to regulate cultural resources treatment and protection measures. The Tribe would like to reiterate our concerns regarding the interpretation of the guid elines and implications to the cultural mitigation measures as utilized by the city.

As per Council Policy Statement from February 23, 2016, the purpose of the Tribal Cultural Resource Protection is for “the City of Carlsbad [to] recognize its responsibility to protect with improved certainty the important historical and cultural values of current Tribal Cultural Resources within the City limits and to establish an improved framework for the City's consultations with Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City of Carlsbad including the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.” The Tribe is concerned that the city seems to have interpreted this statement to the point that the San Luis Rey Band of Mission I ndians is the sole affiliated Tribe, which is mostly reflected in the current standard cultural mitigation measures which do not afford the Rincon Band equal consultation opportunities. The THPO would like to draw again attention to the fact that different Luiseño Bands have geographical associations and historical and living relationships to various plac es, landscapes, and resources throughout the diverse Luiseño ancestral territory and traditional cultural landscape. This includes the Rincon Band’s irrevocable ties to the lands and waters of what today is called the City of Carlsbad.

From our ongoing consultation with the city, we understand that further consultation with the Tribe regarding the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines will occur. As we believe this to be a thoughtful longer process, we would like to learn what immediate steps the city will take to address our following concerns:
- We ask that the Rincon Band is being afforded to also consult on what is identified in the SEIR (4.4-23) as “two standard treatments applicable to historical resources which may be used to mitigate impacts”, such as consultation on any interpretive or educational materials including panels etc. 1 637425976516870000 (carlsbadca.gov)
4 cont.
5 6
7 8
2-9
- Additionally, the current Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines limit the Tribe’s involvement and prevents engagement between the Tribe and the city in regard to any cultu ral resources’ assessments or treatments. For ex ample, segments 8.0 Tribal Cultures Resources Procedures and Section 9.0 Cultural Resources Procedures , which include withholding project consultation opportunities from the Rincon Band such as 8.1.1.1 Procedure for Pre-NOE Consultation with the SLRBMI; Section 8.2.2.4 Tribal monitoring, which omits any consideration of cultural resources being returned to affiliated Tribes other than SLRBMI, and ignoring knowledge and tribe-specific expertise in determination of significance of findings . The Tribe would like to learn how the city will address these concerns in the SEIR.

The Tribe is looking forward to further consultation on the pr oject. If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 749-1092 or via email at cmadrigal@rincon- nsn.gov.

Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Manager
9 2-10
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A3
COMMENTER: Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
DATE: August 16, 2023
Response A3-1
The commenter writes on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and thanks the City of Carlsbad for providing ongoing consultation.

The comment is noted. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response A3-2
The commenter reminds the city that the Draft SEIR should not include or publicly disclose information that is protected against disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and requests information that has the potential to identify locations of tribal cultural significance to be omitted or reduced.

The City of Carlsbad acknowledges the commenter’s request for their comments to be redacted.

The comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Response A3-3
This comment has been redacted at the request of the commenter.

Nonetheless, Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR, development facilitated by the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact tribal cultural resources.

Future development would be subject to AB 52 as required by CEQA and would be subject to the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines. These Guidelines address identification and treatment of tribal cultural resources that may be impacted as a result of development associated with the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with adherence to the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines and implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, as listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR. Please see Response A3-5 for an explanation of this added mitigation measure.

Response A3-4
The commenter requests that the Draft SEIR state that some of the proposed housing sites require a complete environmental review under CEQA including consulting with the Rincon Band under AB 52.

At the request of the commenter, the exact sites have been redacted. Please also see Response A3-3.

Response A3-5
The commenter requests no CEQA exemptions to apply since proposed construction of the 18 rezone sites could impact tribal cultural resources and historic properties. The commenter 2-11
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
understands the city anticipates that future construction projects would potentially be CEQA exempt, and states that the Tribes would like to learn how the city will address project proposals that have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources under their grading policy and other regulations.

While the comment is acknowledged, some future development proposals on the rezone sites could meet the criteria for a CEQA exemption, some future development could meet the criteria for streamlining under CEQA, and based on project specific impacts, some future development may require project specific CEQA analysis be conducted prior to project approval and issuance of any construction or building permits. In each case, future development will be reviewed by city staff to determine the appropriate level of CEQA analysis required. Nonetheless, development on all 18 rezone sites is analyzed in the Draft SEIR.

Development of rezone sites may not be subject to CEQA due to either an exemption or ministerially processing. Thus, notification of the opportunity to consult on the pending development to California Native American tribes such as under AB 52 would not be required.

Further, if development does not require an amendment to the General Plan or a specific plan, notification would also not be required under SB 18.

The city anticipates that ministerial or “by right” processing may occur on the rezone sites. For this reason, project amendments to the RD-M Zone (Chapter 21.24 of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) propose this requirement:

Housing developments that contain a minimum of 20 percent affordability to lower‐income households as required by Government Code section 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and that are on specific sites rezoned by the City Council to meet RHNA requirements as detailed in the programs of the Housing Element shall be permitted “by right” as that term is defined in Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and shall be subject to the mitigation measures of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report EIR 2022-0007, certified by City Council Resolution 202X-XXX.

The city’s development permitting system will flag each rezone site to require compliance with the mitigation measures when applications are submitted and before permits are issued. “Flagging” in the system is already a common city practice, such as for ensuring payment of fees prior to development approval.

Additionally, a new mitigation measure has been added to address project proposals that have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. Please see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, for the text of the new mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure CUL-3) and the revised impact analysis for Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response A3-6
The commenter recommends further consultation on open space designations with the city, which would allow further protection of the city’s cultural heritage to dedicate open space on properties with known significant cultural resources.

The comment is noted. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.
2-12
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response A3-7
The commenter expresses concerns regarding the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017) referenced in the Draft SEIR, including interpretation of the guidelines and implications to the cultural mitigation measures utilized by the city.

The commenter references Council Policy Statement from February 23, 2016, which says the purpose of the Tribal Cultural Resource Protection is for “the City of Carlsbad [to] recognize its responsibility to protect with improved certainty the important historical and cultural values of current Tribal Cultural Resources within the City limits and to establish an improved framework for the City's consultations with Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the City of Carlsbad including the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.” The commenter expresses concern that the city has misinterpreted this statement to the point that the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians is the sole affiliated Tribe, which is reflected in the current standard cultural mitigation measures which do not afford the Rincon Band equal consultation opportunities.

The comment is in reference to the Council Policy Statement and specific sample mitigation measures as they are adopted. Any updates to the guidelines will be a public process.

Response A3-8
The commenter requests for consultation on the “two standard treatments applicable to historical resources which may be used to mitigate impacts” as outlined on Page 4.4-23 of the Draft SEIR.

These are sample standard treatments in the existing Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017). They are not the limit of potential measures and guidelines. Each future project will be evaluated consistent with the guidelines in place.

Response A3-9
The commenter expresses the opinion that the current Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017) limits the Tribe’s involvement and prevents engagement between the Tribe and the city in regard to any cultural resources’ assessments or treatments. The Tribe requests for the city to address these concerns in the Draft SEIR.

The city is committed to completing consultation consistent with California and CEQA laws and regulations.
2-13
wildl
ife.ca.gov

STATE OF
CALIFORNIA • NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Charlton H. Bonham, Director South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road | San Diego, CA 92123
wildlife.ca.gov
August
25, 2023
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
[email protected]
Subj
ect: Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR),
SCH #2022090339
Dear Scott Donnell:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) from the City of Carlsbad for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
CDFW
previously provided comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Project on October 24, 2022. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 1 CEQA is
codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Aug
25 2023
Letter A4
1 2-14
Scott Do
nnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
August 25, 2023

Page 2 of 7 ends

15386, subd. (a
).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

The City of Carlsbad has an approved and permitted Subarea Plan (City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)) under the subregional North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The City adopted their HMP in December 1999; CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, the Wildlife Agencies) granted final approvals, including an Implementing Agreement (IA), in November 2004. The SEIR for the proposed Project must ensure and verify that all requirements and conditions of the HMP and IA are met. The SEIR should also address biological issues that are not addressed in the HMP and IA, such as specific impacts to and mitigation requirements for wetlands or sensitive species and habitats that are not covered by the HMP and IA.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Carlsbad (City)
Objective: The SEIR is a supplement to the Carlsbad General Plan and Climate Action Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2011011004), certified in 2015. The Project consists of updates to the City’s General Plan, including the Land Use and Community Design Element and Public Safety Element, and updates to Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21, the Zoning Ordinance. The updates are necessary to implement the programs of the City’s Housing Element Update 2021-2029 (Housing Element), which was adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on April 6, 2021, and changes in State law.

The Project proposes to change of land use and zoning designations on 18 sites (rezone sites) to facilitate residential development. The rezone sites consist of properties currently designated for low-density residential, commercial, industrial, or public land uses. As proposed, the rezone sites will be partially or entirely redesignated to medium or high-density residential land use 1, cont.
2 3
2-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11AE952F-08B8-4CD5-A543-1AD1 EA0D340A Scott Do
nnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
August 25, 2023

Page 3 of 7 ends

designa
tions. Based on the SEIR and our August 16, 2023, discussion with City staff (Rosanne Humphrey), it is our understanding that Project approval would not include approval of any physical development (e.g., construction of housing or infrastructure); however, the SEIR assumes that such actions are reasonably foreseeable future outcomes of the Project. Any future development projects would be further evaluated for consistency with the City’s HMP and proposed HMP Minor Amendments would be evaluated in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.

Location: The Project incorporates 18 rezone sites, numbered as Site 1 through 18, located within the City’s jurisdiction and HMP Plan Area. Several of the proposed sites are located within the California Coastal Zone. In addition, four of the sites (Sites 4,6,9,17) are located within or adjacent to a Standards Area, Proposed Hardline, and/or Existing Hardline identified in the HMP.

Biological Setting: The diverse habitats of the City support a wide variety of biological resources, including many species listed under CESA, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as Narrow Endemics (NE), Obligate Wetland Species (OWS), California Fully Protected Species (FP), and California Species of Special Concern (SSC). Some of the rezone sites proposed in the SEIR are occupied by, or have the potential to be occupied by, several sensitive species, to include, but not limited to: California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica; ESA-listed Endangered, CESA-listed Endangered, NE, OWS), San Diego button celery ((Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii; ESA-listed Endangered, CESA-listed Endangered, NE, OWS), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia; ESA-listed Threatened, CESA-listed Endangered, NE), spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis; ESA-listed Threatened, NE, OWS), little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus; NE, OWS), Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcutti; NE, California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, ESA-listed Endangered, CESA-listed Endangered), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; ESA-listed Threatened, SSC), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis; ESA-listed Endangered, NE, OWS), and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptochephalus wootoni; ESA-listed Endangered, NE, OWS). The SEIR stipulates that future development projects will be required to provide a biological resources technical report that incorporates site-specific information including a biological resource inventory, impact analysis, and mitigation measures consistent with the City’s HMP requirements. 3, cont.
2-16
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11AE952F-08B8-4CD5-A543-1AD1 EA0D340A Scott Do
nnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
August 25, 2023

Page 4 of 7 ends

COMMENT

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The SEIR should provide adequate and complete disclosure of the Project’s potential impacts on biological resources [Pub. Resources Code, § 21061; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15003(i), 15151].

Comments

1. Potential Impacts to Listed Vernal Pool Species and Conserved Lands:

Table 4.3-1 of the SEIR indicates that one of the Project’s proposed rezone sites, Site 17, currently overlaps with the Poinsettia Station Vernal Pool Preserve (Preserve). The Preserve provides high quality vernal pool habitat for several listed and sensitive species including California Orcutt grass, San Diego button-celery, spreading navarretia, little mousetail, Orcutt’s brodiaea, San Diego fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp. The Preserve is managed by the City as a condition for vernal pool species coverage under the HMP (referenced on List 3, page C-12 in the HMP) and is protected under a Conservation Easement (CE) signed on July 25, 1994.

The CE was granted to CDFW as mitigation for impacts to San Diego button-celery, pursuant to the CESA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 2081-1994-001-5 for the Poinsettia Lane Commuter Rail Station Project.

The Project’s proposal to change the land use designation of Site 17 from Public Transportation Center (P, TC) to Residential 15-23 dwelling units/acre (R-23, P) would not be compatible with the provisions of the CE.

The CE language strictly prohibits any activity on or use of the property that is inconsistent with retaining the property in a natural condition and protecting its natural resources in perpetuity; therefore, CDFW strongly discourages the City from allowing future development (e.g., housing) in any area that overlaps with the conserved property or otherwise results in indirect or cumulative impacts to the biological resources within the CE area. We recommend that the City coordinate with CDFW early on in their review of future development plans on Site 17 to ensure that any proposed impacts within, or adjacent to, the conserved property will be 4 2-17
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11AE952F-08B8-4CD5-A543-1AD1 EA0D340A Scott Do
nnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
August 25, 2023

Page 5 of 7 ends

avoided
to be consistent with the conservation goals and requirements of the HMP and the provisions of CESA MOU and CE.

2. Natural Habitat Areas: Per the SEIR’s 4.33c Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures section, pages 4.3-20 through 4.3-21, rezone sites that contain or are adjacent to natural habitat areas, including coastal sage scrub, oak woodlands, vernal pools, and riparian habitat, have the potential to support special-status species. The SEIR indicates that Sites 1-2, 6-9, and 18 contain natural habitat or woodlands and Site 17 contains vernal pools.

Based on our review of Table 4.3-1, Site 4 also contains natural habitat such as coastal sage scrub, riparian associated with Agua Hedionda Creek, and grassland with high potential for thread-leaved brodiaea.

Therefore, we recommend that this section of the SEIR be revised to list Site 4 as one of the sites that contains natural habitat for consistency in the document. In addition, we recommend that this section be revised to consider grasslands, of both native and non-native composition, as natural habitat areas that may also support special-status species (e.g., raptor foraging, sensitive plant species’ habitat, habitat linkages).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information report
ed to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONM

ENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the 4, cont.
6 5
2-18
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11AE952F-08B8-4CD5-A543-1AD1 EA0D340A Scott Do
nnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
August 25, 2023

Page 6 of 7 ends

environme
ntal document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEIR. CDFW appreciates the partnership with the City, and we look forward to working together in the future.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Alison Kalinowski, Environmental Scientist, by email at, [email protected].

Sincerel
y,
David Mayer
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
ec: CDFW
Karen Drewe, San Diego – [email protected]
Melanie
Burlaza, San Diego – [email protected]
Cindy Haile
y, San Diego – [email protected]
Office o
f Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse – [email protected]
United S
tates Fish and Wildlife Service
Jonathan Snyder – [email protected]
City of
Carlsbad
Rosanne Humphrey – [email protected]
2-19
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11AE952F-08B8-4CD5-A543-1AD1 EA0D340A Scott Do
nnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
August 25, 2023

Page 7 of 7 ends

References
C
ity of Carlsbad. August 2023. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update.

City of Carlsbad. December 1999. Habitat Management Plan.

Figures
SEIR Figure 2-4: Proposed Rezone Site Locations (page 2-13) 2-20
DocuSign Envelope ID: 11AE952F-08B8-4CD5-A543-1AD1 EA0D340A ~~ ~ j City Lim iU
Highway
Major St-reet
Planned Street
Riulroqd
c::::J Coasta l Zone
Pote ntial Housing Sites•
-Convert government-owned prop,e,ty to
allow housi ng
lnaea'5.e uni ts allowied on p,operties that
already allow housing
ConVf'n v~can1 lnd\.l:s.trial propetty to
~llow h0U$1f'lg
• Smr J J wu:i: dcsionok'd ui; a ,,..w prlwiry sico-tiy f~ lmGQll'I)' PJOll~dedb'! t~rl a.nd It$ k~tU.!lfJ. C .!()U.

A,ffd!t,cmal,:io:.11""GV/dN.bv C1Cyo{l;(U};st,-(ld, 1lJV. \
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A4
COMMENTER: David Mayer, Environmental Program Manager, South Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DATE: August 25, 2023
Response A4-1
The commenter states that CDFW is a trustee agency for fish and wildfire resources.

As stated in Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR, a trustee agency refers to a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. There are no trustee agencies for the proposed project or EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly cause development in areas where trustee agencies mentioned in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 have jurisdiction. However, future development projects could be located on lands under trustee agency jurisdiction, at which time subsequent environmental review would occur.

Therefore, it is acknowledged CDFW may be trustee agency with jurisdiction of the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, and native plants and habitat for future development projects on the rezone sites.

Response A4-2
The commenter states that the city has an approved and permitted Subarea Plan (City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)) under the subregional North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The commenter states that the SEIR must ensure and verify that all requirements and conditions of the HMP and Implementing Agreement (IA) are met and that the SEIR should also address biological issues that are not addressed in the HMP and IA, such as specific impacts to and mitigation requirements for wetlands or sensitive species and habitats that are not covered by the HMP and IA.

This comment is informational background regarding the MHCP and city’s Subarea Plan. These documents and requirements were reviewed for project consistency as discussed in the SEIR, as well as the CEQA environmental checklist for all biological resources that are considered sensitive under CEQA (such as wetlands). The Carlsbad HMP and project consistency with the HMB is discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR. Additional information and responses to specific comments raised on the Draft SEIR are provided in Responses A4-3 through A4-6.

Response A4-3
The commenter summarizes the project proponent, project details, project location, and biological setting.

The commenter’s summary of the project and setting is accurate.

Response A4-4
The commenter states that Site 17 overlaps with the Poinsettia Station Vernal Pool Preserve (Preserve), which provides high quality vernal pool habitat for several listed and sensitive species.

The commenter states the Preserve is managed by the city as a condition for vernal pool species coverage under the HMP and is protected under a Conservation Easement (CE). According to the commenter, the proposed land use designation change of Site 17 from Public Transportation Center (P, TC) to Residential 15-23 dwelling units/acre (R-23, P) [see Table 2-4 for the correct existing and 2-21
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
proposed land use and zoning] would not be compatible with the provisions of the CE because the CE language strictly prohibits any activity on or use of the property that is inconsistent with retaining the property in a natural condition and protecting its natural resources in perpetuity.

Therefore, the commenter states that CDFW discourages the city from allowing future development (e.g., housing) in any area that overlaps with the conserved property or otherwise results in indirect or cumulative impacts to the biological resources within the CE area. The commenter recommends that the city coordinate with CDFW early on in their review of future development plans on Site 17 to ensure consistency with the HMP and the CE.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft SEIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 on page 4.3-25 requires agency coordination for any proposed development on sites that encompass aquatic resources, including Site 17. In response to this comment, Mitigation BIO-7 has been revised to include coordination with responsible and administering resource agencies including CDFW and USFWS. This revision is shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response A4-5
The commenter states that rezone sites that contain or are adjacent to natural habitat areas, including coastal sage scrub, oak woodlands, vernal pools, and riparian habitat, have the potential to support special-status species. The commenter states that the SEIR indicates that Pages 4.3-20 through 4.3-21 of the SEIR says Sites 1-2, 6-9, and 18 contain natural habitat or woodlands and Site 17 contains vernal pools. The commenter explains that based on their review, Site 4 also contains natural habitat such as coastal sage scrub, riparian associated with Agua Hedionda Creek, and grassland with high potential for thread-leaved brodiaea. Therefore, the commenter recommends that the SEIR be revised to list Site 4 as one of the sites that contains natural habitat.

Table 4.3-1 on page 4.3-2 of the Draft SEIR lists coastal sage scrub, riparian, and grassland with high potential for thread-leaved brodiaea as occurring on Site 4. The Special-Status Species section on

Page 4 ends

mitigation measures are identified accordingly. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment because mitigation is already required on Site 4 which addresses the commenter’s concern.

Response A4-6
The commenter recommends that the SEIR be revised to consider grasslands, of both native and non-native composition, as natural habitat areas that may also support special-status species.

Page 4 ends

within the city as potentially supporting sensitive plant and animal species including foraging raptors such as the California Fully Protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). This section also states:

Non-native grassland may also support sensitive plant species such as the federally and state-listed thread leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) and San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia), and may serve as a habitat linkage for a number of wildlife species such…as the coastal California gnatcatcher. Grassland habitat is identified in Table 4.3-1 as occurring on sites 4, 6, and 7. Potential impacts to these sites and sensitive species potentially occurring in these grassland habitats is discussed in Bio-1 on page 4.3-21 of the Draft SEIR. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.
2-22
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS -240
SAN
DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 709-5152 | FA X (619) 688-4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August
28, 2023
11-SD-5, 7
8 PM VAR
H
ousing and Safety Element
DEIR/SCH# 2022090339
Mr. Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear M
r. Donnell:

Thank
you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environment
al review process for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Housing and Safety Elements located near Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78).

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.

Safety is one of Caltrans’ strategic goals. Caltra ns strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California’s roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network’s diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance the safety on the transportation network.

These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and
their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work.

Letter A5
2-23

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
• •
lb/trans·
Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
August 28, 2023

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Caltrans is committed to prioritizing projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities, to ultimately improve transportation accessibility and quality of life for people in the communities we serve.

We look forward to working with the City of Carlsbad in areas where the City and Caltrans have joint jurisdiction to improve the transportation network and connections between various modes of travel, with the goal of improving the experience of those who use the transportation system.

Caltrans has the following comments:

Caltrans Maintenance and Operations Station
The
Hou
sing Element proposes 182 housing units on the existing, actively used Caltrans’ Carlsb
ad Maintenance Station near I-5/Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad. The Caltrans Maintenance Station is the only one in North San Diego County and services areas from Del Mar to the San Diego County border at Orange County as well as freeways from I-5, SR-76 and SR-78. The land is not in Caltrans excess land, and is expected to be used for Caltrans Maintenance Operations for the long-term future.

If at some point in the future the City of Carlsbad would like to explore conversion of
the Caltrans Maintenance Station for purposes of affordable housing, a number of things would need to happen, including but not limited to:
• A formal agreement would b
e needed between Caltrans and the City,
detailing what would need to be done to transfer the parcel. The agreement would need to include cost considerations, to be borne by the City. The valuation of the current site would need to be “fair market value” at the time of sale or transfer.
• A suitable replacement site would need to be provided, and Caltran s Maintenance and Operations facilities built on the new site to accommodate work needs for Caltrans Maintenance activities that are done on the current site. Site acquisition costs, development costs, and building construction costs would be borne by the City.
• Since the existing Caltrans Maintenance yard site provides maintenance servic
es to such a large geographic area, some additional land (ie. a larger parcel) may be needed to accommodate future CT Maintenance activities & needs.
• Several processes (internal to Caltrans) such as dec
laring the current site to be
an excess parcel would need to be completed.
1 2-24
Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
August 28, 2023

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Traffic Impact Studies and VMT
• New developments resulting from the City of Carlsbad Housing Element should provide a Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) based Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and local mobility analysis should be provided for future projects. Please use the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.1
• The TIS may also need to identify a proposed development project’s near- term and long-term safety or operational issues, on or adjacent any existing or proposed State facilities.

Planning
As part of the City’s 2023 Housi ng Element update, Caltrans requests that the City include discussions and mapping/graphics that describe the City’s existing and future housing inventory per the City’s Regional Housi ng Needs Assessment (RHNA).

Housing-element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the RHNA Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or council of governments.

In accordance with California Government Code Sections 65583 and 65584, housing elements shall contain an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing needs (ie. RHNA) per Government Code Section 65584.

Complete Streets and Mobility Network
Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access
and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. Caltrans supports improved transit accommodation through the provision of Park and Ride facilities, improved bicycle and pedestrian access and safety improvements, signal prioritization for transit, bus on shoulders, ramp improvements, or other enhancements that promotes a complete and integrated transportation network. Early coordination 1 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018. "Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA." https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 2 3
4 2-25
Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
August 28, 2023

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and the City of Carlsbad is encouraged.

Broadband
Ca
ltr
ans recognizes that teleworking and remote learning lessen the impacts of traffi c on our roadways and surrounding communities. This reduces the amount of VMT and decreases the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. The availability of affordable and reliable, high-speed broadband is a key component in supporting travel demand management and reaching the state’s transportation and climate action goals.

Right-of-Way
• Per Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed
land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any construction. • Any work performed within Caltrans’ R/W w ill require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction.

Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contac
ting the Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158 or emailing [email protected] or by visiting the website at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kimberly Dodson, LDR Coordina
tor, at (619) 985-1587 or by e-mail sent to [email protected].

Sincerely,
Maurice A. Eaton
Maurice Eaton
Office Chief (Acting)|Office of Housing and Transportation Division of Transportation Planning
California Department of Transportation
4, cont
5 6
2-26
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A5
COMMENTER: Maurice Eaton, Office Chief Division of Transportation Planning, California Department of Transportation
DATE: August 28, 2023
Response A5-1
The commenter states that the Housing Element proposes 182 units on the existing, actively used Caltrans’ Carlsbad Maintenance Station, which is expected to be used for Caltrans Maintenance Operations for the long-term future. The commenter expresses that if the city wishes to use the Carlsbad Maintenance Station for purposes of affordable housing, a formal agreement would be needed; a suitable replacement site would need to be provided; additional land may be required to accommodate future Caltrans Maintenance activities; and several internal Caltrans processes would be required to be completed.

Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR states that Site 16 currently includes the Caltrans Maintenance Station. Section 3, Environmental Setting, explains that the northern parcel of Site 16 is developed with a Caltrans maintenance station and the southern, privately-owned parcel is occupied by commercial uses. It is acknowledged that should future development occur on the northern parcel of the site, an agreement would be needed prior to any approval of a project between Caltrans and the project proponent. Because Caltrans owns the northern parcel of the site, development could not occur without property owner agreement.

Response A5-2
The commenter states that future development facilitated by the project should provide a VMT based Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and local mobility analysis. The commenter expresses that the TIS may also need to identify a proposed development project’s near term and long-term safety or operational issues, on or adjacent any existing or proposed State facilities.

