Policy 3-P.5 Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all modes consistent with this Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-7
Policy 3-P.8 Utilize transportation demand management strategies, non-automotive enhancements (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, train, trails, and connectivity), and traffic signal management techniques as long-term transportation solutions and traffic mitigation measures to carry out the Carlsbad Community Vision.
Policy 3-P.16 Design new streets, and explore funding opportunities for existing streets, to minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate, within residential neighborhoods without compromising connectivity for emergency first responders, bicycles, and pedestrians consistent with the city’s Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategies. This should be accomplished through management and implementation of livable streets strategies and such programs like the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Plan.
Policy 3-P.17 Consider innovative design and program solutions to improve the mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety of the transportation system. Innovative design solutions include, but are not limited to, traffic calming devices, roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions, separated bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian scramble intersections, high visibility pedestrian treatments and infrastructure, and traffic signal coordination. Innovative program solutions include, but are not limited to, webpages with travel demand and traffic signal management information, car and bike share programs, active transportation campaigns, and intergenerational programs around schools to enhance safe routes to schools. Other innovative solutions include bicycle friendly business districts, electric and solar power energy transportation systems, intelligent transportation systems, semi-or full autonomous vehicles, trams, and shuttles.
Policy 3-P.19 Encourage Caltrans, SANDAG, NCTD, and adjacent cities to improve regional connectivity and service consistent with regional planning efforts. This includes expansion of Interstate-5 with two HOV lanes in each direction and associated enhancements, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route along Palomar Airport Road, shuttle bus services from COASTER stations, and other enhancements to improve services in the area.
Policy 3-P.20 Engage Caltrans, the Public Utilities Commission, transit agencies, the Coastal Commission, and railroad agency(s) regarding opportunities for improved connections within the city, including: • Improved connections across the railroad tracks at Chestnut Avenue and other locations • Completion and enhancements to the Coastal Rail Trail and/or equivalent trail along the coastline • Improved connectivity along Carlsbad Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists, such as a trail • Improved access to the beach and coastal recreational opportunities • Improved crossings for pedestrians across and along Carlsbad Boulevard Policy 3-P.22 Support pedestrian and bicycle facilities at all Interstate-5 and State Route 78 interchanges.
Policy 3-P.24 Update the pedestrian, trails and bicycle master plans, as necessary, to reflect changes in needs, opportunities and priorities.
Policy 3-P.25 Implement the projects recommended in the pedestrian, trails and bicycle master plans through the city’s capital improvement program, private development conditions and other appropriate mechanisms.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-8
Policy 3-P.26 Identify and implement necessary pedestrian improvements on pedestrian prioritized streets with special emphasis on providing safer access to schools, parks, community and recreation centers, shopping districts, and other appropriate facilities.
Policy 3-P.27 Implement the Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs that focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements near local schools and transit stations. Prioritize schools with access from arterial streets for receiving Safe Routes to School projects.
Policy 3-P.28 Improve and enhance parking, connectivity, access, and utilization for pedestrians and bicycles to COASTER stations, utility corridors, and open spaces consistent with city planning documents.
Policy 3-P.29 Evaluate incorporating pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the city as part of any planning or engineering study, private development, or capital project where bicyclists or pedestrians are a prioritized or non-prioritized mode.
Policy 3-P.30 Complete the Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategies to assist in identifying livable street implementation parameters within the city.
Policy 3-P.32 Require developers to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity consistent with the city’s pedestrian and bicycle master plans and trails master planning efforts. In addition, new residential developments should demonstrate that a safe route to school and transit is provided to nearby schools and transit stations within a half mile walking distance.
Policy 3-P.33 Work with existing neighborhoods and businesses to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety consistent with the city’s pedestrian and bicycle master plans and trails master planning efforts.
Policy 3-P.34 Actively pursue grant programs such as SANDAG’s Active Transportation Grant Program and Smart Growth Incentive Program to improve non-automotive connectivity throughout the city. The emphasis of grant-funded projects shall be on implementation, which includes planning documents that guide and prioritize implementation, programs that encourage the use of active transportation modes, education for the use of active transportation modes, or physical improvements themselves.
Policy 3-P.35 Partner with other agencies and/or developers to improve transit connectivity within Carlsbad. As part of a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) strategy and/or with transit-oriented development (TOD), a shuttle system could be established that connects destinations and employment centers like LEGOLAND, hotels, the Village, McClellan-Palomar Airport, business parks, the COASTER and Breeze transit stations, and key destinations along the coast. The system could incorporate shuttle service in adjacent cities to maximize connectivity.
Policy 3-P.36 Encourage NCTD, SANDAG and other transit providers to provide accessibility for all modes of travel to the McClellan-Palomar Airport area.
Policy 3-P.37 Coordinate with NCTD to improve the quality of bus stop facilities in the city.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-9
City of Carlsbad Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP)
This plan was adopted by the City Council in 2021. It guides implementation of the General Plan Mobility Element, with the goal of improving traffic safety, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing travel choices. The SMP integrates 12 previous planning documents including the 2007 Bikeway Master Plan, the 2008 Pedestrian Master Plan, the 2013 ADA Transition Plan, the 2015 Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategy, and the 2015 Climate Action Plan. A key goal of the SMP is to integrate planned, unbuilt projects from all of these plans into a single database; prioritize these planned, unbuilt projects; and provide a tool to city staff for facilitating implementation of these multiple planned networks.
4.13.3 Impact Analysis
Since adoption of SB 743 and revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, VMT is the metric for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Unlike the 2015 General Plan EIR, which relied on LOS as a metric to discuss transportation impacts, analysis in this SEIR utilizes VMT as a metric in compliance with SB 743. VMT provides a measure of travel efficiency and helps depict whether people are traveling more, or less, by vehicle over time.
VMT measures the amount of driving that a project generates or causes. For example, a project generating 100 total (inbound and outbound) vehicle trips per day that travel an average of 5.0 miles per trip results in 500 project-generated VMT per day. VMT has historically been used in CEQA as an input for the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas sections, but VMT can also show how environmentally efficient the connection is between the transportation system and existing or proposed land uses. For the purposes of analyzing the CEQA Transportation impacts of residential projects, the total VMT generated by the project is converted to an efficiency metric by dividing the amount of VMT generated by the number of residents; efficiency metrics are used in CEQA transportation VMT analysis because the goal of the analysis is to show whether or not a particular development will generate low enough VMT to aid the State in meeting its climate targets relative to projected growth in population, employment, etc.
Fehr & Peers prepared a memo that includes VMT modeling considerations and results, which is included as Appendix E.
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, potentially significant impacts to transportation would result if the project would:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (A significant impact would occur if an element of the project conflicts with existing or planned facilities.) 2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)
1. (According to the City of
Carlsbad VMT Analysis Guidelines for CEQA Review, for residential projects, the project
1 Section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount of distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) regarding lead agency discretion in determining the appropriate me asure of
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-10
generated residential VMT per resident does not constitute a significant impact if it is less than 15 percent below city-wide average VMT per resident. For the cumulative year, the project’s performance under future cumulative conditions is compared to the baseline year citywide average residential VMT per resident.)
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (A significant impact would occur if development facilitated by the project does not conform to applicable City and industry design standards)
4) Result in inadequate emergency access. (A significant impact would occur if development facilitated by the project did not conform to California Fire Code standards for emergency access.)
VMT Analysis Methodology
Project Screening for VMT
The City of Carlsbad VMT Analysis Guidelines includes six (6) screening criteria that can be applied to screen projects out of conducting project-level VMT analysis.
Small Projects. Small projects can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact.
Small projects are defined as generating less than 110 trips per day.
Projects Located Near Transit. Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
This exemption would not apply if the project:
Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the lead agency (if the agency allows but does not require the project to supply a certain amount of parking);
Is inconsistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the SANDAG); or
Results in a net reduction in multi-family housing units.
Local-Serving Retail and Similar Land Uses. Projects that consist of local-serving retail uses can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, since these types of projects will primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations.
Local-Serving Public Facilities. Similar to retail land uses, local-serving public facilities can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact.
Affordable Housing Projects. According to City Guidelines, residential projects consisting of 100% affordable housing located in infill areas may be considered to have insignificant transportation impacts.
Redevelopment Projects That Result in a Net Reduction of VMT. Under CEQA regulations, projects are deemed to have a less than significant impact if they result in a reduction in VMT
transportation impacts for transportation projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. For the purposes of the EIR, consistency with CEQA Section 15064.3, implementation of the project would result in a significant impact under CEQA if it would substantially interfere with achievement of the VMT reductions set forth in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-11
measure. In this context, redevelopment projects in Carlsbad that generate less VMT compared to the existing project they replace would be considered to have a less than significant effect on VMT.
A project that meets one or more of the screening criteria is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. 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.
As the project does not meet any of the above screening criteria, a VMT analysis is required as explained below. The screening test for small projects generating less than 110 trips per day must be applied to individual housing development projects rather than the project program as a whole.
The screening criterion for local-serving retail or public facilities applies only to commercial and public facility uses and not to residential project types. The TPA screening test does not apply to the project program as a whole, but could be applied on a project-by-project basis. Additionally, as the project is not a redevelopment project or an affordable housing program, the affordable housing test does not apply.
VMT Analysis Scenarios
Based on the city's Guidelines, the evaluation of residential projects is conducted using the residential VMT per resident metric. This evaluation applies even in the case of redevelopment projects, such as the replacement of an office use with a residential project. When analyzing a residential land use, an efficiency metric is used as the basis of the analysis, which disregards the previous land use on the site. Consequently, no credit is given to the existing land use, as the focus is solely on assessing the efficiency of the new land use for the residents, without considering the efficiency of the prior land use.
Residential VMT is defined as all resident’s automobile vehicle trips traced back to the residence of the trip-maker. This VMT includes the entire length of the trip or tour. This residential VMT is then divided by the number of residents to calculate residential VMT per resident.
The calculations are done to include all trips, including trips that leave the travel model area (the SANDAG region). VMT for trips that leave the travel model area is adjusted to account for the part of the trip that occurs outside of the travel model area.
To generate daily forecasts for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in this project, Fehr & Peers relied on data from the SANDAG Activity-Based Model 2+ (ABM2+). On September 23, 2022, the SANDAG Board instructed their staff to exclude the "road user charge" from the 2021 Regional Plan and prepare a focused amendment to it. Please refer to Appendix E for more detail on the model versions. The analysis considered two model years: the base year of 2016 and the future year of 2035. The SANDAG modeling team provided a full set of SANDAG model files in 2022, which incorporated the latest updates as of December 2021.
After carefully evaluating various model options along with their respective land use and policy assumptions, the No build DS41 scenario was used. The SANDAG no build scenario assumes that the infrastructure outlined in the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan has been implemented and does not factor in the SANDAG 2021 Road User Charge (as it is not reasonably foreseeable and requires additional political considerations). Thus, this particular option aligns closely with the city's General Plan and excludes the road user charge policy. By selecting this option, the analysis incorporates realistic land use assumptions while considering reasonably foreseeable regional transportation City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-12
network investments and policies. Ultimately, this approach yields the reasonably foreseeable results in terms of VMT. Fehr & Peers then ran the model for various land use scenarios to determine the VMT per resident for 2035. The 2035 VMT per resident is compared to the base year model VMT per resident to assess impacts.
Fehr & Peers analyzed four distinct scenarios, each serving a unique purpose. These scenarios include:
Base Year 2016 No Project Condition (i.e., land use assumptions based on off-the-shelf SANDAG Model specific land use may not be consistent with the 2015 General Plan.) Year 2035 Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative as outlined in Section 6.0, Alternatives (i.e., continuation of conditions adopted under the 2015 General Plan) Year 2035 Proposed Project (i.e., implementation of the project) Year 2035 with Project Alternative 2 (i.e., reduced sites under the project as further detailed and discussed under Alternative 2 in Section 6.0, Alternatives).
The first scenario, known as the Base Year 2016 No Project Condition, remains unchanged from the original SANDAG off-the-shelf base year model with no modifications. The only base year available for the SANDAG ABM2+ model is 2016.
The second scenario, the Year 2035 No Project Condition scenario (also called Alternative 1 in section 6.0, Alternatives of this SEIR), integrates the land use data from the SANDAG 2035 model.
However, it has been adjusted to align with the city's currently adopted General Plan, which was thoroughly analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. This adjustment was crucial to ensure that the analysis could incorporate the most reasonable and reliable land use assumptions available consistent with the city’s General Plan. The third and fourth scenarios, Year 2035 Proposed Project and Year 2035 with Project Alternative 2, respectively, both feature the project land use assumptions based on each scenario. Note that the third scenario is the project itself, while the fourth scenario is discussed in detail in Section 6, Alternatives. b. Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2015 General Plan EIR determined that transportation impacts related to LOS would be significant and unavoidable. Since LOS is no longer a metric under CEQA, this SEIR does not include a comparison to the significant and unavoidable finding in the 2015 EIR. Impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, air traffic safety, hazards or incompatible uses, and emergency access would be less than significant (Section 3.13, Transportation: 3.13-25 through 3.13-37). Air traffic safety is no longer addressed under Transportation under CEQA, and is discussed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this SEIR. It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to standards for transportation impacts.
The proposed project involves land use changes to allow additional development on 18 rezone sites beyond what was anticipated in the 2015 General Plan EIR and could therefore result in new impacts related to transportation. Therefore, all the CEQA checklist items listed above under Methodology and Significance Thresholds are addressed in this analysis. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Some components associated with the proposed project, including updates to the Local Coastal Plan, Public Safety Element, and Master and Specific Plans for consistency between the city’s
1. 2.
3. 4.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-13
planning documents, in and of themselves would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts to transportation would occur. Therefore, this analysis focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the rezone program which would facilitate the development of 18 rezone sites listed in Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description.
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact T-1 SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR,
DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADDITIONAL CONFLICTS WITH PROGRAMS AND PLANS RELATED TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, RELATIVE TO THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Roadway Facilities
The project does not include proposed modifications to roadway facilities in the city. However, the project would amend the city’s Land Use Map to accommodate higher density residential developments on 18 rezone sites. This increased density could cause existing and future local and regional traffic to circulate differently. The expected influence on existing and future traffic would be minimal because any roadway modifications included as a part of the new residential developments facilitated by the project would need to conform to State and local standards.
Additionally, interruption of regular functioning of roadway facilities due to construction would be temporary in nature and not cause conflicts. Overall, growth associated with the project would not conflict with existing or planned roadway facilities, because the proposed changes do not specifically propose any reduction in roadway vehicle lanes. Unlike the 2015 General Plan EIR, which found significant and unavoidable conflicts with roadway facilities in relation to the LOS metric, the SEIR does not consider LOS pursuant to SB 743 (codified in Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), which states that level of service or similar measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion are not considered significant impacts on the environment). Therefore, policies related to LOS are not considered in this analysis; the project would not conflict with programs and plans related to the roadway network and impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
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. Buildout would increase the number of potential transit, bicycle, and pedestrian users on the various transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems serving the city. Increased users would result in a correlated increase in demand for transit and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally, roadway traffic congestion caused from population growth in the city facilitated by the project could affect transit corridors by increasing travel times and decreasing headway reliability for transit vehicles. However, like development under the 2015 General Plan EIR, any roadway modifications included as a part of the new residential developments facilitated by the project would need to conform to State and local standards. Policies 3-P.1 through 3-P.5, 3-P.8, 3-P.16, 3-P.17, 3-P.19, 3-P.20, 3-P.22, 3-P.24 through 3-P.30, and 3-P.32 through 3-P.37 from the 2015 General Plan would reduce impacts to transit facilities and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure by discouraging use of single occupancy vehicles City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-14
and supporting multi-modal transportation, similar to the 2015 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not introduce a new impact relative to the 2015 General Plan EIR and impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact T-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INTERFERE WITH ACHIEVEMENT OF THE VMT REDUCTIONS SET FORTH IN CITY OF CARLSBAD VMT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES.
THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
As described above, residential projects are evaluated based on the residential VMT per resident VMT metric consistent with the methodology in the City of Carlsbad VMT Analysis Guideline.
The SANDAG Model assumptions were adjusted to reflect the relevant housing unit numbers according to the city’s adopted General Plan and the project for 2035 conditions, and the resulting VMT metrics are reported. Table 4.13-1 presents the VMT per resident for the entire city.
Figure 4.13-1 depicts the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that contain rezone sites.
Table 4.13-1 Citywide Average Project Generated VMT per Resident Model Scenario City of Carlsbad VMT/Resident
2016 Base Year 24.0
Year 2035 Alternative 1 (No Project)1 24.0
2035 with Proposed Project 23.6
Impact Assessment
Residential VMT per Resident Threshold2 20.4
Impact Conclusion for Project (Scenario 1) Significant Impact Source: SANDAG; Fehr & Peers, 2023
Note:
1 The off-the-shelf 2035 model was adjusted according to the adopted Housing Element land use assumptions. 2 85% of city-wide VMT per resident average in base year 2016.
While VMT rates would decrease with the project compared to the No Project condition, reflecting the benefits that increased density of residential land uses have on reducing VMT per capita, Carlsbad’s VMT per resident would continue to exceed the VMT per resident threshold. The transportation impact analysis indicates that the project would result in a significant impact to VMT.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-15
Figure 4.13-1 Project TAZ Containing Rezone Sites
.. - • _ .. - · - '1 • i- ,'
1 -~
·""
, ...
\,
v,11'
""' ..
I
I . ..
;;;
--=j
•.
• I
• I ....
i '-·-· I
'· I
I
0 2
Miles
Projet:I TAZ Sourc;;;; S/1.NDAG
r •-. • _ . ~ Gtyal'Cilr~
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-16
In addition to the city-wide average VMT per resident, residential VMT per resident for each housing development site was determined. Specifically, the VMT for the TAZ containing a housing site was used to determine the individual housing site’s VMT per Resident. Each housing site’s VMT per resident is compared against significance thresholds to determine whether the housing site individually would have a significant impact and to determine the appropriate type of mitigation. As these rezone sites have diverse land use and travel characteristics resulting in significantly different VMT characteristics, they are compared against thresholds individually. The individual project TAZs VMT per resident are shown in Table 4.13-2.
Table 4.13-2 VMT per Resident for Project TAZs
TAZ
Housing Site
Number(s)
2035 with Project
VMT/Resident Percent of City Average
Percent Difference
from City Average
709 1 and 2 20.2 86% -14%
793 14 15.3 65% -35%
815 3 21.4 90% -10%
841 15 17.1 72% -28%
916 4 21.7 92% -8%
969 7 24.0 102% +2%
1002 6 20.7 88% -12%
10491 5 25.1 106% +6%
1068 10 22.7 96% -4%
1097 12 24.1 102% +2%
1105 11 24.1 102% +2%
1161 9 24.8 105% +5%
1182 16 21.1 89% -11%
1188 8 19.6 83% -17%
1276 17 23.3 99% -1%
1345 18 21.7 92% -8%
14341 19 23.7 100% 0%
Source: SANDAG; Fehr & Peers, 2023
Note:
1 TAZs with minimal development (<300 Residents) or no data available defaults to Census Tract value.
As shown, the individual sites have VMT per residential values that range from 15.3 to 25.1 VMT per resident. Areas where residential land uses generate lower levels of VMT generally have a higher density of residential development; a mix of land uses so that residents need to travel shorter distances to visit shops, essential businesses, and places of employment; have good proximity to high-quality transit; and have more affordable housing options, so that lower-income families can live in close proximity to job centers. This assessment is helpful to determine the types of VMT mitigation measures that would be applicable at various development sites. As stated above, overall, the project has a significant VMT impact.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-17
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure is required:
Mitigation Measure T-1 Achieve VMT Reductions for Development Projects During the project design and project-level review phases of development projects at the 18 rezone sites, the city shall review each project 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 is 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 city shall require the project to implement project-level VMT reduction measures, as noted below, prior to project approval and issuance of construction permits.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and physical measures to reduce VMT are outlined in the city’s VMT Analysis Guidelines and have been identified as potentially VMT reducing in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (December 2021). The CAPCOA Handbook provides detailed requirements, calculation steps, and limitations for assessing the VMT reduction effectiveness of each measure, including reductions from combinations of measures.
Trip reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Provision of bus stop improvements or on-site mobility hubs Pedestrian improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc.
Bicycle programs including bike purchase incentives, storage, maintenance programs, and on- site education program
Enhancements to the citywide bicycle network
Parking reductions and/or fees set at levels sufficient to incentivize transit, active transportation, or shared modes
Cash allowances, passes, or other public transit subsidies and purchase incentives Providing enhanced, frequent bus service
Implementation of shuttle service
Other measures not listed in CAPCOA but are proven to be effective means of reducing the amount of VMT generated by residents include increasing the mix of uses by adding retail or services within a site or within convenient walking distance.
2 Although it is unlikely that TDM measures will fully
mitigate the impact of the program to a less-than-significant level, CEQA mandates the implementation of feasible mitigation measures to reduce a project or program's level of impact. In this context, Fehr & Peers identified a list of recommended TDM measures from Appendix E of the city's VMT Analysis Guidelines to mitigate the project VMT impact to the extent feasible, as
2 American Planning Association PAS Memo, 2013. “Getting Trip Generation Right: Eliminating the Bias Against Mixed Use Developm ent” by Jerry Walters, Brian Bochner, and Reid Ewing, May.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-18
presented in Table 4.13-3. The summary provides an estimate of the effectiveness of these measures and specifies which ones are applicable to areas that have adjacent or near transit.
Table 4.13-3 TDM Measures for Rezone Sites in Carlsbad
Measures
Maximum Percent
Reduction in VMT1
Applicable to Sites
Adjacent to or Near
Transit
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 4% -
Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 5.50% Yes Provide Ridesharing Program 8% -
Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing (Construct the affordable housing at the city’s requirement, no payment of in lieu fees)
Approx. 4% if meeting
city’s requirement.
28.60% if 100%
affordable
-
Provide Bike Parking Not Quantified -
Improve Transit Access, Safety, and Comfort Not Quantified Yes Provide Bike Parking Near Transit Not Quantified Yes
Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor Not Quantified Yes Source: City of Carlsbad Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, 2022; Fehr & Peers, 2023 Individual rezone sites (if their location based on the TAZ exceeds the city’s VMT threshold) should include all feasible mitigation measures from Table 4.13-3. Projects that are within a half mile of a transit stop should incorporate the measures that are applicable to encouraging transit.
Significance After Mitigation
Because 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 this SEIR. As a result, this impact is identified conservatively as significant and unavoidable with mitigation given the possibility that some projects may not be able to identify and implement measures to reduce the VMT impact to a less-than-significant level.
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact T-3 SIMILAR TO DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR, DEVELOPMENT
FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURES (E.G., SHARE CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT). THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Development facilitated by the project would increase the number of users on the city’s transportation system, which could increase transportation circulation design safety hazards Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-19
associated with future projects in Carlsbad. Primary operational vehicular access to and through the General Plan area would be provided by existing signalized intersections and highways.
Improvements to the transportation and circulation system in the city would be implemented over time through buildout year of 2035. Carlsbad maintains improvement standards that guide the construction of new transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the system.
Through the environmental review process, land use proposals that would add traffic to streets not designed to current standards are evaluated consistent 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. Typical improvements Include shoulder widening, adding turn pockets, adding sidewalks or crosswalks, realigning sharp curves, prohibiting certain turning movements, signalizing intersections, and increasing sight distance, among other measures. New and upgraded roadways needed to accommodate new development would be designed according to applicable Federal, State, and local design standards. Additionally, as found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, policies 3-P.10, 3-P.12, 3-P.13, and 3-P.16 would reduce impacts related to safety. Therefore, the project would not introduce a new impact relative to the 2015 General Plan EIR and impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact T-4 SIMILAR TO DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR, DEVELOPMENT BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
In the short-term, implementation of the project would have the potential to affect emergency access during construction of individual projects facilitated by the project. Carlsbad or project applicants would coordinate with the emergency service providers to ensure that emergency routes remain available. In the long-term, 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 project would not introduce a new impact relative to the 2015 General Plan EIR and impacts would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.13-20
d. Cumulative Impacts
Compatibility with Programs, Plans, Ordinances, and Policies Related to Circulation
Cumulative plans and projects, including the project, would be required to comply with local regulations and policies. The plans’ incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Because the analysis for the project is based on VMT per resident, the significant VMT impact finding implies that the project would also have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Since project-level significance thresholds were designed to support long-term environmental goals, they inherently also address potential cumulative VMT impacts. As such, VMT would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable.
Roadway Safety and Emergency Vehicle Access
Roadways constructed as a result of implementation of the project, in conjunction with other cumulative plans and projects, would be constructed to meet current design standards in respective cities. Modifications to public rights-of-way would be consistent with appropriate regulations and design standards set forth by the respective city’s applicable plans, programs, and policies. Similarly, cumulative development would also be required to comply with the respective city’s regulations and policies. Trucks necessary to construct cumulative development would utilize truck routes designated by the respective cities and would not conflict with the automobile traffic and bicycle and pedestrian activity along respective city streets. If cumulative development would redesign city streets in such a way that would significantly impact roadway safety, they would be required by the respective city to mitigate such impacts. Nevertheless, Carlsbad’s contribution to potential cumulative roadway safety impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, driveways and emergency vehicle access points associated with cumulative development would be constructed in compliance with the California Fire Code and other applicable regulations related to roadway safety and emergency access. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to roadway safety and emergency vehicle access would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1
4.14 Utilities and Service Systems
This section addresses impacts related to utilities and service systems. It considers potential impacts with respect to water supply and infrastructure, wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, stormwater and drainage facilities, solid waste disposal, and electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The assessment of impacts is based on review of site information and conditions; analysis provided in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Recycled Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan, Water Master Plan, and Drainage Master Plan; and city information regarding utility-related issues, including water supply and facilities, wastewater facilities, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunications facilities, and solid waste.
4.14.1 Setting
The following section describes the existing setting with respect to water suppliers, wastewater treatment providers, stormwater drainage facilities, electricity and natural gas providers, telecommunications facilities, and solid waste facilities serving the project site. a. Water Sources, Supply, Demand, and Distribution
Water Sources
San Diego County imports approximately 90 percent of its water from Northern California and the Colorado River. This water is imported to San Diego County by the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California. SDCWA was formed in 1944 and became a member of MWD in 1946 to obtain Colorado River water for San Diego County. SDCWA currently has 24 member agencies, which include six cities, five water districts, three irrigation districts, eight municipal water districts, one public utility district, and one federal agency (a military base). Its service area encompasses approximately 1,438 square miles and a population of approximately three million people. SDCWA receives 90 percent of its imported water from the MWD. SDCWA is MWD’s largest member agency, purchasing up to 30 percent of MWD’s supplies annually (SDCWA 2017). SDCWA member agencies in the vicinity of Carlsbad include the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), Vallecitos Water District (VWD), and Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD)—all three of which provide water service to the City of Carlsbad. The city uses imported water, recycled water, and seawater desalination (CMWD 2021).
Water Supply and Demand
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
In 2020, the CMWD supplied approximately 17,693 acre‐feet (AF) of water purchased from SDCWA, desalinated water, and recycled water (CMWD 2021). The residential sector accounts for an average of 54 percent of total water use (44 percent for single-family residences and 10 percent for multi- family residences), while the commercial, landscape, and other sectors account for the remaining 46 percent of use (CMWD 2021).
The CMWD projects in its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that annual water demand for the service area will be 21,737 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2040 under normal year conditions, which includes potable and recycled water (CMWD 2021). Table 4.14-1 through Table 4.14-3 show forecast water supplies under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. The CMWD City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-2
projects that, under non-drought conditions, water supplies will increase to 22,263 AFY by 2045 (see Table 4.14-1). The minimum available annual water supply for a scenario involving multiple dry years is estimated at 23,901 AF in 2045, as shown in Table 4.14-3 (CMWD 2021). The CMWD planned supply accommodates the projected demand for the service area under both normal, single year, and multiple year drought conditions.
Table 4.14-1 C MWD Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
SDCWA Purchases 13,802 14,155 14,586 15,019 15,545
Seawater Desalination 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Normal Year Potable Supply 16,302 16,655 17,086 17,519 18,045 Recycled Water 4,218 4,218 4,218 4,218 4,218
Total Existing Supplies 20,520 20,873 21,304 21,737 22,263 Demand 20,520 20,873 21,304 21,737 22,263
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Source: CMWD 2021
Table 4.14-2 C MWD Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supplies 21,929 22,307 22,767 23,230 23,792
Demand 21,929 22,307 22,767 23,230 23,792
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Source: CMWD 2021
Table 4.14-3 C MWD Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Supplies 22,030 22,409 22,871 23,336 23,901
Demand 22,030 22,409 22,871 23,336 23,901
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supplies 22,108 22,489 22,953 23,420 23,986
Demand 22,108 22,489 22,953 23,420 23,986
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supplies 22,189 22,570 23,036 23,505 24,073
Demand 22,189 22,570 23,036 23,505 24,073
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supplies 22,270 22,653 23,121 23,591 24,162
Demand 22,270 22,653 23,121 23,591 24,162
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Fifth Year
Supplies 22,344 22,728 23,198 23,669 24,242
Demand 22,344 22,728 23,198 23,669 24,242
Total Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Source: CMWD 2021
CMWD covers an area of 20,682 acres (approximately 32 square miles) and provides potable and recycled water supply to most of the City of Carlsbad. The existing distribution system consists of 455 miles of pipeline and 73 major pressure regulating stations, three pump stations, and nine reservoirs. The CMWD water distribution system supplies recycled water from two supply sources, which include 95 miles of pipeline, six pressure zones, three storage tanks, four pumping stations, and five pressure regulating stations (CMWD 2021).
Vallecitos Water District
VWD
is responsible for supplying water, wastewater collection, and recycled water service to a 45- square mile area within northern San Diego County that includes the City of San Marcos, parts of the cities of Vista, Carlsbad, Escondido, and unincorporated areas within the County of San Diego. In 2020, the VWD supplied approximately 4,835 acre
-fe
et (AF) of water purchased from SDCWA,
desalinated water, and recycled water (VWD 2021). The residential sector accounts for an average of 60 percent of total water use (44 percent for single-family residences and 15 percent for multi- family residences), while the commercial, landscape, losses and other sectors account for the remaining 40 percent of use (VWD 2021).
The VWD
projects in its 2020 UWMP that annual water demand for the service area will be 8,055 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2045 under normal year conditions, which includes potable and recycled water (VWD 2021). The VWD projects that, under non-drought conditions, water supplies will increase to 8,072 AFY by 2045 (VWD 2021). The VWD planned supply accommodates the projected demand for the service area under both normal, single year, and multiple year drought conditions.
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Sit
e 19 is located outside of CMWD and VWD service areas. Water to Site 19 would be supplied by OMWD. OMWD provides potable water, wastewater services, recycled water, hydroelectricity, and park services and is headquartered in Encinitas, San Diego County. In 2020, the OMWD supplied approximately 19,582 acre-fe
et (AF) of water purchased from SDCWA, and recycled water (OMWD 2021). The residential sector accounts for an average of 80 percent of total water use (76 percent for single-family residences and 4 percent for multi-family residences), while the commercial, landscape, and other sectors account for the remaining 20 percent of use (OMWD 2021).
T
he OMWD projects in its 2020 UWMP that annual water demand for the service area will be 19,165 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2040 under normal year conditions, which includes potable and recycled water (OMWD 2021). The OMWD projects that, water supply will meet the water demand through 2040 (OMWD 2021). The OMWD planned supply accommodates the projected demand for the service area under both normal, single year, and multiple year drought conditions.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-4
b. Wastewater
The city’s Wastewater Division is responsible for managing the city’s wastewater collection system.
The system consists of approximately 288 miles of sewer pipes. The city’s local sewer collection system is delivered to Encina Wastewater Authority, who is responsible for wastewater treatment and discharge in Carlsbad. In addition, Leucadia Wastewater District or Vallecitos Water District provide wastewater collection services in some areas within the southern portion of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 2023a). The wastewater is treated and either released into the ocean or treated further and used as recycled water. Encina Wastewater Authority provides a current design treatment capacity of 40.5 mgd of wastewater. The facility has an average daily flow of 23 mgd. Treated effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean or reused (Encina Wastewater Authority 2021). c. Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater discharges consist of surface water runoff generated from various land uses. The quality of these discharges varies and is affected by geology, land use, season, hydrology, and sequence and duration of hydrologic events. Stormwater is generally directed to a series of public street catch basins and drainage area catch basins located throughout Carlsbad. Water flow in the catch basins is correlated with stormwater runoff and generally limited to periods during and following precipitation events. Public street catch basins and drainage area catch basins within Carlsbad are maintained by the Storm Drain Maintenance Department (City of Carlsbad 2023b). Stormwater ultimately runs off to downstream wetlands, creeks, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. d. Electric Power
Electric Power Supply
State
In 2021, California’s in-state electricity generation totaled 277,764 gigawatt-hours (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2023a). Primary fuel sources for the state’s electricity generation in 2021 included natural gas, hydroelectric, solar photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, and solar thermal. According to the 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California’s electric grid relies increasingly on clean sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity, and biomass. In addition, 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 (EIA 2022).
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) provide electric power to Carlsbad. SDG&E’s service area spans San Diego County and Orange County. SDG&E serves approximately 3.7 million customers with approximately 1.5 million electric meters. SDG&E has a service area of approximately 4,100 square miles (SDG&E 2022a).
Electric Power Demand
As shown in Table 4.14-4, communitywide development in San Diego County (the smallest scale at which electricity consumption data is readily available) consumed approximately 19,765 gigawatt- hours in 2021, which was approximately seven percent of statewide electricity consumption (CEC 2021a). In comparison, the population of San Diego County is approximately eight percent of Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5
California’s population (California Department of Finance 2023). Therefore, per capita electricity consumption in San Diego County is lower than the statewide average.
Table 4.14-4 2021 Electricity Consumption
Energy Type
San Diego County
(GWh)
San Diego Gas
and Electric
(GWh)
California
(GWh)
Proportion of San
Diego Gas and
Electric
Consumption1
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption1
Electricity 19,765 17,560 277,764 >100% 7.1%
GWH = gigawatt-hours
1 For reference, the population of San Diego County (3,269,755 persons) is approximately 8.4 percent of the population of California (39,078,674 persons) (California Department of Finance 2023).
Source: CEC 2021a
e. Natural Gas
Natural Gas Supply
State
California’s natural gas consumption for 2021 was approximately 11.9 billion British thermal units (Btu; CEC 2021b). The state relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (CEC 2023b). The CEC estimates that approximately 45 percent of the natural gas burned across the state is used for electricity generation, and the remainder is consumed in the residential (21 percent), industrial (25 percent), and commercial (9 percent) sectors (CEC 2023b).
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
SDG&E also provides natural gas to Carlsbad. SDG&E has approximately 900,000 natural gas meters.
Natural Gas Demand
As shown in Table 4.14-5, communitywide development in San Diego County (the smallest scale at which gas consumption data is readily available) consumed approximately 523 million US therms in 2021, which was 100 percent of natural gas consumption by SDG&E customers (CEC 2021b). The majority of natural gas uses are for residential and commercial purposes. Currently, California imports 87 percent of natural gas needs from out of state, while in-state natural gas production is decreasing.
Table 4.14-5 2021 Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type
San Diego County
(millions of US
therms)
San Diego Gas and
Electric
(millions of US therms)
California
(billions of US
therms)
Proportion of San Diego Gas
and Electric Consumption1
Natural Gas 523 523 11.9 100%
1 For reference, the population of San Diego County (3,269,755 persons) is approximately 8.4 percent of the population of California (39,078,674 persons) (California Department of Finance 2023).
Source: CEC 2021b
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-6
f. Telecommunications
In California, approximately 98 percent of households have access to telecommunication infrastructure, including telephone and cable access (California Cable & Telecommunications Association 2021). Numerous private local, wireless, and cellular phone service providers serve the city.
g. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Republic Services provides solid collection and disposal services in Carlsbad. Most solid waste in Carlsbad is transported to the Republic Services Palomar Transfer Station. The transfer station is located at 5960 El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad. The transfer station accepts construction/demolition, industrial, mixed municipal, and green material waste from the surrounding cities (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2019a).
Carlsbad diverts approximately 61 percent of the solid waste generated within its jurisdiction from landfills through recycling and composting. Solid waste that is not diverted from Carlsbad is hauled to two landfills in San Diego County. The majority (approximately 98 percent) of the solid waste is sent to the Otay Landfill. The other 2 percent is sent to Sycamore Landfill.
According to its Solid Waste Facility Permit, the total capacity of the Palomar Transfer Station is 2,733 tons per day, and the maximum permitted daily throughput is 2,250 tons. In addition, the Otay Landfill has a permitted daily capacity of 6,700 tons but is receiving approximately 5,000 tons daily. The Otay Landfill had a remaining capacity of 21 million cubic yards as of May 2016. Based on the remaining capacity and disposal rates, the Otay Landfill is expected to close in 2030 (CalRecycle 2019b). The Sycamore Landfill has a maximum permitted daily throughput of 5,000 tons. The Sycamore Landfill had a remaining capacity of 113 million cubic yards as of 2016. Based on the remaining capacity and disposal rates, the Sycamore Landfill is expected to close in 2042 (CalRecycle 2019c).
The city promotes solid waste reduction through numerous diversion programs aimed at reducing the amount of solid waste going to landfills. These programs include residential and commercial site pickup, business/government source reduction, greenwaste reduction, backyard and on-site composting/mulching, electronic disposal, recycling, economic incentives, and educational programs.
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Water
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act, enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since, is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States and forms the basis for several State and local laws throughout the country. The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act gave the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to implement federal pollution control programs, such as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry contaminants in surface water, establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry categories, Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7
and imposing requirements for controlling nonpoint-source pollution. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act is administered by the USEPA and the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). At the state and regional levels in California, the act is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates public water systems (PWSs) that supply drinking water (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 300(f) et seq.; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 141 et seq.). The principal objective of the federal SDWA is to ensure that water from the tap is potable (safe and satisfactory for drinking, cooking, and hygiene). The main components of the federal SDWA are to:
Ensure that water from the tap is potable
Prevent contamination of groundwater aquifers that are the main source of drinking water for a community
Regulate the discharge of wastes into underground injection wells pursuant to the Underground Injection Control program (see 40 CFR Section 144)
Regulate distribution systems
State
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) amended California Water Code to require detailed analysis of water supply availability for certain types of development projects. This law requires cities and counties to develop water supply assessments (WSA) when considering approval of applicable development projects in order to determine whether projected water supplies can meet the project’s anticipated water demand. Projects requiring the preparation of a WSA include the following:
Residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units Shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space
Commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space
Hotels or motels with more than 500 rooms
Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plants, or industrial parks planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area
Mixed-use projects that include one or more of the projects listed above Projects that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project
A General Plan update is not subject to preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) because (1) it is not expressly listed as a project which is subject to a WSA under Water Code Section 10912; (2) General Plan law sets forth an alternative process for local governments to consult with water supply agencies during General Plan preparation (see Government Code Section 65352.5); and (3) the California Legislature envisioned the General Plan being considered during preparation of long- City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-8
term Urban Water Management Plan preparation, to serve as the first tier of land use and water supply planning coordination, prior to consideration of individual development projects.
Furthermore, the County of San Bernardino Superior Court rules in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chino (2011) that a “General Plan is not the type of actual development project identified in Water Code 10912 triggering the WSA requirement.” Therefore, the proposed project does not require preparation of a WSA pursuant to SB 610. Nevertheless, water supply availability is assessed under Impact UTIL-2.
Senate Bill 221
Whereas SB 610 requires a written assessment of water supply availability, SB 221 requires lead agencies to obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply prior to approval of certain specified subdivision projects. For this purpose, water suppliers may rely on an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) if the proposed project is accounted for within the UWMP, a WSA or other acceptable information that constitutes “substantial evidence.” “Sufficient water supply” is defined in SB 221 as the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years within the 20-year (or greater) projection period that are available to meet the projected demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. WSAs are required for residential projects of more than 500 units or a proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. Because the proposed project is not a subdivision project, it does not require affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. Nevertheless, water supply availability is assessed under Impact UTIL-2.
California Safe Drinking Water Act
The California SDWA (Health & Safety Code Section 116270 et seq.; 22 Cal. Code Regs. Section 64400 et seq.) regulates drinking water more rigorously than the federal law. Like the federal SDWA, California requires that primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) be established for pollutants in drinking water; however, some California MCLs are more protective of health. The California SDWA also requires the SWRCB to issue domestic water supply permits to public water systems.
The SWRCB enforces the federal and State SDWAs and regulates more than 7,500 PWSs across the state (implementation of the federal SDWA is delegated to the State of California.) The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water oversees the State’s comprehensive Drinking Water Program (DWP). The DWP is the agency authorized to issue PWS permits.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the governor signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires groundwater sustainability plans to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as defined by California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10933, prioritizations are assigned by DWR to each groundwater basin based on the overlying population, the current and projected rates of population growth, the number of public supply wells that draw from the basin, the total number of wells that draw from the basin, the irrigated acreage overlying the basin, the degree to which people overlying the basin rely on groundwater as their primary source of water, documented impacts on the groundwater within the Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9
basin (e.g., overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, water quality degradation), and any other relevant information (e.g., adverse impacts to local habitat and streamflows). Carlsbad is located within the semi-arid San Diego region, which experiences a slow rate of groundwater recharge by rainfall. The Batiquitos Lagoon Valley Groundwater Basin underlies Carlsbad. The basin is bounded on the northeast by impermeable crystalline rocks, on the west by Batiquitos Lagoon, and otherwise by semipermeable rocks on the La Jolla Formation.
Only high- and medium-priority groundwater basins are required by SGMA to form a groundwater sustainability agency and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan (or alternative). Low and very-low priority basins may adopt a groundwater sustainability plan (or alternative) but are not required to do so.
California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is referred to as the California Building Standards Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2022 Title 24 standards. The California Building Standards Code’s water conservation standards are outlined below.
Part 5 – California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code is codified in Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5. The Plumbing Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, plumbing materials, fixtures, water heaters, water supply and distribution, ventilation, and drainage. More specifically, Part 5, Chapter 4, contains provisions requiring the installation of low flow fixtures and toilets. Existing development will also be required to reduce its wastewater generation by retrofitting existing structures with water efficient fixtures (SB 407 [2009] Civil Code Sections 1101.1 et seq.).
Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2022 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (Tiers I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements. With regard to water conservation and stormwater drainage, the mandatory standards include water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, compliance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) for landscaping, and other indoor and outdoor water efficiency and conservation measures such as separate water submeters for subsystems and specific fixtures and fittings. The voluntary standards include stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures as well as 20 percent permeable paving for the Tier 1 standards and 30 percent permeable paving for the Tier II standards.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, enacted in 2006, required the DWR to update the MWELO. In 2009, the Office of Administrative Law approved the updated MWELO, which required a City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-10
retail water supplier or a county to adopt the provisions of the MWELO by January 1, 2010, or enact its own provisions equal to or more restrictive than the MWELO provisions. The MWELO is contained in Chapter 2.7 of the California Water Code.
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7 7 (2009)) State law (SB-X7 7) mandates the reduction of per capita water use and agricultural water use in throughout the State by 20 percent by 2020.