As discussed under Mitigation Measure T-1 in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, future development at the 18 rezone sites would undergo review by the city and each project would be compared to the City of Carlsbad VMT Analysis Guidelines screening criteria to determine if the submitted project is eligible to be screened out of conducting project-level VMT analysis. If a project meets one or more of the screening criteria, the project would be determined to have a less than significant impact to VMT in accordance with the city’s VMT Analysis Guidelines. A project that has not been excluded from the VMT analysis screening process outlined above must undergo a quantitative VMT analysis to determine whether it will have a significant impact on VMT. If it is determined that the project would have a significant impact on VMT (i.e., it does not result in at least a 15 percent reduction in VMT compared to existing conditions), the project would be required to implement project-level VMT reduction measures to mitigate project VMT impact to the extent feasible.

Further, while not required for CEQA, a TIS (or Traffic Impact Analysis Report) was prepared for the project and is available online at the City’s website here:
2-27
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minutes- notices
Response A5-3
The commenter expresses the opinion that the city should include discussions and mapping/graphics that describe the city’s existing and future housing inventory per the city’s RHNA.

The city’s existing and future housing inventory is discussed in the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response A5-4
The commenter recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. The commenter encourages early coordination with Caltrans.

The comment is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response A5-5
The commenter opines that the availability of affordable and reliable, high-speed broadband is a key component in supporting travel demand management and reaching the State’s transportation and climate action goals.

The comment is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response A5-6
The commenter states that any work performed within a Caltrans right-of-way will require discretionary review, an encroachment permit, and approval by Caltrans.

Future development with work performed within a Caltrans right-of-way would obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to start of work. 2-28
August 31, 2023
Mr. Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sent Via Electronic Mail: [email protected]
Re: Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Donnell:

The North County Transit District (NCTD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (dSEIR), pursuant to the City of Carlsbad’s (City) notice of availability published on July 14, 2023. Accordingly, NCTD's comments are provided below:

I. Section 2.4.3
NCTD is the owner of two sites: Site 14, Carlsbad Village COASTER Station, and Site 17, Poinsettia COASTER Station, which are under evaluation for land use changes and development in the dSEIR. NCTD is strongly in favor of advancing development opportunity for these two sites. We appreciate the City’s consideration of our sites for future development. Regarding the description of our sites, please consider the following clarifications:

A. Site 14: Carlsbad Village COASTER Station
i. Number of Parcels and Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): In this location, NCTD owns 4 parcels, not 2 as described in the dSEIR. The APNs described in the dSEIR are also incorrect. The correct APNs are as follows: 155-200-11-00, 155-200-12-00, 203-054-28-00, and 203- 296-12-00.
ii. Total acreage is incorrect as listed in the document. NCTD presently owns 17.26 acres at this location.
iii. The Village and Barrio Master Plan currently allows for a density range of 28-35 units. NCTD supports inclusion in the dSEIR of 30 du/acre or greater.

B. Site 17: Poinsettia COASTER Station
i. Number of Parcels and Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): In this Letter A6
1 3
2 2-29

NORTH COUNTY

TRANSIT DISTRICT
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
(760) 966-6500
(760) 967-2001 (fax)
GoNCTD.com
Re: Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
August 31, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

location, NCTD owns 3 parcels, not 2 as described in the dSEIR. The APNs described in the dSEIR are also incorrect. The correct APNs are as follows:
214-150-11-00, 214-150-08-00, and 214-150-20-00.
ii. Total acreage is incorrect as listed in the document. NCTD presently owns 12.11 acres at this location.
iii. The dSEIR appears to contemplate an R-23 zoning for this site, whereas the associated fact sheet proposes: three potential zoning scenarios for Site 17: R-30, R-35, and R-40. NCTD supports zoning R- 35 and R-40 designations, which would allow the site to maximize potential densities placing future residents immediately adjacent to public transportation consistent with SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan reducing car dependence, traffic congestion, and support regional housing goals.

II. Section 4.43
A. The section omits any reference to 400 Carlsbad Village Dr., which is the site of the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, built in 1887, and which also served in other locally significant functions other than a train depot. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Place on September 30, 1999. It is located on Site 14 of the proposed project in the dSEIR.

III. Section 4.13
A. NCTD recommends the following clarifications noted in red to Section 4.13.1: Bus Service NCTD fixed-route bus service is referred to as their BREEZE service.

BREEZE NCTD currently operates approximately nine twelve BREEZE bus routes within the city, including routes 101, 302, 304, 309, 315, 323, 315/325, 444, 445, 604, 609, and 632623. Buses generally operate on 20-minute30-minute to 60- minute headways depending on the day of the week. NCTD also offers LIFT, a curb-to-curb service for disabled persons with disabilities who are unable to utilize fixed-route servicesthe BREEZE serve and are certified as eligible to use the service, as required by the ADA.

B. NCTD recommends the following corrections to Section 4.13.1: COASTER COMMUTER Rail
i. Headway times southbound vary from 20 minutes to 80 minutes Monday to Friday with shorter headway times occurring during the busiest hours.
ii. Headway times northbound vary from 20 minutes to 140 minutes Monday to Friday with shorter headway times occurring during the busiest hours.
iii. COASTER service is extended into the evening hours during weekends and holidays.

IV. Section 6.2
NCTD is supportive of Alternative 2 in addition to the Project in principle. However, the unit count calculation assumes that 180 units would be built at Sites 14 and 17 without explaining why the need for 180 units as opposed to replacing the net increase in units from Sites 3, 8, and 15, which total 137 dwelling units. NCTD 3,
cont.
4 5
6 7
8 2-30
Re: Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
August 31, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

requests clarification as to why it was assumed that 180 units would need to be constructed at Sites 14 and 17.

NCTD also disagrees that air quality impacts would be larger for Alternative 2.

Mobilization, demobilization, initial ground disturbance for foundation work of five sites, and associated work is likely to be much more impactful than two sites at a greater density.

Additionally, NCTD requests clarification regarding conflicting findings in Section

6.2(f), Green House Gas Emissions (GHG). In this section, the dSEIR states that “per capita VMT would be lower than that of the 2015 General Plan EIR, since Alternative 2 would place more residents in proximity to jobs, services, and transit thereby reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicles.” However, the comparative impact assessment provided in Table 6-6 indicates that the 2015 General Plan EIR GHG impacts equated to Less than Significant, or LTS, impacts, whereas it assigns to Alternative 2 impacts that are significant and unavoidable, or SAU. Such a finding appears to conflict with the preceding text in Section 6.2(f).

VMT analysis under this section should clarify assumptions with respect to how residents at Site 14 and 17 will use transit as opposed to undertake single-occupancy vehicle trips given their proximity to transit. Potentially, VMT emissions from two sites adjacent to transit centers could be less than the proposed project with 3 sites proposed at locations far away from transit centers. NCTD requests clarification regarding whether VMT calculations account for proximity to transit and clarification regarding the final calculation suggesting that the Proposed Project would result in less VMT than Alternative 2. Finally, and as stated above, we disagree with the finding that development at the two NCTD-owned sites at a higher density will result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts given assumptions that placing residents adjacent to transit will ultimately result in fewer single-vehicle occupancy trips.

Finally, we remain concerned that Table 6-6 is misleading for the general public who may not read in detail the technical studies or the associated dSEIR text. The dark red could be construed by a reader as carrying greater significance even though ultimately the impacts of varying alternatives are the same. We recommend that the color choices be removed or alternatively, changed.

Thank you for allowing NCTD to review and comment on the dEIR. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Lillian Doherty at (760) 967-2803 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Lillian Doherty
Director of Planning and Development
cc: Tracey Foster, Chief Development Officer, NCTD
8, cont.
9 10
11 12
2-31
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter A6
COMMENTER: Lillian Doherty, Director of Planning and Development, North County Transit District
DATE: August 31, 2023
Response A6-1
The commenter explains that the North County Transit District (NCTD) is the owner of Site 14, Carlsbad Village COASTER Station, and Site 17, Poinsettia COASTER Station. The commenter expresses support for development of these two sites. The commenter states that for Site 14, the Draft SEIR incorrectly lists the number of parcels, APNs, and acreage, and clarifies that the NCTD owns 4 parcels, not 2 as described in the Draft SEIR. The commenter states that the correct APNs are: 155-200-11-00, 155-200-12-00, 203-054-28-00, and 203-296-12-00, and the total acreage should be 17.26 acres.

The commenter’s request has been noted and page 2-15 of the Draft SEIR (Table 2-4) has been revised as listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

NCTD Response A6-2
The commenter comments on Site 14, and states that although the Village and Barrio Master Plan currently allows for a density range of 28 to 35 units, the NCTD supports a density of 30 dwelling units per acre or greater.

The comment is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response A6-3
The commenter comments on Site 17, and states that the Draft SEIR incorrectly lists the number of parcels, APNs, and acreage of this site. The commenter clarifies that NCTD owns 3 parcels, not 2 as described in the Draft SEIR. The commenter also clarifies that the correct APNs are: 214-150-11-00, 214-150-08-00, and 214-150-20-00, and the total acreage should be 12.11 acres.

APN 214-150-11 was not directed to be studied by City Council and is not included in Site 17. The commenter’s request has been noted and APN numbers on page 2-16 of the Draft SEIR (Table 2-4) has been revised as noted in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response A6-4
The commenter states that Draft SEIR lists an R-23 zoning for Site 17, whereas the fact sheet proposes three potential rezoning scenarios for the site: R-30, R-35, and R-40. The commenter recommends implementation of the R-35 and R-40 zoning designations which would allow the site to maximize potential densities.
2-32
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
City Council directed Site 17 to be rezoned to R-23. The fact sheet referenced by the commenter is incorrect as it provides only potential rezoning scenarios under Alternative 2 and not the project as directed by the City Council. The current proposed zone changes under the project are accurate as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The comment is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response A6-5
The commenter states that Section 4.4.3 of the Draft SEIR omits reference to 400 Carlsbad Village Drive, located on Site 14, which is the site of the Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot built in 1887, and listed on the National Register of Historic Place on September 30, 1999.

According to the city’s Potential Housing Sites Map, 400 Carlsbad Village Drive is not located on Site 14 and is not proposed for rezoning under the proposed project.2 If NCTD is interested in development of that site, that could be submitted through a separate project and would go through a separate review of the entire proposed project, including historic and environmental review provisions.

Response A6-6
The commenter recommends clarifications to Section 4.13.1.

The commenter’s request has been noted and revisions have been made to Page 4.13-1 of the Draft SEIR as detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response A6-7
The commenter recommends corrections to Section 4.13.1: COASTER Commuter Rail.

The commenter’s request has been noted and Page 4.13-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response A6-8
The commenter comments on Section 6.2 of the Draft SEIR. The commenter expresses support for Alternative 2, however, the commenter states that the unit calculation assumes 180 units would be built at Sites 14 and 17 without explaining the need for 180 units as opposed to replacing the net increase in units from Sites 3, 8, and 15, which total 137 dwelling units. The commenter requests clarification as to why 180 units were assumed for Sites 14 and 17.

The unit estimate was based upon a review of potential land available for housing as a conservative estimate. Based on the potential land available and the minimum densities of the land use designations either existing (Site 14) or proposed (Site 17), unit yields for the project were determined. This resulted in a yield of 93 units for Site 14 and 27 units for Site 17. Under 2 Carlsbad Potential Housing Sites Map:
https://carlsbad.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a5a710965bd4e6da387aa3183fd5ae2 2-33
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Alternative 2, the City Council directed higher unit yields for Site 14 (200 units) and Site 17 (100 units). The 180 units results from the difference between the yields estimated for the project vs.

Alternative 2. This estimate was created prior to preliminary plans put out by NCTD for development on the site.

Response A6-9
The commenter expresses disagreement with the determination that air quality impacts would be worse under Alternative 2 since mobilization, demobilization, and ground disturbance for five sites would likely be more impactful than two sites at a greater density.

As discussed in Section 6.3.2b, Alternative 2 – Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR, and shown in Table 6-2, since Alternative 2 would result in an overall net increase in units by 43 units, slightly more construction emissions would be emitted when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, air quality impacts would be slightly increased under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed project.

Response A6-10
The commenter requests clarification regarding Section 6.2f, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The commenter states that there is a discrepancy between the analysis and Table 6-6.

As discussed in Section 6.2f, Alternative 2 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and as shown in Table 6-3, GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would increase, due to the development of 43 more housing units compared to the proposed project. Therefore, GHG impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar, but slightly increased as compared to the proposed project. Table 6-6 shows that Alternative 2 would also have a significant and unavoidable impact similar to the proposed project even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1. However, since GHG emissions would slightly increase under Alternative 2, Alternative 2 was found to result in an increased level of impact, detailed with the red colored highlight and the (-) denotation.

Response A6-11
The commenter requests clarification regarding the VMT analysis in Section 6.2, since VMT from two sites adjacent to transit centers would be less than the proposed project with three sites proposed at locations far away from transit centers. The commenter requests clarification on whether VMT calculations account for proximity to transit and for the determination that the proposed project would result in less VMT than Alternative 2. The commenter also expresses her disagreement that development at the two NCTD-owned sites would result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts given the assumption that placing residents
adjacent to transit will ultimately result in fewer single-vehicle occupancy trips.

The comments pertain to the GHG emissions analysis in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft SEIR and the VMT metric employed. For this analysis, Fehr & Peers used the Total VMT calculation method with the CAP approach. This methodology encompasses all VMT generated within the city (internal VMT) and half of the VMT generated between the city and areas outside but within the region (half of internal to external VMT and external to internal VMT) based on the model data.

The Total VMT reflects the collective VMT for the entire city and region and does not specifically isolate Sites 14 and 17. Consequently, direct comparisons of VMT generated for these sites in the proposed project and alternative 2 are not possible. The difference in Total VMT between the proposed project and alternative 2 for the entire region is a minimal 56 VMT out of a total of 3.7 2-34
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
million VMT, as indicated in the table below. This small difference underscores its insignificance within the broader context of the SEIR analysis.

The model does incorporate various transportation modes and infrastructure, including transit.

However, it is crucial to reiterate that the Total VMT calculation is regional in nature. Thus, establishing a direct correlation between increased housing development in two relatively small sites and its impact on the Total VMT can be challenging due to the complex regional dynamics involved.

Scenario Total VMT
2035 Proposed Project 3,733,018
20 35 with Project Alternative 2 3,733,074
Difference 56
Percent Difference 0.0015%
Response A6-12
The commenter recommends for the color choices to be removed or changed for Table 6-6 since it could be misleading for the general public, specifically the dark red coloring which could be misconstrued as carrying greater significance even though the impacts of varying alternatives are ultimately the same.

As discussed in the footnotes section of Table 6-6 in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft SEIR, the red color denotes that the specific issue is inferior to the proposed project, or in other words, would result in an increased level of impact, which contrasts to the green color which denotes that the specific issue is superior to the proposed project, or in other words would result in a reduced level of impact.
2-35
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

2.2 Organization Comments and Responses
This section provides each letter received from organizations in response to the Draft SEIR, with specific comments identified with a comment code in the margin. Following the letters, responses to the comments are provided.
2-36
1 From: Eddie Nava <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 8:49 AM
To: Scott Donnell
Cc: Andrea Tagle; Colleen Blackmore
Subject: Public Notice: Housing Sites Under Consideration Attachments: 7-27-23 - Letter RE Future Housing Sites.pdf Mr. Donnell,
This email and the aƩached leƩer are in response to a recent public noƟce that was mailed out regarding potenƟal future housing sites under consideraƟon within the City of Carlsbad. The noƟce stated that the public review period closes on August 28, 2023. The aƩached leƩer is from the President of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Research Center business park, Colleen Reilly.

Please consider this response leƩer as the oﬃcial posiƟon of the Carlsbad Research Center Board of Directors, speciﬁcally in regards to sites that are adjacent to the boundaries of the Carlsbad Research Center.

Thank you very much.

Eddie Nava
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Ave. Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Direct Phone: (760) 362-8945
Phone: (760) 931-0780 Ext. 110
Fax: (760) 931-5744
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter B1
1 2-37
Carlsbad Owners Association
Research Center Board of Directors
1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • (760) 931-5744 Fax July 27, 2023
Mr. Scott Donnell Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad, Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA
92008
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: City of Carlsbad mailed notification regarding Planning for future housing sites under consideration in Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Donnell:

The Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association Board of Directors wishes to express its opposition and concern regarding the subject notification. The Board disagrees with any City policy to place incompatible uses adjacent or in proximity to each other. This is simply bad land use planning. It is well known that residential uses near or inside commercial office, R&D and manufacturing districts create conflicts. These use types are incompatible and lead to many avoidable ongoing issues which are not in the best interest of residents or non-residential properties.

In addition, specifically, the Board opposes the parcels identified in the subject notification to be potentially rezoned from non-residential land use to high density residential use. Specifically, sites 4, 6 and 7 as shown on the City of Carlsbad ArcGIS map which is part of this notification.

These sites are adjacent to the boundaries of the Carlsbad Research Center which is a 540-acre City of Carlsbad Specific Plan area (SP 180H).

The Board of Directors as individuals have extensive and lengthy experience as office, R&D and manufacturing property owners and developers. The experience of the Board having been witness to historic conflicts between residential developments and business parks throughout Southern California and elsewhere mandates that the Board make this strong statement to the City of Carlsbad.

Carlsbad has a number of successful, valuable, and prominent business parks within its boundaries. Carlsbad Research Center is one of the most prominent. Changing zoning to insert 2 3
4 2-38
Carlsbad Owners Association
Research Center Board of Directors
1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • (760) 931-5744 Fax residential uses in proximity to business parks is ill advised, if not reckless. The Board strongly objects to it and opposes (and will continue to oppose) any action to pursue this intention.

Sincerely,
Colleen Reilly
President of the Board Directors, Carlsbad Research Center cc: Carlsbad Research Center Board of Directors
4 cont.
2-39
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter B1
COMMENTER: Colleen Reilly, President, Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association Board of Directors
DATE: July 27, 2023
Response B1-1
The commenter introduces the comment letter as a letter from the President of the Board of Director of the Carlsbad Research Center business park and asks for this letter to be considered the official position of the Carlsbad Research Center Board of Directors.

While the commenters’ opinions are noted, they do not address the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR specifically form which to provide a more detailed response.

Response B1-2
The commenter states that the Carlsbad Research Owners Association Board of Directors opposes the proposed project. The commenter states an opinion that residential uses near or inside commercial office, R&D and manufacturing districts create conflicts and that these land use types are incompatible with residential uses.

While the commenters’ statements related to the proposed project are noted, they do not address the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR specifically. The Draft SEIR analyzes potential impacts associated with the placement of residential uses on the 18 rezone sites insofar as potential physical environmental impacts would occur from development of such housing. The commentators’ opinions about the merits of the project and on rezoning sites adjacent to office, R&D, and manufacturing will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

Response B1-3
The commenter states that the Carlsbad Research Owners Association Board of Directors opposes the rezoning of sites 4, 6, and 7, which are adjacent to the boundaries of the Carlsbad Research Center, from non-residential to high-density residential.

While the commenters’ opinions are noted, they do not address the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR specifically form which to provide a more detailed response.

Response B1-4
The commenter states that the Carlsbad Research Owners Association Board of Directors has experience witnessing historic conflicts between residential developments and business parks and therefore strongly opposes changing zoning to allow residential uses in proximity to business parks.

The commenter states opposition to changing zoning to residential in proximity to business parks.

While the commenters’ opinions are noted, they do not address the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR specifically form which to provide a more detailed response. 2-40

August 28, 2023
Scot Donnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Far
aday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Via Email: scot [email protected]
SUBJ
ECT: Publi c Comments Regarding the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Supplement Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Donnell,
The own
er of Site 10, Bressi Ranch Colt Place (APN: 213-262-17; 2.6 acres), has a vested interest in all changes proposed for their property. A condominium project was submite d for Preliminary Review and comments were received from the City of Carlsbad (city) dated January 12, 2022, prior to the issuance of the No�ce of Prepara�on (NOP) for the subject Dra� Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).

The P-C (Planned Community) zoning of the site is covered by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, which designates the site for (P-M) Planned Industrial uses. The current General Plan designa�on of the site is PI (Planned Industrial), which is proposed for amendment to R-23 via the city’s Housing Element Implementa�on Update project. The Housing Element Implementa�on Update project has been assessed by a Dra� SEIR released for public review in July 2023. The items below reﬂect the property owner’s comments on the SEIR for the public record:

1. Execu�ve Summary: It is a cknowledged that there are no Mi�ga�on Measures that are speciﬁcally required for future development of Site 10. This is assumed based on the speciﬁc callouts for certain Sites under speciﬁc mi�ga�on measures. It is not clear, however, if or how the general Mi�ga�on Measures apply to all sites. We request this be clariﬁed in the SEIR.

2. Introduc�on: It is recognized that Si te 10 is speciﬁcally called out in mul�ple public comments received during the public scoping period (September 14, 2022 through October 14, 2022) as provided in Table 1-1.

Under Biological Resources, the commenter is concerned poten�al development on Site 10 would aﬀect nes�n
g habitat for hawks and owls. The city responds that the issue of impacts on habitat and special status species is addressed in Sec�on 4.3 Biological Resources (Impact BIO-1) of the SEIR.

Under Transporta�on, the commenter is concerned regarding the impact of increased develop
ment of sites on emergency evacua�on, par�cularly Site 10. The city responds that this issue is addressed in mul�ple areas of the SEIR, including Sec�on 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impact HAZ-5), Sec�on 4.13 Transportation (Impact T-4), and Sec�on 4.15 Wildﬁre (Impact WF-2).

Under U�li�es and Service Systems, the commenter is concerned the electrical grid will be able to handl
e addi�onal residents on sites such as Site 10. The city responds that impacts associated with electrical infrastructure to connect new development are discussed in Sec�on 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems.
1 2
3 Letter B2
2-41
tfiivl.

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
www.HWL-PE.COM 2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 217, Carlsbad, CA 92010 I Tel. 760.929 .2288 I Email. [email protected] Comments on the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Project SEIR 2 | Page However, when reviewing these sec�ons, there is no direct discussion of Site 10. While it can logically be inferred that Site 10 is excluded unless speciﬁed, we request that more direct language be included in the table or the sec�ons to explicitly state that Site 10 will not result in impacts to the areas of concern stated in the public comments received during the NOP public scoping period.

3. Project Descrip�on: Sec�on 2.4.1 states that project includes “[revising] various master plans and speciﬁc plans as necessary to reﬂect amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program”. It is not clear in the SEIR when or how these amendments will be completed. There should be a statement added specifying when the master plan/speciﬁc plan amendments will be completed.

Addi�onally, Sec�on 4.9 Land Use of the SEIR concludes no signiﬁcant impacts or mi�ga�on measures. However, changing the underlying zoning designa�ons of sites, such as Site 10, inherently implies a poten�al conﬂict with the governing land use plan and associated policies.

Alterna�vely, if it has been analyzed and determined that the change in the underlying zoning designa�ons will NOT result in any speciﬁc environmental impacts related to the change to the master plan(s) and/or speciﬁc plan(s), this should be explicitly stated to support the conclusion of Less than Signiﬁcant without Mi�ga�on.

Should there be a statement unde r Sec�on 4.9 Land Use that lays out the process of upda�ng any impacted speciﬁc plans or master plans, such as the Bressi Ranch Master Plan? Perhaps a Mi�ga�on Measure similar to that for upda�ng the city’s Climate Ac�on Plan (MM GHG-1) should be added to the Land Use sec�on. The measure could include a process to address text changes to the applicable planning areas of the master plan to change from industrial or residen�al with corresponding development standards established; outline approval procedures that accommodate this citywide General Plan Amendment eﬀort and EIR; and account for poten�al amendments to the exis�ng master plan or speciﬁc plan EIRs that were prepared based on project impacts not contemplated by changes imposed by this Housing Element SEIR.

If it is the intent of the city to have the master plans and speciﬁc plans updated as part of this pro
ject, then the proposed updates should be included and discussed in the project descrip�on and any poten�al impacts addressed in each relevant environmental topic sec�ons. Further, it should be made clear as to whether the amendments to the master and speciﬁc plans would require subsequent environmental analysis under their corresponding environmental documents (i.e., Bressi Ranch EIR).

4. Project Descrip�on: Site 10 i
s included in Table 2-4 of the Project Descrip�on, which lists sites proposed for General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map Changes. The table descriptors include the site number, loca�on, APN, current and proposed land use designa�ons (Site 10: PI  R-23), current and proposed Zoning designa�ons (Site 10: P-C  P-C), number of exis�ng units (zero), unit yield under exis�ng designa�ons (Site 10: PI and P-C yield zero units), the proposed unit yield (Site 10: 19 du/ac for a total of 49 units), and the net increase in units (Site 10: 49 units as there are currently zero).

The current zoning of Site 10, P-C, is n
ot proposed to change under the Housing Element
Implementa�on Update project. This is true of mul�ple sites. We request that a “no change” designator be included for any site that is not going to have its Zoning designa�on change (i.e., Sites 10, 11, and 19), as is shown for Site 14 and Site 15. 3, cont
4 5
6 7
8 2-42
t~L

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Comments on the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Project SEIR 3 | Page We request that Site sizes are included in Table 2-4 since unit yields are presumably based on dwelling units per acre (du/ac).

The baseline densi�es contemplated in the SEIR could be exceeded by pursuing the high-end of the density allowance of the R-23 designa�on being implemented by the city (i.e., 23 units per acre or 60 units for Site 10), and then state density bonus units could be proposed on top of that density unit yield. Assuming a base density yield of 60 units per acre, an inclusion of 11% aﬀordable units, and the implementa�on of a 35% density bonus, Site 10 has the poten�al to yield up to 81 units rather than 49 units. As stated above, Preliminary Review of a residen�al project on this site has been ini�ated and includes up to 81 units on the property as it is the property owner’s intent to implement state density bonus. How does the SEIR account for sites that will exceed mid- range baseline assump�ons and apply state density bonus allowances? Since the SEIR includes an es�mated yield of 49 units on Site 10, would that prevent future development from exceeding that number? Or, in the event of a project proposing a number greater than 49 units, would that require an amendment to the SEIR?
There is a footnote in Table 2-4 that sta tes “Unit yields are es�mates only.” We request that this footnote be expanded to 1) clearly be applied to all site yield assump�ons, 2) expanded to explain why the yields are es�mates only, and/or 3) have a new footnote or text paragraph that explains the use of TOTAL new unit yield (e.g., 3,295) when analyzing certain topics (i.e., air quality, transporta�on, noise) versus the es�mated yield per site and how the yield on individual sites may ﬂuctuate and s�ll be covered under this SEIR, as long at the total number of projected new units is not exceeded.