Executive Order B-40-17
On April 7, 2017, the governor issued Executive Order B-40-17, which lifts the drought emergency in California counties, except for Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne, where emergency drinking water projects continue to address diminished groundwater supplies. The executive order retains a prohibition on wasteful practices and advances measures to make conservation a way of life (State of California 2017). These wasteful practices include:
Hosing off sidewalks, driveways and other hardscapes; Washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off nozzle; Using non-recirculated water in a fountain or other decorative water feature; Watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff, or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and
Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians
Executive Order N-5-23
On March 24, 2023, the governor issued Executive Order N-5-23, which further rolls back numerous drought-related restrictions issued during the most recent drought in California. This order aims to:
End the voluntary 15% water conservation target, while continuing to encourage that Californians make conservation a way of life;
End the requirement that local water agencies implement level 2 of their drought contingency plans;
Maintain the ban on wasteful water uses, such as watering ornamental grass on commercial properties;
Preserve all current emergency orders focused on groundwater supply, where the effects of the multi-year drought continue to be devastating;
Maintain orders focused on specific watersheds that have not benefited as much from recent rains, including the Klamath River and Colorado River basins, which both remain in drought; Retain a state of emergency for all 58 counties to allow for drought response and recovery efforts to continue.
Local
City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan (Proposition E) The city adopted the Growth Management Plan (GMP) in July 1986 to address the concerns of rapid growth and its impacts on quality of life, which was ratified by voter approval of Proposition E in November 1986.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-11
The GMP requires adequate public facilities be provided concurrent with new growth. To ensure this, the GMP identifies performance standards for 11 public facilities – city administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer collection, and water distribution. The facility performance standards were based on the city’s residential dwelling unit capacity (existing and future units), which in 1986 was estimated to be 54,599 dwelling units.
Through Proposition E, voters limited the maximum number of dwelling units that can be constructed citywide to 54,599 units, spread out between the Northwest Quadrant (15,370 units), Northeast Quadrant (9,042 units), Southwest Quadrant (12,859 units), and Southeast Quadrant (17,328 units). Pursuant to Proposition E, the city cannot approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, subdivision map or other discretionary permit that could result in residential development that exceeds the dwelling unit limit in each quadrant. To increase the Proposition E dwelling unit limit in any city quadrant requires approval by Carlsbad voters (City of Carlsbad 2015).
However, 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 Resolution 2021-074 (City of Carlsbad 2023c). The city is currently developing a new approach to managing growth.
The GMP standard for water distribution services states that line capacity to meet demand as determined by the appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development. A minimum of 10-day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development.
Carlsbad General Plan
The current Carlsbad General Plan, adopted in 2015, lists several policies related to water supply and infrastructure in its Sustainability Element. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2015):
Policy 9-P.3 Develop and implement a water sub-metering ordinance for new multi-family rental and mixed-use buildings.
Policy 9-P.4 Utilize irrigation and landscape design measures for the municipal golf course (Crossings at Carlsbad) that will result in decreased water consumption.
Policy 9-P.5 Undertake measures to expand the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation and commercial and industrial process water. Encourage potential future customers identified in the latest Recycled Water Master Plan to retrofit their water systems to utilize recycled water as it becomes available and cost-effective to do so.
Policy 9-P.6 Promote the use of on-site gray water and rainwater collection systems through education, expedited permitting review, fee exemptions and other measures.
Policy 9-P.7 Investigate the feasibility of developing full-functioning groundwater and sub- groundwater systems in the San Luis Rey River Mission Groundwater Basin and Cannon Well Field within or near Rancho Carlsbad in order to reduce the city’s reliance on imported water.
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
The City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in September 2015 and amended in May 2020. The plan identified GHG emissions targets for the years 2020 and 2035; established a communitywide emissions inventory and forecasts; and included measures to reduce GHG City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-12
emissions in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, transportation, and water conservation (City of Carlsbad 2020). Through implementation of the existing CAP, the city surpassed its 2020 GHG reduction targets established by AB 32. The following 2020 CAP goals and measures would be applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2020):
Measure N: Reduce GHG Intensity of Water Utilities Supply Conveyance, Treatment, and Distribution.
Goal: Reduce the intensity of GHG emissions from water utilities (including water supply, wastewater, and recycle water) conveyance, treatment, and distribution by 8 percent by 2035.
The city is currently in the process of updating the CAP to better align with updated state targets and further pursue the community’s goal of promoting a sustainable environment. The updated CAP will include revisions to current GHG reduction measures, evaluation of existing GHG reduction targets and forecasts, and expanded implementation monitoring procedures.
Carlsbad Municipal Code
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 18.50 requires implementation of water conservation measures specifically for landscaping. These measures include clustering landscaping areas to maximize the efficiency of irrigation systems, eliminating the watering of impervious surfaces by irrigation systems, and installation of recycled water systems for irrigation purposes when recycled water is or can be made feasible available.
City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual
The City of Carlsbad adopted its Landscape Manual in February 2016 which outlines policies and requirements for landscaping and provides guidance for the implementation of CMC Chapter 18.50, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Policies within the Landscape Manual are related to sustainability, water conservation, planting, irrigation, streetscape, fire protection, and soil revegetation or erosion control (City of Carlsbad 2016).
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
The CMWD currently has water rules in effect, which include the following measures applicable to the project (City of Carlsbad 2023):
Irrigation is not allowed between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. unless using a drip or micro- irrigation system
Keep all irrigation water on your property. Runoff from irrigation is prohibited by the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Use recycled or non-drinking water for construction purposes when available.
Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan
The Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan was adopted on June 17, 2019, and provides a system evaluation and capacity assessment of the potable water system and recommends a capital improvement program to provide for continued reliable water service through buildout conditions, which are projected to occur by 2040 (CMWD 2019a).
Water is supplied to the CMWD through four separate Water Authority treated water turnouts. Two of the turnouts, Water Authority Connections No. 6 and No. 2, are direct connections to the Water Authority Second Aqueduct. Connection No. 6 supplies only the CMWD, and Connection No. 2 Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-13
supplies the Vallecitos Water District (VWD) and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) in addition to the CMWD. Water supply to the CMWD from Water Authority Connection No. 2 is delivered through a VWD transmission main. Connections No. 3 and No. 4 to the aqueduct system are on the Water Authority owned and operated Tri-Agency Pipeline (TAP), which is also supplied from the Water Authority Second Aqueduct. The TAP also serves the City of Oceanside and the Vista Irrigation District (VID) (CMWD 2019b). CMWD has connection capacity to the Water Authority aqueduct system that significantly exceeds its average day demand and maximum day delivery rates. This surplus capacity also provides operational flexibility to accommodate peaking and may allow for one or more of the connections to be off-line. Connection No. 2 has a capacity of 10 mgd, and an existing daily maximum delivery of 3.8 mgd; Connection No. 3 has a capacity of 13 mgd, and an existing daily maximum delivery of 7 mgd; Connection No. 4 has a capacity of 10 mgd, and an existing daily maximum delivery of 6.1 mgd; and Connection No. 6 has a capacity of 18 mgd, and an existing daily maximum delivery of 8.1 mgd (CMWD 2019a).
Using the baseline year of 2014, the existing water system demand for the Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan is approximately 16,860 AFY or 15.1 mgd. The Plan forecasts an annual average demand of 20,700 AFY or 18.5 mgd by the year 2040. As discussed in the Plan, the CMWD is well positioned to respond to and manage interruptions and shortages of imported water supplies.
CMWD is
required to deliver the maximum day demand (1.6 times the average) to the water system, which was determined to be 33,100 AFY (29.6 mgd). The available water supply from the future SDCWA connections are estimated to be 53 mgd. The projected demand of 32.4 mgd is significantly less than the supply capacity. In summary, the SDCWA Connections provide sufficient rated capacity to meet the build out maximum day demands of CMWD, as the SDCWA connections only need to operate at 60 percent of rated capacity (CMWD 2019a).
Carlsbad Recycled Water Master Plan Update
The Carlsbad Recycled Water Master Plan Update was adopted on July 15, 2019, as an update to the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. The Recycled Water Master Plan Update provides a system evaluation and capacity assessment of the recycled water system and recommends a capital improvement program to provide for continued reliable recycled water service through buildout conditions, which are projected to occur by 2040 (CMWD2019a).
Carlsbad’s service areas for recycled water do not coincide with the City’s municipal boundary. The potable and recycled water service areas are governed by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), a subsidiary district of the City of Carlsbad operating under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911. CMWD covers an area of 20,682 acres, approximately 32 square miles, and provides potable and recycled water supply to most of the City of Carlsbad. CMWD supplies potable water within its service area and currently receives 100 percent of its potable water supply from SDCWA.
The potable water distribution system consists of 450 miles of pipeline, 71 pressure regulating stations, three pump stations, eight storage tanks, and one reservoir.
CMWD supplies recycled
water through two recycled water distribution systems, which include 77 miles of pipeline, six pressure zones, three storage tanks, three booster pumping stations, three supply sources with pumping stations, and five pressure regulating stations. Land uses within the service area are primarily residential with a mix of agricultural, light industrial and commercial (CMWD 2019a).
CMWD receives recycled water from reclamation plants within the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) service area. CMWD receives recycled water from three reclamation plants: Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF), Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), and Gafner Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). CWRF has a permitted capacity of 7 mgd, Meadowlark WRF has a permitted capacity of 5 mgd, and the Gafner WRP has a permitted capacity of 1 mgd, for a total City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-14
capacity of 13 mgd. Using the baseline year of 2014, the recycled water system demand for the Recycled Water Master Plan Update is approximately 4,650 AFY or 4.1 mgd. Assuming a peaking factor of 1.7 for maximum month, required WRF supplies would be approximately 7 mgd. CMWD is currently operating at about two-thirds capacity of their potential recycled water supplies. CMWD has sufficient available supply capacities, under its current agreements and assuming CMWD continues to purchase up to 3 mgd from VWD, to reliably meet existing and future demands of the recycled water system (CMWD 2019b).
Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan Update
The Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan Update was adopted on July 10, 2019 as an update to the 2012 Sewer Master Plan. The Sewer Master Plan Update provides a system evaluation and capacity assessment of the wastewater collection system and recommends a capital improvement/replacement program to provide for continued reliable wastewater service through buildout conditions, which are projected to occur by 2040 (City of Carlsbad 2019).
Carlsbad currently operates and maintains approximately 265 miles of wastewater pipelines, including gravity flow collector pipelines, inverted siphons and City-owned interceptors.
Wastewater generated within the Carlsbad sewer service area (CSSA) is treated at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). The EWPCF provides full secondary treatment, sludge handling, and disposal through a deep ocean outfall. The treatment levels meet current State and Federal requirements for secondary treatment. The EWPCF is owned and operated by the EWA, a joint powers authority made up of six northern San Diego County agencies, including the City of Carlsbad.
The EWPCF has a treatment plant capacity of 40.5mgd (City of Carlsbad 2019).
The Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF) is located adjacent to the EWPCF site. Secondary effluent from the EWPCF is conveyed to the CWRF where it undergoes additional treatment to produce up to 7 mgd of disinfected tertiary recycled water. CWRF was designed and constructed in 2005 to produce up to 4.0 mgd, and its capacity was expanded to 7 mgd in 2016. The goals of the expansion were to increase filtration reliability, enhance operational flexibility, and improve stored recycled water quality (City of Carlsbad 2019).
As discussed in the Sewer Master Plan Update, the total buildout flow for the CSSA is projected to be 8.31 mgd which is approximately 33 percent higher than current flows. Four gravity mains were found to exceed capacity including Poinsettia Lane deficiencies, Harding Street deficiencies, Kelly Drive deficiencies, and Basswood Avenue deficiencies. All lift stations within the collection system satisfied the evaluation criteria of conveying peak wet weather flows with their firm capacity with the exception of the Poinsettia LS which experienced peak flows exceeding the station’s firm capacity, however there were no upstream spills, indicating that the upstream capacity was able to absorb the peak flows and convey wet weather flows without overflow. The Plan also found that the interagency interceptors had sufficient capacity to convey existing flows. Nonetheless, the CIP would result in system improvements to Carlsbad’s sewer system which would improve hydraulic capacity (City of Carlsbad 2019).
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
The Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan was adopted on July 3, 2008, and includes an assessment of existing PLDA facilities, identification of infrastructure deficiencies, and identification of additional PLDA facilities required to accommodate new stormwater runoff flows from future developments.
The City is divided into four major watersheds: the Buena Vista Creek Watershed, the Agua Hedionda Creek Watershed, the Encinas Creek Watershed, and the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-15
Three of the listed watersheds become lagoons that support a variety of flora and fauna prior to discharging to the Pacific Ocean. The Encinas Creek watershed is the only one among the four listed watersheds that discharges directly to the Pacific Ocean. The City is made up of four basins: Basin A, Basin B, Basin C, and Basin D. Basin A encompasses all areas in the City that drain into the Pacific Ocean via the Buena Vista Creek and the Buena Vista Lagoon; the Buena Vista Creek originates northeast of the City of Vista; Basin B includes the area of the City that drains to Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon; Basin C encompasses the area of Carlsbad that drains into Encinas Creek; and Basin D includes the part of the City that drains to Batiquitos Lagoon and its tributaries (City of Carlsbad 2008).
b. Wastewater
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act is described above in Water.
State
Standards for wastewater treatment plant effluent are established using State and federal water quality regulations. After treatment, wastewater effluent is either disposed of or reused as recycled water. The RWQCBs set the specific requirements for community and individual wastewater treatment and disposal and reuse facilities through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements, required for wastewater treatment facilities under the California Water Code Section 13260.
California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Sections 60301 through 60355 are used to regulate recycled wastewater and are administered by the RWQCBs. Title 22 contains effluent requirements for four levels of wastewater treatment, from un-disinfected secondary recycled water to disinfected tertiary recycled water. Higher levels of treatment have higher effluent standards, allowing for a greater number of uses under Title 22, including irrigation of freeway landscaping, pasture for milk animals, parks and playgrounds, and vineyards and orchards for disinfected tertiary recycled water.
Local
City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan (Proposition E) The GMP standard for wastewater treatment states that sewer plant capacity should be adequate for at least a five-year period. According to the FY 2021-22 GMP Report, the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility currently provides adequate capacity in excess of the performance standard.
Carlsbad’s FY 2021-22 annual daily average dry weather sewer flow was 5.72 mgd, representing 56 percent of the city’s 10.26 mgd capacity rights (City of Carlsbad 2023c).
Carlsbad General Plan
The current Carlsbad General Plan, adopted in 2015, lists some policies related to wastewater in its Sustainability Element. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2015):
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-16
Policy 9-P.5 Undertake measures to expand the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation and commercial and industrial process water. Encourage potential future customers identified in the latest Recycled Water Master Plan to retrofit their water systems to utilize recycled water as it becomes available and cost-effective to do so.
Policy 9.P-6 Promote the use of on-site gray water and rainwater collection systems through education, expedited permitting review, fee exemptions and other measures.
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
The following 2020 CAP goal and measure would be applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2020):
Measure N: Reduce GHG Intensity of Water Utilities Supply Conveyance, Treatment, and Distribution.
Goal: Reduce the intensity of GHG emissions from water utilities (including water supply, wastewater, and recycle water) conveyance, treatment, and distribution by 8 percent by 2035.
Carlsbad Municipal Code
The City of Carlsbad’s public sewer system is regulated by Chapter 13 of the city’s Municipal Code entitled Sewers. Chapter 13 requires the use of public sewers where connections are available with required permits, prohibits unsanitary deposits and sewer overflow, and includes general prohibitions.
c. Stormwater Drainage
Regulations and policies pertaining to stormwater drainage are discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
d. Electric Power and Natural Gas
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances.
Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the U.S. EPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-17
State
California Energy Commission
As the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency, the California Energy Commission (CEC) collaborates with State and federal agencies, utilities, and other stakeholders to develop and implement State energy policies. Since 1975, the CEC has been responsible for reducing the State’s electricity and natural gas demand, primarily by adopting new Building and Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards that have contributed to keeping California’s per capita electricity consumption relatively low. The CEC is also responsible for the certification and compliance of thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger, including all project-related facilities in California (CEC 2021b).
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates investor-owned electric and natural gas utilities operating in California. The energy work responsibilities of the CPUC are derived from the California State Constitution, specifically Article XII, Section 3 and other sections more generally, numerous State legislative enactments and various Federal statutory and administrative requirements. The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from SoCal Gas and other natural gas utilities across California (CPUC 2021a).
Energy Action Plan
In 2003, the CEC and CPUC set forth their energy policy vision in the Energy Action Plan. The CEC adopted an update to the Energy Action Plan in February 2008 (EAP II) that supplements the earlier Energy Action Plan and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
The nine major action areas in the Energy Action Plan include energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/ infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure, research/development/demonstration, and climate change (CPUC 2008b).
Bioenergy Action Plan (Executive Order S-06-06)
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO S-06-06 calls for the state to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies potential barriers and recommends actions to address them so the state can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the state Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-18
Senate Bill 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.
2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279.
The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve: significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).
California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Approved by former Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
California Energy Efficiency Action Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which covers issues, opportunities, and savings estimates related to energy efficiency in California’s building, industrial, and agricultural sectors. The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan focuses on three goals:
Doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030 (SB 350)
Removing and reducing barriers to energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities
Reducing GHG emissions from the building sector
The plan offers several recommendations to advance these goals, including expanding funding sources for energy efficiency programs beyond ratepayer portfolios, improving energy efficiency data, integrating energy efficiency into long-term utility planning, enhancing the energy efficiency workforce, improving demand flexibility, and expanding building decarbonization (CEC 2019).
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code’s standards related to energy use are outlined below.
P
ART 6 – BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS/ENERGY CODE CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-19
CEC. The 2022 Title 24 standards are the applicable building energy efficiency standards for the project because they became effective on January 1, 2023.
PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2022 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.
The mandatory standards require:
20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels; 1 Waste Reduction:
▫ Non-residential and multi -family dwellings with five or more units: Provide readily accessible areas identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastic, organic waste, and metals; and/or
▫ Non-residential: Reuse and/or recycling of 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation soils resulting from primary land clearing; Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particleboards;
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction:
2 ▫ One- and two-family dwellings and town houses with attached private garages: Dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging; ▫ Multi-family dwellings and hotels/motels with less than 20 units/rooms: Designation of at least 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable and at least 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV-ready; ▫ Multi-family dwellings and hotels/motels with greater than 20 units/rooms: Designation of at least 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable, at least 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV-ready, and at least 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with a Level 2 charging station; ▫ Non-residential land uses shall comply with the following EV charging requirements based on the number of passenger vehicle parking spaces:
- 0-9: no EV capable spaces or charging stations required;
1 Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water-reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms.
Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate. 2 EV Capable = a vehicle space with electrical panel space and load capacity to support a branch circuit and necessary raceways to support EV charging; EV-ready = a vehicle space which is provided with a branch circuit and any necessary raceways to accommodate EV charging stations, including a receptacle for future installation of a charger (see 2022 California Green Building Standard Code, Title 24 Part 11 for full explanation of mandatory measures, including exceptions).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-20
- 10-25: 4 EV capable spaces but no charging stations required; - 26-50: 8 EV capable spaces of which 2 must be equipped with charging stations; - 51-75: 13 EV capable spaces of which 3 must be equipped with charging stations; - 76-100: 17 EV capable spaces of which 4 must be equipped with charging stations; - 101-150: 25 EV capable spaces of which 6 must be equipped with charging stations; - 151-200: 35 EV capable spaces of which 9 must be equipped with charging stations; and
- More than 200: 20 percent of the total available parking spaces of which 25 percent must be equipped with charging stations;
▫ Non-residential land uses shall comply with the following EV charging requirements for medium- and heavy -duty vehicles: warehouses, grocery stores, and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces shall install EV supply and distribution equipment, spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for transformer(s), service panel(s), or subpanel(s) at the time of construction based on the number of off-street loading spaces as indicated in Table 5.106.5.4.1 of the California Green Building Standards; Bicycle Parking:
▫ Non-residential short -term bicycle parking for projects anticipated to generate visitor traffic: permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of visitor entrance for 5 percent of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces with a minimum of one 2 -bike capacity rack; and/or
▫ Non-residential buildings with tenant spaces of 10 or more employees/tenant-occupants:
secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of the employee/tenant -occupant vehicle parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility.
Shade Trees (Non-Residential):
▫ Surface parking: minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade over 50 percent of the parking within 15 years (unless parking area covered by appropriate shade structures and/or solar);
▫ Landscape areas: minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade of 20 percent of the landscape area within 15 years; and/or Hardscape areas: minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade of 20 percent of the landscape area within 15 years (unless covered by applicable shade structures and/or solar or the marked area is for organized sports activities).
The voluntary standards require:
Deconstruct existing buildings and reuse applicable salvaged materials; Residential – Cool Roofs: have a thermal mass over the roof membrane, including green roofs weighing a minimum of 25 pounds per square foot or roof areas covered by solar photovoltaic panels and building integrated solar thermal panels; Residential – Reduce nonroof heat island for 50 percent of sidewalks, patios, driveways or other paved areas;
One- and two-family dwelling units and townhouses with attached garages: install a dedicated 208/250-volt branch circuit for EV charging;
Residential Bicycle Parking:
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-21
▫ Surface parking: minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade over 50 percent of the parking within 15 years (unless parking area covered by appropriate shade structures and/or solar);
▫ Multi-family/hotel/motel short -term parking: provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of visitor’s entrance for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity (minimum one 2-bike capacity rack);
▫ Multi-family buildings long -term parking: provide acceptable on -site bicycle parking for at least one bicycle per every two dwelling units; and/or ▫ Hotel/motel long-term parking: provide one acceptable on-site bicycle parking space for every 25,000 square feet but not less than two spaces;
Tier I:
▫ Stricter energy efficiency requirements;
▫ Stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures; ▫ minimum 65 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, Minimum 10 percent recycled content for building materials; ▫ Minimum 20 percent permeable paving;
▫ Minimum 20 percent cement reduction;
▫ Multi-family developments/hotels/motels: minimum 35 percent of total parking spaces shall be EV ready and for projects with 20 or more dwelling units/rooms a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations.
Tier II:
▫ Stricter energy efficiency requirements,
▫ Stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures; ▫ Minimum 75 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, ▫ Minimum 15 percent recycled content for building materials; ▫ Minimum 30 percent permeable paving;
▫ Minimum 25 percent cement reduction; and/or
▫ Multi-family developments/hotels/motels: minimum 40 percent of total parking spaces shall be EV ready and for projects with 20 or more dwelling units/rooms, a minimum of 15 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations.