5. Project Descrip�on: Sec�on 2 .4.7 discusses the need to amend mul�ple master and speciﬁc plans in associa�on of the rezoning of sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19. Again, there is no further discussion within the SEIR as to how or when these amendments will be undertaken or if the amendments to those master and speciﬁc plans would, in turn, require addi�onal or new environmental review under CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, while Table 2-4 described the change in land use designa�on and zoning, there is no descrip�on of the poten�al change in the master or speciﬁc plan designa�on of a site. For example, the underlying zoning for Site 10 is currently (P-M) Planned Industrial. What would the new designa�on of Site 10 be in the Bressi Ranch Master Plan? Would the change in Site 10’s underlying zoning designa�on require any sort of revision to the cer�ﬁed Bressi Ranch Master Plan EIR (SCH No. 1999041010) or would this SEIR be the appropriate CEQA document to use to assess future development on this site?

6. Project Descrip�on: As deta
iled in Sec�on 2.6 Required Approvals, it is assumed that future projects on the rezone sites will adhere to the CEQA mi�ga�on measures iden�ﬁed in the Mi�ga�on Monitoring and Repor�ng Program for this SEIR for the site to develop consistent with the purpose of the rezone and to ensure that future development reduces environmental impact to the extent feasible. The sec�on then states that development consistent with the project descrip�on of the SEIR could proceed “by right” or could poten�al qualify to �er from the SEIR, as appropriate per CEQA Guidelines Sec�ons 15152, 15162, and 15168. Please explain how this applies to the sites that fall within master or speciﬁc plan areas, especially since there are no details as to what these sites (e.g., sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19) will be rezoned to under their governing land use plans or whether that ac�on will require addi�onal CEQA review related to each master or speciﬁc plan CEQA document.
9 10
11 12
13 14
2-43
t~L

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Comments on the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Project SEIR 4 | Page

7. Environmental Se�ng: We request that Table 3-1 be revised to include whether a Site is within a master or speciﬁc plan (e.g., sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19).

8. Environmental Se�ng: As n oted in Table 3-1, Site 10 has been pre-graded via prior master plan mass grading ac�vity and its vegeta�on community is designated as Disturbed in Table 4.3-1 of the SEIR. We request this detail to be added to the descrip�on of Site 10 in Table 3-1.

9. Sec�on 4.1 Aesthe�cs, subs ec�on 4.1.2 Regulatory Se�ng, c. Local: On page 4.1-5 of the SEIR, Speciﬁc and Master Plans are very broadly discussed. A series of master plans (e.g., Aviara, Bressi Ranch, Calavera Hills, Rancho Carrillo, Robertson Ranch, and Villages of La Costa) are acknowledged as exis�ng. Then there is the following sentence: “The Village Master Plan (described below) guides development in that area.” (emphasis added). The paragraph that follows then provides a short descrip�on of the Village Master Plan generally. However, it is not clear what area is being referred to in the preceding sentence. Furthermore, why aren’t the relevant master and speciﬁc plans being described, such as the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (sites 10 and 11) or The Shoppes Speciﬁc Plan (site 2)?

10. Sec�on 4.1 Aesthe�cs, subsec�on 4.1.3 Im
pact Analysis, c. Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on
Measures, Threshold 1: In the third paragraph, so� language is used without explana�on – “in most cases”, “most of the development on the rezone sites”, “many of the views” – and only sites 1, 2, 11, and 12 are detailed for building height maximums. Three of those sites are listed as being part of master or speciﬁc plans (1, 2, and 11), but again, there is no descrip�on of their future underlying zoning designa�on or resultant development standards. We request that the descrip�on be clariﬁed with callouts or descrip�ons of all sites proposed for rezoning.

11. Sec�on 4.2 Air Quality, subsec�on 4.2.3 Impact Analysis, c. Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on Measures, Threshold 2, Opera�on: It is not clear what is meant by “full buildout of the proposed project”. Please refer to comment 4 above regarding poten�al approaches to explaining the es�mated unit yield per site versus the assumed total unit yield of all new rezoned proper�es. An expanded discussion of the methodology for quan�fying air quality impacts could help support the impact conclusions.

12. Sec�on 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: In Ta ble 4.4-2 what is the diﬀerence between eligibility statuses of “N/A” versus “Unknown”. If a rezoned site, such as Site 10, is documented as vacant and has been previously disturbed with rough grading, why would its eligibility status be “unknown”? Furthermore, it is unclear if any previous CEQA review/documenta�on was reviewed to assist in the determina�on of poten�al historical resources at the rezone sites, speciﬁcally for those sites that are part of master or speciﬁc plans. If a site is listed as “unknown”, what would the future analyses process look like for a proposed project?

13. Sec�on 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, subse c�on 4.4.4 Impact Analysis, c. Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on Measures, Threshold 4s and 4b: How can the conclusion be “less than signiﬁcant” if consulta�on with tribes is on-going? If the tribes have mi�ga�on requests for any of the rezone sites, how will the city ensure compliance with the agreed upon measures? If site speciﬁc measures get incorporated into the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines, shouldn’t there be a mi�ga�on measure capturing that process in and of itself? What if consulta�on results in 15 16
17 18
19 20
21 2-44
t~L

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Commen
ts on the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Project SEIR 5 | Page measur
es speciﬁc to one of the rezone sites, how will the property owners (and public generally) be no�ﬁed?

14. Sec�on 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Similar to comment 11 related to air quality modeling, how was the growth forecast determined? Please also refer to comment 4 above.

15. Sec�on 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, subsec�on 4.6.3 Impact Analysis, c. Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on Measures: It was noted that the proposed project involves development beyond what was an�cipated in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the new units (i.e., 3,295 units) and their associated GHG emissions were not accounted for in the CAP analysis. The targets and measures in the exis�ng CAP do not consider the growth accommodated by the proposed project and thus the proposed project would not be consistent with the exis�ng City of Carlsbad CAP.

Furthermore, the SEIR presents, the 2015 General Plan EIR found that implementa�on of the CAP was required to reduce GHG impacts resul�ng from implementa�on of the General Plan.

However, since the proposed project (i.e., 3,295 units) was not accounted for in the CAP analysis, the proposed project would not be consistent with the General Plan until the CAP is updated. This does not seem to make sense. While it is understood that the CAP would not apply to development of the sites listed for rezoning un�l it is updated, the project itself is meant to ensure consistency among city planning documents, including the General Plan. We ask that the city revise this statement for accuracy and possibly specify that the CAP is s�ll valid if the total number of units developed does not exceed the assump�ons contained in the analysis conducted as a part of the 2015 General Plan EIR.

16. Sec�on 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, subsec�on 4.6.3 Impact Analysis, Summary and Mi�ga�on Measure GHG-1: The SEIR concludes that as the project would result in an increase in housing units that were not accounted for in the CAP analysis, which included se�ng emissions reduc�ons targets and iden�fying measures to meet the targets, the proposed project would conﬂict with applicable plans, policies, and measures an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHG emissions and impacts would be poten�ally signiﬁcant.

Mi�ga�on Measure GHG-1 describes the steps the city must take to update the Climate Ac�on Plan, but it appears to be broad in its scope, not just upda�ng to account for the addi�onal units under the proposed project, but to update the en�rety of the CAP to account for new legisla�on.

For example, what is AB 1279 and how is it related to the proposed project? It is discussed in the Regulatory Se�ng sec�on as exis�ng legisla�on, but no addi�onal men�on of it again un�l the mi�ga�on measure.

While it is understood that the CAP needs to be updated to account for GHG emissions from the addi�onal units under this project (as well as generally requiring upda�ng), there may be a more eﬃcient way to accomplish this while s�ll allowing for development of the rezoned site. For example, the exis�ng CAP accounts for emissions from a total maximum number of units (i.e., full buildout of the General Plan), rather than pinpoin�ng development of individual projects on individual lots. The city has an exis�ng available housing capacity of 6,218 units (SEIR Sec�on

2.4.8). Rather than viewing development on the rezone sites as individually impac�ng GHG emissions, the city could view development under the umbrella of the 6,218 available units citywide that are accounted for in the current CAP. Therefore, development can con�nue to be 21, cont
22 23
24 25
2-45
t1iivL

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Commen
ts on the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Project SEIR 6 | Page propo
sed on all eligible proper�es, including the rezone sites, as long as the total number of new units does not exceed 6,218 units citywide, while the CAP is being updated to account for the general increase in housing units and to address the new changes in legisla�on.

17. Sec�on 4.9 Land Use and Planning: We request that Table 4.9-1 Exis�ng Land Use Designa�on include a detail to indicate whether a site is in a master or speciﬁc plan area and label which one as applicable.

18. Sec�on 4.9 Land Use and Planning, subsec�on 4.9.2 Regulatory Se�ng, c. Regional and Local:

There is a brief descrip�on of speciﬁc and master plans, but no detail is provided. We request that descrip�ons of all relevant, impacted speciﬁc or master plans be included throughout the SEIR, but par�cularly in the Land Use and Planning Sec�on as they are important to this sec�on discussion.

In addi�on, there is no discussion of the city’s Climate Ac�on Plan as a regulatory document related to land use and planning. The CAP Consistency Checklist, which is used to ensure project compliance with citywide emissions reduc�on goals, includes speciﬁc design and opera�onal requirements that projects must comply with as part of the project review process. Please explain why this document is not included in the list of Local regulatory documents or add it to this sec�on.

19. Sec�on 4.9 Land Use and Planning, subsec�on 4.9.3 Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on Measures, Threshold 2: How can the city conclude less than signiﬁcant impacts to land use plans and policies with no disclosed review of any impacted master or speciﬁc plans? Please refer to comment 3 above. Furthermore, the implementa�on of the project results in a signiﬁcant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions un�l the city’s CAP is updated. Is the CAP not considered a land use plan or policy document? If it is, then how can the conclusion here be less than signiﬁcant, whereas the conclusion to GHG Threshold 2 is signiﬁcant and unavoidable?

20. Sec�on 4.10 Noise, subsec�on 4.11.2 Regulatory Se�ng, c. Local: Please include a discussion of McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compa�bility Plan noise policies.

21. Sec�on 4.10 Noise, subsec�on 4.11.3 Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on Measures, d. Cumula�ve Impacts, Airport Noise: The cumula�ve discussion of airport noise does not seem to be writ en correctly. It is implying that the proposed increase in residen�al development would not result in an increase in aircra� opera�ons. This is impossible to know as it is feasible that an increase in local popula�on could result in an increase in demand for ﬂights out of or into the local airport.

Since the related threshold asks if a project would expose more people to airport noise, logically a cumula�ve increase in popula�on WOULD expose more people to airport noise. This conclusion should be rewrite n.

22. Sec�on 4.11 Popula�on and Housing: The air quality sec�on includes a mi�ga�on measure to report the revised city of Carlsbad growth projec�ons to SANDAG to ensure consistency with regional forecas�ng. Is the regional forecas�ng update part of the SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan? It would appear this should be discussed in the Pop and Housing sec�on somewhere.

23. Sec�on 4.15 Wildﬁre Impact WF-1: Impact HAZ-5 (page 4.7-21) determined that development facilitated by the project would not impair implementa�on of or physically interfere with an 25 cont
26 27
28 29
30 32
33 34
31 2-46
t~l.

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Commen
ts on the Housing Element Implementa�on Update Project SEIR 7 | Page adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacua�on plan. Impact T-4 (page 4.13-19) determined development of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Why then, is the determina�on of Impact WF-1 (page 4.15-13) that development facilitated by the project “could result in changes to emergency evacua�on routes or could increase roadway conges�on such that the use of an evacua�on route would be hindered”? The impact analysis discussion consistently concludes that there is no such hinderance or interference. This impact statement should be revised to reﬂect the analysis.

24. All Sec�on 4 Environmental Impact Analysis sec�ons, subsec�on 4.xx.2 Regulatory Se�ng, c.

Local: Why is there no discussion of relevant master or speciﬁc plans in each sec�on?

25. All Sec�on 4 Environmental Impact Analysis sec�ons, subsec�on 4.xx.3 Impact Analysis, b. Prior Environmental Analysis: Perhaps this is an appropriate place to include a discussion of master and speciﬁc plan CEQA documents that made impact determina�on of the relevant sites (e.g., sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19) related to environmental impacts, as appropriate.

26. All Sec�on 4 Environmental Impact Analysis sec�ons, subsec�on 4.xx.3 Impact Analysis, c.

Project Impacts and Mi�ga�on Measures introduc�on: Provide more explana�on as to how the lead agency has determined that future updates to the Master and Speciﬁc Plans, for consistency between the city’s planning documents, in and of themselves will not result in physical changes to the environment thereby not resul�ng in impacts, but then each analysis sec�on focuses on impacts associated with implementa�on of the rezone program which would facilitate the development of 18 rezone sites listed in Table 2-4 in Sec�on 2, Project Description. Either there are impacts from these rezones or there are not. Please refer to comment 3 above.

27. General Comment: We recommend doing a review of references to the City’s CAP throughout the document. Since the update to the CAP is a substan�al mi�ga�on measure (SU un�l completed), it should be disclosed that any referenced CAP measures may need to be revised or amended with the update. This concern is notable in Sec�on 4.14 U�li�es and Service Systems where mul�ple CAP policies are referenced in support of policies decreasing poten�al impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments and concerns. We look forward to receiving responses to our comments and con�nuing the conversa�on with the City of Carlsbad.

Sincerely, on behalf of Saahil Khandwala of Alps Group, L. Stan Weiler - HWL
Cc via email:

S
aahil Khandwala – Alps Group
Eric Munoz - HWL
Sally Schifman - HWL
34 cont
35 36
37 38
2-47
t~l.

HOWES I WEILER I LANDY

PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Cit
y of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update F
inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Let
ter B2
C
OMMENTER: Saahil Khandwala of Alps Group
DATE: August 28, 2023
Response B2-1

2-48
The commenter states that the owner of Site 10, Bressi Ranch Colt Place, has a vested interest in all changes proposed for their property. The commenter states that a condominium project was submitted for P
reliminary Review and c
omments were received from the c
ity on January 12, 2022,
prior to issuance of the NOP for the Draft SEIR. The commenter states that the Planned Community (P-C) zoning of the site is covered by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, which designates the site for Planned Industrial (P-M) uses. The commenter e
xpresses that the current General Plan designation
for the site is Planned Industrial (PI), which is proposed by the Housing Element Update to be amended to R-23.

This comment includes background information and does not directly relate to the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR.

Response B2-2
Referring to the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter s tates that no mitigation
measures are specifically required for development of Site 10. The commenter expresses his confusion whether general mitigation measures apply to all sites, and requests for clarification in the Draft SEIR.

Unless otherwise specified in the mitigation measure, all mitigation measures in the Draft SEIR would apply to Site 10. For example, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 lists which sites the measure is required for and Site 10 is not included. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists which mitigation measures apply to which rezone sites. T he MMRP is included i
n Appendix A of
this Final SEIR.

Response B2-3
Referring to Section 1, I
ntroduction, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter states that Site 10 is called out in multiple public comments received during the public scoping period, such as for biological resources, transportation, and utilities and s
ervice systems. H
owever, no direct discussion of Site 10
is provided. The commenter requests more direct language be included in the table or in sections to explicitly state that Site 10 will not result in impacts to the areas of concern stated in the public comments received during the NOP public scoping period.

As explained in Section 1, I
ntroduction, b
ecause the Draft SEIR analyzes impacts associated with the proposed land use changes described in Section 2, P
roject Description, a
nd does not analyze specific
development projects, the Draft SEIR is a Program EIR. A lthough the legally required contents of a
Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs are typically more conceptual and may contain a more general or qualitative discussion o
f impacts, alternatives, and mitigation
measures than a Project EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with development on the rezone sites are analyzed at the program level. For example, air quality impacts are assessed for the program as a whole. Nonetheless, some issue areas, such as biological resources, address site-specific impacts and those i
mpacts are called out as appropriate. Table 1-1 of the Draft SEIR adequately summarizes City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
responses to the NOP and indicates where issue raised are addressed in the Draft SEIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-4
The commenter comments on Subsection 2.4.1 of the Draft SEIR and states that the Draft SEIR is not clear on when or how the amendments will be completed. The commenter recommends adding a statement in specifying when the master plan or specific plan amendments will be completed.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, several of the rezone sites are within master or specific plans. These plans require amendment as necessary to ensure consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Map as proposed by this project. Amendments to master and specific plans that are occurring to ensure internal consistency amongst city planning documents and to implement the Housing Element are occurring as part of the proposed project and will occur at the same time the other zoning and General Plan amendments would occur. In response to this comment, additional information has been provided in Section 2, Project Description, to further explain the proposed amendments to the master and specific plans. These revisions are detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not warranted.

These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response B2-5
The commenter states that Section 4.9, Land Use, of the Draft SEIR concludes no significant impacts or mitigation measures. However, changing the underlying zoning designations of sites inherently implies a potential conflict with the governing land use plan and associated policies. The commenter expresses the opinion that if it has been determined that the change in underlying zoning designations will not result in specific environmental impacts related to the change to master plans or specific plans, this should be explicitly stated to support the conclusion of less than significant without mitigation.

As acknowledged in Section 4.9, Land Use
and Planning, of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project
involves updates to master and specific plans that are being proposed as part of the project for consistency between the city’s planning documents. These amendments are being proposed to ensure that the city’s land use planning documents are internally consistent and that no conflicts between documents would result from implementation of the project. These amendments in and of themselves would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts would occur, but these amendments are intended to implement the Housing Element and ensure consistency among planning documents. The primary driver of the project that would result in physical environmental changes to the environment are the land use changes shown in Table 2-4 that would allow for increased development on the rezone sites compared to what would be allowed by the 2015 General Plan and as assumed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. The commenter has not provided substantial evidence that significant environmental land use impacts would occur and no changes to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment. 2-49
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response B2-6
The commenter expresses the opinion that a mitigation measure similar to Mitigation Measure GHG-1 of the Draft SEIR should be added under Section 4.9, Land Use, to lay out the process of updating any impacted specific plans or master plans, such as the Bressi Ranch Master Plan.

Please see Response B2-4. The amendments to city land use plans are occurring at the same time as analyzed in the Draft SEIR and mitigation is not required.

Response B2-7
The commenter expresses the opinion that proposed updates to the master plans and specific plans as part of the proposed project should be discussed in the Project Description and any potential impacts addressed in each relevant environmental topic section. The commenter opines that it should be clarified whether amendments to master and specific plans would require subsequent environmental analysis under their corresponding environmental documents.

Section 2, Project Description, does explain that the proposed project involves amendments to several master and specific plans. Further, as discussed under the “Project Impacts and Mitigation” sections in each section within Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft SEIR, these amendments themselves would not result in physical environmental impacts but are text changes to ensure internal consistency among city planning documents to implement the city’s Housing Element. Nonetheless, the Draft SEIR does analyze effects associated with buildout of the rezone sites that could occur after the land use amendments have been made because the development could result in physical environmental impacts and future development is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the proposed project. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-8
The commenter comments on Table 2-4 of the Project Description and requests a “no change” designator be included for any site that will not include a change in zoning designations (i.e., sites 10, 11, and 19), as is shown for sites 14 and 15.

Response B2-9
The commenter requests for site sizes to be included in Table 2-4.

In response to this comment, revisions have been made to Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. These revisions are detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.
2-50
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response B2-10
The commenter states that the baseline densities proposed in the Draft SEIR could be exceeded by pursuing the high-end of the density allowance of the R-23 designation implemented by the city, and then State Density Bonus units could be proposed on top of the density unit yield. The commenter expresses the opinion that Site 10 has the potential to yield up to 81 units rather than 49 units, and preliminary review of a residential project on the site that has already been initiated also includes up to 81 units on the property. The commenter questions how the Draft SEIR accounts for sites that will exceed mid-range baseline assumptions and apply State Density Bonus allowances.

The commenter asks that since the Draft SEIR includes an estimated yield of 49 units on Site 10, if that would prevent future development from exceeding that number, or whether an amendment to the Draft SEIR would be required if a project on Site 10 proposes more than 49 units.

The Draft SEIR estimates buildout at each of the rezone sites based on the assumptions listed in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. This is consistent with an approach to estimate impacts on a variety of sites in a programmatic EIR and consistent with the approach taken by the 2015 General Plan EIR. This document does not change existing state law, including allowing for density bonus. Should future development on Site 10 exceed estimated buildout, future development would determine the level of CEQA analysis needed. As explained in Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR, the city intends to take full advantage of the CEQA streamlining provisions in order to encourage the construction of more housing options more quickly and efficiently. The SEIR will help facilitate the opportunity for projects to utilize Public Resource Code Section 21159.24, which allows urban infill residential development that meets certain criteria be exempt from CEQA. The city would also facilitate the statutory Infill Housing Exemption by providing updated community level environmental review, as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21159.20, for properties designated for residential development by the General Plan. In addition, the city may utilize the SB266 CEQA streamlining provisions that was adopted as part of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 to streamline review for eligible infill projects by limiting the topic subject to review at the project level. Therefore, at the time a specific development project is proposed, the project proponent in coordination with the city will determine what level of additional CEQA review is needed. This may include CEQA streamlining or an Addendum to the SEIR or possibly a project level CEQA analysis, if warranted. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-11
The commenter requests for the footnote that “unit yields are estimates only” under Table 2-4 to be expanded to clearly be applied to all site yield assumptions, expanded to explain why yields are estimates only, and/or include a new footnote or text paragraph that explains the use of total new unit yield (3,295 units) when analyzing certain topics verses the estimated yield per site and how the yield on individual sites may fluctuate and still be covered under the Draft SEIR, as long as the total number of projected new units is not exceeded.

As explained in Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project involves the implementation of a broad policy planning document. The project-level details for each of the 18 rezone sites analyzed under the proposed project are not known at the time of preparation of the Draft SEIR. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The Program EIR approach would provide a sufficient level of analysis for the broad nature of the proposed project and future development goals. The city intends to take full advantage of the CEQA streamlining provisions in order to encourage the construction of more 2-51
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
housing options quicker and more efficiently. Future projects will be able to determine consistency with the analysis of the Draft SEIR to determine what level of additional CEQA review may be needed. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-12
The commenter states that Section 2.4.7 discusses the need to amend multiple master and specific plans in association with rezoning sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19. However, the Draft SEIR does not elaborate how or when the amendments will be undertaken or if the amendments would require new environmental review under CEQA guidelines.

Please see Response B2-4.

Response B2-13
The commenter states that while Table 2-4 describes the change in land use designation and zoning, there is no description of the potential change in the master or specific plan designation of the site.

The commenter provides Site 10 as an example, stating that it is currently zoned as Planned Industrial, but questions what the new designation of the site will be in the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The commenter asks whether the change in Site 10’s underlying zoning designation would require revisions to the certified Bressi Ranch Master Plan EIR or if the Draft SEIR would be the appropriate CEQA document to assess future development on the site.

Please see Response B2-4.

Response B2-14
The commenter states that Section 2.6, Required Approvals, of the Draft SEIR details that future rezone site projects would adhere to mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Additionally, development consistent with the project description of the SEIR could proceed “by right” or could potentially qualify to tier from the Draft SEIR. The commenter requests explanation of how this applies to sites that fall within master or specific plan areas, especially since there are no details as to what these sites (e.g., sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19) will be rezoned to under their governing land use plans or whether that action will require additional CEQA review related to each master or specific plan CEQA document.

Please see Response B2-4. There is no difference in how sites within master and specific plans or those not in a master and specific plan would be treated under the proposed project. As discussed above, the master and specific plan amendments are occurring with the proposed project. No revisions to the Drat SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-15
The commenter requests for Table 3-1 to be revised to include whether a site is within a master or specific plan (e.g. sites 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19).

In response to this comment, Table 3-1 has been revised to state which sites are within a master or specific plan. These revisions are detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.
2-52
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response B2-16
The commenter states that Table 4.3-1 of the Draft SEIR notes that Site 10 has been pre-graded prior to master plan mass grading activity and its vegetation community is designated as Disturbed.

The commenter requests for this to be added to the description of Site 10 on Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 already acknowledges that Site 10 has been previously graded. The table states “The site is a previously graded but vacant lot located between residential developments.” This table is an overview of the settings for each site whereas specific details are provided in the individual sections within Section 4 of the SEIR as needed. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-17
Referring to Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter states that specific and master plans are very broadly discussed on page 4.1-5 of the Draft SEIR. The commenter states that the sentence “The Village Master Plan (described below) guides development in that area.” (emphasis added) is unclear as to what area is being referred to. The commenter questions why the relevant master and specific plans such as the Bressi Ranch Master Plan or The Shoppes Specific Plan is not described.

In response to this comment, revisions have been made to Page 4.15 of the Draft SEIR to clarify the text and to add additional information relevant to the setting including a description of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. These revisions are listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response B2-18
The commenter comments on Section 4.1.3, Aesthetics, of the Draft SEIR, and expresses the opinion that soft language such as “in most cases”, “most of the development”, and “many of the views” are used without explanation and only sites 1, 2, 11, and 12 are detailed for building height maximums.

The commenter states that three of the sites (1, 2, and 11) are listed as being a part of a master or specific plan, but there is no description of their future underlying zoning designation or resultant development standards. The commenter requests that the description be clarified with callout for descriptions of all sites proposed for rezoning.

As explained in Section 1, Introduction, because the Draft SEIR analyzes impacts associated with the proposed land use changes described in Section 2, Project Description, and does not analyze specific development projects because such projects have not been proposed at this time, the Draft SEIR is a Program EIR. Consistent with the CEQA requirements, development is analyzed conceptually and contains a more general or qualitative discussion of impacts associated with aesthetics than would be discussed in a Project EIR. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with development on the rezone sites are analyzed at the program level. The analysis does include additional info on rezone sites 1, 2, 11, and 12 because those are sites where the maximum allowed height would increase and therefore aesthetic impacts may occur. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence to contradict the findings or conclusions of the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made in response to this comment.