Local
City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan (Proposition E) The GMP standard for stormwater states that drainage facilities must be provided as required by the city concurrent with development. According to the FY 2021-22 GMP Report, all areas of the city met the GMP drainage standard, and the city would require appropriate drainage facilities as individual development plans are finalized and approved (City of Carlsbad 2023c).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-22
Carlsbad General Plan
The current Carlsbad General Plan, adopted in 2015, lists some policies related to electric power and gas in its Sustainability Element. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2015):
Policy 9-P.8 Promote energy conservation and retrofitting of existing buildings. Measures the city should consider for improving energy performance of existing buildings include, but are not limited to:
Developing and implementing point-of-sale residential energy and water efficiency audits or upgrade requirements and/or incentives if necessary; Providing financial incentives and low-cost financing products and programs that encourage investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy within existing residential buildings; and
Educating residents about the availability of free home energy audit programs and encourage implementation of audit findings.
Policy 9-P.12 Continue pursuit of sustainable energy sources—such as hydroelectricity, geothermal, solar, and wind power—to meet the community’s needs.
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
The following 2020 CAP goals and measures would be applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2020):
Measure N: Reduce GHG Intensity of Water Utilities Supply Conveyance, Treatment, and Distribution.
Goal: Reduce the intensity of GHG emissions from water utilities (including water supply, wastewater, and recycle water) conveyance, treatment, and distribution by 8 percent by 2035.
Measure O: Encourage the Installation of Greywater and Rainwater Collection Systems.
Goal: Encourage the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems with a goal of 15 percent of homes by 2035.
e. Telecommunications
State
The CPUC develops and implements policies for the telecommunication industry. The Communications Division is responsible for licensing, registration and the processing tariffs of local exchange carriers, competitive local carriers, and non-dominant interexchange carriers. It is also responsible for registration of wireless service providers and franchising of video service providers.
The Communications Division tracks compliance with commission decisions and monitors consumer protection and service issues and Commission reliability standards for safe and adequate service.
The Communications Division is responsible for oversight and implementation of the six public purpose Universal Service Programs (CPUC 2021b).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-23
f. Solid Waste
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
40 CFR Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D) contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria.
State
Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (Public Resources Code 41780) requires cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare source reduction and recycling elements as part of the integrated waste management plans. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing, and stimulate the purchase of recycled products. In 2019, the City’s solid waste diversion rate was 51.3 percent, which meets the requirement of AB 939 Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bill 1383
The purpose of AB 341 of 2011 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.
In addition, SB 1383 of 2016 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) established the following goals: a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025. This bill also authorized CalRecycle to adopt regulations, to take effect on or after January 1, 2022, to achieve these targets.
Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826 of 2014 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) requires businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, and for jurisdictions to implement a recycling program to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law, as well as report to CalRecycle on their progress in implementing an organic waste recycling program. As of 2020, businesses that generate two cubic yards or more of organic waste per week must engage in one of the following:
Source separate organic waste from other waste and participate in a waste recycling service that includes collection and recycling of organic waste Recycle organic waste on-site, or self-haul organic waste off-site for recycling Subscribe to an organic waste recycling service that may include mixed waste processing that specifically recycles organic waste
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-24
Senate Bill 1016
SB 1016 of 2007 (Chapter 343, Statutes of 2007) requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan. After an initial determination of diversion requirements in 2006 and establishing diversion rates for subsequent calendar years, the Board reviews a jurisdiction’s diversion rate compliance in accordance with a specified schedule. As of January 1, 2018, the Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years.
Local
Carlsbad General Plan
The current Carlsbad General Plan, adopted in 2015, lists some policies related to solid waste in its Sustainability Element. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (City of Carlsbad 2015):
Policy 9-P.9 Adopt a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance that requires, except in unusual circumstances, all construction, demolition and renovation projects meeting a certain size or dollar value, to divert from landfills 100 percent of all Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete and an average of at least 50 percent of all remaining non-hazardous debris from construction, demolition, and renovation projects.
Carlsbad Municipal Code
The city’s Municipal Code Chapter 6.8 outlines policies and regulations regarding solid waste receptacles and disposal services.
4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance were developed based on the CEQA Guidelines, specifically, Appendix G. The project would have a significant impact with respect to utilities and service systems if it would:
1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
2. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
4. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; and/or
5. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-25
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2015 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to utilities and service systems were less than significant and General Plan implementation would not cause substantial environmental effects to utilities and service systems (Section 3.12, Public Utilities and Infrastructure: 3.12-27 through 3.12- 45). All developments must comply with 2015 General Plan requirements, including development service impact fees for residential development that help pay for storm water, utilities, and other public infrastructure improvement projects. The General Plan incorporates policies and implementation programs for minimizing future utilities and service system impacts.
The proposed project involves development on sites beyond what was anticipated in the 2015 General Plan EIR and could therefore result in new impacts related to utilities and service systems.
Therefore, all the CEQA checklist items listed above under Methodology and Significance Thresholds are addressed in this analysis.
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Some components associated with the proposed project, including updates to the Local Coastal Plan, Public Safety Element, and Master and Specific Plans for consistency between the city’s planning documents, in and of themselves would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts to utilities and service systems would occur. Therefore, this analysis focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the rezone program which would facilitate the development of 18 rezone sites listed in Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description.
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact UTIL-1 SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR,
DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROJECT MAY REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED
WATER, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. HOWEVER, SUCH RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS BEYOND THOSE ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN THIS SEIR. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Water
Carlsbad is served by existing CMWD potable water facilities, with the exception of Site 19 which is served by OMWD potable water facilities. Development facilitated by the project may require installation of additional water mains and appurtenances, increasing the size of existing mains, lateral connections, and hydrants at the individual rezone sites. Future development on the rezone sites would be reviewed by the city’s Public Works Department, who would determine what upgrades would be needed based on specific project designs. Future projects would be required to complete improvements as determined by Public Works staff. Facility improvements would be installed during individual project construction and mostly 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 proposed project’s disturbance area or otherwise cause significant environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this SEIR.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-26
As described below under Impact UTIL-2, development facilitated by the project would be served by existing and planned CMWD and OMWD supplies, which are not anticipated to require major CMWD or OMWD treatment facility improvements. Additionally, as discussed in the Carlsbad Potable Water Master Plan, projected water demand is significantly less than the supply capacity, and the CMWD as well as OMWD would have sufficient capacity to accommodate an increase in population (CMWD 2019b; OMWD 2021).
Furthermore, as found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, development would be subject to 2015 General Plan policies 9-P.3 through 9-P.6, which would reduce impacts to water services and facilities by promoting water saving measures such as water sub-metering, using recycled water for landscape irrigation, and using on-site gray water and rainwater collection systems. Therefore, although development on the rezone sites may involve some infrastructure upgrades, overall, the proposed project will 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 this SEIR would occur. Impacts related to water would be less than significant.
Recycled Water
The CMWD also produces and sells recycled water. Recycled Water is used for irrigation and this reduces the amount of drinking water that is used. The recycled water is produced by CMWD at the Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). CMWD purchases additional recycled water from VWD’s Meadowlark Water Recycling Facility. According to the 2020 UWMP, by the year 2040, the CMWD would supply 4,218 AFY of recycled water, and have a demand of 4,218 AFY of recycled water (CMWD 2021). Additionally, as discussed in the Carlsbad Recycled Water Master Plan Update, the CMWD has sufficient available supply capacities to reliably meet existing and future demands of the recycled water system (CMWD 2019a). Irrigation demands for future development facilitated by the proposed project and located adjacent to recycled water distribution mains would be accommodated by recycled water.
Wastewater
Carlsbad is served by existing city wastewater conveyance facilities, including local sewer collection lines and trunk sewer lines. Development facilitated by the project may require increasing the size of existing facilities, installation of additional sewer mains, and new lateral connections on or adjacent to the rezone sites. Future development on the rezone sites would be reviewed by the city’s Public Works Department, who would determine what upgrades would be needed. Future projects would be required to complete improvements as determined by Public Works staff. As with water facilities, sewer line extensions necessary to serve the future development would generally be installed within the already disturbed rights-of-way of existing roads or within the disturbance footprints of such projects. As such, 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 this SEIR.
The project would result in an increase in wastewater generation relative to existing conditions.
Wastewater generated by future development would be treated at the Encina Wastewater Authority in Carlsbad, which has a design treatment capacity of 40.5 mgd, and a remaining available capacity of 17.5 mgd. Based on a wastewater generation rate of 200 gallons per equivalent dwelling unit per day (City of Carlsbad 2023a), development under the project would generate a gross increase of approximately 659,000 gallons, or 0.66 mgd, average daily flow of wastewater (200 gallons per residential unit per day x 3,295 units). This analysis conservatively assumes all project- Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-27
generated wastewater would be new wastewater generation and does not account for wastewater generation associated with existing development that would be demolished to accommodate new residential units.
Table 4.14-6 summarizes the available capacity at the Encina Wastewater Authority and the percentage used by anticipated project wastewater generation based on average daily flow conditions. As shown therein, the project’s gross increase in wastewater generation would comprise approximately 4 percent of the Encina Wastewater Authority’s remaining available wastewater treatment capacity.
3 Even during peak flow conditions, where wastewater generation associated with development on the rezone sites could be up to 1.7 mgd (based on calculations from the City’s Public Works Department), this could be accommodated within the 17.5 mgd of remaining available capacity.
Table 4.14-6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Encina Wastewater Authority
Average Daily Treatment 23 MGD
Total Capacity1 40.5 MGD
Remaining Available Capacity 17.5 MGD
Project Wastewater Generation - Average Flow2 0.7 MGD
Percent of Remaining Available Capacity Used by Project – Average Flow 4% mgd = million gallons per day
1 The current design treatment capacity of the Encina Wastewater Authority is 40.5 mgd. 2 Reasonably foreseeable development under the project would generate a net increase in average daily flow of approximately 659,000 gallons, or 0.7 mgd (200 gallons per residential unit per day x 3295 units).
Sources: Encina Wastewater Authority 2021
Therefore, the Encina Wastewater Authority would have adequate capacity to serve development under the project. In addition, development would be responsible for constructing on and offsite improvements to wastewater conveyance systems and paying standard sewer connection fees, as necessary. Individual developments would be required to prepare site specific sewer studies to reflect actual development conditions which would be reviewed by the city and the applicable wastewater providers to determine if sufficient sewer capacity exists to serve the additional population that would be generated by the future projects. The city will continue to coordinate with the wastewater districts to ensure that new development, when proposed, would not exceed the capacity of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, and that new development would pay development fees to increase capacity of those facilities. Furthermore, as was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, development would be subject to 2015 General Plan policies related to the provision of adequate wastewater services and facilities. Therefore, although the project may involve some infrastructure improvements to serve individual rezone sites, the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities such that significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this SEIR would occur.
Impacts to wastewater would be less than significant.
3 0.4 mgd / 17.5 mgd x 100 = 4percent
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-28
Stormwater Drainage
Development under the project would potentially require new or modified stormwater drainage facilities for the rezone sites due to the introduction of new impervious surfaces. Specific development under the proposed project would primarily consist of infill development and development near transportation corridors. As with water and wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater drainage infrastructure necessary to serve future development would generally be installed within the already disturbed rights-of-way of existing roads or within the disturbance footprints of such projects. As such, 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 this SEIR.
In addition, as described in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, development at the 18 sites facilitated by the project would adhere to existing regulatory requirements that instruct stormwater management, including management of rainfall at the source by infiltrating stormwater as close to the source as practicable. Per NPDES requirements, post-construction peak runoff must be maintained at or below pre-project levels. In addition, applicable regulations apply that would limit pollutant discharges, including sediment and silt, from development under the project. The CMC requires BMPs to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects as a requirement of the Municipal Stormwater Permit. The CMC also sets forth requirements and BMPs pertaining to the mitigation of erosion, sediment control and runoff as outlined in CMC Chapter 15.12 and Chapter 15.16. The city incorporates such requirements in any land use entitlement and construction or building-related permit to be issued relative to such development or redevelopment. Furthermore, the city’s LID ordinance in Chapter 15.12.080 aims to specifically reduce the amount of surface runoff and aid in groundwater recharge through techniques such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and additional uses in accordance with the requirements set forth in the MS4 permit and the LID standards manual.
As was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, compliance with policies 4-P.57, 4-P.58, and 4-P.64 of the General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element would further reduce impacts.
Policy 4-P.57 would require compliance with the city’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and preparation and implementation of applicable plans such as a Water Quality Improvement Plan, Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, or Load Reduction Plan; Policy 4-P.58 would require incorporation of structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate or reduce pollutant loads, and prohibit post-development runoff that would cause an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives that has not been reduced to the maximum extent possible; and Policy 4-P.64 would require the preservation of natural watercourses or providence of naturalized drainage channels within the city. Given compliance with the above regulations and requirements, the 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
Electric Power and Natural Gas
Carlsbad is served by existing SDG&E transmission and distribution facilities for electricity and natural gas. Development facilitated by the project may require installation of additional electrical and natural gas connections. Such facilities would be installed during individual project construction and within the disturbance area of such projects or the rights-of-way of previously disturbed Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-29
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 this SEIR. Specific development under the project would primarily consist of infill development and development near transportation nodes; therefore, major upgrades to transmission lines and other facilities are not anticipated. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
Telecommunications
No major telecommunications improvements are expected to be required to accommodate development facilitated by the project. Future development projects may require minor telecommunications improvements, such as undergrounding or extensions of telephone lines. Such improvements would be minor in nature and would generally occur within the disturbance area of individual projects. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this SEIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A NET INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND. HOWEVER, THIS INCREASE IN DEMAND CAN BE SERVED BY PROJECTED AND REASONABLY AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLIES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project would generate both construction-related and operational water demand. The following subsections include discussions of both sources of water demand.
Construction Demand
Water would be required for temporary construction activities at the rezone sites, including dust suppression, grading and grubbing, compaction, construction equipment wheel washing, and concrete mixing and casting. Water consumption by construction workers and cleaning of portable toilets on individual project sites may also account for a small portion of overall construction water demand.
Watering for dust suppression would demand the most water during construction. Demolition, site preparation, and grading are the activities anticipated to result in the greatest dust generation and, therefore, the greatest construction-related water demand. Water demand for dust suppression is highly dependent on a number of site-specific variables, including soil properties, antecedent moisture conditions, and other climatic factors. CMWD provides non-potable water for use as dust suppression during construction activities; therefore, the actual demand on potable water supplies City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-30
would be even lower than estimated. Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand, impacts related to construction water consumption would be less than significant.
Operational Demand
Development under the project would result in increased demand for potable water supplies for drinking; use by appliances and fixtures including toilets, showers, bathtubs, sinks, washing machines, and dishwashers; and landscape irrigation. Based on the CalEEMod land use-based water demand factors, development would generate a water demand of approximately 317,160 gallons per day (gpd), or 355 AFY). This analysis conservatively assumes all project-generated water demand would be new water demand and does not account for water demand associated with existing development that would be demolished or replaced to accommodate new residential units.
As discussed in Section 4.14.1, Water Sources, Supply, Demand, and Distribution, the CMWD, VWD, and the OMWD have water supply availability for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios from 2025 through 2045, as outlined in their 2020 UWMPs. For all years and all scenarios, the CMWD, VWD, and OMWD anticipate meeting forecast demand, but do not anticipate any excess supply. Therefore, the analysis of water supply availability focuses on whether or not the project is consistent with the water demand projections contained in the 2020 UWMPs.
The CMWD’s 2020 UWMP projects future residential water demand through 2045. As shown in Table 4.14-1, the CMWD projects that water supply and demand will increase by approximately 1,743 AFY between 2025 and 2045. The proposed project would increase demand in the city by an estimated 355 AFY, or approximately a 1.5 percent increase from the 2030 CMWD service area demand estimate of 22,409 AFY as shown in Table 4.14-3. As discussed above, CMWD does not anticipate any excess supply, therefore, the current water supplies could potentially be insufficient to meet demand for the project. According to the CMWD 2020 UWMP, the CMWD service area had a 2015 per person drinking water demand target of 233 gallons per person per day (GPCD), and a 2020 target of 207 GPCD. In 2020, the CMWD reported a drinking water demand of 135 GPCD, which met and was significantly lower than the 2020 target of 207 GPCD. Based on the increase of approximately 1.5 percent from the projected 2030 water demand in the CMWD’s 2020 UWMP, estimated GPCD with implementation of the project would be 203 GPCD, which would still be below the targeted 207 GPCD (CMWD 2021).
4 Similarly, according to the VWD 2020 UWMP, the VWD
service area had a 2020 per person drinking water demand target of 159 GPCD, and reported an actual 2020 drinking water demand of 125 GPCD (VWD 2021); and according to the OMWD 2020 UWMP, the OMWD service area had a 2020 per person drinking water demand target of 282 GPCD, and reported an actual 2020 drinking water demand of 206 GPCD (OMWD 2021). Therefore, the CMWD, VWD, and OMWD are all within and below their 2020 per capita drinking water demand targets and the proposed project would not significantly increase the GPCD such that the targets are exceeded.
Since CWMD’s local desalinated seawater supply and recycled water supplies would remain steady in all rainfall scenarios, changes in demands would change how much water CMWD purchases from SDCWA. In the rare case that the SDCWA was not able to supply as much water to CMWD, CMWD would know in advance and would implement water saving measures from the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The CMWD also has two ordinances in place to help manage demands during potential water shortages. Ordinance No. 44 (Drought Response Plan and Water Conservation Program) is CMWD’s Drought Ordinance, which creates CMWD’s drought response
4 135 GPCD x 1.5 percent = 203 GPCD
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-31
levels and water saving steps that are enacted for each level. The higher the response level, the greater water saving measures will be enforced. Ordinance No. 46 (Water Schedules) is an amendment to CMWD’s Drought Ordinance, and revised Drought Response Levels 2 and 3 to allow for increased flexibility for CMWD in starting water limits during these drought levels. The CMWD also works with SDCWA on multiple water saving efforts, including but not limited to, rain barrel rebates and discounts, smart irrigation devices rebates, a grass replacement program, and landscape education (CMWD 2021). Similarly, VWD has prepared a WSCP and adopted Ordinances No. 162 and No. 195 to establish implementation of regulations during times of declared water shortages or emergencies to conserve water. The VWD’s WSCP contains a mix of shortage response actions such as prohibitions on end use, consumption reduction methods, supply augmentation, and operational change measures (VWD 2021). The OMWD has also prepared a WSCP under Ordinance No. 489 which would provide for progressively severe stages of water use restrictions necessary to accomplish service area-wide water use reductions of up to and over 50 percent (OMWD 2021).
Further, compliance with the water conservation regulations and policies would help to maintain sufficient supplies. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) requires a 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use that would lower potential water demand. New development would be subject to the CCR concerning water-efficient landscapes (Division 2, Title 23, CCR, Chapter 2.7, Sections 490 through 495). Implementation of the WELO would encourage water conservation for new development and in landscaped areas. Moreover, as was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, future development would be subject to 2015 General Plan policies 9-P.3 through 9-P.6, which would reduce impacts to water services and facilities by promoting water saving measures such as water sub-metering, using recycled water for landscape irrigation, and using on-site gray water and rainwater collection systems.
The respective water districts would incorporate the increased population and housing forecasts from the project into their future water supply planning efforts, such as future updates to the UWMP, to account for the increased water demand. Therefore, with compliance with existing State and local regulations aimed at water conservation, as well as CMWD, VWD, and OMWD WSCPs and ordinances, water supplies would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in demand for the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact UTIL-3 SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR,
WASTEWATER GENERATED BY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROJECT WOULD BE TREATED AT THE ENCINA WASTEWATER AUTHORITY IN CARLSBAD. THE PLANT WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE
ANTICIPATED WASTEWATER GENERATION IN ADDITION TO ITS EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMMITMENTS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed under Impact UTIL-1, project-generated wastewater during average flow conditions would be adequately served by available capacity at the Encina Wastewater Authority in Carlsbad.
Wastewater generated by the development under the project would account for approximately City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-32
4.6 percent of the remaining available capacity at the plant, which has approximately 17.5 MGD of remaining available treatment capacity. In addition, there would be capacity during peak flow conditions. As such, the Encina Wastewater Authority would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-4 SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE 2015 GENERAL PLAN EIR,
DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL
STANDARDS, OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE REPUBLIC SERVICES PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION
GOALS, AND DEVELOPMENT WOULD COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND APPLICABLE LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As described in Section 4.14.1(g), Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, solid waste generated in Carlsbad is collected by Republic Services, and most solid waste is transported to the Republic Services Palomar Transfer Station, the Otay Landfill and the Sycamore Landfill for disposal (CalRecycle 2019a). The Otay Landfill currently has an estimated closure date of 2030; however, it has a remaining capacity of 21 million cubic yards. Approximately 98 percent of solid waste is disposed at the Otay Landfill while only about 2 percent is disposed at the Sycamore Landfill.
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that solid waste generated by development under the project would be disposed of at the Otay Landfill. An average of 5,000 tons of waste is deposited in the landfill daily; therefore, the average daily surplus is 1,700 tons per day (CalRecycle 2019b).
Construction
Demolition of existing development on several proposed housing sites and potential soil export would result in the generation of construction/demolition debris that would need to be disposed of at area landfills. Because the proposed housing sites consist of primarily infill sites with existing structures that would be redeveloped or on sites that have been graded, development under the project is not anticipated to result in major export of soil. Nevertheless, grading activities may result in export of some soil from individual project construction sites. The Otay Landfill accepts construction/demolition waste; therefore, it is likely that exported soil would be disposed of at this location. Grading activities associated with the project would not occur all at once, but rather would be spread across multiple projects implemented over the planning horizon of the project.
Furthermore, exported soil could be transported to other area landfills that accept soil and construction debris San Diego County to further reduce impacts at any single solid waste disposal facility, or used beneficially as landfill cover or imported fill material at other construction sites.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-33
Therefore, disposal of soils from grading of the individual project sites would not exceed the capacity of local solid waste disposal facilities.