A description of the zoning changes is provided in Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description, of the SEIR at the level of detail known at this time.
2-53
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response B2-19
The commenter comments on Section 4.2.3, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR and opines that it is unclear what is meant by “full buildout of the proposed project”, and points back to Comment B2-4.

The commenter expresses the opinion that an expanded discussion of methodology for quantifying air quality impacts would help support the impact conclusions.

As discussed on Page 4.2-11 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR, “For this SEIR, the methodology for determining the significance of air quality impacts is by analyzing impacts resulting from buildout of the 18 rezone sites identified in Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description….For modeling purposes, this evaluation assumes that buildout under the proposed project would be 3,295 units of mid-rise apartments…during the planning period.” Please also see Response B2-4.

Methodology for the air quality analysis is provided on pages 4.2-11 – 4.2-12. The commenter is not clear on what additional information about the methodology is recommended and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-20
The commenter comments on Section 4.4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR and asks what the difference is between the eligibility statuses of “N/A” verses “Unknown” under Table 4.4-2. The commenter asks why Site 10’s eligibility status is “unknown” even though it is documented as vacant and has been previously disturbed with rough grading. The commenter states that it is unclear if any previous CEQA review/documentation was reviewed to assist in the determination of potential historical resources at the rezone sites, specifically for sites part of a master or specific plan. The commenter asks what future analyses would look like for a site listed as “unknown”.

On Table 4.4-2, “N/A” indicates there is no built environment feature or structure present, or no built environment structure or feature that would become of-age over the course of the project.

Therefore, “N/A” indicates a built environment evaluation would not be applicable. “Unknown” indicates the site contains an of-age building or structure, but no eligibility information is available.

In response to this comment, clarifications have been made to Table 4.4-2 to explain this information and a clarification has been made regarding Site 10. Please see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

As explained in Section 4.4, a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search was conducted by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) in July 2022 for the proposed project. In addition, existing historical databases were reviewed. As stated, the inventory presented in Table 4.4-2 may not be exhaustive and additional potential historical resources may be located on project sites pending site-specific analysis.

For sites indicated as “unknown” in the table, development facilitated by the project require an historical resources evaluation for developments involving a property that contains buildings or structures that are 45 years of age or older, per the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines.

Response B2-21
The commenter comments on Section 4.4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft SEIR and asks how the conclusion can be “less than significant” if consultation with tribes is still ongoing.

The commenter asks if tribes have mitigation requests for rezone sites, how will the city ensure 2-54
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
compliance with the agreed-upon measures. The commenter wonders if a mitigation measure capturing the process of incorporation of specific measures to the Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines should be added. The commenter asks how property owners will be notified if consultation results in measures specific to one of the rezone sites.

Tribal consultation remains ongoing. The city continues to consult with the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians. Upon conclusion of project consultation, future actions will be subject to additional consultation consistent with California Law.

Response B2-22
The commenter comments on Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR and asks how growth forecast is determined.

As discussed on Page 4.6-16 in Section 4.6 of the Draft SEIR, “Long term emissions were analyzed quantitatively using the methodologies and assumptions presented in Section 4.2.2 (c), Air Quality Methodology. In the absence of an applicable quantitative threshold, emissions are presented for informational purposes, and the proposed project’s operational impacts are discussed qualitatively.” Please also see Response B2-19.

Response B2-23
Referring to Section 4.6.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the commenter summarizes the conclusions of the Draft SEIR that because the new 3,295 units and their associated GHG emissions were not accounted for in the CAP analysis, the CAP targets and measures do not consider growth accommodated by the project and the project would not be consistent with the existing CAP. The commenter states that it does not make sense that the proposed project (i.e., 3,295 units) would not be consistent with the General Plan until the CAP is updated. The commenter states that this does not make sense, and states that while it is understood that the CAP would not apply to development of the sites listed for rezoning until it is updated, the project itself is meant to ensure consistency among city planning documents, including the General Plan. The commenter requests the city revise the statement and specify that the CAP is still valid if the total number of units developed does not exceed the assumptions contained in the analysis conducted as a part of the 2015 General Plan EIR.

As explained on Pages 4.6-17 – 4.6-18 of the Draft SEIR, the existing CAP was adopted with the 2015 General Plan. The Draft SEIR is a supplemental EIR tiering from the 2015 General Plan EIR and the 2015 General Plan EIR found that implementation of the CAP was needed to reduce GHG impacts resulting from implementation of the General Plan. Therefore, because the proposed project was not accounted for in the CAP analysis, the proposed project would not be consistent with the General Plan until the CAP is updated. Nonetheless, individual projects could still move forward and would be subject to the provisions of the existing CAP until the CAP is updated pursuant to Mitigation Measure GHG-1. As stated in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

It should also be noted that the buildout assumption in the Draft SEIR of 3,295 units reflects a reasonably foreseeable maximum amount of development. It is not intended as a development cap that would restrict development on individual rezone sites. Rather, the Draft SEIR allows for flexibility in the quantity and profile of future development within each rezone site. Through the established planning and environmental review and permitting processes required of each 2-55
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
individual development in the City of Carlsbad under the proposed project, City of Carlsbad staff would monitor actual development. As stated in Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR, once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documents may not be required (14 CCR 15168[c]).

Response B2-24
Referring to Section 4.6.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter reiterates the Draft SEIR conclusion that the project would result in an increase in housing units that were not accounted for in the CAP analysis, and would result in a potentially significant impact related to reducing GHG emissions. The commenter expresses the opinion that Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is broad in its scope. The commenter asks what AB 1279 is and how it is related to the project.

As discussed in Section 4.6.2b, Greenhouse Gas Emissions – State Regulatory Setting, of the Draft SEIR, AB 1279, “The California Climate Crisis Act,” was passed on September 16, 2022 and declares the State would achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. In addition, the bill states that the State would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. CARB’s new 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve AB 1279 targets, and constitutes as a plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Threshold 2). Impact GHG-1 of Section 4.6 analyzes consistency between the proposed project and the 2022 Scoping Plan, and finds that the proposed project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-25
The commenter states that the existing CAP accounts for emissions from a total maximum number of units rather than pinpointing development of individual projects on individual lots. The commenter expresses the opinion that rather than viewing development on the rezone sites as individually impacting GHG emissions, the city could view development under the umbrella of the 6,218 available units citywide that are accounted for in the current CAP. Therefore, on the rezone sites, as long as the total number of new units does not exceed 6,218 units citywide, development can continue while the CAP is being updated.

The commenter’s suggestion is noted, but the proposed project analyzes impacts associated with development in addition to development under the city’s General Plan. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-26
The commenter requests for Table 4.9-1 in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, to include whether a site is in a master or specific plan area and label as applicable.

Table 4.9-1 in Section 4.9, is the existing General Plan land use designations for the sites. However, Section 2, Project Description, and Section 3, Environmental Setting, have been revised to state which sites are within master and specific plan areas. These revisions are listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft 2-56
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response B2-27
Referring to Section 4.9.2, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests descriptions of all relevant, impacted specific or master plans to be included throughout the Draft SEIR, and particularly in the Land Use and Planning section.

Section 2, Project Description, and Section 3, Environmental Setting, have been revised to state which sites are within master and specific plan areas. These revisions are listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. Additional revisions to the Land Use and Planning Section have been made in response to this comment to add additional information about applicable master and specific plans and these revisions are listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response B2-28
Referring to Subsection 4.9.2, Regulatory Setting of Section 4.9.2, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter states that the CAP should be discussed as part of the land use and planning section since projects must comply with the CAP Consistency Checklist as part of the project review process. The commenter asks why the document is not included in the list of regulatory documents or for it to be added to the section.

As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft SEIR, the plan consistency analysis describes existing regional and local plans and policies and is intended to fulfill the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). The emphasis of the analysis is on plan inconsistency and potential conflicts between the project and existing applicable land use plans, and whether any inconsistencies are significant environmental effects. Consistency with the CAP is discussed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR because the CAP is a document that sets forth goals for GHG reductions in the city but it is not a document that guides land use decisions or sets land use standards. Future development under the proposed project would be required to assess consistency with the CAP Consistency Checklist as applicable. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-29
The commenter comments on Section 4.9.3, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft SEIR and asks how the city can conclude less than significant impacts to land use plans and policies with no disclosed review of any impacted master or specific plans.

As stated in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, updates to the Master and Specific Plans that are being proposed as part of the project for consistency between the city’s planning documents in and of themselves would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts would occur. It is unclear what impacts the commenter assumes could occur related to the master and specific plan amendments. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence to contradict the findings or conclusions of the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made in response to this comment.
2-57
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response B2-30
The commenter expresses the opinion that since the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions until the CAP is updated, the conclusion in the Land Use and Planning section cannot be less than significant while the conclusion of GHG Threshold 2 is significant and unavoidable.

As stated in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft SEIR, “For an impact to be considered significant, an inconsistency would also have to result in a significant adverse change in the environment not already addressed in the other resource chapters of this EIR.” (Emphasis added).

The impact associated with CAP consistency was disclosed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR and not discussed in the land use and planning section. See also Response B2-28.

Response B2-31
The commenter comments on Section 4.10.2, Noise, of the Draft SEIR and requests inclusion of McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan noise policies.

In response to this comment Page 4.10-32 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as detailed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response B2-32
The commenter comments on Section 4.10.3, Noise, of the Draft SEIR and says that cumulative determination is incorrect since it is implying that the proposed increase in residential development would not result in an increase in aircraft operations, whereas the threshold asks if the project would expose more people to airport noise, which it would from a logical point of view.

Impact NOI-4 in Section 4.10, Noise, analyzes impacts associated with the proposed project potentially exposing people to excessive airport noise. As discussed, except for a small portion of Site 9, none of the rezone sites would be exposed to noise levels of more than 65 dBA CNEL due to airport noise. Therefore, the increased residential development associated with the proposed project would only subject a portion of one site to noise above 65 dBA CNEL. The project itself would not result in any additional growth that would expose more people to noise, nor would it increase airport operations such that noise associated with the airport would increase and affect a larger number of residents in the vicinity of the airport. Section 4.10.3d, Noise – Cumulative Impacts, states that “Although citywide growth could increase the number of people who are exposed to aircraft-related noise impacts, such impacts would be localized in nature… The project would have no contribution to a cumulative impact related to airport hazards or noise. Impacts related to airport or airstrip noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.” The conclusion in this section is accurate and no changes to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-33
Referring to Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter asks if regional forecasting update is part of the SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. The commenter opines that this should be discussed.
2-58
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
As discussed in Section 4.11 of the Draft SEIR, the Housing Element is designed to accommodate regional growth anticipated by SANDAG’s RHNA projections. In accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Housing Forecast Revisions, prior to the next update of the RHNA and within six months of the certification of the Final SEIR, a city planner will provide a revised housing forecast to SANDAG to ensure that any revisions to the population and employment projections used by SDAPCD in updating the RAQS and the SIP will accurately reflect anticipated growth due to the proposed project. It is assumed that SANDAG will update their regional growth forecasts as appropriate when the Regional Plan is next updated. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence to contradict the findings or conclusions of the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-34
Referring to Section 4.15, Wildfire, of the Draft SEIR, the commenter asks why Impact WF-1 determined that development “could result in changes to emergency evacuation routes or could increase roadway congestion such that the use of an evacuation route would be hindered” if Impact HAZ-5 and T-4 determined that the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or result in inadequate emergency access.

The commenter selects one sentence in isolation that introduces the topic and explains that an impact could occur, but the full analysis under Impact WF-1 and Impact T-4 explains why the project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the features of the project and existing laws and regulations that would address the impact. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence to contradict the findings or conclusions of the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made in response to this comment.

Response B2-35
The commenter asks why there is no discussion of relevant master or specific plans in each section.

Please see Response B2-17 and B2-27. Each environmental impact section provides adequate setting information to form the baseline of the environmental analysis as required by CEQA. Other than the revisions made to the Aesthetics and Land Use and Planning sections of the Draft SEIR, there are no other sections of the Draft SEIR where it is necessary to provide additional information on the master and specific plans as part of the setting where such information is not already provided as appropriate.

Response B2-36
The commenter expresses the opinion that each resource area should include a discussion master and specific plans under the regulatory setting section.

Please see Response B3-35.

Response B2-37
The commenter requests further explanation as to how the lead agency has determined that future updates to master and specific plans would not result in physical changes to the environment and not result in impacts, but each analysis section focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the rezone program which would facilitate the development of 18 sites. 2-59
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Please see Response B2-4 and B2-5.

Response B2-38
The commenter recommends reviewing references to the CAP and disclosing that any referenced CAP measures may need to be revised or amended with the update. The commenter points to Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, where multiple CAP policies are referenced in support of policies decreasing potential impacts.

The Draft SEIR has been reviewed in response to this comment and no further changes have been made. While Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, does reference some CAP policies, these policies are not solely relied on in the impact analysis to ensure impacts would be less than significant. Impacts would be less than significant even without implementation of CAP policies. 2-60

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
3200 Park Center Drive #1000, Costa Mesa, California, 92626 T +1 714 427 6868 F +1 714 200 1800 brookfieldproperties.com August 28, 2023
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
[email protected]
Re.: Housing EIR Comments from Brookfield
Dear Scott:

Brookfield, as owner of the Shoppes at Carlsbad mall, has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated July 2023 and has the following comments.

1. Land Use Designation: The entire 90+ acre mall currently has the zoning classification of C -2, General Neighborhood Commercial.
a. Brookfield requests the entire 90+ property is re-zoned for mixed use that will allow commercial, such as the C-2 classification, and hospitality or residential uses. The EIR only contemplates rezoning the parking fields and not the developed portions of the property. The comprehensive rezoning of the ninety 90+ acres will facilitate long term planning that may contain a mix of uses.

2. Rezone Site Characteristics: Table 3-1 Impacts of third-party ownership/city covenants (page 79) accurately states that the 57 acres included in the EIR “is owned by the city and encompasses the parking lots for The Shoppes at Carlsbad mall and a North County Transit District transit station” . However, is omits the fact that deed restriction limits this land for mall parking and any change of such use requires the mutual consent of the City and mall ownership.
a. Brookfield requests that this potential impact is identified in the EIR.

3. New Zoning (2-10, page 64): The EIR proposes “addition of two new residential land use designations (R - 35 and R-40) for the accommodation of higher density residential development, establishment of new minimum densities for some residential designations, miscellaneous, related changes to tables, text and policies, and changes to land use designations on multiple sites to accomm odate the city’s RHNA share”.

There are also some portions of the mall that are proposed to be rezoned to the R/R-40/R-23/OS and R/R- 40/R-23 land use descriptions.
a. Brookfield requests that the existing developed land footprint also be designated with a mixed-use zoning. That should permit the existing commercial use and potential other future uses including residential. This zoning on the developed footprint should allow up the R-40 density, as well as permit lower density housing to provide a broad range of rental and ownership housing that is needed in the area. This will further allow any future housing to have the flexibility best integrate into adjoining land uses.
b. Residential housing should consider a range of uses inclusive of:

Letter B3
1 2
3 2-61
Brookfield
Properties

Page 2 ends

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES 2
i. Small lot single family detached homes and duplexes with densities of 6-12 homes per acre.

Typically, ownership housing.
ii. Townhomes with densities of 12-24 homes per acre. Typically, ownership housing. iii. Three and four-story walk-up buildings with densities of 18-40 units per acre.

Typically, apartments.
iv. Wrap residential with densities over 40 units per acre. Typically, apartments.

4. Blending of Zoning: The EIR is silent on the ability to blend densities. Rather it sets minimum and maximum densities.
a. Brookfield requests that within any zone, the development may have blended densities that take advantage of site topography and offer appropriate bulk and scale to the surrounding uses. This blending should be able to cross zoning designations on the entire 90+ acre property, provided the actual development falls within the overall density range.

5. On Site Transfer of Density: To address the blending of density noted in #4 above:
a. Brookfield requests that densities may be transferred between zones on the entire 90+ acre property if that provides more appropriate bulk and scale of development in particular areas.

The total transferred densities should not deviate from what densities would be without such density transfers.

6. Conversion of Existing Commercial to Other Land Uses: The EIR implies that the existing 1.1 million square feet of commercial development will remain. Changing market demand may not support this level or type of commercial.
a. Brookfield requests that the EIR allow removal of existing commercial and replacement by other land uses that have the same or lower Impacts under the EIR. For example, every 100,000 square feet of commercial removed may be replaced by X housing units, or Y h otel rooms, or Z square feet of office, etc.

7. Off Site Residential Transfer: The 19 sites identified may prove to not be equally actionable for new housing. This may be a result of existing uses, site constraints, etc. a. Brookfield requests that should any of the 19 identified sites prove undevelopable, those units may be transferred to the 90+ acre mall site provided this does not change the impacts studied in this EIR.

8. Attachments: Attached are maps that show the parcels and City proposed zoning prepared by Brookfield.
a. Brookfield requests that the city and Brookfield discuss the appropriate residential/commercial mixed-use zoning for those non-City owned parcels on the maps.

Please free to call or email me if you have any questions about our comments.

Best regards,

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT
Tony Pauker
Vice President of Acquisitions
3, cont
4 5
6 7
8 2-62

01.21.19 1THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD Property Ownership Exhibit

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
1 2
345678
9 1011
30 59
3132
12 13
14 1516
1718a
18b
19a
19b 20
21 22
23 24a
24b
25a
25b
26 27
28 OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
1 2
345678
9 1011
30 59
3132
12 13
14 1516
1718a
18b
19a
19b 20
21 22
23 24a
24b
25a
25b
26 27
28 City Owned Property
Brookﬁeld Owned Property
Other Owned Property
N
NOTE
Boundaries based on ALTA survey provided by Brookﬁeld.

Exhibit to be used only as visual representation.

Drawing not to scale.

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT
Long-term ground
lease to others.

OCEANSIDE
CAR
LSBAD
APN: 156-301-11
Lot No: 27
Proposed Designation:

R/R-40/R-23/OS
Potential Yield: 422 Units

23.6 AC
(including 1 AC of OS)
APN: 165-120-59
Lot No: 9
Owner: The Parking Authority
of the City of Carlsbad
Located in City of Oceanside

10.10 AC
APN: 156-301-10
Lot No: 26
Proposed Designation:

R/R-40
Potential Yield: 26 Units

1.43 AC
APN: 165-302-32
Lot No: 32
Owner: City of Oceanside

2.39 AC
APN: 156-301-06
Lot No: 22
Proposed Designation:

R/R-40
Potential Yield: 27 Units

1.45 AC
APN: 156-302-24
Lot No: 9
Proposed Designation:

R/R-40/R-23
Potential Yield: 504 Units

29.81 AC
APN: 156-302-23
Lot No: 7
Proposed Designation:

R/R-40
Potential Yield: 14 Units

0.77 AC
Brookfield
Properties
Penny Properties
Sub Holdings LLC
Macy's
Primary
Real Est Inc

MSC LLC
Bridgestone Retail
Operations LLC
2-63

01.21.19 2THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD Property Ownership Exhibit

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
1 2
345678
9 1011
30 59
3132
12 13
14 1516
1718a
18b
19a
19b 20
21 22
23 24a
24b
25a
25b
26 27
28 N

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
1 2
345678
9 1011
30 59
3132
12 13
14 1516
1718a
18b
19a
19b 20
21 22
23 24a
24b
25a
25b
26 27
28 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT
City Owned Property
NOTE
Boundaries based on ALTA survey provided by Brookﬁeld.

Exhibit to be used only as visual representation.

Drawing not to scale.

LOT NO. APN OWNERSHIP
1 156-302-23 City of Carlsbad
2 156-302-22 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
3 156-302-21 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
4 156-302-20 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
5 156-302-19 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
6 156-302-18 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
7 156-302-17 City of Carlsbad
8 156-302-25 City of Carlsbad
9 156-302-24 City of Carlsbad
10 156-302-07 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc. (Long-term ground lease to other) 11 156-302-06 Marjoram Associates
12 156-302-08 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
13 156-302-09 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
14 156-302-16 Macy’s Primary Real Estate
15 156-302-15 Macy’s Primary Real Estate
16 156-302-14 The Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad 17 156-302-27 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
18a 156-302-12 CalPERS (Ground)
18b 156-302-12 Westcore Development (Improvements)
19a 156-302-26 CalPERS (Ground)
19b 156-302-26 Westcore Development (Improvements)
20 156-302-10 JC Penny
21 156-301-14 City of Carlsbad
22 156-301-06 The Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad 23 156-301-07 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
24a 156-301-08 CalPERS (Ground)
24b 156-301-08 Westcore Development (Improvements)
25a 156-301-09 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc. (Ground)
25b 156-301-09 Sears Roebuck & C. PCR (Improvements)
26 156-301-10 The Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad 27 156-301-11 City of Carlsbad
28 156-301-12 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
30 156-302-30 Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.
31 156-302-31 City of Oceanside & City of Carlsbad
32 156-302-32* City of Oceanside
59 165-120-59* The Parking Authority of the City of Carlsbad** * 0.43 acre discrepancy between Assessor Map and ALTA
** Owned by the City of Carlsbad but under City of Oceanside jurisdiction.

NOTE:

Data obtained from 1/18/2018 "Property Ownership Exhibit" by Hofman Planning & Engineering.

Brookﬁeld Properties Inc.

OCEANSIDE
CAR
LSBAD

MSC LLC
CalPERS (Ground)

MSC LLC
CalPERS (Gr
West
core De

MSC LLC
CalPERS (Gr

MSC LLC
CalPERS (Gr
West
core De

MSC LLC
CalPERS (Gr

MSC LLC
Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC
2-64
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter B3
COMMENTER: Tony Pauker, Brookfield Properties Development DATE: August 28, 2023
Response B3-1
The commenter identifies as Brookfield Properties, the owner of the Shoppes at Carlsbad mall. The commenter states that the Draft SEIR only proposes rezoning of the parking lots and not the developed portions of the property, and requests for the entire property to be rezoned to mixed- use that would allow for commercial and hospitality or residential uses.

The Draft SEIR analyzes the project as proposed and as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response B3-2
The commenter states that Table 3-1 (Impacts of third-party ownership/city covenants) states that 57 acres included in the Draft SEIR “is owned by the city and encompasses the parking lots for The Shoppes at Carlsbad mall and a North County Transit District transit station.” The commenter states that, however, this omits the fact that deed restriction limits this land for mall parking and any change of use requires mutual consent of the city and mall ownership. The commenter requests for this potential impact to be identified in the Draft SEIR.

While it is acknowledged that deed restrictions may be present, the city has the authority to rezone the site and rezoning and potential future development associated with the rezoning is analyzed throughout the Draft SEIR.

Response B3-3
The commenter states that certain portions of the mall are proposed to be rezoned to the R/R-40/R- 23/OS and the R/R-40/R-23 land use designations. The commenter requests for the existing developed land to be designated mixed-use and allow up to the R-40 density as well as permit lower-density housing.

The Draft SEIR analyzes the project as proposed and as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response B3-4
The commenter expresses the opinion that the Draft SEIR fails to blend densities and rather sets minimum and maximum densities. The commenter requests that development within any zone may have blended densities that take advantage of site topography and offer appropriate bulk and scale to surrounding uses.

The Draft SEIR analyzes the project as proposed and as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and 2-65
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response B3-5
The commenter requests for densities to be transferred between zones on the entire property.

The Draft SEIR analyzes the project as proposed and as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required.

Response B3-7
The commenter expresses the opinion that changing market demand may not support the notion from the Draft SEIR that the existing 1.1 million square feet of commercial development will remain.

The commenter requests the Draft SEIR to allow removal of existing commercial and replacement by other land uses that have the same or lower impacts under the Draft SEIR.

The Draft SEIR analyzes the project as proposed and as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the SEIR are required.

Response B3-6
The commenter expresses the opinion that should any of the 19 identified sites prove undevelopable, units should be transferred to the 90-acre mall site provided that this does not change the impacts studied in the Draft SEIR.

The Draft SEIR analyzes the project as proposed and as summarized in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the SEIR are required.

Response B3-7
The commenter requests the city and Brookfield discuss the appropriate residential/commercial mixed-use zoning for non-city owned parcels on the maps attached to the letter.

This comment is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the Draft SEIR are required. 2-66
1 2
3 4
5 2-67
Letter B4
~~ ~ Owners' Association
5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92010
Phone: 760-438-0332 FAX: 760-438-1808
(
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner City of Carlsbad
AUG ;3 0 2023
Planning Division
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Donnell:

August 22, 2023
This is a letter of opposition from the Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association Board of Directors regarding the City's proposed zoning change for Site 4 (northeast corner of El Camino Real and College Blvd.) The Association represents 504 households with more than 800 voters who, along with so many others in this quadrant, will be directly and adversely impacted by the proposed changes.
* Site 4 was originally planned for commercial/shopping, then to mixed use - commercial/shopping and housing. A high density housing proposal not only removes sorely needed shopping services from the area, but would also compound an already intolerable traffic tangle at this intersection as well up and down El Camino Real and College Blvd. Traffic management must be a priority and developed before anymore residents can be "cornered" into traffic and parking purgatory. This is not just about inconvenience - it is about quality of living and greatly about safety as well. * Another major concern for Rancho Carlsbad residents is that the new proposal could cut-off the Community's Emergency Exit route. Since the City of Carlsbad has failed to address lack of adequate ingress/egress to/from Rancho Carlsbad, the ,, Community relies on an ad hoc dirt road as its' Emergency Route. Take that away and we are even more stranded.
* The City is well aware of the flood threats that The Agua Hedionda Creek poses for Rancho Carlsbad. Additional hardscape storm water run-off from high density development on Site 4 would only exacerbate and heighten the risk of loss of property, and potentially life, in our community.

These concerns highlight the existing problems and issues with the zoning changes.

There is much more at stake in this proposal than finding a "spot" for meeting housing mandates. Rancho Carlsbad and this quadrant deserve and insist that this new Site 4 zoning proposal be rejected.
~~resident
: Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association

Page 1 ends

2-68
Keith Blackburn, Mayor
~~ ~ Owners' Association
5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92010
Phone: 760-438-0332 FAX: 760-438-1808
(
Carolyn Luna, District 2, Council Member
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Jason Haber, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Russ Kohl, Co-Chair, External Relations Committee
Seena Seward, Co-Chair, External Relations Committee
Nancy Dungan, Chair, Creek Control Committee
Board of Directors, Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association

Page 2 ends

City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter B4
COMMENTER: Raymond Bower, Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association DATE: July 27, 2023
Response B4-1
The commenter expresses the Rancho Carlsbad Owners’ Association Board of Director’s opposition to the city’s proposed zoning change for Site 4.