In addition, as was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, the handling of all debris and waste generated during construction of development under the project would be subject to 2022 CALGreen requirements and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requirements for salvaging, recycling, and reuse of materials from construction activity. For example, pursuant to the CALGreen, future development projects would be required to recycle at least 65 percent of non-hazardous construction debris. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generated during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
According to CalEEMod outputs, development under the project would generate a net increase of approximately 2,199 tons of solid waste annually, or approximately 6.1 tons per day. Based on this information, the solid waste generation of development would account for approximately 0.4 percent of the Otay Landfill’s average daily surplus throughput of 1,700 tons per day.5 Given this small proportion of permitted throughput, the solid waste generated by operation of development under the project would be adequately accommodated by existing landfills.
For operational waste, in accordance with California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid wastes from landfills.
Additionally, pursuant to AB 341, all businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week including multi-family dwelling that consists of five units or more would be required to divert 75 percent of all solid wastes.
As was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, development under the project would be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939 and AB 341, as well as 2015 General Plan Policy 9-P.9. Therefore, because development would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity and would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 General Plan EIR, impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
d. Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative utilities and service systems impacts is the CMWD, VWD, OMWD, and SDG&E service areas. This geographic scope is appropriate for utilities and service systems because utility impacts are localized in the service area where the impact occurs.
Extensions of Utility Facilities – Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Impacts related to the extension of water supply, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to development are typically generated in the immediate vicinity of a project. Although several development sites would require off-site improvements to water and wastewater facilities, the impacts of the improvements would be analyzed on a project-by-project
5 6.1 tpd / 1,700 tpd * 100 = 0.4 percent
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-34
basis, would mostly be within project footprints and existing rights-of-way, or areas that are already disturbed such that new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in this SEIR would not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the rezone sites would also be reviewed by the Public Works Department and are expected to largely involve minor upgrades to existing infrastructure in places where infrastructure already is present. Therefore, cumulative impacts of development related to extensions of water supply, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to individual projects sites are already addressed under UTIL-1. As discussed therein, cumulative impacts of extensions of utility facilities to individual project sites would be less than significant.
Water Supply
Cumulative development in the CMWD, VWD, and OMWD service area would increase demand for water supplies and infrastructure. The project-level impact analysis contained under Impact UTIL-2 is cumulative in nature because it addresses the significance of water demand associated with development under the project in terms of whether this demand is accounted for in the water districts’ 2020 UWMPs, which are plans that address cumulative impacts to water supply. The water districts project that future water supplies will meet cumulative water demand in normal, dry-year, and multiple-dry year scenarios, but do not anticipate any excess supply. As discussed under Impact UTIL-2, the respective 2020 UWMPs include guidelines that future development would be subject to during water shortages. Future development would also be required to comply with State and local regulations regarding water saving. Therefore, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Cumulative development in the city’s Wastewater Division service area would increase demand for wastewater, collection, treatment and discharge beyond existing conditions. New and expanded wastewater treatment facilities may result in environmental effects; however, because the location or scale of such future facilities cannot be known at this time, the evaluation of such facilities would be speculative. New or expanded facilities that may result from cumulative growth would require their own environmental analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. At that time, any associated environmental effects would be disclosed and evaluated, and any required mitigation to reduce identified effects would be required through that process. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to wastewater collection and treatment would be less than significant.
Electric Power and Natural Gas
As discussed under Section 4.14.1(d), Electric Power Supply and Demand, electricity demand in the SDG&E service area is projected to decrease annually through 2030 in the mid-energy demand/mid- Additional Achievable Energy Efficiency scenario, which will place additional demands on existing electricity generation facilities (CEC 2021c). Although development under the project would be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, which would minimize energy usage, development would increase electricity demand in comparison to existing conditions and would contribute to the cumulative regional increase in electricity demand. However, as discussed in its Integrated Resource Plan, the SDG&E has existing plans in place to solicit additional long-term renewable contracts, including conventional and long-duration storage technologies (SDG&E 2022b). New and expanded electric power facilities and infrastructure may result in environmental effects; however, since the location or scale of such future facilities cannot be known at this time, Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-35
the evaluation of such facilities would be speculative. New or expanded facilities that may result from cumulative development would require their own environmental analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. At that time, any associated environmental effects would be disclosed and evaluated, and any required mitigation to reduce identified effects would be required through that process. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electric power would be less than significant.
As discussed under Section 4.14.1(e), Natural Gas Supply and Demand, natural gas demand in the SDG&E service area is projected to decline at a rate of 0.6 percent per year between 2020 and 2035 primarily due to increasing energy efficiency, modest economic growth, increasing building decarbonization, and statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity generation sector, even when accounting for moderate growth in the adoption of natural gas vehicles (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2020). Therefore, given that cumulative demand for natural gas is anticipated to decline, new or expanded natural gas facilities would not be required, and no cumulative impact related to natural gas would occur.
Solid Waste
Cumulative development in the wasteshed of the Otay Landfill would increase the amount of solid waste generation beyond existing conditions. As stated in Section 4.14.1(g), Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, the total capacity of the Otay Landfill is 61.1 million cubic yards, and the maximum permitted daily throughput is 6,700 tons. An average of 5,000 tons of waste is deposited in the landfill daily; therefore, the average daily surplus is 1,700 tons per day, which means approximately 25 percent of the maximum permitted daily throughput is available (CalRecycle 2019b). Given the current built-out nature of the wasteshed and topographical and open space restrictions on much of the remaining vacant land, it is unlikely that cumulative development would double existing development such that the average daily surplus in maximum permitted daily throughput would be exceeded. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact related to the maximum permitted daily throughput at the Otay Landfill.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.14-36
This page intentionally left blank
Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1
4.15 Wildfire
This section analyzes impacts related to wildfires in Carlsbad. Wildfire was added as a separate section with new issues questions into CEQA in December 2018. Wildfire impacts were discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials, Airport Safety, and Wildfire, in the 2015 General Plan EIR.
4.15.1 Setting
a. Physical Setting
Wildfires
In California, responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression is shared by federal, state and local agencies. Federal agencies are responsible for federal lands in Federal Responsibility Areas.
California has determined that some non-federal lands in unincorporated areas with watershed value are of statewide interest and have classified those lands as State Responsibility Areas (SRA), which are managed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). All incorporated areas and other unincorporated lands are classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).
While all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather and other relevant factors (Public Resources Code [PRC] 4201-4204 and California Government Code 51175-89). Factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition and atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE has identified two types of wildfire risk areas: 1) Wildland Areas That May Contain Substantial Forest Fire Risks and Hazards and 2) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Each hazard area carries with it code requirements to mitigate the severity of wildfires. Under state regulations, areas within very high fire hazard severity zones must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas.
In Carlsbad, there are fire hazards as indicated in the applicable Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for the region. There are Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the LRA along the eastern and southern borders of the city (CAL FIRE 2007)
1. Figure 4.15-1 displays the Fire Hazard Severity Zones for the city. There are no lands in a SRA in Carlsbad.
1 CAL FIRE released new Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRAs map on November 21, 2022; however, the 2022 map is not adopted as of May 2023 nor does it include maps of LRAs. Further, CAL FIRE indicates that Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRAs around Carlsbad have not changed between 2007 and 2022. Therefore, for the purposes of analysis in this EIR, the 2007 map will be considered.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-2
Figure 4.15-1 Carlsbad Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas
Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3
Wildfire-conducive Conditions
Because of substantial open space areas and associated vegetation and wildlife habitats throughout the State, California is subject to fire hazards. Grassland or other vegetation in California is easily ignited, particularly in dry seasons. Wildfire is a serious hazard in high dry fuel load areas, particularly near areas of natural vegetation and steep slopes, since fires tend to burn more rapidly on steeper terrain. Wildfire is also a serious hazard in areas of high wind, given that fires will travel faster and farther geographically when winds are higher. Furthermore, wildfire is more likely in areas where electric power lines are located above ground and could ignite vegetation with which the power lines come into contact. Wildfire could also spread in areas with fuel lines (i.e., pipes carrying flammable fuels), which could fail (whether due to earthquake or error) and ignite a fire.
Extreme wildfire events are expected to increase in frequency with the effects of increased global temperature, although changes in specific fire-prone areas are difficult to predict with any certainty (United States Forest Service 2023).
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has recognized that although high-density structure-to-structure loss can occur, structures in areas with low- to intermediate-density housing were most likely to burn, potentially due to intermingling with wildland vegetation or difficulty of firefighter access (OPR 2020). In general, increasing density decreases the risk of wildfire. The risk of loss of human life, property, natural resources, or economic assets from wildfire is highest at the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), areas of urban development located adjacent to or even within wildland areas. Development that has spread into less densely populated, often hilly areas has increased the number of people living in heavily-vegetated areas that are prone to wildfire. Today approximately one-third of houses in California are within the WUI area (OPR 2020). It is important to note that there are varying definitions of what constitutes a WUI, and some local or regional agencies consider some areas to be WUI that are not defined as Wildland Interface or Intermix zones under the Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); these standards are discussed under Regulatory Setting below.
Approximately half of Carlsbad, mostly in the eastern and interior portions, is considered Wildland Urban Intermix, Interface, or Influence Zone on CAL FIRE’s WUI map, as shown in Figure 4.15-2 (CAL FIRE 2019). Wildland Urban Interface is dense housing adjacent to vegetation that can burn in a wildfire; Wildland Urban Intermix is housing development interspersed in an area dominated by wildland vegetation subject to wildfire; Wildfire Influence Zone is wildfire susceptible vegetation up to 1.5 miles from Wildland Urban Interface or Wildland Urban Intermix (CAL FIRE 2019).
In addition to stripping the land of vegetation and destroying forest resources, large, intense fires can harm the soil, waterways, and the land itself. Soil exposed to intense heat may lose its capability to absorb moisture and support life. Exposed soils erode quickly and enhance siltation of rivers and streams, thereby enhancing flood potential, harming aquatic life, and degrading water quality.
Lands stripped of vegetation are also subject to increased debris flow hazards. Slope instability from wildfire scarring of the landscape can result in slope instability in the form of more intensive flooding and landslides. Such post-fire slope soils and altered drainage patterns can result in soil creep on downslope sides of foundations and reduce lateral support.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-4
Figure 4.15-2 Wildland Urban Interface
S
upplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5
Wild
fire
Vegetation
Vegetation is fuel to a wildfire, and it changes over time with seasonal growth and die-back. The relationship between vegetation and wildfire is complex, but generally some vegetation is naturally fire resistant, while other vegetation is extremely flammable. S ome plant types in California
landscapes are fire resistant, while others are fire-dependent for their seed germination cycles.
Wildfire behavior depends on the type of fuels present, such as ladder fuels, surface fuels, and aerial fuels. S
urface fuels include grasses, logs, and stumps low to the ground. Ladder fuels, s uch as tall
shrubs, young trees, and the lowest branches of mature trees, p rovide a path for fire to climb
upward into the crowns of trees. A
erial fuels include u
pper li
mbs, foliage, and branches not in
contact with the ground. Ample spacing in between tree crowns and trimming of lower branches close to the ground is effective at preventing fire from either igniting the crown of a tree or spreading from an ignited tree to adjacent trees; conversely, closely packed trees with low branches are especially susceptible to crown ignition and spread (CAL FIRE 2023). W eather and climate
conditions, including drought cycles, can lead to dry vegetation with low moisture content, increasing its flammability.
Changes in precipitation patterns and increased temperatures associated with climate change will
alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation and associated moisture content of plants and soils. An increase in frequency of extreme h
eat events and drought are also expected. These
changes will lead to increased frequency and intensity of large wildfires.
Slope and Aspect
According to CAL FIRE, sloping land increases susceptibility to wildfire because fire typically burns faster up s
teep slopes, and they may hinder firefighting efforts. Following severe wildfires, sloping land is also more susceptible to landslide or flooding from increased runoff during substantial precipitation events. Aspect is the direction that a slope faces, and it determines how much radiated heat the slope will receive from the sun. Slopes facing south to southwest will receive the most solar radiation and are warmer and drier than slopes facing a northerly to northeasterly direction, increasing the potential f
or wildfire ignition and spread (
CAL FIRE 2023).
Weather and Atmospheric Conditions
Wind, temperature, and relative humidity are the most influential weather elements in fire behavior and susceptibility (
CAL FIRE 2023). Fire moves faster under hot, dry, and windy conditions. Wind may also blow embers ahead of a fire, causing its spread. Drought conditions lead to extended periods of excessively dry vegetation, increasing the fuel load and ignition potential.
Most precipitation is received from October through April, with an average annual rainfall of 1
1.39 inches f
rom 1991 t
o 2020 (
National Weather Service 2
023). May through September is the driest
time of the year and coincides with what has traditionally been considered the fire season in California. However, increasingly persistent drought and climatic changes in California have resulted in drier winters, and fires during the autumn, winter, and spring months are becoming more common.
Fuel and Energy Lines
Electric power lines mostly occur in urban areas a
nd along roadways. E
lectric power, natural gas,
and petroleum lines pose a risk of causing fire in the event of failure (whether due to earthquake or City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-6
error). Natural gas poses a lower risk of causing a fire than petroleum products, because it is transported at lower pressures and, when released, rises and dissipates into the atmosphere (United States Department of Energy 2023).
Emergency and Evacuation Routes/Access
The city’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) defines the scope of the city’s emergency preparedness and incident response activities. In general, the EOP establishes emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff and service elements utilizing the Standardized Emergency Management System, published by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the National Incident Management System, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The EOP identifies the city’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the location from which centralized emergency management would be performed during a major emergency or disaster, including receiving and disseminating information, maintaining contact with other EOCs, and providing instructions to the public through the City of Carlsbad’s website, reverse-911 systems, social media including “sdemergency” mobile application, traditional media, public outreach and the EOC hotline, when activated. All City of Carlsbad employees are disaster service workers, and employees across multiple city departments are trained EOC responders and emergency shelter workers. Additionally, Carlsbad’s Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is made up of City of Carlsbad disaster volunteers and may be activated to support the Office of Emergency Management and/or (EOC) during an emergency.
Evacuation routes out of Carlsbad during a wildfire would be dependent on the location of the wildfire. Evacuation would likely occur utilizing Interstate 5 or El Camino Real to travel north or south of the city.
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provided a new set of mitigation plan requirements that encourage state and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. States are encouraged to complete a “Standard” or an “Enhanced” Natural Mitigation Plan. “Enhanced” plans demonstrate increased coordination of mitigation activities at the state level and, if completed and approved, increase the amount of funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) complies with this act.
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000, following a historic wildfire season. Its intent is to establish plans for active response to severe wildfires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability.
Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7
b. State
The California Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The most recent version of the Plan was finalized in August 2018, and directs each CAL FIRE Unit to revise and update its locally-specific Fire Management Plan (CAL FIRE 2018). These plans assess the fire situation within each of the 21 CAL FIRE units and six contract counties. The plans address wildfire protection areas, initial attack success, assets and infrastructure at risk, pre-fire management strategies, and accountability within their geographical boundaries.
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services prepares the SHMP, which identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy. The SHMP is required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the State to receive federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance.
California Code of Regulations Title 24 (California Building Code) Updated every three years through a rigorous stakeholder process, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires California homes and businesses to meet strong fire and safety measures. Title 24 contains numerous subparts, including Part 1 (Administrative Code), Part 2 (Building Code), Part 3 (Electrical Code), Part 4 (Mechanical Code), Part 5 (Plumbing Code), Part 6 (Energy Code), Part 8 (Historical Building Code), Part 9 (Fire Code), Part 10 (Existing Building Code), Part 11 (Green Building Standards Code), Part 12 (Referenced Standards Code). The California Building Code (CBC) is applicable to all development in California. (Health and Safety Code §§ 17950 and 18938(b).) The regulations receive input from members of industry, as well as the public, with the goal of "[r]educing of wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy." (Pub. Res.
Code § 25402.) These regulations are scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (Pub. Res. Code § 25402(d)) and cost effectiveness (Pub. Res. Code § 25402(b)(2) and (b)(3)).
Part 2 – California Building Code: Fire Safety Requirements The State of California provided a minimum standard for building design through the 2022 CBC, which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The 2022 CBC is based on the 2021 International Building Code, but has been modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all new high-rise buildings and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building material; and particular types of construction.
Part 2 – California Building Code: Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards On September 20, 2005, the Building Standards Commission approved the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s emergency regulations amending the CCR Title 24, Part 2, known as the 2007 CBC. These codes include provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards in the WUI.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-8
Interface zones are areas with dense housing adjacent to vegetation that can burn and meeting the following criteria:
Housing density class 2 (one house per 20 acres to one house per 5 acres), 3 (more than one house per 5 acres to one house per acre), or 4 (more than one house per acre) In Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Not dominated by wildland vegetation (i.e., lifeform not herbaceous, hardwood, conifer, or shrub)
Spatially contiguous groups of 30-meter cells2 that are 10 acres and larger Intermix zones are housing development interspersed in an area dominated by wildland vegetation and must meet the following criteria:
Not interface
Housing density class 2
Housing density class 3 or 4, dominated by wildland vegetation In Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Improved parcels only
Spatially contiguous groups of 30-meter cells 25 acres and larger Influence zones have wildfire-susceptible vegetation up to 1.5 miles from an interface zone or intermix zone (CAL FIRE 2019).
While the 2007 CBC creates WUI definitions for interface, intermix and influence zones in order to apply required construction standards, many local and regional entities use their own definitions of WUI areas for other purposes, ranging from simple resident awareness and public outreach to further municipal-level standards.
Part 9 – California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code is Part 9 of CCR Title 24. It establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structure, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. It is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The California Fire Code regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The California Fire Code and the CBC use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the California Fire Code employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The provisions of this Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California.
2 “30-meter cells” refers to satellite mapping or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, and indicates data is presented as 30-meter by 30-meter squares in the source maps used to determine zone types.
Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-9
More specifically, the Fire Code is included in CCR Title 24. Title 24, part 9, Chapter 7 addresses fire- resistances-rated construction; CBC (Part 2), Chapter 7A addresses materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure; Fire Code Chapter 8 addresses fire related Interior finishes; Fire Code Chapter 9 addresses fire protection systems; and Fire Code Chapter 10 addresses fire related means of egress, including fire apparatus access road width requirements. Fire Code Section 4906 also contains existing regulations for vegetation and fuel management to maintain clearances around structures. These requirements establish minimum standards to protect buildings located in FHSZs within SRAs and WUI Fire Areas. This code includes provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards for new buildings.
California Code of Regulations Title 14 – Fire Safe Roads The Board of Forestry maintains fire safe road regulations, as part of CCR Title 14. This includes requirements for road width, surface treatments, grade, radius, turnarounds, turnouts, structures, driveways, and gate entrances. These regulations are intended to ensure safe access for emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation.
California Assembly Bill 747 and Senate Bill 99
California Assembly Bill (AB) 747 (2019) requires that the safety element be reviewed and updated to identify emergency evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. This will be a requirement for all safety elements or updates to hazard mitigation plans completed after January of 2022.
California Senate Bill (SB) 99 (2019) requires review and update of the safety element to include information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. In essence, this legislation assists in identifying neighborhoods and households within a hazard area that have limited accessibility. This is intended to assist the city with identifying opportunities to improve connectivity and evacuation capacity (generally). The entire City of Carlsbad is subject to one or more hazards.
California Emergency Plan
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a Statewide mutual aid system, which is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with a given situation.
The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (California Government Code Sections 8555–8561) requires signatories to the agreement to prepare operational plans to use within their jurisdiction, and outside their area. These plans include fire and non-fire emergencies related to natural, technological, and war contingencies. The State of California, all State agencies, all political subdivisions, and all fire districts signed this agreement in 1950.
Section 8568 of the California Government Code, the “California Emergency Services Act,” states that “the State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political subdivision of the State, and the governing body of each political subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out the provisions thereof.” The Act provides the basic authorities for conducting emergency operations following the proclamations of emergencies by the Governor or appropriate local authority, such as a City Manager. The provisions of the Act are reflected and expanded on by appropriate local emergency ordinances. The Act further describes the function and operations of government at all levels during extraordinary emergencies, including war.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-10
All local emergency plans are extensions of the California Emergency Plan. The State Emergency Plan conforms to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is the system required by Government Code 8607(a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination. Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under State disaster assistance programs. The SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary, including: field response, local government, operational area, regional, and State. CalOES divides the State into several mutual aid regions. Carlsbad is in mutual aid region VI.
California Senate Bill 1241
California SB 1241 requires cities and counties to address fire risk in SRAs and Very High FHSZs in the safety element of their general plans. The bill also amended CEQA to direct amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G environmental checklist to include questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects located in or near lands classified as SRAs and Very High FHSZs. In adopting these Guidelines amendments, OPR recognized that generally, low-density, leapfrog development may create higher wildfire risks than high-density, infill development.3 California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code (PRC) includes fire safety regulations that restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on construction equipment that use an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas. These regulations include the following: Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (PRC § 4442);
Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger period—from April 1 to December 1 (PRC § 4428);
On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the construction contractor would maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment (PRC § 4427); and On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (PRC § 4431).
California Public Utilities Commission General Order 166 General Order 166 Standard 1.E requires that investor-owned utilities (IOU) develop a Fire Prevention Plan which describes measures that the electric utility will implement to mitigate the threat of power-line fires generally. Additionally, this standard requires that IOUs outline a plan to mitigate power line fires when wind conditions exceed the structural design standards of the line during a Red Flag Warning in a high fire threat area. Fire Prevention Plans created by IOUs are required to identify specific parts of the utility’s service territory where the conditions described
3 “Leapfrog development” describes the construction of new development at a distance from existing developed areas, with undeveloped land between the existing and new development.
Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-11
above may occur simultaneously. Standard 11 requires that utilities report annually to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regarding compliance with General Order 166 (CPUC 2017). c. Regional and Local
Carlsbad General Plan
The current Carlsbad General Plan, adopted in 2015, lists several policies related to wildfire in the Public Safety Element. The existing Public Safety Element policies would be replaced by the updated Public Safety Element policies as part of this project; therefore, policies from the 2015 General Plan that are being removed as part of the Public Safety Element Update are not listed below. Proposed policies of the updated Safety Element are included in Section 4.7.3, Impact Analysis. A Land Use and Community Design Element goal listed below would apply (City of Carlsbad 2015):
Goal 2-G.21 Ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided in a timely manner to preserve the quality of life of residents.
City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual
Carlsbad published the latest version of the Landscape Manual in February 2016 to aid applicants, qualified professionals, and residents, in understanding the City’s policies, programs and requirements for landscaping, and to provide guidance for implementation of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50 - Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). The City’s WELO implements the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act to reduce water use associated with irrigation of outdoor landscaping by setting a maximum amount of water to be applied to landscaping and by designing, installing and maintaining water efficient landscapes not to exceed the maximum water allowance. The Landscape Manual is relevant for wildfire prevention since it is designed for consistency with policies regarding fire protection and slope erosion control (City of Carlsbad 2016).
San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan
The San Diego County EOP describes a comprehensive emergency management system which provides for a planned response to disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, terrorism and nuclear-related incidents. It delineates operational concepts relating to various emergency situations, identifies components of the Emergency Management Organization, and describes the overall responsibilities for protecting life and property and assuring the overall wellbeing of the population. The plan also identifies the sources of outside support which might be provided (through mutual aid and specific statutory authorities) by other jurisdictions, state and federal agencies and the private sector. Annex B addresses emergency operations related to wildfire (San Diego County 2022).
San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) was prepared to comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to increase disaster planning funding. It is intended to educate the public, help serve as a decision-making tool, supplement and enhance local policies regarding disaster planning, and improve multi-jurisdiction coordination. Topics related to wildfire are addressed in the MJHMP. The San Diego County OES is responsible for coordinating with local jurisdictions and participating agencies to monitor, evaluate, and update the MJHMP as necessary.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-12
The MJHMP identifies goals for hazard mitigation in Carlsbad and various actions are outlined in the MJHMP to assist the city in reaching this goal (San Diego County 2018).
4.15.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Significance Thresholds
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, potentially significant impacts to wildfire would result if the project, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
In addition, pursuant to Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a potentially significant impact would occur if the proposed project would:
1) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
The EIR prepared for the previous General Plan did not address wildfire impacts in an individual section, as this issue area was added to the CEQA Checklist as a standalone resource as part of the December 2018 CEQA Guidelines update. However, wildfire and evacuation was addressed in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the EIR for the 2015 General Plan.
Methodology
Cal FIRE Hazard Severity Maps were consulted in determining Carlsbad’ proximity to SRAs or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Impacts related to wildfire hazards and risks were evaluated using FHSZ mapping for Carlsbad, aerial imagery, and topographic mapping. Additionally, weather patterns related to prevailing winds and precipitation trends were evaluated as they relate to the spread and magnitude of wildfire. It was assessed whether the proposed project would risk exacerbating those existing environmental conditions or causing new direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to other aspects of the environment.
California Attorney General Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act restates the CEQA requirement that an EIR analyze “any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected,” including by locating development in wildfire risk areas. As such, this evaluation assesses whether projects located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-13
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose people or structures to significant risks during or post wildfire event; require the installation of emergency-related infrastructure; or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
In addition, pursuant to California Attorney General Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act, this evaluation assesses whether projects located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
b. Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2015 General Plan EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant for interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and risk from wildland fire in lands adjacent to urbanized or residential areas (Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Airport Safety, and Wildfires: 3.6-27 through 3.6-37). It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to standards for wildfire safety.
The proposed project involves land use changes to encourage development on the 18 rezone sites beyond what was anticipated in the 2015 General Plan EIR and could therefore result in new impacts related to wildfire. Therefore, all the CEQA checklist items listed above under Methodology and Significance Thresholds are addressed in this analysis. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Some components associated with the project, including updates to the Local Coastal Plan and master and specific plans for consistency between the city’s planning documents, in and of themselves would not result in physical changes to the environment such that impacts to wildfire would occur. Therefore, this analysis focuses on impacts associated with implementation of the rezone program which would facilitate the development of 18 rezone sites listed in Table 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description. Where appropriate, updates to the Public Safety Element are discussed and analyzed, including new or revised policies or programs that address wildfire or emergency response/access or evacuation.
Threshold 1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact WF-1 SIMILAR TO THE DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN 2015 GENERAL PLAN, DEVELOPMENT
FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL POPULATION AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED IN THE CITY. THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN CHANGES TO EMERGENCY EVACUATION ROUTES OR COULD INCREASE ROADWAY CONGESTION SUCH THAT THE USE OF AN EVACUATION ROUTE WOULD BE HINDERED. HOWEVER, IMPACTS WOULD REMAIN LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
San Diego County implements the San Diego County EOP, which addresses the response to emergency incidents associated with emergencies affecting San Diego County, including Carlsbad.
The County EOP establishes the emergency management organization for emergency response, establishes operational concepts associated with emergency management, and provides a flexible platform for planning emergency response in the County. Consistent with the County EOP purpose to provide a system for effective management of emergency situations, development facilitated by City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-14
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. As such, implementation of emergency response and evacuation procedures may not be affected as a result of development facilitated by the project.
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, including Interstate 5, would be hindered.
Development facilitated by the project would accommodate future population growth and would increase vehicle miles traveled in the city by approximately two percent by 2035 (see Appendix E).
This slight increase could lead to increased roadway congestion during emergency evacuations.
However, the city would review and approve projects citywide, specifically development on the 18 rezone sites, to ensure that emergency access meets city standards. Development facilitated by the project would also comply with road standards and would be reviewed by the City of Carlsbad Fire Department to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes and would not impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans.
Additionally, as was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, policies from the Public Safety Element would further reduce impacts related to emergency response. Policies listed below from the updated Public Safety Element would reduce impacts by improving emergency and evacuation preparedness:
Policy 6-P.70 Implement and maintain the City of Carlsbad Emergency Operations Plan, the Multi- jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), and other relevant emergency plans, policies, and procedures.
Policy 6-P.71 Promote public awareness of potential natural and man-made hazards, measures that can be taken to protect lives and property.
Policy 6-P.72 Inform the public and contractors of the danger involved and the necessary precautions that must be taken when working on or near pipelines or utility transmission lines.
Policy 6-P.73 Ensure all new development complies with all applicable regulations regarding the provision of public utilities and facilities.
Policy 6-P.74 Maintain roadways that are likely to function as key evacuation routes.
Policy 6-P.75 Provide resources to City of Carlsbad staff regarding appropriate emergency preparedness and response activities as well as designed roles and responsibilities as Disaster Service Workers. Conduct routine trainings for all-hazards emergency preparedness and response.
Policy 6-P.76 Facilitate restriction of parking, construction permits or right-of-way encroachment permits on high fire days in neighborhoods in and near fire hazard zones and along critical evacuation routes.
Policy 6-P.78 Develop and maintain emergency evacuation capabilities in conjunction with regional partners and regional plans such as the San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan.
Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-15
Policy 6-P.79 Continue to communicate to the public on essential resources and procedures through a variety of communication tools and in multiple languages on topics including:
Education on the California Standard Statewide Evacuation Terminology. Emergency evacuation checklists for residents.
Creation and education of the public on evacuation maps. Available transportation services.
Evacuation shelter and support service options.
The Public Safety Element includes an update to evacuation routes, in compliance with AB 747 and SB 99. Pursuant to SB 99, the city identifies residential developments with fewer than two routes that can be used for emergency evacuation in the Public Safety Element. As illustrated in Figure 6-13 of the proposed Public Safety Element Update, there are six neighborhoods located throughout the city that are within or adjacent to wildfire hazard zones that lack more than one access routes for evacuation. Sites 4 and 19 are within one of these neighborhoods. However, all neighborhoods have points of ingress/egress outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. As stated in the Public Safety Element Update, the City of Carlsbad has emergency operations plans and mutual aid agreements with other responsive agencies that can, to a large extent, utilize the roadway network effectively through operational changes to maximize existing capacity in the most effective manner.
Further, Policies 6-P.70 through 6-P.79 as well as proposed Policies 6-P.66 and 6-P-67 listed below in the Public Safety Element Update would reduce impacts associated with emergency evacuation for sites with fewer than two access routes.
Policy 6-P.66 Provide fire hazard education and fire prevention programs to Carlsbad residents and businesses with targeted outreach to vulnerable populations and occupants of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones neighborhoods and/or single access neighborhoods.
Policy 6-P.67 Prioritize engagement with single access neighborhoods to encourage home retrofits to meet current standards on structure hardening and road standards, proactively enforce defensible space standards, and conduct emergency preparedness trainings.
Overall, because the County EOP would address emergency response and emergency evacuation, compliance with California Fire Code would occur (i.e., adequate emergency vehicle access and maneuverability), and new Public Safety Element policies would reduce impacts, the proposed project’s impacts related to impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant, as concluded in the 2015 General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 General Plan EIR, this impact would be less than significant without mitigation.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-16
Threshold 2: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Threshold 3: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Threshold 4: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Threshold 5: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Impact WF-2 CARLSBAD IS LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL RESPONSIBLY AREA VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE AND ADJACENT TO A STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE.
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES, CODES AND REGULATIONS WOULD REDUCE THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH FROM WILDFIRE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT. THIS IMPACT WOULD REMAIN LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Carlsbad contains some steep terrain and is located near open space areas in the easternmost portion. Carlsbad is located adjacent to an SRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and in a LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The LRAs, as shown in Figure 4.15-1, are mostly in the eastern and less developed area of the city. 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.
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. 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; this 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.
Additionally, as was found in the 2015 General Plan EIR, policies in the Public Safety Element and Goal 2-G.21 of the Land Use and Community Design Element would further reduce impacts of wildfire. Policies listed below from the Public Safety Element Update would be updated under the proposed project and were designed to account for California Attorney General Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-17
Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, implementation of these updated policies would help to reduce impacts.
Policy 6-P.48 Enforce the most current California Building and Fire codes, adopted by the city, to provide fire protection standards for all existing and proposed structures.
Policy 6-P.50 Coordinate with Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, and Vallecitos Water District to ensure that water pressure for existing developed areas is adequate for firefighting purposes during the season and time of day when domestic water demand on a water system is at its peak.
Policy 6-P.51 Permit development only within areas that have adequate water resources available, to include water pressure, onsite water storage, or fire flows.
Policy 6-P.52 Maintain and implement Wildland/Urban Interface Guidelines for new and existing development within neighborhoods that are proximal to existing fire hazard severity zones. Decrease the extent and amount of edge or wildland urban interface where development is adjacent to fire hazard severity zones.
Policy 6-P.53 Use strategies, such as community organization volunteer partnerships and environmentally friendly fuel reduction and weed abatement approaches, as prevention measures to minimize the risk of fires. Engage in fire hazard reduction projects, including community fire breaks and private road and public road clearance.
Policy 6-P.54 To increase resistance of structures to heat, flames, and embers, review current building code standards and other applicable statutes, regulations, requirements, and guidelines regarding construction, and specifically the use and maintenance of non-flammable materials (both residential and commercial). Promote the use of building materials and installation techniques beyond current building code requirements, to minimize wildfire impacts as well as fire protection plans for all development.
Policy 6-P.55 In planned developments that may occupy the wildland urban interface, High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, increase resilience during a potential wildfire evacuation through:
Enforcing visible address numbers painted on sidewalks enforced through the city.
Applying special construction features found in California Building Code Chapter 7A for developments in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones & High Fire Hazard Severity Zones areas.
Developing and/or adapting multiple language accessible materials for how to prepare your family and home for an evacuation and go kit. Identifying and preparing at risk and vulnerable populations that may need assistance to evacuate.
Maintaining critical evacuation routes, community fire breaks, emergency vehicle access.
Requiring adequate access (ingress, egress) to new development, including safe access for emergency response vehicles
Identification of anticipated water supply for structural fire suppression.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-18
Developing fuel modification plans for all new developments.
Policy 6-P.56 Evaluate soils and waterways for risks from flooding, water quality, and erosion to ensure that they are suitable to support redevelopment following a large fire.
Policy 6-P.57 In the event of a large fire, evaluate re-development within the impacted fire zone to conform to best practice wildfire mitigation.
Policy 6-P.58 Coordinate with telecommunication service entities and the San Diego County Communication Department to fire-harden communications.
Policy 6-P.59 Limit new development along steep slopes and amidst rugged terrain to limit rapid fire spread and increase accessibility for firefighting.
Policy 6-P.60 Develop and implement density management strategies that cluster residential developments and minimize low-density exurban development patterns to reduce amounts of flammable vegetation and collective exposure to wildfire risk. When feasible and practicable, require new residential development to be located outside of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Should new residential development be located in VHFHSZ’s, then require that it be built to the current California Building Code and Fire Code.
Policy 6-P.61 When feasible, site new residential developments and critical facilities outside of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Protect and harden critical facilities from natural hazards and minimize interruption of essential infrastructure, utilities, and services.
Policy 6-P.62 Site structures to maximize low-flammability landscape features to buffer against wildfire spread.
Policy 6-P.63 Require that new development have adequate fire protection, including proximity to adequate emergency services, adequate provisions for fire flow and emergency vehicle access and fire hardened communication, including high speed internet service.
Policy 6-P.64 Ensure that the Carlsbad Fire Department has complete access to all locations in the City, including gated residential communities and critical infrastructure.
Policy 6-P.65 Coordinate with San Diego Gas & Electric to implement an electrical undergrounding plan with a focus on critical evacuation roadways and areas with highest wildfire risk.
Policy 6-P.66 Provide fire hazard education and fire prevention programs to Carlsbad residents and businesses with targeted outreach to vulnerable populations and occupants of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones neighborhoods and/or single access neighborhoods.
Policy 6-P.67 Prioritize engagement with single access neighborhoods to encourage home retrofits to meet current standards on structure hardening and road standards, proactively enforce defensible space standards, and conduct emergency preparedness trainings.
Policy 6-P.68 Continue to maintain and update the city’s Water Master Plan to identify and secure resources to meet future fire suppression needs and require future Wildfire
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-19
development to provide the water system improvements necessary to meet their demands.
Policy 6-P.69 Continue to maintain/contribute to updates to the Urban Area Security Strategy and the MJHMP to identify and prepare for future emergency service needs. For fire preparedness, continue to prepare a Standards of Coverage study to evaluate risks and prepare recommendations to mitigate those risks.
Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, discusses the Urban Water Management Plan for San Diego County Water Authority and determined that there are sufficient water supplies to accommodate the anticipated population growth throughout their service area (including Carlsbad) through 2045. In addition, Carlsbad is located in urbanized parts of the San Diego County Water Authority service area. As discussed under Impact UTIL-2, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In compliance with the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the CBC, development facilitated by the project would follow standards for fire safety such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location, and distribution criteria. Further, as discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, under Impact UTIL-1, major upgrades to electric power or natural gas and telecommunications transmission lines and other facilities are not anticipated; therefore, installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure with development facilitated by the project would not exacerbate fire risk.
Impacts related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be reduced by compliance with the CBC and CMC, as well as applicable General Plan policies, as discussed and outlined under Impact GEO-2 in Section
4.5, Geology and Soils. Other impacts related to wildfire that would result from specific project development characteristics would be considered when the city reviews those specific development proposals.
While development facilitated by the project could be prone to and exacerbate wildfires, including impacts resulting from downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes, compliance with the CBC, CMC, and Public Safety Element policies outlined above would reduce impacts. These policies would make structures more fire resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire as well as reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire. Therefore, the project’s impact related to wildfire exposure and exacerbation risk would be less than significant, similar to the conclusion under the 2015 General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because, like under the 2015 General Plan EIR, this impact would be less than significant without mitigation.
d. Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative wildfire impacts is all of the city and adjacent areas. This geographic scope is appropriate for wildfire because wildfires can cause impacts to large areas.
Adjacent development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes buildout of General Plans for cities on Carlsbad’s border, including Oceanside, Encinitas, Vista, and San Marcos.
As discussed in this impact analysis, projects carried out under the project may increase the potential for wildfire, but implementation of the policies contained in the project, combined with compliance with existing laws and regulations would reduce project-level impacts. While cumulative City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Update
4.15-20
development in and near Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones could also exacerbate wildfire risks in the geographic scope, the proposed project would not significantly exacerbate wildfire risk in Carlsbad’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a cumulative impact may occur but the proposed projects’ contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, similar to the less than significant conclusion in the 2015 General Plan EIR.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Other Environmental Issue Areas Analyzed
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-1
4.16 Other Environmental Issue Areas Analyzed
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires an EIR (or an SEIR) to briefly describe any possible significant effects that were determined not to be significant and, therefore, were not discussed in detail. This section addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project that were determined not to be significant. The topics listed below are drawn from the environmental checklist form included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. CEQA topics not addressed in this section are included in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this SEIR.
4.16.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to agricultural and forestry resources if it would:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use.
The proposed project would not produce an adverse environmental impact concerning the conversion of Important Farmland to urban or other uses. There are no proposed land use changes that would affect the status of the Flower Fields, the sole property subject to Williamson Act contracts (DOC 2016). Additionally, there are no areas in Carlsbad zoned as forest or timberland.
4.16.2 Energy
The proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to energy resources if it would:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Construction and maintenance on development facilitated by the proposed project would result in short-term consumption of energy resulting from the use of construction equipment and processes.
During construction activities, energy would be needed to operate construction equipment. In addition, construction materials require energy to be produced, and would likely be used in projects that involve new construction or replacement of older materials. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards, which would apply to construction projects envisioned by the proposed project and help to minimize waste and energy consumption. All construction City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
4.16-2
conducted pursuant to the proposed project would be required to comply with the CALGreen and would thus reduce energy consumption associated with buildout of the project.
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.
Through implementation of city policies as delineated in the General Plan, and concurrent implementation of the Climate Action Plan, the proposed project would support the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy renewable energy goals and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted regarding renewable energy or energy efficiency.
4.16.3 Mineral Resources
The proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to mineral resources if it would:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
The City of Carlsbad does not have mineral resources of economic value or active mining sites (City of Carlsbad 2015).
Historically, the Quarry Creek Master Plan area within Carlsbad was previously utilized for aggregate minerals extraction and a hard rock quarry that was regionally valuable. Mining operations at the Quarry Creek site were terminated in 1995 because the mineral resources at the site were considered to be realized after the course of 34 years of mining operations. Currently, no mineral resources of economic value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified in Carlsbad. Carlsbad has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on any known mineral resources.
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed project on growth inducing and long-term effects.
A similar analysis was provided in the 2015 General Plan EIR; however, land use changes to the 18 rezone sites to implement the Housing Element and updates to the Public Safety Element, Local Coastal Program, and various Master and Specific Plans would occur under the proposed project, which requires an updated analysis.
5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to induce growth. Specifically, an EIR (or SEIR) must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth. In addition, the EIR (or SEIR) must discuss how the project may encourage and/or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Economic and population growth do not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant environmental effects. A project’s growth-inducing potential is therefore considered significant if growth generated by the project could result in significant effects in one or more environmental issue areas.
5.1.1 Economic Growth
The proposed project would involve land use changes on the 18 rezone sites to facilitate housing.
This would generate construction and maintenance employment opportunities. Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, project construction would not be growth-inducing from an employment standpoint. The proposed project would not be expected to induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result.
Although such growth may incrementally increase economic activity in Carlsbad, significant physical effects beyond those impacts discussed in this SEIR are not expected to result from economic growth generated by the proposed project. Impacts associated with such growth are discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this SEIR.
5.1.2 Population Growth
The project does not involve the expansion of existing urban service areas or extension of infrastructure outside of existing urban service areas; rather, it involves increased density within established urban service areas. In addition, the proposed project would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth.
As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, development facilitated by the proposed project would directly generate population growth. Specifically, the project would facilitate an estimated population growth of 8,260 persons based on the maximum project-facilitated buildout of 3,295 housing units. The addition of 8,260 new residents to the city, combined with remaining residential growth potential under current General Plan residential land use designations, would City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
5-2
increase Carlsbad’s population from 117,800 residents to 141,670 residents1 in 2035. However, as discussed in Section 4.11, the proposed project constitutes as planned population growth in accordance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as planned for the in the city’s Housing Element. The city’s RHNA is provided by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to plan for expected growth in the region.
Impacts associated with population growth facilitated by the proposed project are analyzed throughout this SEIR. As discussed in Section 5.2 below, the proposed project would result in significant environmental effects with respect to air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation, and wildfire.
5.1.3 Removal of an Impediment to Growth
The rezone sites are located in General Plan-designated urban service areas that are served by existing infrastructure. The project would not result in sewer or water services being extended outside existing urban service areas. As discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, development is within existing utility service areas. Improvements to water, sewer, and drainage connection infrastructure would be needed at some of the rezone sites (including expanded pipeline and potentially new pumps) but would be sized to specifically serve the individual project and site.
These water and sewer utility extensions would be limited in extent and would be contained within designated urban service areas. These extensions would not result in additional growth surrounding the rezone, as future development in urban service areas is already anticipated by the General Plan.
No new roads would be required. Because the project would facilitate development within already established urbanized areas, project implementation would not remove an obstacle to growth.
5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur as a result of a proposed project.
The proposed project would facilitate infill residential development on developed, underdeveloped or vacant sites in Carlsbad. Construction and operation of development facilitated by the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. Development would involve the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources, to construct new residential buildings and associated infrastructure and landscaping. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed project. Temporary power may also be provided for construction trailers and electric construction equipment. On-site construction would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum and natural gas. In addition to on- site energy use during construction, the off-site production of building materials also may consume non-renewable energy sources. For instance, the manufacture of steel, cement, glass, and bricks relies on kiln processes that are fossil-fuel intensive. The consumption of non-renewable building materials and energy sources during construction and operation would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to Carlsbad or the project. Moreover, state and federal regulations would offset the increase in demand for non-renewable materials to some degree.