Response B4-2
The commenter states that Site 4 was originally planned for commercial/shopping uses, and a high- density residential use as proposed would remove the needed shopping services from the area and would worsen traffic at the intersection as well as up and down El Camino Real and College Boulevard.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Therefore, the Draft SEIR does not make significance conclusions with respect to impacts related to automobile delay, which is typically described as “Level of Service” (LOS). The commenter does not provide specific comments on the Draft SEIR or information or analysis to challenge its analysis or conclusions and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response B4-3
The commenter states that the new proposal for Site 4 would cut off the community’s emergency exit route since the community currently relies on an ad hoc dirt road as its emergency route.

The emergency exit route that the commenter refers to is not a designated evacuation route. The commenter does not provide evidence that the community relies on a dirt road for emergency evacuation. As discussed under Impact HAZ-5 in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft SEIR, the city has adopted the “City of Carlsbad Emergency Operations Plan” prepared in conjunction with the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (USDCESO) which addresses the city’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with any type of natural disaster, technological incident, or state of war emergency. The USDCESO has also prepared an Operational Area Emergency Plan which outlines determination of emergency evacuation routes during emergencies, and states that evacuation routes will be determined based on the location and extent of the incident and will include as many pre-designated transportation routes as possible.
3 As discussed in Section 4.15, Wildfire, of the Draft SEIR, the Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, 3 USDCESO Operational Area Emergency Plan:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/protected/docs/2010_Complete_Plan_w_Annexes.pdf 2-69
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
signage, and water supply; this help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing access limitations for purposes of accessing and suppressing wildfire locations. CCR Title 14 also sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. Additionally, consistent with the San Diego County’s Emergency Operations Plan’s purpose to provide a system for effective management of emergency situations, development facilitated by the project would provide emergency vehicle access points and adequate fire truck and apparatus turning radii and clearance for purposes of adequate emergency access and response within Carlsbad in compliance with California Fire Code. Furthermore, the project does not propose physical changes such as realigned or closed-off roadways or changes in general transportation circulation and access that would interfere or impair emergency response or evacuation citywide. As such, the project would also not result in changes to emergency evacuation routes such that use of an evacuation route would be hindered.

Response B4-4
The commenter explains that the Agua Hedionda Creek poses a flood threat for the Rancho Carlsbad community and additional stormwater run-off from high-density development on Site 4 would exacerbate the risk of loss of property and potentially life in the community.

As discussed under Impact HYD-4 in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, although a portion of Site 4 contains designated floodplain areas near Agua Hedionda Creek, development on this site would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 21.110, Floodplain Management Regulations, which sets forth design requirements in flood-prone areas such as elevating all residential structures at least two feet above the base flood elevation and constructed with materials that can resist strong hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads. Additionally, all development would be required to comply with all regulations and requirements set forth by FEMA and the CMC, which would reduce impacts related to flood flows and the release of pollutants in flood-prone areas. Policies 6-P.1 through 6- P.12 of the Public Safety Element Update would also implement and develop flood control programs and require installation of protective structures to minimize impacts of flooding, resulting in less than significant impacts.

As discussed under Impact HYD-3, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage patterns or contribute runoff water in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding, nor would it exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems with compliance with applicable State and local regulations. No revisions to the SEIR have been made in response to this comment.
2-70
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response B4-5
The commenter expresses the opinion that the Site 4 proposal be rejected.

The commenter’s opinion about the project and proposed rezoning is noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no revisions to the SEIR are required.
2-71
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

2.3 Individuals Comments and Responses
This section provides each letter received from individuals in response to the Draft SEIR, with specific comments identified with a comment code in the margin. Following the letters, responses to the comments are provided.
2-72
1 From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2023 6:52 AM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: FW: Housing EIR available for review 🏠
Mr. Donnell,
I'm writing you again ( did so 2 years ago) regarding proposed development of up to 150 residential unit on Site 8, specifically the current Cottage Row Apartments. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO!!!!!! NO!!!!!!! The city is already over- developing this area with the two new MDU developments under construction at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road!!!! This ridiculous density is killing our quality of life in the Aviara area!!!!! The increased traffic and noise is already going to continue to worsen as these two units are occupied!!!!! Aviara Parkway has become a frag racing strip and is DANGEROUS!! The city should have halted residential construction in this area following completion of the Laurel Tree Apartment complexes years ago!!!!
This is a family community with schools like Aviara Oaks Elementary & Middle Schools and Pacific Rim Elementary nearby! Traffic is already at a dangerous level due to over development! NO MORE!!!!! Go east and in commercial areas for new residential construction!!!! Enough is enough!!!! Donald Sonck
6482 Torreyanna Circle Carlsbad 92011-4211
Mobile: 760.330.0525
Letter C1
1 2
2-73
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C1
COMMENTER: Donald Sonck
DATE: July 15, 2023
Response C1-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed development of up to 150 residential units on Site 8. The commenter states an opinion that the city is already overdeveloping this area with the two new MDU developments under construction at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road.

Approval of the proposed project would not approve any physical development (e.g., construction of housing or infrastructure). However, the Draft SEIR assumes that such actions are reasonably foreseeable future outcomes of the proposed project because the proposed project. As required by CEQA, the Draft SEIR also analyzes cumulative impacts from development under the proposed project in combination with reasonably foreseeable development in the city. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C1-2
The commenter expresses an opinion that there is increased traffic and noise near Site 8 that will worsen with development on the site as part of the proposed project. The commenter expresses an opinion that the city should have halted residential construction in this area following the completion of the Laurel Tree Apartment complexes years ago. The commenter recommends new residential development be implemented in the east and in commercial areas.

As discussed under Section 4.10, Noise, of the Draft SEIR, operational activities for the proposed project, including Site 8, would be typical of the urban environment and would be required to comply with applicable noise standards in the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Furthermore, while development would generate vehicle trips in the city, the increase in mobile noise would not result in a perceptible 3-DBA increase. Therefore, operational noise impacts were found to be less than significant.

1. If the site menƟoned in your on line site CoƩage View Apts. has been removed from map 1, why are we receiving noƟce of that site as being considered, or is it sƟll being considered?

2. If the need for 2600 low income units is mandated by the state, I have an idea. Sell the Crossings Golf Course which is operaƟng from all I'm told at a net loss. If I'm wrong here can you provide me with the correct Info re: annual income vs expenditures. Put that land back on the tax role.

Respecƞully SubmiƩed, Larry Hammer, 1282 Mariposa Rd. Carlsbad,Ca. 92011 CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C2
1 2
2-75
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C2
COMMENTER: Larry Hammer
DATE: July 21, 2023
Response C2-1
The commenter asks for clarification regarding whether the Cottage View Apartment site is being considered as art of the proposed project.

The Cottage Row Apartments located on 1400 C, Flame Tree Lane, is Site 8 of the proposed project.

Response C2-2
The commenter expresses an opinion that the city should sell the Crossings Golf Course to develop the 2,600 required units on that site.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-76
From: Megan Gonzalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:34 AM
To: Planning
Cc: Scott Donnell
Subject: Re: Housing EIR available for review 🏠
Hello,
Concerned homeowners that live adjacent to site 10 would like an update.

Additional areas in the district have been identified for future planning, is site 10 a possibility to be removed and not developed?
Megan J González
(760) 809-0608
[email protected]
Board of Directors Kensington at the Square Homeowners Association Letter C3
1 2-77
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C3
COMMENTER: Megan Gonzalez
DATE: July 24, 2023
Response C3-1
The commenter asks whether Site 10 would be removed from the inventory and not developed.

Rezoning of Site 10 is considered in the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR analyzes reasonably foreseeable development at this site. The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision- makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.
2-78
1 From: Kervin Krause <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 1:15 PM
To: Scott Donnell; Planning
Subject: The Shoppes Mall Property
Hello,
This is our families input to, Draft Environmental Impact Report for potential new housing sites in Carlsbad for public review.

We enjoyed shopping at Westfield Mall since the late '80s. Although now we do most of our shopping online, in The Village or along the PCH101 - although we occasionally go to a movie or one of the restaurants at the Mall. We understand the city owns the parking lot, which is empty where Sears used to be, whenever we drive by. Our family feels this is an amazing location with so much potential.

So close to the 5 & 78 yet much of the parking lot sits empty most of the time. The transit area is dystopian and even feels dangerous at night being so open and far away from everything else.

Here is some further info we found on the mall property:

Years ago, the city council denied an application to develop much-needed housing in such an amazing location!
And this would actually offer the much-needed "affordable housing" than the $1.5-2M condos taking over "The Village".
“We would be taking a blighted area and a sea of asphalt into a walkable, livable community with additional green space for the community,” Goldman said.

Brian Harper, CEO of Rouse Properties, sent a letter to the city in March explaining why this development is a positive for the city and Rouse.
“We see The Shoppes at Carlsbad as the premiere multi-dimensional experience in the area and we believe the current improvements are simply the foundation for a first-class property,”

Harper wrote. “The west end of the property, partially under city ownership, is currently a large and underutilized parking lot that represents surplus parking not required for the shopping center’s operations or compliance with city parking codes.” https://thecoastnews.com/carlsbad-denies-application-for-mixed-use-development Tha
nk you,
Segovia-Krause Family
1220 Stratford Lane
Carlsbad Village by-the-Sea
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C4
1 2-79
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C4
COMMENTER: Kervin Krause
DATE: July 24, 2023
Response C4-1
The commenter states an opinion that the Westfield Mall would be a good site to develop housing as part of the proposed project. The commenter states that the city previously denied an application for housing development on this site and cites a newspaper article which discusses the positive outcomes of developing this site with housing.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-80
1 From: michelle miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Site 4
Hi ScoƩ,
Good Morning!
I’m a homeowner at the Terraces of Sunny Creek. I was wondering what the city was proposing as far as type (single family homes, apartments)and number of units for the area by College and El Camino Real. I see that they would like to change the zoning and increase the number of units. Could you provide more speciﬁc informaƟon? I was looking online but couldn’t ﬁnd anything speciﬁc beside just increasing the number. Also what number would be aﬀordable housing in that zone?
Thank you so very much!
Michelle Miller
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C5
1 2-81
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C5
COMMENTER: Michelle Miller
DATE: July 29, 2023
Response C5-1
The commenter asks how many and what type of housing (single family, apartments etc.) are being proposed at College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The commenter requests more information about the proposed zoning changes and unit number increases. The commenter also asks how many of these units would be affordable housing.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the rezone site located off El Camino Real and College Boulevard is Site 4, which is made up of two properties. Property 1 proposes approximately 327 units with 115 units at 12 dwelling units per acre (based on the property’s current R-15 designation) and 212 units at 26.5 units per acre (based on the proposed R-30 designation, which would replace the property’s other current L (Local Shopping Center) designation. Property 2 proposes approximately 154 units at 26.5 dwelling units per acre, however, since Property 2 is located entirely within a flood zone, no units are counted to help meet the city’s housing needs. On property 1, 212 units would be categorized as low-income, and 115 units would be categorized as moderate-income. Specific details of development on Site 4 are unknown at this time, because the proposed project involves rezoning the site but no specific development project has been proposed at this time.
2-82
1 From: Vicki Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 9:49 AM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Impact on Coaster Parking
Scott and Carlsbad Planning,
As senior citizens in Carlsbad, we are very concerned about the proposal for additional housing at the Coaster parking area.

We use the Coaster as our means of transportation as well as many other citizens and senior citizens here in Carlsbad.

The Coaster is a wonderful means of transportation and any proposal to reduce parking area for riders should not be considered.

As gas prices skyrocket (and environmental concerns)
and more of us are using public transportation,
how could the city possibly propose anything that impacts the parking area of our two Coaster stops??
We understand that the city needs to provide affordable housing, but it should NOT have a negative impact on parking at the Coaster locations.

Local streets in the area already have strict parking regulations and there are not alternative parking areas for Coaster riders.

Thank you,
Vicki Robertson
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter C6
1 2-83
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C6
COMMENTER: Vicki Roberston
DATE: July 31, 2023
Response C6-1
The commenter expresses concern for the housing proposed at the Coaster parking area. The commenter states they use the Coaster as a means of transportation along with many other senior citizens in Carlsbad. The commenter expresses an opinion that any proposal to reduce parking for the Coaster riders should not be considered. The commenter states that there are no alternative parking areas for Coaster riders.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

The provision of parking is not an environmental issue under CEQA. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-84
1 From: Kim Ger
aghty <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesd
ay, August 1, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Scott
Donnell
Subject: Housing
EIR available for review - Cottage Row Apartments
Dear Mr. Donnell,
I'm writing you, and voicing my concern and opposition, to the proposed development of up to 150 residential unit on Site 8, specifically the current Cottage Row Apartments.

The city is already over-developing this area with the two new MDU developments under construction at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road. The increased traffic and noise is already going to continue to worsen as these two units are occupied. The city should have halted residential construction in this area following completion of the Laurel Tree Apartment complexes years ago.

Traffic is already at a dangerous level due to over development! Please seriously consider other sites for more development.

A concerned community member,
Kim Geraghty
1 Letter C7
2-85
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C7
COMMENTER: Kim Geraghty
DATE: August 1, 2023
Response C7-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed development on Site 8, specifically the Cottage Row Apartments.

The commenter states an opinion that the city is over-developing the area with two new MDU developments under construction at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road.

The commenter expresses concern over the increased traffic and noise they suspect will increase as these developments are occupied. The commenter expresses an opinion that the city should have halted residential construction in this area following completion of the Laurel Tree Apartment complexes. The commenter states an opinion that traffic is at a dangerous level due to over development and asks the city to consider other sites for development.

I absolutely get that. Are you able to speak into my concerns of accepting monies from California bureaucrats at the demise of our “quaint” Carlsbad Village? California does not “demand” this, we succumb to it for the money.

Would you agree that we do not want to be another Dana Point? And that Del Mar and other San Diego cities protect their cities properly?
Thank you,
቗ቘ Sharyl
Sharyl Hess
(760) 275-3291
On Aug 1, 2023, at 4:12 PM, Scott Donnell <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ms. Hess,
Thank you for your comments and taking the time to write. The EIR is a large document and is required by law to cover a variety of topics, which contributes to its large size.

Your comment will be included as part of the project’s public record.

Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
www.carlsbadca.gov
442
-339-2618 o | [email protected]
From: Sh
aryl Hess <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 2:18 PM
To: Scott Donnell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Housing EIR available for review ፐፑፒፓፔፕፖ
Hello there,
Letter C8
1 2-87
2 I am writing today because I just looked over your 472 page Housing Implementation Update. First off, who the heck is going to read this? How do our Carlsbad Residents even know what you guys at the city are up to?
We do not need any more housing in Carlsbad. We do not need any more high rise housing of any kind in our beautiful Carlsbad Village. It is becoming another Dana Point. The citizens of Carlsbad continue to make this clear to the city.

We are aware that the "law" that our city of Carlsbad blames on our "California Gov't" ie; Newsom and the bunch, is not valid.

Calfornia does NOT require the City of Carlsbad to provide this housing. Carlsbad as a city is doing this for the money they receive from the government. If you abide by their liberal views, you get paid.

We don't want this to happen to our city. Cities like Del Mar, Encinitas, La Jolla are sticking to their guns and listening to their constituents.

We do not want any more building/housing in our city.

Please stop the madness and think about the people. Our quaint village is disappearing right before our eyes.

Thank you for listening,
቗ቘ Sharyl
Sharyl Hess
(760) 275-3291
Carlsbad Resident for many decades
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 04:45:21 PM PDT, City of Carlsbad < [email protected]> wrote:

The
dr aft environm ental im pact r eport is availabl e for public review thr oug h Aug. 28, 2023. 2 3
2-88
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C8
COMMENTER: Sharyl Hess
DATE: August 1, 2023
Response C8-1
The commenter expresses an opinion that Carlsbad accepting money from California bureaucrats is contributing to the demise of the quaint Carlsbad village. The commenter states an opinion that California does not demand this development but rather succumbs to it for the money. The commenter compares Carlsbad to Dana Point and asks if the city agrees that Carlsbad does not want to become Dana Point. The commenter also asks if the city agrees that Del Mar and other San Diego cities protect their cities properly.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C8-2
The commenter expresses concern over how long the Housing Implementation Update is and asks who will read it and how will Carlsbad residents know what the city is up to. The commenter also expresses an opinion that there is no need for additional housing in Carlsbad.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C8-3
The commenter states an opinion that California does not require Carlsbad to provide additional housing and that Carlsbad is doing this for the money they receive from the government. The commenter states an opinion that cities like Del Mar, Encinitas, and La Jolla are listening to their constituents. The commenter states an opinion that they do not want more housing in the city and that their quaint village is disappearing.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-89
1 Scott Donnell
From: Lori Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:53 AM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: EIR citizen vote
Hi Scott
I would like to advocate for Alternative One in the Environmental Impact Report.

Alter
native One spreads the new housing among the town more evenly.

1. New residents will not be isolated and will integrate better if they are spread throughout the community.

2. Multiple sites can be developed at the same time and multiple builders can benefit from new construction.

3. Spreading the housing would provide more diverse architectural projects and would ease traffic congestion and the use of utilities and infrastructure.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lori Robbins
Carlsbad Resident
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C9
1 2-90
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C9
COMMENTER: Lori Robbins
DATE: August 8, 2023
Response C9-1
The commenter expresses support for Alternative 1 because it spreads housing out evenly throughout the city which will allow residents to integrate better, will allow multiple sites to be constructed at the same time, and would provide more diverse architectural projects. The commenter also expresses an opinion that Alternative 1 would ease traffic congestion and the use of utilities and infrastructure.

The commenters’ statements about the alternatives and whether or not the project should be approved by the city will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. Alternative 1 is the No Project Alternative, which is defined in the Draft SEIR as a land use pattern comprised of land use trends according to the 2015 General Plan. It assumes that regional growth trends and land use according to the 2015 General Plan would continue, without the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update as proposed under the project. Under Alternative 1, the 18 rezone sites would not be developed at the same capacity under this scenario as it would under the proposed project. As land use under the current General Plan still has residential capacity (as well as capacity for new non-residential construction, such as new commercial and industrial buildings), the city would continue to grow in terms of housing units, population, non-residential square footage, and jobs. This alternative would not be consistent with the required programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and the city would be at risk of having the Housing Element “decertified” by the State if this program is not implemented. Alternative 1 would facilitate the fewest number of residential units (506), and therefore result in the fewest construction-related impacts and impacts associated with ground disturbance to areas such as air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality. However, it should be noted that development at the sites could still occur. And, as a consequence of less compact development as under this alternative, per capita VMT would be greater with Alternative 1 as compared to the proposed project, which would increase operational impacts of air quality, noise, and traffic. Overall, Alternative 1 would eliminate the unavoidably significant GHG impact, but the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, historical resources, construction noise, and transportation would remain. While some environmental benefits may occur by implementing Alternative 1, this alternative would not fulfill the goals of the project as it would not provide additional housing opportunities that will assist the city in meeting its RHNA requirements.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Therefore, the Draft SEIR does not make significance conclusions for the proposed project or project alternatives related to traffic congestion. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.
2-91
1 From: Christine Amato <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 AM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Affordable housing sites 10 & 11
Hello ScoƩ,
I am a homeowner ar kensington at the square in Carlsbad and my address is 6140 Colt Place, Unit 101, Carlsbad CA 92009.

My concerns are environmental-we have had power outages in this community this past summer. How will many more units eﬀect and already overwhelmed electric grid? Emergency evacuaƟons due to ﬁre, earthquake and other natural disasters. There is no main road to exit. What, if any studies have been done about any of this. Adding more units of medium high density will further exacerbate - also we have a severe drought. We have had ongoing crime as evidenced by car break ins, home breakins, theŌ, trespassing, drug dealing and overdoses in and around our community. Parking is already a major issue on Colt.

Environmental concerns: emergency evacuaƟons in a medium-high density residenƟal.commercial area with no main road route exits.

Crime, trespassing, traﬃc implicaƟons in our private roads. People speeding through our community with children playing on the streets. We have people living in their cars on the road leading to the proposed site and into our community. They leave trash and do not pick up aŌer their dogs. There is already very limited parking. In our enƟre community there are only 8 guest spaces and overﬂow for residents. The rest are open to the public. Many of us use the street where people live in their cars for overﬂow. The surrounding streets have very liƩle parking due to the density of the homes and driveways. Bressi Ranch was designed with the small yards and in some cases no yards replaced with small parks. I implore you to consider another site for all of these reasons.

For all of the above reasons, please reevaluate sites 10 and 11 for aﬀordable housing, and use the buﬀer sites.

ChrisƟne Amato
(C) 760.613.2868
CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C10
1 2
3 4
5 2-92
I
I
I
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C10
COMMENTER: Christine Amato
DATE: August 9, 2023
Response C10-1
The commenter states they are a homeowner at Kensington in the square in Carlsbad. The commenter states they have environmental concerns. The commenter states they have had power outages in their community this past summer and asks how more units will affect the electric grid.

As discussed in Section 4.16, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, of the Draft SEIR, all future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the latest California Building Code (CBC) requirements, including CBC Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft SEIR, although development facilitated by the project may require installation of additional electrical and natural gas connections to SDG&E facilities, such connections would be installed during individual project construction and within the disturbance area of such projects or the rights-of-way of previously disturbed roadways; therefore, the construction of these infrastructure improvements would not substantially increase the project’s disturbance area or otherwise cause significant environmental effects beyond those identified throughout the Draft SEIR. The commenter does not provide specific comments on the Draft SEIR or information or analysis to challenge its analysis or conclusions and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response C10-2
The commenter expresses concern over emergency evacuations and the fact that there is no main road to exit. The commenter asks what studies have been done to address this and opines that adding more medium high-density units will exacerbate this issue.

Please refer to Response B4-3.

Response C10-3
The commenter expresses concern over the severe drought in the area as well as crime, trespassing, drug dealing, overdoses, and parking in their community.

As discussed under Impact PS-2 in Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, CEQA is primarily concerned with physical environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Crime itself is not a CEQA issue but a physical environmental impact could occur if the project resulted in the need for a new or expanded police station, the construction of which could cause an environmental impact. As explained in the Draft SEIR, policies in the Public Safety Element Update would ensure that there are adequate police staffing to meet existing service demands. Police protection service levels would continue to be evaluated and maintained by Carlsbad Police Department accordance with existing policies, procedures and practices as development occurs over the lifetime of the project. In addition, as discussed under Impact UTIL-2 in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), Vallecitos Water District (VWD), and Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) have all prepared a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which would help manage water demands during potential water shortages and droughts. Future 2-93
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to comply with water conservation regulations as well as 2015 General Plan policies 9-P.3 through 9-P.6 which would help maintain sufficient supplies. Therefore, no physical environmental impacts were found to occur as a result of the proposed project. The provision of parking is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The commenter does not provide specific comments on the Draft SEIR or information or analysis to challenge its analysis or conclusions and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response C10-4
The commenter expresses concern over emergency evacuation in this area due to it being a commercial area with no main road exists.

Please see Response C10-2.

Response C10-5
The commenter expresses concern over crime, trespassing, and traffic on private roads. The commenter states people speed through their community where children play and that there are people living in their cars on the road leading to the proposed site. The commenter states there is trash and limited parking on the road due to the high-density development already in this area. The commenter states Bressi Ranch was designed with small yards and in some cases no yards. The commenter asks the city to consider another site other than sites 10 and 11 for affordable housing for these reasons.

Please see Response C10-3.

As discussed under Impact T-3 in Section 4.13, Transportation, land use proposals that would add traffic to streets not designed to current standards are evaluated through the environmental review process for consistency with Carlsbad standard processes and the Caltrans recommended guidance, LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guide. If needed, mitigation measures are identified therein, and the project is conditioned to construct or provide funding for an improvement that would minimize or eliminate the hazard. New and upgraded roadways needed to accommodate new development would be designed according to applicable Federal, State, and local design standards. Furthermore, policies 3-P.10, 3-P.12, 3-P.13, and 3-P.16 of the 2015 General Plan would reduce impacts related to traffic safety and hazards.

The commenter does not provide specific comments on the Draft SEIR or information or analysis to challenge its analysis or conclusions and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.
2-94
1 From: laurie ♡ weinberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Environmental Impact Report
Scott,
My husband and myself would like to advocate for Alternative One in the Environmental Report. The new housing would be spread out in a better fashion and makes the most sense to us, as residents.

Thanks,
Laurie Weinberger
Larry Weinberger
2689 State St
Carlsbad, CA. 92008
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter C11
1 2-95
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C11
COMMENTER: Laurie Weinberger
DATE: August 14, 2023
Response C11-1
The commenter expresses support for Alternative 1 because they believe the housing would be spread out in a better fashion and would make more sense to them as residents.

Please see Response C9.1.
2-96
1 | Page
August 14, 2023
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subjec
t: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE, JULY 2023 Thank
you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the subject Dra� SEIR. My comments are provided below for your considera�on and ac�on as may be appropriate.

1. GENERAL COMMENT REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUS) In January
2021 the Califo rnia State Legislature found and declared, by enac �ng Government Code 65852.2, that ADUs are an essen�al component of the state’s housing supply and provide an altern a�ve op�on to tradi �onal market-rate home construc�on.

This Code which allows and makes it easier for property owners to buil d ADUs exempts the construc�on of ADUs from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the subject Dra� SEIR does not consider or account for number of ADUs and popula�on increases associated therewith within the City Carlsbad.

Even though the impacts from ADU s are not required to be addressed in this Dra� SEIR, it is my opinion that the City needs to account for the cumula�ve impacts associated with the expanded popula�on the ADUs will create. It is further my opinion that to not account for ADUs in this Dra� EIR would not be prudent on the part of the City’s elected oﬃcials and Division Directors and would not be in the best interest of our Carlsbad ci�zens.

The City most certainly knows how many ADUs currently exist within the City and should have planning level es �mates certainly of the pote n�al number of ADUs that might be constructed within the City. These es�mates need to factor into the City’s overall planning for popu la�on increase s and the City’s ability to provide expanded public services to support this growth. These es�mates should be iden �ﬁed for the beneﬁt of our Carlsbad ci�zens.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ALTERNATIVES
Altern
a�ve 1, No Proj ect Alterna�ve
The Alterna�ve 1 popula�on in the Plan Area for 2035 would be 133,410, consistent with the ﬁndings of the 2015 General Plan.

Request for Additional Text
Letter C12
1 2
2-97
2 | Page
Please
add text to highlight that the Alterna�ve 1 popula�on of 133,410 does not include popula�on associated with the California State Gove
rnment Code 65852.2 ADU mandate as
men�oned in Sec�on 4.11.1 (page 319).

Alter
na�ve 2, Reduced Sites
The Alterna�ve 2 popula�on in the Plan Area for 2035 is not iden�ﬁed.

Request for Additional Text
Please add text to highlight that the Alterna�ve 2 popula�on will be 141,670 as men�oned in Sec�on 5.1.2 (page 430) and does not include popula�on associated with the California State Gove
rnment Code 65852.2 ADU mandate as me
ntioned in Section 4.11.1 (page 319).

Also
please add text that the Altera�ve 2 popula�on of 141,670 is not consistent with the ﬁndings of the 2015 General Plan.

Table
ES-1, Air Quality
Impact AQ-2 (page 14)
Request for Additional Text
Please iden�fy how this signiﬁcant and unavoidable impact compares with the Alterna�ve 2, No Project Alterna�ve.

Impact AQ-2 Mi�ga�on Measures (page 15)
Request for Additional Text
Please provide informa �on on the “planned networks of ac �ve transporta �on infrastructure”. Who generated the planned network documents? Where can thes e documents be found for review? How will “expansion” be funded and who will pay? Please provide informa �on on “implementa �on of EV charging inf rastructure”. Are planning document s currently being developed? Who is genera �ng these documents? Where can these documents be found for review? How will these charging infrastructure facili�es be funded and who will pay?
Please clarify what “unbundling parking fee” means.

Impact AQ-4 (page 17)
Request for Additional Text
Please deﬁne and quan�fy what the “substan�al number” is.

Impact GHG-1, Mi�ga�on Measures (page 27)
Request for Additional Text
2 cont.
3 4
5 6
7 2-98
3 | Pag
e

Pleas
e explain what “reach code” means.

Please provide informa�on on “Expand charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles” ”. Are planning documents currently being developed? Who is genera�ng these documents? Where can these documents be found for review? How will these expanded charging infrastructure facili�es be funded and who will pay? Impact POP-2 (page 34)
Request for Additional Text
Please deﬁne how many is a “substan�al number of people ”. Please iden�fy how many people are es �mated will be displaced . Please iden �fy who will pay to relocate the displaced people.

Impacts PS-1, PS-2 and PS-3 (page 35)
Request for Additional Text
Please iden�fy how the increase in demands will be funded and who will pay for these increased services. Also, please add some text that ADUs, which are not addressed in this Dra� SEIR, will further increase services and will require addi�onal funding beyond what will be required for this Project.

Impact T-2 (page 36)
Request for Clariﬁcation
The text under this impact states the Project has the “poten�al” to interfere with achievement of VMT reduc�ons.

Please clarify that this Project will increase popula�on above those iden�ﬁed in the 2015 General Plan. This increase in popula�on will result in the number of vehicles suppor�ng the popula�on increase and will interfere with achievement of VTM reduc�ons set forth by the City unless the reduc�on strategies iden�ﬁed under Mi�ga�on Measures are undertaken by the City. The costs for these reduc�on strategies and funding mechanisms are currently not known by the City.

Impact T-4 (page 38)
Request for Additional Text
How signiﬁcant will the impact be ? Please provide some text on what the consequences of this signiﬁcant impact will be and provide a comparison of the impact to the No Project Alterna�ve.
7 cont.
8 9
10 11
12 13
2-99
4 | Page

3. SECTIO
N 1 INTRODU
CTION
Request
for Additional Text
Please direct the reader to Sec �on 2, Project Descrip �on for a discussion on w hat the driving force is for this Project and what the jus �ﬁca�on is to deviate f rom the 2015 General Plan. Also, please discuss what changes in state law as stated in the 1st paragr aph
in Sec�on 2 required the City to adopt the Housing Element Update 2021-2029.

Agency Comments – Caltrans (page 47)
The comment on page 47 “Suggests Carlsbad evaluate and poten�ally implement Complete Streets projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and safety.” I assume this comment and sugges�on is speciﬁc to this Project The response to this CALTRANS comment states that “Issues are discussed under Impact T-1 of Sec�on 4.13, Transportation, of this SEIR”.

Request for Additional Text
I am unable to ﬁnd any clear text in Sec�on 4.13 that addresses CALTRANS’ sugges�on to evaluate and poten�ally implement improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access and safety speciﬁc to this project. Please add text direc�ng the reader to where in Sec�on 4.13 this CALTRANS comment is speciﬁcally addressed.

Agency Comments – Transporta�on (page 49)
The comment on page 49 states that “Commenters express concern for poten�al traﬃc and conges�on increases in the Village, on El Camino Real, College Blvd, Cannon Road, and other corridors and intersec�ons.”
The response to this Transport a�on comment states “ As discussed in Sec �on 4.13, Transporta�on, of this SEIR, pursuant to SB 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would replace level of service (LOS) as the metric for determining signiﬁcance of transporta�on impacts. Therefore, this SEIR does not analyze LOS or conges�on as they are non -CEQA issues.”
Request for Additional Text
Even though traﬃc and conges�on are non-CEQUA issues they are signiﬁcant issues to me and likely for most of the Carlsbad ci�zens. I believe the City is obligated to address these concerns for the beneﬁt of our ci�zens. Please add text acknowledging these 14 15
16 2-100
5 | Page
traﬃc
and conges�on concerns and iden�fying when and how the City will address these concerns.

4. SECTIO
N 2, PROJEC

T DESCRIP
TION
Sec�on 2
.4.2, Core Value and Priority No. 5 (page 63)
Request for Clariﬁcation
Please deﬁne “intelligent transporta�on management” and provide examples of where “intelligent transporta�on management” has been implemented by Carlsbad to enhance mobility.

Sec�on 2.4.2, Core Value and Priority No. 9 (page 63)
Request for Clariﬁcation
Please iden�fy “link density to public transporta�on” strategies and facili�es implemented by Carlsbad on other Projects.

Sec�on 2.4.8, An�cipated Growth (page 75)
The 2
nd paragrap
h under this sec �on states that the number of Carlsbad housing units exclud
es accessory dwelling units. I am unable to ﬁnd anywhere else in this SEIR where it is noted that ADUs are excluded from considera�on.

Request for Additional Text
Please highlight the ADU exclusion somewhere in the Execu�ve Summary for the beneﬁt of Carlsbad ci�zens.

The last paragraph under this sec�on iden�ﬁed that this project would result in a total for 56,516 hous
ing units in Carlsbad.

Request for Additional Text
Please add text that highligh�ng that the number of housing units resul�ng from this project (56,516 units) exceeds the number of housing units iden�ﬁed in the 2015 General Plan (52,320 units) by 4,196 housing units and please highlight that ADUs are not accounted for in this SEIR.

5. SECTIO
N 3, ENVIRO

NMENTAL SETTING
Sec�on

3.2, Rezone Sites Se�ng, Table 3-1 (Page 79)
Request for Additional Text
16 cont.
19 20
21 22
23 2-101
6 | Page
I believe it would be beneﬁcial to the reader if Table 3-1 is expanded to include the number of new housing units and addi�onal popula�on for each site that would result from this Project.

6. Sec�on 4.2.3, Impact AQ-4 A nalysis (page 117)
Request for Clariﬁcation
Please deﬁne what a “substan�al number” of peop le is. How many people does the City es�mate will be aﬀected?

7. Sec�on 4.6.3, Imp act GHG-1 Analysis (pages 218 and 219)) Request for Additional Text
Please add text acknowledging that ADUs will exacerba
te the signiﬁcant and unavoidable
impacts on the mee�ng the City’s GHG emissions goals. Also, please iden�fy whether the City’s plans to acknowledge and account for ADUs in the CAP Update discussed on page 222. Can this project be approved before the CAP Update is done?

8. Sec�on 4.11.3, Impact ANALYSIS PH-1 (page 324)
Request for Additional Text
Please add text acknowledging that ADUs will cons�tute unplanned gr owth that could render this impact to be signiﬁcant.

9. Sec�on 4.11.3, Im pact ANALYSIS PH-2 (page 325)
Request for Additional Text
Please deﬁne what a “s
ubstan�al number” of people or housing is. How many people or housings does the City es�mate will be aﬀected?

10. Sec�on 4.13.3, VMT Analysis Methodology (page 360)
R
equest for Addition al Text
Please deﬁne under Item 5 what “inﬁll” areas me an.

11. Sec�on 4-14.1.d, Elec trical Power (page 374)
There is a statement that “by 2 025 the use of electricity sourced from out -of-state coal genera�on will be eliminated. As this trans i�on advances, the grid is also expanding to serve addi �onal loads produced by building and vehicle electriﬁca �on among other factors”.
23 cont.
24 25
26 27
28 29
2-102
7 | Page
Request for Clariﬁcation: Please expand this discussion to include what percentage of the current total electrical power genera�on in California is supplied by these out -of-state coal gene ra�on fac ili�es? W ho is developing the plans and design documents for expanding the grid? When will the design for expanding the grid be done? When will the grid expansion be completed? H ow will this grid expansion being funded, and who will pay for this expansion ? This discussion should also include es�mates of the increase in electricity demand beyond current dem ands when State mandates to eliminate fossil fuels for vehicles goes into eﬀect some�me before 2035.

It is my opinion that the Dra� SEIR needs to acknowledge and consider future condi�ons that are known to be inevitable and that could impact or be impacted by the proposed Project.

12. Sec�on 4.14.2, Regulatory Se�ngs – Carlsbad Growth Management Plan (pages 380 and 381)
The 2nd paragraph on page 381 states that “recent State housing laws have preempted the city’s ability to require compliance with the dwelling caps or to stop development due to noncompliance, as acknowledged in adopted City Council Resolu�on 2021 -074 (City of Carlsbad 2023c). It also states that The city is currently developing a new approach to managing growth”.

Request for Clariﬁcation
Please iden�fy the “recent State housing laws” that preempt the City’s ability to require compliance with Carlsbad dwelling caps. Also, please iden�fy what recourse the City might have to challenge these State mandates.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide my thoughts and comments of the subject dra� SEI
R.

Please feel free to contact me via email or phone if you have any ques�ons about my comments.

Liberato Tortorici
6436 La Paloma Stre et
Carlsbad, CA 9200
Email Address: [email protected]
Cell Phone: 619-559-7281
29 cont.
30 31
32 2-103
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C12
COMMENTER: Liberato Tortorici
DATE: August 14, 2023
Response C12-1
The commenter cites Government Code 65852.2 which exempts accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from CEQA requirements. The commenter states that the SEIR does not account for the number of ADUs or the population increase associated with ADUs in Carlsbad. The commenter states an opinion that the city needs to account for the cumulative impact of ADUs. The commenter expresses an opinion that to exclude ADUs in this Draft SEIR would not be prudent on the part of the city’s elected officials and division directors and would not be in the best interest of Carlsbad citizens.

Section 2.4.8, Project Description – Anticipated Growth, of the Draft SEIR, states: “As of January 1, 2023, Carlsbad had 47,003 housing units, excluding accessory dwelling units. Therefore, as of release of this SEIR, the city had an available housing unit capacity of 6,218 (53,221 – 47,003) through the buildout year of 2035 under the existing General Plan.” The reference to housing units is intended to indicate the capacity for additional housing units based on what the General Plan residential density policies would allow. State law (California Government Code Section 65852.2) prohibits the city from counting ADUs in residential density calculations, and the law requires that they be considered accessory uses. The city does estimate the population living in ADUs when evaluating public facility needs, such as parks and libraries. The population estimates used in the Draft SEIR include the population in existing ADUs.

The proposed project would not change the number or locations of ADUs that could be constructed in the city. The Draft SEIR analyses effects associated with the land use changes at the 18 rezone sites listed in Table 2-4 of the Draft SEIR and it is assumed that residential units would be constructed on those sites, as allowed by the General Plan residential density policies. ADUs are allowed by right as an accessory use and the proposed project will not directly result in an increase in the number of ADUs allowed. The effects associated with the Housing Element adoption related to ADUs were analyzed in the Addendum prepared for the Housing Element. Therefore, the Draft SEIR is consistent with the city’s unit calculation methodology, and consistent with the foreseeable impacts of project implementation.

Response C12-2
Referring to the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter states that the Alternative 1 population in the Plan Area for 2035 would be 133,410, consistent with the findings of the 2015 General Plan. The commenter requests that text be added to highlight the population of 133,410 does not include population growth associated with ADUs.

The commenter refers to the Executive Summary which is intended to be a brief summary of the analysis and conclusions of the Draft SEIR. This information is not necessary to be added to the Executive Summary. Please also see Response C12-1.
2-104
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response C12-3
Referring to the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter states that the Alternative 2 population in the Plan Area for 2035 is not stated. The commenter requests that text be added to explain that the alternative 2 population would be 141,670 as mentioned on page 430 of the Draft SEIR. The commenter also requests that text be added to highlight the population of 141,670 does not include population growth associated with ADUs and is not consistent with findings of the 2015 general plan.

Response C12-4
Referring to Table ES-1, Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added under impact AQ-2 on page 14 of the Draft SEIR to identify how the significant and unavoidable impact compares to Alternative 2.

Table ES-1 summarizes impacts of the proposed project as analyzed in the Draft SEIR and the description of Impact AQ-2 is accurate and refers to the air quality analysis conclusions for the proposed project. Air quality impacts related to Alternative 2 are discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft SEIR and not included in Table ES-1. As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in a net increase of 43 residential units, and would also result in slightly increased operational emissions (Table 6-2) compared to the proposed project. Therefore, as with the proposed project, air quality impacts for Alternative 2 would be significant and unavoidable.

Response C12-5
Referring to Table ES-1, Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 15 of the Draft SEIR to explain more about the “planned networks of active transportation infrastructure,” “implementation of EV charging infrastructure,” and what “unbundled parking fee” means.

Table ES-1 summarizes impacts of the Draft SEIR and lists the required mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measure AQ-2 which the commenter refers to. As stated in the measure, this measure requires future development to quantify operational emissions, and if emissions exceed threshold the measure provides a list of potential measures projects can incorporate to reduce air pollution emissions. As stated in the measure, this is not an exhaustive list of measures, and individual projects shall incorporate measures that best fit each project design. “Expand and facilitating completion of planned networks of active transportation infrastructure” means improving and expanding infrastructure for alternative modes of transportation. Implementation of EV charging infrastructure for residential development is mandated by the California Building Standards Commission. CalGreen standards are updated every three years. Current development would be required to comply with the 2022 CalGreen standards. Unbundled parking separates parking costs from housing costs and allows occupants that do not have a vehicle to pay less. No revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment. 2-105
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response C12-6
Referring to Table ES-1, Impact AQ-4, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 17 of the Draft SEIR to define and quantify what the “substantial number” is.

The commenter refers to text that is a brief summary of impact conclusions. For additional information, please refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR which explains the significance threshold used for determining if the proposed project would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Generally, the proposed project involves residential uses and would not create objectionable odors.

Response C12-7
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 27 of the Draft SEIR to explain what “reach code” means.

The commenter refers to text that is a brief summary of impact conclusions in the Executive Summary of the SEIR. For additional information, please refer to Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR which explains the reach code. A reach code is a local building energy code that goes beyond State minimum requirements for energy use or GHG emissions in building design and construction.

Response C12-8
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 27 of the Draft SEIR to add more information on “expanding charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles.” The commenter also asks where these documents can be found for review, how will expansion be funded, and who will pay for it.

The commenter refers to Mitigation Measure GHG-1 listed in Table ES-1. This is a proposed measure to be added to the city’s updated Climate Action Plan and not a planning document currently being generated. This measure, if implemented as part of the Climate Action Plan update, would expand the EV network which would promote the usage of EVs and thereby reduce GHG emissions.

Response C12-9
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 34 of the Draft SEIR to explain what a “substantial number of people” is. The commenter asks that the Draft SEIR identify the number of people estimated to be displaced and who will pay to relocate displaced people.

As discussed under Impact PH-2 of Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR, “substantial” displacement would occur if the proposed project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the project. Future development would be required to comply with goals and policies under Section 10.7.4 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element which aims to affirmatively further fair housing and ensure all housing opportunities are offered in conformance with open housing policies and free of discriminatory. Furthermore, Program 4.3 and other programs of the 2021-2029 Housing Element ensures the minimization of the occurrence of displacement, especially within groups facing disproportionate housing needs, including but not limited to those with lower incomes.
2-106
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response C12-10
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 35 of the Draft SEIR to identify how the increase in demands for public services will be funded and who will pay for these increased services.

The commenter refers to text that is a brief summary of impact conclusions in the Executive Summary of the SEIR. For additional information, please refer to Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft SEIR which explains the findings related to the provision of public services.

Response C12-11
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 35 of the Draft SEIR to explain that ADUs which are not addressed in the Draft SEIR will further increase services and require additional funding.

Please see Response C12-1.

Response C12-12
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 36 of the Draft SEIR to clarify that this Project will increase population above those identified in the 2015 General Plan. The commenter requests text to be added to explain that this increase in population will result in an increase in the number of vehicles supporting the population which will interfere with achievement of VMT reductions set forth by the city unless the reduction strategies identified under Mitigation Measures are undertaken by the city. The costs for these reduction strategies and funding mechanisms are currently not known by the city.

Population is discussed under Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.11, the proposed project would exceed the housing units at buildout assumed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, hence why a Draft Supplemental EIR (Draft SEIR) was prepared.

As discussed under Impact T-2 of Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, because of the uncertainty relating to the feasibility of on-site TDM measures and the implementation process for individual development projects in diverse project settings, the timing that it will take to implement those measures, and the lack of an off-site mitigation option, the effectiveness of reducing an individual project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level cannot be determined as part of Draft SEIR, and VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Response C12-13
Referring to Table ES-1, of the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added on page 38 of the Draft SEIR to explain how significant the impact will be and what the consequences of this significant impact will be. The commenter requests text be added comparing this impact to the no project alternative.

Transportation impacts related to the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) are discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft SEIR, and not Section 4.13, Transportation. Future development under both the proposed project and Alternative 1 would be required to coordinate with the emergency service providers to ensure that emergency routes remain available. In the long-term, development would be required to provide adequate accommodation of fire access to structure frontages, multiple access points to development, as well as adequate width, height, and turning 2-107
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
radius of roadways and access points, pursuant to California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements. Development would also be required to comply with city and San Diego County standards and requirements and would undergo review by public safety officials as part of the approval process. Therefore, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant for both the proposed project and Alternative 1.

Response C12-14
The commenter requests text to be added to Section 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR to direct the reader to Section 2, Project Description, for a discussion on what the driving force is for this project and what the justification is to deviate from the 2015 General Plan. The commenter also requests text be added to include a discussion of what changes in state law as stated in the first paragraph in Section 2 required the city to adopt the Housing Element Update 2021-2029.

Section 1.9, Introduction – Baseline and Approach for Impact Analysis, of the Draft SEIR explains the relationship between the proposed project and the 2015 General Plan. This project does not deviate from the 2015 General Plan, rather the Draft SEIR is being prepared to analyze only the changes to the General Plan or changes in circumstances under which the projects would be implemented since certification of the previous 2015 General Plan EIR which occurred on September 22, 2015.

Section 2.3, Project Description – Background, of the Draft SEIR, outlines the changes in State law including the State housing legislation and new State safety legislation which prompted the updating of the Housing Element and the Public Safety Element.

Response C12-16
The commenter summarizes Caltrans’ comment on page 47 of the Draft SEIR and requests that text be added to Section 4.13 to show where the Draft SEIR clearly addresses Caltrans’ suggestion to evaluate and potentially implement improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access and safety specific to this project.

As discussed under Impact T-1 in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, development under the project would not obstruct existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian services or facilities, nor would it conflict with existing or planned facilities. All new development would be subject to city discretionary review, allowing the city to ensure that project designs would not interfere with transit operations or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Caltrans suggests the city implement Complete Streets projects to improve bicycle pedestrian access and safety. This is not required for future developments and the city has noted this comment.

Response C12-16
The commenter summarizes the comment regarding traffic congestion and corresponding response indicating that pursuant to SB 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would replace level of service (LOS) as the metric for determining significance of transportation impacts. Therefore, this SEIR does not analyze LOS or congestion as they are non-CEQA issues. The commenter expresses an opinion that even though traffic and congestion are not CEQA issues they are important to them and other citizens and therefore the city is obligated to address these concerns for the benefit of its citizens.

The commenter requests text to be added to the Draft SEIR that address these concerns about traffic and congestion.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental 2-108
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
impact.” Therefore, the Draft SEIR does not make significance conclusions with respect to impacts related to automobile delay, which is typically described as “Level of Service” (LOS).

Further, while not required for CEQA, a TIS (or Transportation Impact Analysis Report) was prepared for the project and is available: https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community- development/planning/agendas-minutes-notices
Response C12-19
The commenter requests text to be added on page 63 of the Draft SEIR to define “intelligent transportation management” and to provide examples of where intelligent transportation management has been implemented in Carlsbad to enhance mobility.

This comment pertains to a description of the core values in the city’s General Plan and does not pertain to the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR. The quote the commenter referenced is part of the General Plan’s vision and does not relate to the proposed project.

Generally, intelligent transportation management refers to technology or infrastructure improvements that may help alleviate traffic congestion.

Response C12-20
The commenter requests strategies and facilities implemented by other projects in Carlsbad to link density to public transportation to be identified.

Generally, linking density to public transportation refers to placing high density housing near transit to encourage transit use.

Response C12-21
The commenter states that the second paragraph on page 75 states that the number of housing units excludes ADUs. The commenter requests text be added to the executive summary that highlights this.

Please see Response C12-1.

Response C12-22
Referring to Section 2 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text be added to page 75 of the Draft SEIR highlighting that the number of housing units resulting from this project (56,516 units) exceeds the number of housing units identified in the 2015 General Plan (53,320 units). The commenter also requests that text be added to highlight that ADUs are not accounted for in the Draft SEIR.

The information requested by the commenter is provided in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR. With respect to ADUs, please see Response C12-1. 2-109
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response C12-23
Referring to Section 3 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added in Table 3-1 on page 79 of the Draft SEIR to include the number of new housing units and additional population for each site that would result from this Project.

Section 3, Environmental Setting, of the Draft SEIR refers to the environmental setting of the project which is the baseline for the analysis prior to implementation of the proposed project. The number of housing units that could be developed under the proposed project is detailed under Section 2, Project Description. Population estimates for the proposed project is discussed under Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.11, the proposed project would result in 8,260 new residents.

Response C12-24
Referring to Section 4.2.3 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added to page 117 of the Draft SEIR to define what a “substantial number” of people is and how many people will be affected.

The CEQA Guidelines do not specifically define what a “substantial” number of people is. The Air Quality analysis generally compares air pollution emissions to established thresholds to determine impacts. Please refer to the methodology, impact analysis, and conclusions in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR.

Response C12-25
Referring to Section 4.6.3 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added stating that ADUs will exacerbate the significant and unavoidable impact related to meeting the city’s GHG emissions goals. The commenter requests text to be added to clarify whether the city plans to account for ADUs in the CAP Update discussed on page 222. The commenter asks if this project can be approved before the CAP update is done.

Please see Response C12-1. As discussed under Impact GHG-1 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR, individual projects could be developed prior to the adoption of the updated CAP as required by Mitigation Measure GHG-1, and would not be guaranteed to be consistent with State emissions goals. Therefore, until the city updates the CAP in accordance with Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

Response C12-26
Referring to Section 4.11.3 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added to indicate that ADUs will constitute unplanned growth that could render impact PH-1 to be significant.

Please see Response C12-1.

Response C12-27
Referring to Section 4.11.3 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added to define what a “substantial number” of people or housing is and to state how many people or housing units the city estimates to be affected.
2-110
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
The CEQA Guidelines do not specifically define what a “substantial” number of people is. Please refer to the methodology, impact analysis, and conclusions in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR.

Response C12-28
Referring to Section 4.13.3 of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text to be added to define what “infill” areas mean.

The commenter’s request has been noted and page 2-21 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as described in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response C12-29
Referring to Section 4.14.1.d of the Draft SEIR, the commenter states there is text that reads “by 2025 the use of electricity sourced from out-of-state coal generation will be eliminated. As this transition advances, the grid is also expanding to serve additional loads produced by building and vehicle electriﬁcation among other factors”. The commenter requests text to be added to include what percentage of current total electrical power generation in California is supplied by out of state coal generation factories. The commenter asks who is developing plans and design documents for expanding the grid and when this expansion will be complete. The commenter asks how the grid expansion will be funded and by who.

The commenter’s request has been noted and page 4.14-4 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft SEIR, of this document. These revisions do not change the findings of the Draft SEIR, do not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and do not constitute significant new information warranting recirculation of the Draft SEIR.

Response C12-30
Referring to Section 4.13, the commenter requests text be added to include estimates of the increase in electricity demand that will occur when the State mandates the elimination of fossil fuels for vehicles.

It is unclear what mandate the commenter is referring to. This analysis would be speculative and this analysis is not provided in the Draft SEIR at this time. Nonetheless, impacts associated with energy use were found to be less than significant.

Response C12-31
Referring to Section 4.14, the commenter expresses an opinion that the Draft SEIR needs to acknowledge and consider future conditions that are known to be inevitable and that could impact or be impacted by the project.

The Draft SEIR does analyze impacts associated with project implementation through 2035, the horizon year of the city’s General Plan, based on known information. The commenter does not provide specifics of what information is needed and no changes to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.
2-111
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Response C12-32
Referring to Section 4.14.2, Regulatory Setting, in the Utilities and Service System section of the Draft SEIR, the commenter requests text be added to identify which recent state housing laws have preempted the ability of the city to require compliance with the Carlsbad dwelling unit caps. The commenter asks what recourse the city has to challenge these mandates.

The recent State laws impacting the Growth Management Program are detailed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft SEIR and under the reference (City of Carlsbad 2023c) in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft SEIR. The reference is the city’s Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report, and impacts of State Law can be found on pages 9 and 10.
(https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13525/638182837741030000) 2-112
1 From: ROBE
RT RODEWALD <[email protected]>
Sent: Frida
y, August 18, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Scot
t Donnell
Subject: Addit
ional Housing Issue
ScoƩ
If the State is demanding these addiƟonal dwelling units then they should provide State owned land for their construcƟon. In addiƟon, I thought we were in a dramaƟc drought and our allocaƟon of Colorado river water was being reduced. How does that square with adding thousands of new dwelling units.

The people of Carlsbad sacriﬁced and worked hard to be able to aﬀord to live here and this required program is altering the character of the neighborhoods we live in. If you must add addiƟonal housing stock, put it in the Shoppes of Carlsbad mall. There is signiﬁcant vacancy there and that development no longer works as originally plan ned. As a b
onus,
you w
on’t destroy the quality of the other neighborhoods that you want to alter.

Sincerely,
Robert Rodewald
3865 Skyline Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-519-0262
CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C13
1 2
3 2-113
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C13
COMMENTER: Robert Rodewald
DATE: August 18, 2023
Response C13-1
The commenter states an opinion that if the state is demanding additional dwelling units they should provide state owned land for their construction.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C13-2
The commenter expresses concern over adding dwelling units when there is a drought and reduction of water being allocated to California from the Colorado River.

Response C13-3
The commenter states an opinion that the program that requires additional housing in Carlsbad is altering the character of the neighborhoods in the city. The commenter suggests putting additional housing in the Shoppes of Carlsbad mall since there is vacancy there and development in that area would not destroy the quality of other neighborhoods.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-114
1 From: Yolan
da Higgins <[email protected]>
Sent: Frida
y, August 18, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Scot
t Donnell
Subject: Resid
ential on commercial zoned land
I am Yolanda Higgins. I own the property T 5482 Wolverine Terrace in the community of Terraces at Sunnycreek.

I would much rather see an activity center for the children and adults who already reside in the community.

About a year ago I inquired about purchasing the land at the corner of ECR and College. I was hoping to collaborate with city and build a bowling alley and an indoor/outdoor skating rink. Around the holidays, I envisioned turning it into a holiday wonderland.

We need a safe place for the community children and adults to unite.

I can’t think of a better place for community gathering for both, young and old alike.

My vote is no on allowing residential building on this commercially zoned land.

If you have any questions or comments , please feel free to contact me at (619) 721-9776.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTI
ON: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C14
1 2-115
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C14
COMMENTER: Yolanda Higgins
DATE: August 18, 2023
Response C14-1
The commenter states that they would rather see an activity center be built for children and adults in the community. The commenter states they inquired about purchasing the land at the corner of El Camino Real and College and had hoped to build a bowling alley and skating rink there. The commenter states an opinion that there needs to be safe place for children and adults to unite and expresses opposition to allowing residential uses on this commercially zoned land.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-116
1 From: Miche
lle Soos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tues
day, August 22, 2023 10:08 AM
To: Scot
t Donnell
Subject: Oppo
sition to site 14 - housing site plan
Hello,
I am writing in opposition to site 14 per the below link/map, which would convert the government owned coaster railway parking lots to residential property. This parking is needed for the village, which is already starting to see issues with parking in the streets and public parking, since the many additional condominiums have been built. Can you confirm if they have a plan to add parking if they convert those lots to residential property? Please let me know if I should write or provide my opposition in another form and where I can find updates to which of these plans are going forward. Appreciate all you do! Thanks much! Michelle Soos
Resident of carlsbad village
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/housing-plan-update CAUTI
ON: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1 Letter C15
2-117
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C15
COMMENTER: Michelle Soos
DATE: August 22, 2023
Response C15-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the inclusion of site 14 in the proposed project. The commenter states that the Coaster parking on this site is needed for the Village which is already experiencing parking issues due to the construction of condominiums. The commenter asks if there is a plan to add parking if they convert this lot to residential uses.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

The provision of parking is not an environmental issue under CEQA. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-118
1 From: Christopher Byrum <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 8:27 AM
To: Planning; Scott Donnell
Subject: Re: Reminder: Housing EIR available for review 🏠 To whom it may concern,
I've already provided my input on my opposition for site 3....extremely bad location for site density zoning changes. Map 2 would be the obvious choice.

Letter C16
1 2-119
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C16
COMMENTER: Christopher Byrum
DATE: August 23, 2023
Response C16-1
The commenter expresses opposition to development on site 3. The commenter states an opinion that this is a bad site for density zoning changes and map 2 would be the obvious choice.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-120
1 From: Cher
i White <[email protected]>
Sent: Wedn
esday, August 23, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Scot
t Donnell
Subject: Carl
sbad Housing
Dear
Mr. Donnell,
I am in
receipt of the flyer sent out concerning the rezoning of housing in Carlsbad. I have lived in Carlsbad for twent
y five years. I moved to Carlsbad because it was a quaint little town. It no longer is and I as a home
owner am very frustrated with all the new construction. When will it stop? I live at 3684 Azure Circle. I know I
am not the only homeowner that feels this way but what can we do to stop building more and more home
s. You ask us to respond but will you really listen or is this just a waste of my time? I truly
am fed up!!!
Sincer
ely,
Cheri
White
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1 Letter C17
2-121
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C17
COMMENTER: Cheri White
DATE: August 23, 2023
Response C17-1
The commenter states that they moved to Carlsbad because it was a quaint little town and expresses the opinion that it no longer is. The commenter expresses frustration with all the new construction and asks when it will stop.

The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-122
1 From: Bradford Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 9:09 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: I vote for Alternative One as a better choice for diversity in Carlsbad.

I vote for AlternaƟve One as a beƩer choice for diversity in Carlsbad.

Brad Robbins
Resident.

CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C18
1 2-123
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C18
COMMENTER: Bradford Robbins
DATE: August 24, 2023
Response C18-1
The commenter expresses support for Alternative 1.

Please see Response C9.1.
2-124
1 From: D Lech <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 12:33 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: DEIR public comment
Dear Mr. Donnell,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the draft environmental impact report for potential new housing sites within the Housing Element. The report is thorough, objective, and detailed. Thank you for putting this together and presenting it to the public for another opportunity to make comments.

I support Alternative 2 Reduced Sites, especially since it will allow for more residences (if needed in the future) than Alternative 1. If the City must comply with current and future RHNA mandates, then Alternative 2 would make the most sense.

As a homeowner living in the northeast quadrant of the City, I, along with many other residents, have been impacted by the continually increasing noise, poor air quality, and intense volume of traffic along El Camino Real between Highway 78 and Faraday Avenue during morning and evening rush hours, due to population growth, locally and throughout the region.

The proposed density increase at Site #3 at Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real is highly inappropriate for this residential community. The project area is completely surrounded by one or two story single-family homes, with the exception of one discreet condo project on the northwest corner of this intersection.

Currently, this intersection is
extremely busy with 55+ MPH traffic, students on e-bikes, and pedestrians, as this intersection serves Carlsbad HS, Valley Middle School, and Magnolia Elementary.

There is additional traffic heading to Hope Elementary and Kelly Elementary. Let’s not forget about the hundreds of commuters using El Camino Real as an alternate to Highway 78 and Interstate 5, due to the failure of SANDAG to build the interchange we continue to pay for. These commuters from around the region will not be using a bus to get to work anytime soon.

This stretch of El Camino Real has gotten worse since the opening of Robertson Ranch in 2017, and is about to get even more intense with:
1) completion of Marja Acres with 294 additional residences on El Camino Real and Kelly Drive which will include retail.
2) future development of the vacant site at the corner of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive, adjacent to Robertson Ranch.

Letter C19
1 2
3 2-125
2 3) proposed future Robertson Ranch shopping center on El Camino Real and West Ranch Road.
4) proposed residential/commercial developments at El Camino Real and College Blvd. (Site #4).

With the increased traffic from these projects, the El Camino Real corridor could become impassable to the residents of both the northeast and northwest quadrants of the City, not to mention, delay by first responders trying to maneuver through the six lanes of traffic and the soon to be reduction of two lanes to a single lane on our east/west corridors of Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue.

It would be unnecessary and irresponsible to develop a project with the proposed density at Site #3, especially since choosing Alternative 2 Reduced Sites would provide for more housing units than Alternative 1.

Site 3 should remain zoned as it is currently designated, or be purchased by the City as o
pen space to preserve the character of this neighborhood and the plant and wildlife species that call it home, while contributing to the City’s Forest Canopy. Developing this parcel as proposed would be a safety issue which cannot be ignored. The people of Carlsbad have already expressed their disapproval of increasing the density of this site, along with disapproval of sites 8 and 15 during the public input collected in September and October of 2021. Please listen to the citizens of Carlsbad and do what they feel is safe and appropriate by choosing Alternative 2 Reduced Sites and remove Sites 3, 8, and 15 from the future housing plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
D. Lech
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.
3 cont
.
4 5
6 2-126
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C19
COMMENTER: D. Lech
DATE: August 25, 2023
Response C19-1
The commenter expresses appreciation for the opportunity to provide input on the Draft SEIR and state the report is thorough, objective, and detailed. The commenter expresses support for alternative 2 because it will allow for more residences than alternative 1.

Response C19-2
The commenter states that as a homeowner living in the northeast quadrant of the city they have experienced continually increasing noise, air quality, and traffic issues. The commenter specifically expresses concern about the volume of traffic on El Camino Real between Highway 78 and Faraday Avenue during morning and evening rush hours. The commenter expresses the opinion that the proposed density increase at Site 3 is inappropriate due to the surrounding single-family homes and the traffic at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Ave.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Therefore, the Draft SEIR does not make significance conclusions with respect to impacts related to automobile delay, which is typically described as “Level of Service” (LOS). The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C19-3
The commenter expresses concern that traffic on El Camino Real will get worse with the completion of Marja Acres on El Camino Real and Kelly Drive, future development of the vacant site at the corner of El Camino Rela and Kelly Drive, proposed future Robertson Ranch shopping center on El Camino and West Ranch Road, and proposed development on site 4 on El Camino Real and College Blvd. as part of the proposed project. The commenter expresses concern that with increased traffic from these projects El Camino Real corridor could become impassable to residents of the northeast and northwest quadrants of the city.

Please see Response C19-2.

Response C19-4
The commenter expresses concern that first responders will be delayed by the increased traffic and the reduction of a lane on the east/west corridors of Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue.

As discussed under Impact T-4 in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, development facilitated by the project would be required to provide adequate accommodation of fire access to structure frontages, multiple access points to development, as well as adequate width, height, and 2-127
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
turning radius of roadways and access points, pursuant to California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with city and San Diego County standards and requirements and would undergo review by public safety officials as part of the approval process. Additionally, as found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, policies 3-P.12, 3-P.29, 3-P.30, and 3-P.33 would reduce impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Please also see Response C19-2. The commenter’s opinions are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C19-5
The commenter expresses an opinion that it would be unnecessary and irresponsible to develop a project with the proposed density at Site 3. The commenter reiterates their support for alternative 2 because it would provide for more housing than alternative 1.

Response C19-6
The commenter expresses an opinion that site 3 should remain zoned as it currently is or it should be purchased by the city and converted to open space to support the character of the neighborhood and the plant and wildlife species in the area. The commenter expresses an opinion that to develop site 3 would be a safety issue and urges the city to listen to Carlsbad residents who have provided input indicating their disapproval of the project throughout September and October of 2021. The commenter urges the city to choose alternative 2 and remove sites 3, 8, and 15 from the future housing plan.

The commenter’s statements about the alternatives and the eventual project that should be approved by the city will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-128
1 From: LUIGI P <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 12:56 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Draft EIR
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion regarding the Draft EIR for the 2021-2029 Housing Element. I am a home owner living in Carlsbad District 2 and I support Alternative 2 Reduced Sites. Most residents who responded to the survey in September and October 2021 objected to the increase density of sites 3, 8 and 15 . Alternative 2 would provide for more residences and at the same time, be agreeable to the local community residents.

Regards,
L. Persico
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter C20
1 2-129
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C20
COMMENTER: Luigi Persico
DATE: August 25, 2023
Response C20-1
The commenter expresses support for alternative 2. The commenter states that most residents who responded to the survey in September and October 2021 objected to the increase in density of sites 3, 8, and 15. The commenter states alternative 2 would provide more residences and be agreeable to the local community.

The commenter’s statements about the alternatives and the eventual project that should be approved by the city will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-130
1 From: Jeff Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 12:42 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Regarding housing sites under consideration
Dear Mr. Donnell,
I am writing this letter regarding the rezoning of site 4 for higher density housing. I live in Sunny Creek, right across the street from site 4. I agree that Carlsbad needs to provide more affordable housing, but we need to provide it in a location that best serves the people who need this housing. Several sites, including site #4, are not appropriate locations for these proposed housing developments. Specifically, the reason site #4 is inappropriate (some of these reasons may apply to some of the other sites) are as follows:

1. The entire site sits within or adjacent to the highest severity fire zone.

2. Lack of community services (grocery stores, etc.) within walking distance. We already have one low income apartment housing unit behind the Sunny Creek housing development, and I watch many of these people take their wagons or carts to bring back groceries, etc. This same reasoning applies to parks, schools, and other essential services.

3. El Camino, at least at this location, is not a safe street for a residential complex to be co-located with. Unless the housing community is a walled-off, prison-like compound, people are going to get hurt. I have witnessed several accidents at the intersection of College Blvd. and El Camino due to excess speeds, and I’ve encountered young, unsupervised special-needs children playing in the streets who live in the existing apartment complex north of Sunny Creek.

I hope that we can place these housing units in a location that provides a real sense of community that is both safe and closer to essential services.

Thank you for your efforts on this challenging but important issue.

Best regards,
Jeffrey Johnson
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter C21
1 2-131
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C21
COMMENTER: Jeff Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2023
Response C21-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the construction of affordable housing on site 4 because the site sits within or adjacent to the highest fire severity zone, the site lacks community services like grocery stores, parks, and schools within walking distance, and is located near El Camino Real which the commenter opines is not a safe street for a residential complex to be co-located with.

As discussed under Impacts PS-3 through PS-5 in Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of schools, recreational facilities, or library facilities. The city would continue to implement policies 7-G.9 and 7-P.23 of the Arts, Culture, History, and Education Element of the 2015 General Plan, which would facilitate coordination with school districts to ensure school facilities have adequate and permanent capacity to accommodate projected future enrollment. The city would also continue to implement policies 4- P.5b and 4-P.20 through 4-P.39 of the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the General Plan, which would ensure the city actively seeks to preserve and expand parks to meet the needs of Carlsbad residents as well as meet the park standards outlined in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan of the GMP.

As discussed in Section 4.15, Wildfire, of the Draft SEIR, site 4 is partially located within an LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, such as noncombustible or ignition-resistant building materials for exterior from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves, and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. Development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the CBC, which outlines standards for fire safety such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location, and distribution criteria. In addition, the Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply; which would help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing access limitations for purposes of accessing and suppressing wildfire locations.

Furthermore, the Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. Site 4 would be subject to these 2-132
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
requirements prior to approval and development. The Public Safety Element Update also includes new and updated policies that were designed to account for California Attorney General Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which would further reduce wildfire impacts to a less than significant level.
2-133
1 From: Chris Galindo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 1:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Planning; Scott Donnell; City Clerk; Council Internet Email Subject: RE: Housing EIR
Hi Dale,
Very well stated comments.in your draft and I appreciate the comparisons you made to the Lahaina fire specially the escape routes that were impacted due to fleeing residents, narrow roads and emergency vehicles. The Pointsettia Fire is still fresh in our memories and irregardless of all the safeguards and traffic calming measures, evacuating hundreds of residents from a high density development could be problematic.

I see no areas to change in your draft as I feel it appropriately addresses the issues.

Thank you for sending this to me to look at.

Best Regards,
Chris
On Aug 27, 2023 12:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Per your request, attached are my comments regarding the proposed “Housing EIR.” If anything further is needed, let me know.

Dale Ordas
7325 Seafarer Pl
Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-613-9387
www.ordas.com
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above.

If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message.

Letter C22
1 2-134
2 From: City of Carlsbad <[email protected]> On Behalf Of City of Carlsbad Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 10:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Reminder: Housing EIR available for review ፐፑፒፓፔፕፖ

Provide input throug h 8/28

CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2-135
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C22
COMMENTER: Chris Galindo
DATE: August 27, 2023
Response C22-1
The commenter expresses support for Dale Ordas’ comments on the Draft SEIR including the comparisons to the Lahaina Fire which has escape routes that were impacted due to fleeing residents, narrow roads, and emergency vehicles. The commenter states the Poinsettia Fire is fresh in residents’ memories and states that evacuating hundreds of residents from a high density development could be problematic.

As discussed under Impact T-4 in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR, development facilitated by the project would be required to provide adequate accommodation of fire access to structure frontages, multiple access points to development, as well as adequate width, height, and turning radius of roadways and access points, pursuant to California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with city and San Diego County standards and requirements and would undergo review by public safety officials as part of the approval process. Additionally, as found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, policies 3-P.12, 3-P.29, 3-P.30, and 3-P.33 would reduce impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Please refer to Response B4-3 for additional information on emergency evacuation.

A response to Dale Ordas’ letter is provided under Letter C24. Please see Response C24-1. 2-136
1 From: Mike Geraghty <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 1:08 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Housing EIR available for review 🏠 Mr Donnell - Please include my feedback below as part of the proposed zoning changes:

I want to share my feedback regarding proposed locations called “Site 8” and “Site 9” on the report.

As a 23 year resident of Carlsbad, I want to express my opposition for specifically considering Site 8 and Site 9 for R-23 zoning change to meet state requirements.

Changing the zoning of Site 8 and Site 9 would put a disproportional share of high density housing in a concentrated location.

The report did not clearly indicate where existing high density / affordable / low income housing exists. I support dispersing this type of housing/development throughout the city.

Currently, the area of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway has Laurel Tree apartments (138 units) and is adding ad additional 329 units with the construction of Aviara apartments for a total of 467 units concentrated in a tight area. This will bring increased traffic, parking, congestion and associated issues to an already busy intersection. Using Site 8 or Site 9 will put additional strain on this area of the city. My concern has always been the number of vehicles/parking availability that the proposed Aviara apartments will create - and adding additional housing in this area will make it even worse.

I would invite you to inspect the parking situation on Laurel Tree drive - which is already crowded and the new apartments under construction have not been completed. I predict much higher level of traffic and scarce parking availability.

Thank you
Mike Geraghty
1191 Mariposa Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Begin forwarded message:

From: City of Carlsbad <[email protected]>
Subject: Reminder: Housing EIR available for review ፐፑፒፓፔፕፖ Date
: August 18, 2023 at 10:00:46 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Letter C23
1 2
2-137
2 Reminder: Draft environmental impact report available for review through Aug. 28

You still have time to provide input on the Draft Environmental Impact Reportfor potential new housing sites in Carlsbad.

The report is required as part of the city’s Housing Element Update, a state- required plan approved in April 2021 for how Carlsbad will accommodate projected housing needs through 2029. Specifically, about every eight years, cities are provided with the number of homes needed to accommodate people of all income levels and stages of life, based on demographic data.

Community members can review the report and provide input via mail or email through 5 p.m. on Aug. 28, 2023. The report, appendices and related documents are available on the project webpage.

Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
[email protected]

About the sites
The city’s housing plan includes proposed changes to zoning that would:
 Allow housing on certain properties currently zoned for commercial, industrial and public uses
 Increase the amount of housing on properties already zoned for residential development

After zoning changes are made and necessary approvals are obtained, it will be up to property owners to decide whether to build more housing on these sites and when. In all, the city needs to rezone property to accommodate about 2,600 higher density housing units by April 2024 to meet state requirements and guidelines.

Based on input from the community, including people who own and live near properties that could be rezoned, the City Council directed staff to fully study the environmental impacts of two different map alternatives:

Map 1
2-138
3 Map 1 includes the 18 sites reviewed by the public in late 2021 with one change. One of the parcels within Site 4, at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and College Boulevard, was removed from the map because one of the property owners did not want the property rezoned to increase the density to the level considered. The two remaining parcels of Site 4 were included in both maps.

Map 2
This map removes the additional following sites from Map 1:
 Site 3: Increasing the density allowed on vacant land already zoned for residential development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
 Site 8, currently home to Cottage Row Carlsbad apartments, southeast of the Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway intersection. This land would be rezoned to increase density.  Site 15: The site of a city public works yard at the corner of State and Oak streets in the Village.

This map would also increase density and number of housing units that could be considered on the properties at the Carlsbad Village and Poinsettia Coaster stations (Sites 14 and 17). The North County Transit District has expressed support for redeveloping these properties to allow for housing and transit parking, while maintaining the Coaster stations for transit.

About the environmental analysis
Before deciding which properties to rezone, the city needed to study potential environmental impacts, such as traffic, biological resources, aesthetics and greenhouse gas emissions.

Unrelated to the new housing sites, the environmental report also evaluates the impacts of state-mandated measures regarding wildfire and flooding prevention and evacuation routes in the Public Safety Element.

Next steps
 Fall 2023: Planning Commission public hearing to review the environmental report and public input. Commission recommends which sites to rezone.
 Early 2024: City Council public hearing to review the environmental report and public input. City Council decides which sites to rezone.

More information
 Housing Plan Update project webpage
2-139
4  Map of 18 potential housing sites considered
 General Plan
 Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, [email protected], 442-339-2618
Visit the Website
City of Carlsbad | 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected]
CAUTIO
N: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2-140
{city of
Carlsbad
oaam
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C23
COMMENTER: Mike Geraghty
DATE: August 27, 2023
Response C23-1
The commenter expresses opposition for zoning changes on site 8 and site 9 as part of the proposed project because it would put a disproportional share of high-density housing in a concentrated location. The commenter states that the Draft SEIR did not indicate where existing high density, affordable, and low-income housing exists in the city. The commenter expresses support for dispersing this type of housing throughout the city.

Existing land designated for high-density housing is shown on Figure 2-3 in Section 2, Project Description. The commenter’s opinions on the project are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.

Response C23-2
The commenter states that Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway currently has Laurel Tree Apartments which is 138 units and Aviara Apartments which is 329 units is being constructed in this area. The commenter states this will bring increased traffic, parking, and congestion issues to this intersection that is already busy. The commenter states that including site 8 or site 9 as part of the proposed project would put additional strain on this area of the city, specifically related to the number of vehicles and parking availability issues related to the Aviara apartments. The commenter invites the city to inspect the parking situation on Laurel Tree Drive and predicts higher levels of traffic and parking scarcity.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Therefore, the Draft SEIR does not make significance conclusions with respect to impacts related to automobile delay, which is typically described as “Level of Service” (LOS). The provision of parking is not considered an environmental issue under CEQA. The commenter’s opinions on the project are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-141
August 25, 2023
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of
Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.

Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Draft EIR Housing Element Update
Dear Mr. Donnell,
The problem with the Draft EIR Housing Element Update is the substantial safety risk to Carlsbad residents in the event of another fire like the Poinsettia fire May 15, 2014. It burned 400 acres with $22.5 million in damage, which included four single-family homes, an 18-unit apartment complex and two commercial structures that were destroyed plus six other homes were damaged.

June 25, 2022, authorities asked residents to leave their homes in a Carlsbad as a brush fire moved through the nature area bordering a lagoon. The blaze started burning around 12:30 p.m. along the Buena Vista Lagoon, just west of Interstate 5, according to the Carlsbad Police Department. Small streets immediately surrounding the body of water, including parts of Buena Vista Circle, Kremeyer Circle and Laguna Drive were evacuated “out of caution.”
The August 10, 2023, fire in Lahaina, Hawaii was a tragic example of the risks created by dense development. The following are excerpts from a piece by Bonnie Kutch that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune August 12, 2023:
“Imagine being awaken by the smell of smoke … You look out see flames coming toward your home.

You get up, quickly dress, herd your family members and pets to the car, and grab what few possessions you can on your way out … You reach the only exit road, where you’re met with gridlock. Cars aren’t moving because hundreds of high-density housing units have been added to your neighborhood, without roads being added or even widened. And because all these new rental units have been allowed to be built without on-premise resident parking, the streets are lined with parked cars, making it impossible to get around the line of traffic. Worse yet, the city has just reduced the main thoroughfare to one lane in each direction to create bike lanes.

This isn’t merely an imagined scenario, but rather a probable disaster in the making if the city of San Diego cont
inues its push for high-density housing and dense accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, development in high-risk fire zones, particularly on or near our many canyons … The inferno that just unfolded on Maui, killing more than 100 people … In San Diego, it’s predicted we will have wetter winters causing more vegetation overgrowth, followed by more intense heat waves and droughts. More wildfires can be expected …”
These same hazards are present in the sites proposed sites 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 ,17 and in particular site18 in the Ponto Area, where a reduction to one the lane in each direction on Carlsbad Blvd. is proposed. 300 Carls
bad Village Dr., Ste 108A, Car lsbad, CA 92008-2900
Mobile 760.613.9387 Fax760.431.9065
[email protected] http://www.ordas.com
Dale E.

Ordas
Mediator - Arbitrator - SB #38140
Ordas Dispute Resolution
Letter C24
1 2-142
Page | 2

Affordable housing is a laudable goal, but it should not be created in a manner that puts the safety of Carlsbad residents in jeopardy. Any such plan should incorporate measures that minimize the risk to the lives of residents in the event of “expected wildfires.” Sincerely,
Dale E, Ordas
1 cont.
2-143
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C24
COMMENTER: Dale Ordas
DATE: August 25, 2023
Response C24-1
The commenter states that the Housing Element Update poses a safety risk to Carlsbad residents in the event of another fire like the Poinsettia Fire which burned 400 acres in May 2014. The commenter explains the damage to four single-family homes, an 18-unit apartment structure, and two commercial buildings that resulted from this fire. The commenter also cites an excerpt from the San Diego Union Tribune depicting the 2023 Lahaina, Hawaii fire. The commenter states that the same hazards present in Lahaina, Hawaii such as vegetation overgrowth and intense heatwaves and drought, are present on proposed sites 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 18. The commenter expresses specific concern over site 18 due to the proposed reduction of one lane in each direction on Carlsbad Boulevard. The commenter states that any plan to create affordable housing should incorporate measures that minimize the risk to the lives of residents in the event of wildfire.

The proposed reduction of one lane in each direction on Carlsbad Boulevard is not associated with the proposed project. Policy 3-P.20 of the 2015 General Plan aims to improve connectivity along Carlsbad Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists, such as a trail, and also aims to improve crossings for pedestrians across and along Carlsbad Boulevard.

As discussed in Section 4.15, Wildfire, of the Draft SEIR, Sites 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 19 are either in or less than 0.25 miles from a LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, such as noncombustible or ignition-resistant building materials for exterior from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves, and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. Development facilitated by the proposed project would also be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the CBC, which outlines standards for fire safety such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location, and distribution criteria. In addition, the Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply; which would help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing access limitations for purposes of accessing and suppressing wildfire locations. Furthermore, the Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. Sites 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 19 would be subject to these requirements prior to approval and development. The Public Safety Element Update would also include new and updated policies that were designed to account for California Attorney General Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which would further reduce wildfire impacts to a less than significant level.

The proposed project also includes updates to the Public Safety Element, which would ensure future development would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan through the addition of policies 6-P.48, 6-P.50 to 6- 2-144
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
P.69. Future development would be required to undergo site-specific environmental review which would ensure less than significant impacts regarding emergency evacuation. Additionally, as found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, policies 3-P.12, 3-P.29, 3-P.30, and 3-P.33 would reduce impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
2-145
1 From: Teri Jacobs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:08 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: RHNA
Mr. Donnell,
While I don’t think either of the plans are in the best interest of Carlsbad residents my choice would be the plan that limits as much density housing in the Village.

The impacts that the increased numbers of units in the Village Coaster StaƟon is unconscionable. Dense housing near railroad tracks would not be safe for families. The assumpƟon that dwellers there will use the trains and not have cars is unreasonable. Where are the jobs that they will be traveling to? Where will they shop for groceries, buy school clothes for their kids? A parking garage is not safe. If the way that property is currently cared for and monitored I can only imagine what housing and a parking structure will look like. NCTD properƟes are currently monitored by the SD Sheriﬀ.

Will CPD or the Sheriﬀ be called?
Carlsbad Village is a very special place and residents want to keep it that way. Please consider the unintended consequences of the increased building in Dist 1 under the guise of transportaƟon proximity.

Regards,
Teri Jacobs
Carlsbad Resident
Dist 1
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open aƩachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C25
1 2
3 2-146
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C25
COMMENTER: Teri Jacobs
DATE: August 28, 2023
Response C25-1
The commenter states the opinion that a plan that limits housing density in the village is in the best interest of Carlsbad residents.

Response C25-2
The commenter expresses opposition to the use of the Village Coaster Station as part of the proposed project due to its proximity to railroad tracks. The commenter also states an opinion that the assumption that dwellers will use the trains and not have cars is unreasonable. The commenter expresses concern about where the jobs that these residents would be travelling to are and the limited access to grocery stores and other necessities in the area.

Response C25-3
The commenter states the opinion that a parking garage would not be safe on the Village Coaster Station site. The commenter asks if the site would be monitored by the Carlsbad Police or the Sherrif’s office. The commenter asks the city to consider the unintended consequences of increased building in district 1.

The commenter’s opinions on the project are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required.
2-147
1 Scott Donnell
From: Ellen Fawls <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Planning; Scott Donnell; City Clerk; Council Internet Email Subject: Re: Housing EIR
Great letter. I hope it does some good to slow down the frantic construction going on in Carlsbad.

Sent from wireless
On Aug 27, 2023, at 12:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Per your request, attached are my comments regarding the proposed “Housing EIR.” If anything further is needed, let me know.

Dale Ordas
7325
Seafarer Pl
Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-613-9387
www.ordas.com
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message.

From: City of Carlsbad <[email protected]> On Behalf Of City of Carlsbad Sent: Friday, August 18, 2023 10:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Reminder: Housing EIR available for review ፐፑፒፓፔፕፖ Provide input throug h 8/28
<Comments Carlsbad High Density Housing Plan .pdf>
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter C26
1 2-148
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C26
COMMENTER: Ellen Fawls
DATE: August 28, 2023
Response C26-1
The commenter agrees with the comments submitted by Dale Ordas and states they hope the letter slows down construction in Carlsbad.

The commenter’s opinions on the project are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. A response to Dale Ordas’s letter is provided under Letter C24. Please see Response C24-1.
2-149
1 From: Chri
stine Amato <[email protected]>
Sent: Mond
ay, August 28, 2023 6:17 PM
To: Scot
t Donnell
Subject: Re:

Affordable housing sites 10 & 11
Also want to share that there are concerns about ﬁre evacuaƟons. In light of what happened on Maui and having lived here for most of my life (35 plus years) and evacuated a few Ɵmes, I shudder to think about more homes trying to evacuate. Is this being considered. We also have ongoing water pressure issues here at kensington at the square.

ChrisƟne Amato
(C) 760.613.2868
Letter C27
1 2
2-150
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C27
COMMENTER: Christine Amato
DATE: August 28, 2023
Response C27-1
The commenter expresses concern over fire evacuations with the increased residential development proposed by the project.

Please refer to Response B4-3 for a discussion on emergency evacuation. The commenter does not provide specific comments on the Draft SEIR or information or analysis to challenge its analysis or conclusions and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment.

Response C27-2
The commenter expresses concern over decreased water pressure at Kensington at the square.

As discussed under Impact UTIL-1 in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities such that significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout the Draft SEIR would occur. As discussed under Impact UTIL-2, with compliance with existing State and local regulations aimed at water conservation, as well as Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Vallecitos Water District, and Olivenhain Municipal Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plans and ordinances, water supplies would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in demand for the proposed project. As discussed under Impact WF-2 in Section 4.15, Wildfire, the Public Safety Element Update would include policies 6-P.50 and 6-P.51 which would ensure that water pressure for existing developed areas is adequate for firefighting purposes and that development is only permitted within areas that have adequate water resources available to include water pressure, onsite water storage, or fire flows. The commenter does not provide specific comments on the Draft SEIR or information or analysis to challenge its analysis or conclusions and no revisions to the Draft SEIR have been made in response to this comment. 2-151
1 From: Anne
tte Swanton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tues
day, August 29, 2023 3:05 PM
To: Scot
t Donnell
Subject: Enviro
nmental study Please choose alternative 1
[email protected]
Re: Environmental Study
I advocate for less housing in the Village: Alternate One Thank You
Annette Swanton
Carlsbad Resident
Annette Swanton
HomeSmart Realty West
300 Carlsbad Village Dr. Ste 217
Carlsbad CA 92008
760-622-9046
CABRE # 00930835
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter C28
1 2-152
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C28
COMMENTER: Annette Swanton
DATE: August 29, 2023
Response C28-1
The commenter advocates for less housing in the Village and expresses support for Alternative 1.

Please see Response C9.1.
2-153
1 From: Patric
k Kerins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursd
ay, August 31, 2023 11:41 AM
To: Scott
Donnell
Subject: Traff
ic concern re: site 18
Scott,
I know the timeline for submitting feedback re: the new housing development in my area was on 8/28/23 but I need to share with you what I feel will be a traffic issue at site 18 which I believe is the planned condo/apartment complex at Ponto Rd and Ponto Dr..

The concern I have is the size of the development and the traffic that will be using the existing roads. The volume of traffic, I believe, will be using Ponto Rd. to access Carlsbad Blvd and then onto the Freeway via Poinsettia Lane. The current situation,with the volume of traffic now using the Ponto Rd will create traffic congestion and spillbacks especially in light of the hotel traffic that generates constant traffic flow from guests staying at the hotel, attending events and delivery vehicles on this small narrow two lane road. Obviously, this does not include the volume of traffic accessing and egressing from Hanover Beach Colony and traffic just using Ponto Rd. for other reasons. On a regular basis, tractor trailers making deliveries must park on Ponto Rd. to make its deliveries, literally shutting down one lane of traffic because the hotel's delivery bay is not large enough to accommodate the delivery vehicles. Today, either the delivery drivers or hotel staff shut off the southbound lane of Ponto Rd. to accomodate a delivery by a tractor trailer.

An
unauthoriz
ed person either from the delivery truck or the hotel was conducting traffic control by directing southbound traffic into the northbound lane. At the same time, another tractor trailer making a delivery to the hotel had to park in front of the hotel's entrance, blocking off access to residents trying to turn in and out from Leeward St onto Ponto. So you can imagine
the sig
nificant increase in traffic by this development using Ponto Rd. between Carlsbad Blvd and Ponto Dr. under
the current conditions. Most deliveries occur during peak times when people are coming and going for work, school and other activities. In addition, event activity at the hotel occurs when people are returning from their daily activities.

I recall that sometime ago, the plans for the development of the property along Ponto Dr. had a road with a controlled intersection included on Ponto Dr for traffic associated with the development to access Carlsbad Blvd.. Is that controlled intersection still in the plans for this development? I appreciate any feedback you have to address my concerns.

Thank you,
Pat Kerins
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is

safe.

Letter C29
1 2
3 2-154
c==:>
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Letter C29
COMMENTER: Patrick Kerins
DATE: August 31, 2023
Response C29-1
The commenter acknowledges his comment letter is late but expresses the need to comment on the traffic issue at site 18.

Response C29-2
The commenter expresses concern over the size of development and traffic volume on Ponto Road.

The commenter states that the volume of traffic on Ponto Road from the proposed development coupled with hotel traffic would create traffic congestion and spillbacks. The commenter explains that tractor trailers making deliveries to the hotel would shut down one lane of traffic since the hotel’s delivery bay is not large enough to accommodate delivery vehicles, and deliveries often occur during peak hours which worsen traffic.

Please see Response C29-1.

Response C29-3
The commenter recalls plans for development of the property along Ponto Drive included a road with a controlled intersection and asks if this would still be included for the proposed development at Site 18.

No specific development project has been proposed at this time. The commenter’s opinions on the project are noted and will be provided to city decision-makers for consideration. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no SEIR revisions are required. 2-155
City of Carlsbad Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
This
page intentionally left blank.
2-156
Revisions to the Draft SEIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-1
Revisions to the Draft SEIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft SEIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft SEIR and are identified by the Draft SEIR section and page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in underline.

The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR and does not constitute “significant new information,” These revisions would not result in new or increased significant environmental impacts. No new significant impacts would occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required; therefore, no impacts beyond those identified in the SEIR would occur. No substantial revisions to the SEIR are required and therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 recirculation of the SEIR is not warranted. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.)
Executive Summary
Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:

Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-6. The proposed
project (specifically Sites 4, 6,
9, and 17) may conflict with
an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plans. This
impact would be less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

BIO-7 HMP Minor Amendments. Prior to project approval at Site 4, 6, 7, 9 and 17, each project shall be analyzed for consistency with the HMP in coordination with responsible agencies including CDFW and USFW. Development may not
occur within an Existing or Proposed Hardline. Any revisions to the HMP hardline boundary to allow for development on these sites shall require a HMP minor amendment, to be
processed as an Equivalency Finding. Such boundary
revisions must not involve any revisions the HMP operations or implementation, produce any adverse effects on the
environment that are new or significantly different from those previously analyzed, result in additional take not previously analyzed, or reduce the acreage or quality of the habitat within the HMP. Any loss of HMP hardline shall be replaced with equal or greater acres of hardline, adjacent to existing hardline elsewhere in the city, and preserved and managed in accordance with the HMP. Any development
within the Standards Area portion of Site 4 shall require a HMP Minor Amendment, to be processed as a Consistency
Finding, which requires consistency with the HMP Planning Standards for Local Facilities Management Zone 15.

BIO-8 HMP Adjacency Standards. Projects within sites 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 shall evaluate potential indirect impacts, such as wildfire, erosion, invasive species,
unauthorized access, or predators, to habitat and species adjacent to the proposed development. Projects shall be consistent with the HMP Adjacency Standards (Section F-3).

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation.
3 City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

3-2
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-4. Development
facilitated by the proposed
project could adversely
impact tribal cultural
resources. Consultation with
Native American Tribal
representatives is ongoing.

This impact would be less
than significant with
adherence to the Carlsbad
Cultural Resource Guidelines
and implementation of
mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Tribal Cultural Resources.

Projects subject to discretionary actions shall comply with the city's Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. For ministerial projects, the city shall provide Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Luiseño tribes (“TCA Tribe”) with early notification and the opportunity to consult on development applications and identify and assess
impacts to tribal and cultural resources. Further, before commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the
project developer shall comply with the following
requirements to ensure the appropriate response to the
presence of any tribal and cultural resources:
a. Retain the services of a qualified archaeologist who shall be on-site for ground-disturbing activities. In the event cultural material is encountered, the
archaeologist is empowered to temporarily divert or
halt grading to allow for coordination with the Luiseño Native American monitor and to determine the
significance of the discovery. The archaeologist shall
follow all standard procedures for cultural materials
that are not Tribal Cultural Resources.
b. Enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise
known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and
Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with a TCA tribe. This
agreement will address provision of a Luiseño Native
American monitor and contain provisions to address
the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources
and/or Luiseño Native American human remains
inadvertently discovered during the course of the
project. The Agreement will outline the roles and
powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and
the archaeologist and may include the following
provisions.
i. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present
during all ground-disturbing activities. Ground
disturbing activities may include, but are not limited
to, archaeological studies, geotechnical
investigations, exploratory geotechnical
investigations/borings for contractor bidding
purposes, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation,
preparation for utilities and other infrastructure,
and grading activities.
ii. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native
American cultural importance shall be returned to
the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians or other
Luiseño Tribe, and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if
applicable, and not be curated, unless ordered to do
so by a federal agency or a court of competent
jurisdiction.
iii. The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be
present at the project’s pre-construction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors
concerning excavation schedules and safety issues,
as well as to consult with the archaeologist PI
Less than
Significant
without
Mitigation with
Mitigation.

Revisions to the Draft SEIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-3
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
(principal investigator) concerning the proposed
archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the
project.
iv. Luiseño Native American monitors and
archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction
activities. If tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within
and around the immediate discovery area must be
diverted until the Luiseño Native American monitor
and the archaeologist can assess the nature and
significance of the find.
v. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or
unique archaeological resource(s) are discovered
during ground-disturbing activities for this project,
the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians or other
Luiseño tribe shall be notified and consulted
regarding the respectful and dignified treatment of
those resources. Pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the
preferred method of preservation for archaeological
and tribal cultural resources. If, however, the
Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a
significant and/or unique cultural resource is
infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized by
the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians or other Luiseño tribe
shall be consulted regarding the drafting and
finalization of any such recovery plan.
vi. When tribal cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such
resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must
be present during any testing or cataloging of those
resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the
tribal cultural resources that are unearthed during
the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native
American monitor may, at their discretion, collect
said resources and provide them to the San Luis Rey
Band of Mission Indians or other Luiseño tribe for
dignified and respectful treatment in accordance
with their cultural and spiritual traditions.
vii. If suspected Native American human remains are
encountered, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5(b) states that no further disturbance
shall occur until the San Diego County Medical
Examiner has made the necessary findings as to
origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be
left in place and free from disturbance until a final
decision as to the treatment and disposition has
been made. Suspected Native American remains
shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure
location at the site. A Luiseño Native American
monitor shall be present during the examination of
the remains. If the San Diego County Medical
Examiner determines the remains to be Native
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

3-4
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
American, NAHC must be contacted by the Medical
Examiner within 24 hours. The NAHC must then
immediately notify the “Most Likely Descendant”
about the discovery. The Most Likely Descendant
shall then make recommendations within 48 hours
and engage in consultation concerning treatment of
remains as provided in Public Resources Code
5097.98.
viii. In the event that fill material is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal cultural resources and documented as such. Commercial
sources of fill material are already permitted as
appropriate and will be culturally sterile. If fill
material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas
within the project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archaeologist and
Luiseño Native American monitor that such fill
material does not contain tribal cultural resources.
ix. No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be
permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources
without the written permission of the San Luis Rey
Band of Mission Indians or other Luiseño tribe.
x. Prior to the completion of project construction, a
monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if
appropriate, which describes the results, analysis,
and conclusions of the monitoring program shall be
submitted by the Project Archaeologist, along with
the Luiseño Native American monitor’s notes and
comments, to the City of Carlsbad for approval, and
shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information
Center. Said report shall be subject to confidentiality as an exception to the Public Records Act and will
not be available for public distribution.
c. Furthermore, the Agreement may include additional
measures mutually agreed upon by the project
developer, city, and TCA Tribe such as evaluation of the project site’s pre-construction conditions for the
presence or potential presence of TCRs as well as other measures tailored to and deemed necessary for the
specific project.

Section 2, Project Description
Table 2-4 on Page 2-15 (Section 2.4.3, Proposed Amendments to the General Plan) has been revised as follows:

Revisions to the Draft SEIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-5
Table 2-4 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map Changes Site #1 Location
Approximate
Site Size APN
Current
Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation
Existin
g Units
on Site
Unit Yields
Permitted
Under
Existing
General
Plan
Residential
Designation
, if Present
Propose
d Unit
Yield
Net Increase in
Units
(Proposed Unit
Yield – Existing
Residential
Units and/or
Units Allowed
by Existing
Residential
Land Use
Designation)1
Site 12 North
County
Plaza
19 acres 156-301-16 R/OS R/R-40/OS C-2/Q
C-2-Q

RD-M-Q/C-
2-Q/OS
0 0 240 units 240 units
Site 2 The
Shoppes at
Carlsbad
parking lot
57 acres
156-301-11 R/OS R/R-40/R-
23/OS
C-2 RD-M/C-
2/OS
0 0 993 units 993 units
156-302-35 R R/R-40/R-23 C-2 RD-M/C-2
156-301-06 R R/R-40 C-2 RD-M/C-2
156-301-10 R R/R-40 C-2 RD-M/C-2
156-302-23 R R/R-40 C-2 RD-M/C-2
156-302-14 R R/R-40/R-23 C-2 RD-M/C-2
156-302-17 R R/R-40 C-2 RD-M/C-2
Site 3 Chestnut
at El
Camino
Real

2.5 acres
167-080-33,
34, 41 and 42
R-4 R-15 R-1-10000 RD-M 0 8 28 units
(at 11.5
du/ac)
20 units
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

3-6
Site #1 Location
Approximate
Site Size APN
Current
Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation
Existin
g Units
on Site
Unit Yields
Permitted
Under
Existing
General
Plan
Residential
Designation
, if Present
Propose
d Unit
Yield
Net Increase in
Units
(Proposed Unit
Yield – Existing
Residential
Units and/or
Units Allowed
by Existing
Residential
Land Use
Designation)1
Site 4 Zone 15
Cluster

27.7 acres
2 acres
209-060-72 R-4/OS R-30/OS R-1-10000 RD-M 1 1 1 unit 0 units25 209-090-11 R-15/L R-15/R-30 RD-M/C-L RD-M 0 115 327 units (115
units at
12 du/ac
and 212
units at

26.5 du/ac)
212 units
Site 5 Avenida
Encinas
Car
Storage Lot

11.4 acres
210-090-24 PI R-30 P-M RD-M 0 0 53 units
(at 26.5
du/ac)
53 units
Site 6 Crossings
Golf
Course Lot
5 11.4 acres
212-270-05 PI/O R-30 P-M/O RD-M 0 0 181 units
(at 26.5
du/ac)
181 units
Site 7 Salk
Avenue

9.8 acres
212-021-04 O R-30 O RD-M 0 0 259 units
(at 26.5
du/ac)
259 units
Site 8 Cottage
Row
Apartment
s

11.9 acres
212-040-47 R-4 R-23/OS R-1-10000-
Q

RD-M-Q/OS
24 33 150
additiona
l units (at
19 du/ac)
117 units
-_
Revisions to the Draft SEIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-7
Site #1 Location
Approximate
Site Size APN
Current
Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation
Existin
g Units
on Site
Unit Yields
Permitted
Under
Existing
General
Plan
Residential
Designation
, if Present
Propose
d Unit
Yield
Net Increase in
Units
(Proposed Unit
Yield – Existing
Residential
Units and/or
Units Allowed
by Existing
Residential
Land Use
Designation)1
Site 93 West Oaks
Industrial

10.8 acres 212-040-26
and 212-110-
01 to -08
PI and OS R-30/OS PI RD-M/OS 0 192 192 units 0 units
Site
10 Bressi
Ranch Colt
Place

2.6 acres
213-262-17 PI R-23 P-C P-C (no
change)
0 0 49 units
(at 19
du/ac)
49 units
Site
11 Bressi
Ranch
Gateway
Road

5.3 acres
213-263-19,
213-263-20
PI R-40 P-C P-C (no
change)
0 0 199 units
(at 37.5
du/ac)
199 units
Site
12 Industrial
Sites East
of Melrose

14.1 acres
221-015-08,
221-014-03
PI R-35 P-M RD-M 0 0 456 units
(at 32.5
du/ac)
456 units
Site
14 Carlsbad
Village

COASTER
Station

7.8 acres
155-200-11
and 12, 760-
166-37, 203-
296-12155-
200-11-00,
155-200-12-
00, 203-054-
28-00, and
203-296-12-
00 V-B V-B (no
change)
V-B V-B (no
change)
0 93 93 units
(at 28
du/ac) or
200 units
(at under
30 du/ac)
0 units or 107
units
36 Site
15 City's Oak
Yard

1.3 acres
204-010-05,
204-010-06
V-B V-B (no
change)
V-B V-B (no
change)
0 24 24 units
(at 18
du/ac)
0 units
-_
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

3-8
Site #1 Location
Approximate
Site Size APN
Current
Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation
Existin
g Units
on Site
Unit Yields
Permitted
Under
Existing
General
Plan
Residential
Designation
, if Present
Propose
d Unit
Yield
Net Increase in
Units
(Proposed Unit
Yield – Existing
Residential
Units and/or
Units Allowed
by Existing
Residential
Land Use
Designation)1
Site
16 Caltrans
Maintenan
ce Station/
Pacific
Sales

6.9 acres
211-050-08,
09 GC, P R-30 RA-
10,000/C-2
RD-M 0 0 183 units
(at 26.5
du/ac)
182 units
Site
17 Poinsettia

COASTER
Station

5.8 acres
214-150-08-
00, 214-150-
20-00, 214-
150-11
P, TC R-23/P RD-M-Q, T-C RD-M-Q/T-
C-Q
0 0 27 units
or 100
units
27 units or 100
units47
Site
184
North
Ponto
Parcels

5.8 acres
216-010-01,
02, 03, 04,
05; 214-160-
25 and 28;
214-171-11
R-15,
VC/R15, GC
R-23 C-2, RD-M-

Q/C-T-Q,
RD-M-Q
RD-M 0 40 90 units
(at 19
du/ac)
50 units
Site
19 La Costa
Glen/Foru
m

7.8 acres
255-012-05 R/OS R-23/OS P-C P-C (no
change)
0 0 76 units
(at 19
du/ac)
76 units
Total 3,295 units
*Site 13: Removed from Housing Site Inventory and is not included within this SEIR. *1 Unit yields are estimates only. Net increase in units does not take into account units estimated from properties that are currently designated or partially designated as commercial (sites 1, 2, 4, 16, 18, 19).
*2 Site 1: A private development application has been submitted. The 240 net increase in units reflects the units the application proposes. *3 Site 9: A project has been approved for 192 units that includes its own project-level CEQA review. However, for a conservative programmatic analysis, this SEIR includes Site 9 in its analysis. *4 Site 18: A private development application with 86 units (FPC Residential, SDP 2022-0003) has been approved on athe portion of the site north of Ponto Drive (APNs 214-160-25, 214-160-28 and 214-171-11). Accordingly, the rezoning proposed as part of Site 18 would affect only the portion of the site south of Ponto Drive that consists of five vacant parcels (APNs 216-010-01 to 05) totaling -_
Revisions to the Draft SEIR

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-9
Site #1 Location
Approximate
Site Size APN
Current
Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Land
Use
Designation
Current
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation
Existin
g Units
on Site
Unit Yields
Permitted
Under
Existing
General
Plan
Residential
Designation
, if Present
Propose
d Unit
Yield
Net Increase in
Units
(Proposed Unit
Yield – Existing
Residential
Units and/or
Units Allowed
by Existing
Residential
Land Use
Designation)1
slightly more than one acre. Unit yield from the reduced site area if rezoned is 22 units. The proposed land use designation would change from GC to R-23; the zoning would change from C-2 to RD-M.
1 Net increase in units does not take into account units estimated from properties that are currently designated or partially designated as commercial (sites 1, 2, 4, 16, 18, 19). 25 Site “4a” (APN 209-060-72): Site could generate 154 units if rezoned to R-30. However, since the site is currently within a floodplain, the net increase in unit yield is 0. 36 Site 14: The City Council has directed the study of two different proposed unit yields for this site under Map 1 and Map 2. Map 1 has a proposed yield of 93 units, and Map 2 has a proposed yield of 200 units. The Map 1 yield of 93 units is an estimate of allowed units based on Village and Barrio Master Plan minimum density calculations (28 du/ac based on 50% of the developable area).

The Map 2 yield is based on a higher density determined over the entire developable area and still within the density range allowed by the master plan (28-35 du/ac). The 107 units is the difference between the Map 2 and Map 1 unit yield estimates (200 - 93 = 107 units). This analysis assumes 107 units as a conservative estimate. 47 Site 17: The City Council has directed the study of two different proposed unit yields for this site under Map 1 and Map 2. Map 1 has a proposed yield of 27 units, and Map 2 has a proposed yield of 100 units. This analysis assumes 100 unit as a conservative estimate.

Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre

City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update

3-10

Page 2 ends

Carlsbad City CouncilJanuary 30, 2024

Carlsbad City Council
January 30, 2024