1 The population is based on calculations developed by the city for the 2015 General Plan EIR to estimate population at buildout. The estimate assumes 2.63 persons per household, with a 5.5 percent vacancy rate, and 0.86 percent of residents as group quarte rs (56,516 *
2.63 * 0.945 *1.0086 = 141,670).
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-3
Growth facilitated by the proposed project would require a long-term, irreversible commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, and wastewater treatment. As discussed in Section
4.12, Public Services and Recreation and 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, impacts to public services and utilities would be less than significant level given compliance with existing laws and regulations as well as 2015 General Plan policies and policies in the Public Safety Element Update.
Long-term irreversible environmental changes are associated with increased asphalt or concrete paving from new related direct and cumulative impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality. These types of environmental changes were evaluated in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and the effects of the proposed project would not be substantially different or more severe than previously identified in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Additionally, the mitigation measures prescribed to minimize these effects would be required.
The additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic, noise levels, greenhouse gas emissions, and regional air pollutant emissions. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, impacts associated with air pollution emissions would be significant and unavoidable. As described in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would represent a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. As discussed in Section
4.10, Noise, the increase in traffic noise from additional vehicle trips would have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors. As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, development facilitated by the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, the proposed project would have significant irreversible environmental effects with respect to air quality, GHG emissions, and VMT.
As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project may result in the demolition or significant modification of eligible historical resources which would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have significant irreversible environmental effects with respect to historical resources.
5.3 List of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The 2015 General Plan found that implementation of the 2015 General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality and transportation. The proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
Impact AQ-2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation; Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact CUL-1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Impact GHG-1. The project may generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impact NOI-1. Result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact T-2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) pertaining to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
5-4
This page intentionally left blank.
Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-1
Alternatives
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15163 (b), “the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.” There is no mandate to include project alternatives in a Supplemental EIR. The 2015 General Plan EIR included the evaluation of a range of alternatives selected for their potential to avoid or lessen environmental impacts of the 2015 General Plan. Although not required for a Supplemental EIR, in light of the impacts identified in this Draft SEIR for the proposed project in comparison to the 2015 General Plan, the city has elected to prepare an alternatives analysis.
The primary purpose of this section of the SEIR is to provide decision makers and the general public a reasonable number of feasible alternatives that could attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project, while avoiding or reducing any of the significant adverse environmental effects of the project. As required by CEQA, this section also includes a discussion of the “environmentally superior alternative” among those studied.
The objectives for the proposed project are listed in Section 2.5 of Section 2, Project Description.
Included in this analysis are two alternatives, including the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project.
The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 2: Reduced Number of Sites
The City Council may consider all feasible alternatives and has the discretion to adopt any of the alternatives proposed. The alternatives proposed are fully actionable in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and the analysis provided herein are adequate to enable the City Council to, if desired, select one of the alternatives and approve it rather than the proposed project.
6.1 Methodology
The implementation of the proposed project was analyzed for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental issues discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16. The results of the analysis indicate that the proposed plan would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
Impact AQ-2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation; Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact CUL-1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
6 City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-2
Impact GHG-1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impact NOI-1. Result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact T-2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) pertaining to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Where feasible, mitigation measures were identified for the impacts identified above; however, the identified mitigation would not reduce the impacts to less than significant. Thus, even though the proposed project attempts to mitigate its impacts to the greatest extent feasible as required by CEQA, the mitigation is not technically feasible or sufficient or available to reduce impacts from significant and unavoidable.
Each alternative is described and analyzed below to determine whether environmental impacts would be similar to, less than, or greater than those of the project for each of the impact issue areas analyzed in this SEIR. It should be noted that because the alternatives analysis is focused on the potentially significant impacts specific to the project, the alternatives to the 2015 General Plan evaluated in the 2015 EIR were not used in this SEIR.
6.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
6.2.1 Description
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, is defined 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, population in the Plan Area for 2035 would be 133,410, consistent with the findings of the 2015 General Plan and acknowledging approved residential development since the General Plan’s adoption. The 18 rezone sites would not be developed at the same capacity under this scenario as it would under the proposed project. Under existing zoning, Alternative 1 would result in the development of approximately 506 units on the 18 rezone sites, which would be 2,789 units fewer than the 3,295 units contemplated for the proposed project. Land use projects would be comprised of those that are currently in construction or are implemented through the 2015 General Plan updated to reflect current conditions. 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. While not an environmental impact under CEQA, 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.
Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-3
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 1 and continued land use patterns of the 2015 General Plan would result in land uses similar to those envisioned under the land use scenario in the 2015 General Plan.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, public views, and light and glare as found in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Although some sites such as rezone sites 3 and 8 would still be developed as residential uses under the 2015 General Plan, aesthetic impacts would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project as there would less overall development (2,789 fewer residential units though some of the uses would be for commercial or industrial development in accordance with the current land use designations)
1. Similar to the 2015 General Plan EIR and the proposed project, no aesthetics mitigation would apply to Alternative 1.
b. Air Quality
Although implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the development of the same sites as the proposed project, development would not occur in as high of a density or intensity compared to the proposed project, and Alternative 1 would result in the development of 2,789 fewer residential units compared to the proposed project. Therefore, fewer construction-related emissions would be emitted. Similar to the 2015 General Plan, the overall land use scenario envisioned by the Alternative 1 is intended to increase residential land use capacity within existing developed areas, ultimately increasing density. As shown below in Table 6-1, the regional VMT would be higher per capita for Alternative 1 (24.0 VMT per capita) than the proposed project (23.6 VMT per capita), since the proposed project would change land uses to concentrate growth and residences to jobs and services to reduce singular vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of travel. Overall traffic (VMT) for Alternative 1 would be similar when compared to the traffic levels analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR.
Since Alternative 1 would result in the development of 2,789 fewer residential units compared to the proposed project, operational emissions would be less for most criteria pollutants than those produced with implementation of the proposed project. Alternative 1 would also result in fewer residents which would reduce the total VMT since there would be fewer vehicles. Nonetheless, although overall impacts to air quality would be decreased under Alternative 1 when compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would continue the land use scenario envisioned in the 2015 General Plan and would result in similar threshold exceedances as the 2015 General Plan, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. As stated in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the 2015 General Plan EIR, no mitigation is available beyond the measures identified in the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Green Building Standards Code, and goals and policies in the General Plan that would reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. c. Biological Resources
Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in fewer impacts to biological resources as compared to the proposed project, considering that Alternative 1 involves development at the same intensity as analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, and would include 2,789 fewer residential units when
1 Under the 2015 General Plan Sites 3 (20 units) and 8 (117 units) would still be developed as residential uses. Site 9 is curr ently a residentially designated site and site 18 (50 units) has an approved project on the residential portion.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-4
compared to the proposed project. Since Alternative 1 would also still result in development of the same sites as the proposed project, although mostly for commercial and industrial uses, it would result in similar ground disturbance and impacts to special status plants and animals, critical habitats, and wildlife movement. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be the same as those found in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Impacts to sensitive plant and animal species, critical habitats and wildlife movement would be similar under Alternative 1 relative to the proposed project since disturbance at the 18 rezone sites would still occur, and adherence to goals and policies outlined in the 2015 General Plan would continue to be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
d. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources as compared to the proposed project, considering that Alternative 1 involves development at the same intensity as analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Alternative 1 would result in development of the same sites as the proposed project, and therefore potential to impact known and unknown cultural resources would be the same as compared to the project. As such, the potential to disturb tribal cultural resources, including ancestral remains and sacred sites, would be the same. The similar amount of ground disturbance would occur from the completion of projects under the 2015 General Plan, and similar to the proposed project, development projects under Alternative 1 would be required to adhere to the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines, which would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Since this alternative would include development of the same 18 rezone sites, similar to the proposed project, impacts to historical resources would be significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be increased to those found in the 2015 General Plan EIR and similar under this alternative as compared to the proposed project.
e. Geology and Soils
Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the same impacts to geological and soil resources as compared to the proposed project, considering that Alternative 1 involves development at the same intensity as analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Alternative 1 would allow for development under existing zoning, which would involve construction or ground disturbance that could expose and loosen soils and increase the potential for erosion. Future construction on any of the sites would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements, ensuring the stability of new structures during seismic events or due to expansive soils. Development allowed under existing zoning, similar to development facilitated by the proposed project, would occur in areas of moderate and high paleontological sensitivity; however, because this alternative would include the same land use scenario as the 2015 General Plan, impacts would be less than significant. Overall, Alternative 1 would have similar impacts to geology and soils when compared to the proposed project.
f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts associated with GHG emissions during construction activities as the same 18 rezone sites would be developed compared to the proposed project. However, overall regional VMT per capita would be higher for Alternative 1 than the proposed project since development under Alternative 1 would not have as high of a density or Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-5
intensity compared to the proposed project, which would place more residents in proximity to jobs, services, and transit, thereby reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicles and reducing VMT per capita.
As shown below in Table 6-1, the VMT per capita for Alternative 1 would be higher than for the proposed project. This increase in VMT per capita under Alternative 1 is a result of less residents in proximity to jobs, services, and transit under this scenario. Alternative 1 would have similar but slightly increased GHG impacts on per capita basis compared to the proposed project considering that all 18 rezone sites would still be developed, but fewer residents would be located in proximity to jobs, services, and transit. However, total GHG emissions would be lower under Alternative 1 and Alternative 1 would be consistent with the City’s existing Climate Action Plan (CAP) and thus would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations regarding GHG emissions.
Therefore, impacts related to the implementation of Alternative 1 would be decreased, as it would be consistent with the current CAP, as compared to the proposed project, and would be similar to the impacts analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR.
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Alternative 1, the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials associated with construction of development allowed under existing zoning, and operation of housing, commercial and industrial uses, such as paints and solvents, would be required to comply with existing regulations, similar to the proposed project. Development sites under Alternative 1 containing existing contamination would continue to require remediation and compliance with State and local regulations to allow for development under existing zoning. Similar to the proposed project, the same 18 rezone sites would be developed under Alternative 1, where certain sites would be located within the Safety Zones and Airport Influence Areas of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, since Alternative 1 would continue the land use patterns of the 2015 General Plan, under this Alternative only 506 residential units would be developed compared to 3,295 under the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 1 would expose fewer residents to safety hazards or excessive noise from the McClellan-Palomar Airport, and impacts related to airport safety hazards would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. Since Alternative 1 analyzes the same land use scenario as in the 2015 General Plan EIR, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same as those analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 1 would allow development under existing zoning, which could include construction activities that would loosen and expose soils, otherwise increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation, and create new or additional impervious surfaces. Alternative 1 would be consistent with the land use and development scenario analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR and would include the 18 rezone sites included in the proposed project. However, Alternative 1 would develop some the 18 rezone sites as industrial or commercial uses, compared to residential uses under the proposed project, which has a higher potential for violating water quality standards or depleting groundwater supplies, resulting in slightly higher impacts compared to the proposed project.
Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, with compliance with applicable laws and regulations, Alternative 1 would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or violate water quality standards. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be the same as those in the 2015 General Plan EIR and similar to the proposed project.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-6
i. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 1, the selected rezone sites from the project would retain their existing zoning, and future buildout would be similar to the analysis in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Alternative 1 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 1 would not promote high-density housing opportunities to the extent that the proposed project would (since only 506 units would be developed compared to 3,295 with the proposed project). As noted above in the description of this alternative, 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. As a result impacts to land use and planning would be similar, though slightly increased, to the proposed project and the 2015 General Plan EIR. j. Noise
Under Alternative 1, temporary construction-related noise impacts would continue to occur at the 18 rezone sites, as with the proposed project. Additionally, given that exact details of future construction projects are still currently unknown, it is conservatively assumed that construction noise may exceed applicable thresholds, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, since construction would be reduced, construction vibration impacts would also be reduced compared to the proposed project. With the continued implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, vibration impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
Under Alternative 1, operational noise impacts would occur at the 18 rezone sites facilitated by the proposed project. Development activities permitted under the zoning and land use designations outlined in the 2015 General Plan EIR would result in less than significant impacts from operational noise activities as with the proposed project, such as noise generated from HVAC equipment, vehicle activity, and outdoor activity areas. Therefore, under this alternative, operational noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project and the 2015 General Plan EIR. k. Population and Housing
Since development would follow land uses consistent with the 2015 General Plan EIR, Alternative 1 would not induce substantial population growth, as the development allowed in accordance with the existing Land Use Element and Land Use Map is already accounted for in regional population and housing projections. As a result, Alternative 1 would not contribute to unplanned growth and would also not displace people or housing. Alternative 1 would have no impacts to population and housing, while the proposed project would have less than significant impacts. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those for the proposed project. However, Alternative 1 would not provide the benefits associated with the provision of housing that would occur under the proposed project. Further, Alternative 1 would not be consistent with state required housing targets under the Housing Element Program 1.1 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. l. Public Services and Recreation
Development allowed by land uses described in the 2015 General Plan EIR would occur under Alternative 1, and since Alternative 1 would mainly develop the same 18 rezone sites but only 506 residential units compared to the 3,295 under the proposed project, this alternative would result in Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-7
a smaller increase to emergency calls to the area, as well as a smaller increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services, since there would be fewer new residents introduced. Impacts under Alternative 1 would be slightly less than that under the proposed project.
m. Transportation
Alternative 1 would not include the rezone sites envisioned under the proposed project. Similar to the development analyzed for the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR, development facilitated by Alternative 1 would not result in additional conflicts with programs and plans related to the circulation system. Impacts to transportation systems would be similar and remain less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, per capita VMT would be greater under Alternative 1 as compared to the proposed project, as Alternative 1 envisions the same land use scenario analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR (refer to Table 6-1, below). Since the land uses under Alternative 1 would include a mix of commercial and industrial uses and less dense residential uses (only 506 units compared to up to 3,295 units under the proposed project), Alternative 1 would not place as many residents in proximity to jobs, services, and transit, and therefore would result in a higher VMT per capita compared the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable and Mitigation Measure T-1 would also apply to Alternative 1.
Table 6-1 Citywide Average Project Generated VMT per Resident Model Scenario City of Carlsbad VMT/Resident
2016 Base Year 24.0
Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) 24.0
Proposed Project (2035) 23.6
Impact Assessment
Residential VMT per Resident Threshold 20.4
Impact Conclusion for Alternative 1 Significant Impact
n. Utilities and Service Systems
Development as analyzed under the 2015 General Plan EIR would occur under Alternative 1, and this would result in an increase in demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste service. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would result in the development of 18 rezone sites. However, the 18 rezone sites would only include 506 residential units compared to the 3,295 units anticipated under the proposed project. Nonetheless, the expansion of water and wastewater infrastructure would still be required for sites not already adjacent to existing infrastructure. Impacts would be the same when compared to the proposed project.
o. Wildfire
Under the No Project Alternative, development under existing zoning would be allowed on sites that are mapped within or near Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) and fire hazard zones. Alternative 1 utilizes the same land use scenario analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Therefore, wildfire impacts resulting from Alternative 1 would be the same as those in the 2015 General Plan EIR.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not conflict with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction would require building permits and City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-8
would be required to comply with applicable fire code regulations. While impacts were determined to be less than significant in the 2015 General Plan EIR, because development under Alternative 1 may have sites in close proximity to LRAs, impacts would be similar to the proposed project. There would be the same impacts under this alternative because the 18 rezone sites would still be developed, though this alternative would only include 506 residential units.
6.3 Alternative 2: Reduced Sites
6.3.1 Description
Alternative 2, Reduced Sites, would include development on most of the rezone sites as identified in the project. However, Alternative 2 would exclude development on rezone sites 3, 8, and 15, which, as identified in Table 2-4 of Section 2, Project Description, would accommodate a net increase (not including units already permitted under current designations) of 137 dwelling units total under the project. Additionally, the number of units on sites 14 and 17 would be increased to accommodate more housing (180 units more than analyzed under the project) near COASTER transit stations, which are operated by North County Transit District. Therefore, development under Alternative 2 would accommodate 43 more dwelling units than the proposed project. Alternative 2 would still achieve project objectives such as facilitating residential development to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA and pursuing an infill strategy to create walkable communities.
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 2 would increase the number of proposed housing units by 43 units by removing rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 while increasing density at rezone sites 14 and 17. Implementation of this alternative and continued land use patterns of the proposed project would result in land uses similar to those envisioned under the land use scenario in the 2015 General Plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, public views, and light and glare, similar to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant.
Aesthetic impacts would be the same as those analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR but increased when compared to the proposed project. Specifically, some impacts to public views may be increased at rezone site 17 due to the potential for increased building heights. Similar to the 2015 General Plan EIR and proposed project, no mitigation would apply to Alternative 2. b. Air Quality
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in slightly more construction emissions when compared to the proposed project, as Alternative 2 would remove three rezoning sites (3, 8, and 15) from the project and increase density at two other sites (14 and 17), resulting in a net of 43 more residential units. Similar to the proposed project and 2015 General Plan, the overall land use scenario envisioned by Alternative 2 is intended to increase residential land use capacity within existing developed areas, ultimately increasing density through the rezoning of selected sites. As discussed below under Transportation, regional and per capita VMT for Alternative 2 would be slightly higher (+0.1 VMT) than that for the proposed project, but lower (-0.3 VMT) than that for the 2015 General Plan (the No Project Alternative).
Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-9
Table 6-2 summarizes estimated daily operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with full buildout under Alternative 2. Similar to the proposed project, buildout under Alternative 2 would generate daily mobile source air pollutant emissions in excess of SDAPCD’s project-level significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5. However, operational emissions under Alternative 2 would be higher than those produced with implementation of the proposed project since Alternative 2 would include development of 43 more housing units. Thus, even though construction air quality impacts would remain potentially significant under this alternative, operational emissions would be increased when compared to the proposed project.
Table 6-2 Estimated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 5,212 102 6,494 11 869 865
Energy 1 6 3 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 33 64 611 2 143 37
Alternative 2 Emissions 5,246 172 7,108 13 1,012 902
Proposed Project Emissions 5,136 177 7,063 13 917 862
SDAPCD Emissions Thresholds 137 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Notes: See Appendix B for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Overall, impacts to air quality would be increased under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed project, and higher than the impacts analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. All mitigation measures identified in Section 4.2, Air Quality, would still be required to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts under Alternative 2.
c. Biological Resources
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in fewer sites rezoned than under the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in less ground disturbance and fewer impacts to special status plants and animals, critical habitats, and wildlife movement associated with development projects than anticipated in the proposed project.
The proposed project would have adverse impacts to special status species due to development at rezone sites 3, 6-9, and 18. Alternative 2 removes the development potential at rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 compared to the proposed project. However, there is still potential for these sites to be developed and therefore impacts to special status species would be similar to the proposed project.
Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would still be required to incorporate Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 to mitigate impacts at other sites to a less than significant level. Development at rezone sites 6, 8, 9 and 18 under the proposed project could occur within riparian vegetation and/or native coastal scrub and result in potential direct impacts. Similarly, development at these sites under Alternative 2 would be similar, but slightly reduced, due to the reduced development potential of City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-10
Site 8. Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would still be implemented to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level at other sites.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 could potentially adversely impact federally protected wetlands but those impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Alternative 2 would also result in similar impacts to potential wildlife corridors. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have impacts to protected trees.
However, since Alternative 2 would be removing Site 3, impacts to the eucalyptus woodland at that site would be reduced and possibly avoided if development on the site occurred based on the lower density allowed under the existing General Plan designation. Alternative 2 would still be required to incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-6 in order to maintain protection of other species at the remaining rezone sites. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 could conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and thus Mitigation Measure BIO-7 and Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would be required. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to biological resources when compared to the impacts analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR since development is currently allowed on rezoning sites. But, when compared to the proposed project, impacts would be similar, but slightly reduced due to the removal of rezone sites 3, 8, and 15. Impacts would remain significant but mitigable and all related mitigation measures presented in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, would apply to Alternative 2. d. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve less ground disturbance than would occur under the proposed project due to the removal of rezone sites 3, 8, and 15. Under this alternative, density at rezone sites 14 and 17 would be increased and result in a net increase of 43 units compared to the proposed project, but ground disturbance would not change substantially as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the potential to impact known and unknown cultural resources would be the same as compared to the proposed project. Because this alternative would include fewer development sites than the proposed project and would exclude site 15 located within the Carlsbad Village Historic District, potential impacts to historic structures would also be slightly decreased.
However, since Alternative 2 would continue to develop site 14 which is located within the Carlsbad Village Historic District and in proximity to locally significant properties, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The potential to disturb tribal cultural resources, including ancestral remains and sacred sites, would be similar under this alternative as compared to the proposed project as ground disturbance would not change substantially compared to the proposed project.
Similarly, impacts related to unknown tribal cultural resources would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would result in greater levels of ground disturbance compared to the 2015 General Plan EIR due to the inclusion of the rezoning sites than that analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. However, overall, impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be similar under this alternative than what could occur as a result of proposed project but would be greater than the impacts analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. e. Geology and Soils
Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve less ground disturbance than would occur under the proposed project, as this alternative removes the rezoning and development at rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 while increasing density at rezone sites 14 and 17. However, Alternative 2 involves development on sites beyond what was anticipated in the 2015 General Plan EIR, like the proposed Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-11
project. Alternative 2 would allow for development which would involve construction that could expose and loosen soils and increase the potential for erosion. Future construction on any of the sites would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements, ensuring the stability of new structures during seismic events or due to expansive soils. Development allowed under Alternative 2, similar to development facilitated by the proposed project, would occur in areas of moderate and high paleontological sensitivity; however, similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. Overall, Alternative 2 would have similar, but slightly lessened, impacts to geology and soils when compared to the proposed project and greater impacts to geology and soils and paleontological resources as compared to the 2015 General Plan EIR. f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in more impacts associated with GHG emissions during construction activities as 43 more housing units would be developed. Alternative 2 involves development on sites beyond what was anticipated in the 2015 General Plan EIR. However, 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 and alternative modes of transport.
When compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in marginally higher VMT. This increase is equal to approximately 0.1 VMT per capita and 56 VMT higher than the proposed project.2 Overall, GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would increase, due to the development of 43 more housing units compared to the proposed project, as shown in Table 6-3. Both the proposed project and Alternative 2 would be inconsistent with the current CAP and 2015 General Plan since both would result in an increase in housing units and associated GHG emissions that were not accounted for in the CAP analysis. Therefore, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar, but slightly increased as compared to the proposed project and compared to impacts analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would apply to Alternative 2 and like the proposed project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable until the updated Carlsbad CAP and any emission thresholds or updated checklists are adopted. If and when the city’s CAP is in accordance with statewide emissions targets and accounting for growth under the proposed project, this impact may be reduced to less than significant.
Table 6-3 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Operational
Area 5,081
Energy 4,039
Mobile 27,240
Solid Waste 692
Water, Wastewater 268
Refrigerants 4
Total (Alternative 2) 37,324
Total (Project) 36,735
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Source: Appendix B CalEEMod worksheets.
2 3,733,074 VMT under Alternative 2 compared to 3,733,018 VMT under the proposed project (Fehr & Peers 2023) City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-12
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the Alternative 2, the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials associated with construction of development, and operation of housing, commercial and industrial uses, such as paints and solvents, would be required to comply with existing regulations, similar to the proposed project. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a net increase of 43 units by removing rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 and increasing density at rezone sites 14 and 17. As noted under Impact HAZ-1, rezone sites 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 are within or near industrial sites. With implementation of Alternative 2, Site 15 would be removed. Therefore, impacts regarding reasonably foreseeable use, transportation, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials would be slightly reduced.
Rezone sites containing existing contamination would continue to require remediation and compliance with State and local regulations to allow for development under existing zoning. Similar to the proposed project, rezone sites 14 and 16 each had one LUST which has now been designated inactive and case closed. This alternative would still include Site 16 and increase density at Site 14.
Rezone sites 2, 4, 8, and 15 are located adjacent to a parcel which has a former LUST cleanup site or a Cleanup Program site. This alternative would remove rezone sites 8 and 15. Redevelopment of sites with existing soil or groundwater contamination could potentially pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through releases of hazardous materials into the environment.
However, with the removal of rezone sites 8 and 15 and compliance with General Plan Policy 4.P-51 and Safety Element Update Policy 6-P.38, Alternative 2 would have slightly reduced hazardous impacts and remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, rezone sites 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are within the Safety Zone of the McClellan-Palomar Airport would still be developed, and rezone sites 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18 within the Airport Influence Area of the airport would also still be developed. Therefore, similar impacts related to airport safety hazards would occur under Alternative 2, as with the proposed project. Compliance with Policy 6-P.32 of the Public Safety Element Update, and Policy 2-P.37 of the Land Use and Community Design Element Update would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Since Alternative 2 maintains the majority of the rezone sites as imagined in the proposed project, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be greater than those analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR. However, due to the removal of rezone site 8, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be slightly decreased as compared to the proposed project. h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would result in the same development at all rezoning sites except for rezone sites 3, 8, and 15, which would have a reduced development potential. Development of all the sites could include construction activities that would violate water quality standards, decrease groundwater supplies, alter the existing drainage pattern of the rezone sites, and create new or additional impervious surfaces. Due to the fewer number of development sites under Alternative 2, these impacts would be slightly less than those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, development allowed under Alternative 2 would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or violate water quality standards, following compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be slightly increased compared to those in the 2015 General Plan EIR but reduced when compared to the proposed project, remaining less than significant.
Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-13
i. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 2, rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 would be removed while density at rezone sites 14 and 17 would be increased. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Future development under Alternative 2 would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in future development at a scale similar to that of the proposed project (a net increase of only 43 units) but on fewer sites. This alternative would promote higher-density housing opportunities than the proposed project would at sites 14 and 17, while development at sites 3, 8 and 15 could occur under their current designations. Impacts to land use and planning would be similar to the proposed project and greater than the 2015 General Plan EIR due to the inclusion of most of the rezoning sites.
j. Noise
Under Alternative 2, impacts associated with temporary construction-related noise result from grading and construction of development allowed at all rezoning sites except for rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 which would have a reduced development potential. Under this alternative, density at rezone sites 14 and 17 would be increased. Construction noise could be reduced on rezone sites 3, 8, and 15, reducing impacts compared to the proposed project in the immediate vicinity; however, construction noise would still occur at the rest of the sites. Additionally, even though Mitigation Measure NOI-1 as specified in Section 4.10, Noise, would continue to be required under Alternative 2, given that exact details of future construction projects are still currently unknown, it is conservatively assumed that construction noise may exceed applicable thresholds, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Furthermore, since construction would be avoided on rezone sites 3, 8, and 15, construction vibration impacts would also be reduced compared to the proposed project. With the continued implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, vibration impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
Similarly, operational noise from HVAC equipment, vehicle activity (delivery and trash hauling), and outdoor activity areas would be similar at the sites where development would occur, but impacts would be reduced at rezone sites 3, 8, and 15.
As discussed under Impact NOI-2 in Section 4.10, the proposed project’s VMT increase over the estimated future increase without project of 71,802 VMT would correlate to an approximate 0.1 dBA increase in roadway noise levels, well below a barely perceptible noise level of 3 dBA. As shown in Table 6-6, VMT under Alternative 2 would increase over future without project by 71,858 for a two percent increase, which would correlate to a similar 0.1 dBA increase. Overall, operational noise impacts would be less than significant under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project. k. Population and Housing
Alternative 2 would not induce substantial population growth, as the development allowed under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of the proposed project. Under this alternative, rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 would be removed from the project and density at sites 14 and 17 would be increased. As a result, the Alternative 2 would not contribute to unplanned growth and would also not displace people or housing. Under Alternative 2, approximately 3,338 new residential units and 8,367 new City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-14
residents would be added to the city.3 According to the 2015 General Plan EIR, by the General Plan horizon year 2035, Carlsbad is estimated to have approximately 52,320 units. Based on information collected by city staff, since the 2015 General Plan EIR, the city has approved residential development that has resulted in a net increase in the projected housing units to 53,221. As of January 1, 2023, Carlsbad had 47,003 housing units. Therefore, as of release of this SEIR, the city had an available housing unit capacity of 6,218 units through horizon year 2035 under the existing General Plan. Compared to existing conditions, with implementation of Alternative 2, Carlsbad would have 50,341 housing units through 2035 compared to 50,298 housing units for the proposed project. The addition of 8,367 new residents to the city would increase Carlsbad’s population from 117,800 residents (current as of June 30, 2022) to 126,167 residents, or by approximately 7.1 percent.4 With implementation of Alternative 2, Carlsbad would have 56,559 units (47,003 [current housing units] + 6,218 [housing units remaining to be built under the existing General Plan] + 3,338 [housing units under Alternative 2]) at buildout, or through horizon year 2035. Although the estimated number of new residents would exceed the GMP limit of 54,499 units, Alternative 2 constitutes a planned population growth and would be consistent with State requirements for RHNA. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not involve the extension of roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly lead to population growth. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not lead to substantial unplanned growth. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the findings for the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR.
Similar to the proposed project, it is possible that some redevelopment projects could result in displacement of current housing under Alternative 2. Currently, Site 4 has one existing unit and Site 8 has 24 existing units. However, no unit yield is anticipated on the portion of Site 4 with the unit due to its location on a flood plain; the remainder of the site along College Boulevard and El Camino Real is not similarly constrained and could be developed with housing. And because Site 8 would be removed under this alternative, the displacement impact would be reduced because none of the 24 units on the site would be removed. Additionally, 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 practices (City of Carlsbad 2021). Furthermore, Program 4.6 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 (City of Carlsbad 2021). Substantial displacement would not occur under this alternative. Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR.
l. Public Services and Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would remove rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 from the project and increase density at rezone sites 14 and 17. These changes would result in an increase of 43 housing units when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in an overall population increase of 8,367 new residents, which is 107 higher than the proposed project. This alternative would result in a similar, but slightly increased, number of emergency calls to the area, as well as a slight increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services when compared to the proposed project. Impacts to public services and recreation would also be slightly greater than those determined in the 2015 General Plan EIR due to the
3 3,338 new residential units x 2.63 persons per household x 0.945 x 1.0086 = 8,367 new residents (See Section 4.11, Population and Housing, for methodology).
4 8,367 new residents / 117,800 current residents x 100 = 7.1 percent.
Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-15
inclusion of a greater number of housing units than previously analyzed. Compliance with all state and local policies, such as the Carlsbad Municipal Code, would ensure that adequate services and amenities are provided for all future development and residents under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
e. Transportation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would remove rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 from the project and increase density at rezone sites 14 and 17. These changes would result in a net increase of 43 housing units when compared to the proposed project. Similar to the development analyzed for the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR, development facilitated by Alternative 2 would not result in additional conflicts with programs and plans related to the circulation system. Impacts to transportation systems would be similar and remain less than significant. This alternative would include 43 more housing units than the proposed project and would result in a generally similar per capita VMT of 23.7. This is a slight increase compared to the proposed project by approximately 0.1 VMT (refer to Table 6-5, below). Additionally, as shown in Table 6-6. Alternative 2 would also result in a 2 percent increase in total VMT compared to the 2015 General Plan (generally the same as the proposed project).
Figure 6-1 below shows a map of rezone sites by transportation analysis zones (TAZ). Similar to the proposed project, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and Mitigation Measure T-1 would continue to apply to Alternative 2. When compared to the 2015 General Plan EIR, Alternative 2 would have decreased transportation impacts as per capita VMT would be lower.
Table 6-4 Citywide Average Project Generated VMT per Resident Model Scenario City of Carlsbad VMT/Resident
Base Year (no project condition) 24.0
Year 2035 Alternative 1 (No Project) 2035 24.0
Alternative 2 (2035) 23.7
Proposed Project (2035) 23.6
Impact Assessment
Residential VMT per Resident Threshold 20.4
Impact Conclusion for Project (Alternative 2) Significant Impact Table 6-5 Daily VMT Summary for Alternative 2
Total VMT
Future without project, with adopted General Plan (2035) (Alt 1) 3,661,216 Future with Proposed Project 3,733,018
Future with Alternative 2 (2035) 3,733,074
Change in VMT for Alternative 2 compared to Adopted General Plan +71,858 Percent Change in VMT (%) 2%
Source: Fehr & Peers 2023
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-16
Figure 6-1 Traffic Analysis Zones Containing Alternative 2 Rezone Sites
I __ ,r •-.
- I , I
·""
1. -, ..
-- , .... ,. ....,, _ _ -
I ...
-·-~
I
·,
I
~-J ·--·
J ;
s I
4 I.
!
I
'·· . . " '•=·- · · -·1
0 2
---iiiii t:::::::::::::== Miles
Sauir"' 'SANMG
Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-17
p. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would not induce substantial population growth, as the development allowed under Alternative 2 would be similar to that of the proposed project. Under this alternative, rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 would be removed from the project plans and density at rezone sites 14 and 17 would be increased for a total net increase of 43 housing units when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in a population increase of 8,367 new residents, which is 107 more than the proposed project. Development under Alternative 2 would result in an increase in demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste service. Similar to the proposed project, although development facilitated by Alternative 2 may involve some infrastructure upgrades, existing water, wastewater, electricity, telecommunication, and waste facilities and services have adequate capacity to support future development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the findings for the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR.
Water demand for construction would be similar to the proposed project, but slightly increased due to the increase of 43 units. Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand, impacts related to construction water consumption would be less than significant. The proposed project would increase demand in the city by an estimated 355 acre-feet per year (AFY), or approximately a 1.58 percent increase from the 2030 Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)service area demand estimate of 22,409 AFY. Based on the CalEEMod land use-based water demand factors, Alternative 2 would increase demand in the city by an estimated 321,299 gallons per day (gpd), or 360 AFY, which is a 1.61 percent increase from the 2030 CMWD service demand estimate. Alternative 2’s slight increase in total future population would result in a very slight increase in overall water demand compared to the proposed project. Therefore, with compliance with existing State and local regulations aimed at water conservation, as well as CMWD, Vallecitos Water District (VWD), and Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD)Water Shortage Contingency Plans (WSCP) and ordinances, water supplies would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in demand for Alternative 2. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the findings for the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR.
Similarly, due to the reduction of the number of sites under Alternative 2, total wastewater and waste generation would be marginally higher than the proposed project. Based on a wastewater generation rate of 200 gallons per residential unit per day, development under the proposed project would generate a net increase of approximately 659,000 gallons of wastewater per day, while Alternative 2 would generate a net increase of approximately 667,600 gallons of wastewater per day.
5 There would be adequate wastewater capacity to support future wastewater generation under this alternative. All development under this alternative would be served by landfills that have sufficient capacity to manage future waste. Therefore, impacts to waste and wastewater facilities would be less than significant. This is consistent with the findings for the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR.
Overall, impacts to utilities and service systems would slightly increase when compared to the proposed project. However, since development Alternative 2 would be greater than that analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, impacts to utilities would be slightly greater than those determined in the 2015 General Plan EIR. However, impacts would remain less than significant.
5 200 gallons per residential unit per day x 3,338 units = 667,600 gallons of wastewater per day City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-18
f. Wildfire
Implementation of Alternative 2 would remove rezone sites 3, 8, and 15 while increasing density at rezone sites 14 and 17. This would increase the number of units as compared to the proposed project by 43 units. Similar to the proposed project and development analyzed in the 2015 General Plan EIR, development facilitated by Alternative 2 would result in additional population and VMT in the city. This alternative could result in changes to emergency evacuation routes and could increase roadway congestion such that the use of an evacuation route could be hindered. However, compliance with the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), applicable City General Plan policies, AB 747, and SB 99 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project and 2015 General Plan EIR.
Similar to the proposed project, rezone 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. Development facilitated under Alternative 2 would not alter or change development at any of those sites. Sites 3, 8, 14, 15, and 17 are not within or near (within 0.25 miles of) a LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Thus, like the proposed project, all development under Alternative 2 would be subject to the California Fire Code and all applicable General Plan policies. Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. Compliance with the CBC, CMC, and Safety Element Update policies 6-P.43 through 6-P.69 would reduce impacts. These policies would make structures more fire resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire as well as reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to wildfire exposure and exacerbation risk would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project and to the conclusion under the 2015 General Plan EIR.
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative that reduces some of the project’s environmental impacts, regardless of the financial costs associated.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative may not be that which best meets the goals or needs of the proposed project. Table 6-1 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than (in red), less than (in green), or similar to (no color) that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied.
Based on the analysis of alternatives in this section, the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) is the environmentally superior alternative as it would lessen the severity of most impacts of the project and eliminate the significant and unavoidable GHG impact. 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 (see Table 6-1) 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 Alternatives
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-19
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.
Second to the No Project Alternative, Alternative 2, Reduced Sites, is the environmentally superior alternative, as it would reduce the severity of impacts related to biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. Although Alternative 2 would increase the net number of units by 43, this would only result in a slight marginal increase in air pollutants and GHG. Alternative 2 would also only result in a negligible increase in VMT per capita compared to the proposed project by 0.1. Additionally, Alternative 2 would place more residents in proximity to COASTER transit stations compared to the proposed project (180 more units), which would reduce the need for single-occupancy vehicles and alternative modes of transport. Nonetheless, with Alternative 2 the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, historical resources, GHG emissions, construction noise, and transportation would remain.
Table 6-6 Comparison of Alternative’s Impacts
Issue Project 2015 General Plan EIR
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
Reduced Sites
Aesthetics LTS LTS LTS (+) LTS (=)
Agricultural and Forestry Resources NI LTS NI (=) NI (=) Air Quality SAU SAU SAU (+) SAU (-)
Biological Resources LTSM LTS LTSM (=) LTSM (=)
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources SAU LTS SAU (=) SAU (=) Energy LTS LTS LTS (=) LTS (=)
Geology and Soils LTS LTS LTS (+) LTS (+)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SAU LTS LTS (+) SAU (-)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS LTS LTS (+) LTS (+) Hydrology and Water Quality LTS LTS LTS (+) LTS (+)
Land Use and Planning LTS LTS LTS (-) LTS (=)
Mineral Resources NI NI NI (=) NI (=)
Noise SAU LTS SAU (=) SAU (=)
Population and Housing LTS LTS LTS (+) LTS (=)
Public Services and Recreation LTS LTS LTS (+) LTS (-)
Transportation SAU SAU SAU (-) SAU (-)
Utilities and Service Systems LTS LTS LTS (=) LTS (-)
Wildfire LTS LTS LTS (=) LTS (=)
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; LTSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation; SAU = Significant and Unavoidable Green: + Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) Red: - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) No color: = Similar level of impact to the proposed project City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
6-20
This page intentionally left blank.
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References
7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
There are no references in this section.
Section 1, Introduction
There are no references in this section.
Section 2, Project Description
Carlsbad, City of. 2021. Zoning Map. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/246/637638645128870000 (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed February 2023).
______. 2021. Housing Element. (accessed February 2023). ______. 2015. General Plan & Climate Action Plan FEIR. (accessed February 2023). ______. 2015. Land Use & Community Design Element. (accessed February 2023). ______. Public Safety Element, Section 6.1-6.4. (accessed February 2023). ______. 2015. Introduction & Vision. (accessed February 2023).
Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed July 2023).
Section 3, Environmental Setting
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed February 2023).
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast Documentation and Baseline Subregional Allocation. https://www.sandag.org/data-and- research/socioeconomics/-/media/285C8F0581204B40A918F53642B8473D.ashx (accessed February 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-2
Section 4.1, Aesthetics
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed July 2023).
Caltrans. 2012. Scenic Highway Guidelines. Accessible at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines-04-12-2012.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 1998. Hillside Development and Design Guidelines. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/270/637425976541270000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2019. Carlsbad Village and Barrio Master Plan. Accessible at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7950/637685893245300000 (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023. Local Coastal Program and Zone Code Update. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/local-coastal- program-and-zone-code-update/phase-2-local-coastal-program-update (accessed February 2023).
Section 4.2, Air Quality
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed April 2023).
. 2017. Summary: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impacts. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts (accessed July 2023).
______. 2022a. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022b. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023. “Top 4 summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed April 2023).
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments 2015. Accessible at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf (accessed July 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed February 2023).
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-3
San Diego, City of. 2022. CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds. September 2022. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/september_2022_ceqa_thresholds_final.pdf (accessed April 2023).
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. 1976. Rule 51 – Nuisance. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-51.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2005. Measures To Reduce Particulate Matter in San diego County. Accessible at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/JVR/AdminRecord/Incorpora tedByReference/Section-2-2---Air-Quality-References/SDAPCD%202005.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2010. Fact Sheet-Frequently Asked Questions.
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/compliance/faqs.pdf (accessed July 2023).
______. 2020. Rule 20.2 New Source Review – Non-major Stationary Sources. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-
20.2.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2021. Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Report 2021. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/monitoring/2021-Network- Report.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022a. 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy.
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att.%20A%20- %202022%20RAQS.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022b. Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessments. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/permits/air- toxics/Hot-Spots-Guidelines.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023. Attainment Status. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment- status.html (accessed April 2023).
San Diego County Association of Governments. 2021. Final 2021 Regional Plan. December 2021. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan (accessed April 2023).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
November 1993. (accessed February 2023).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, External Review Draft. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/010913_pb-draft-pa.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022a. “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone- pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution (accessed April 2023). ______. 2022b. “Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor- air-pollution#Effects (accessed April 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-4
______. 2022c. “Basic Information about NO2.” https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic- information-about-no2#Effects (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022d. “Sulfur Dioxide Basics.” https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide- basics#effects (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022e. Learn About Lead. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead (accessed July 2023).
______. 2023a. Outdoor Air Quality Data – Monitor Values Report.” https://www.epa.gov/outdoor- air-quality-data/monitor-values-report (accessed April 2023). ______. 2023b. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (accessed July 2023).
Section 4.3, Biological Resources
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (Eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Bowers, N., R. Bowers, & K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Revised April 6, 2021.
______. 2021. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Water Code Division 7 and Related Sections (As amended, including Statutes 2020). March 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf (accessed April 2022).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind 5 (online). Commercial Version. (accessed April 2022) ______. 2022b Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). (accessed April 2022) www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022d. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. (accessed April 2022) California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. (online edition, v9-02 1.0). http://rareplants.cnps.org/. (accessed April 2022) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants- and-Animals (accessed April 2022)
Carlsbad, City of. 2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final Approval November 2004. Available at: Habitat Protection | Carlsbad, CA (carlsbadca.gov) (accessed April 2023)
______. 2009. Guidelines for Habitat Creation and Restoration. July 20. Available at: HMP Reports & Studies | Carlsbad, CA (carlsbadca.gov) (accessed April 2023) References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-5
______. 2010. Guidelines for Riparian and Wetland Buffers. April 9. Available at: HMP Reports & Studies | Carlsbad, CA (carlsbadca.gov) (accessed April 2023) ______. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed April 2023)
______. 2019. Community Forest Management Plan. September. Available at: Community Forest Management | Carlsbad, CA (accessed April 2023)
______. 2022. Guidelines for Biological Studies. Revised February 3, 2022. Available at: HMP Reports & Studies | Carlsbad, CA (carlsbadca.gov) (accessed April 2023) ______. 2023. Carlsbad, California Municipal Code. Available at: Carlsbad, California Municipal Code (qcode.us)
______. 2023. Components of a Conceptual Mitigation/Restoration Plan. Available at: HMP Reports & Studies | Carlsbad, CA (carlsbadca.gov) (accessed April 2023) Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2022. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://www.allaboutbirds.org (accessed April 2022).
County of San Diego. 2009. Multiple Species Conservation Program North County Plan. February 19, 2009. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/mscp/nc.html.
Google Earth Pro. 2023. http://earth.google.com/. (accessed April 2023) Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. March 2008.
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.
Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Houghton-Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Technical Report Y-97-1. In: United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. ______. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. September.
______. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Technical Report ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12.
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire.
_______. 2020. Arid West Regional Wetland Plant List, version 3.3. https://wetland- plants.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-6
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed April 2022) ______. 2022b. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989 3cf75b8dbfb77 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022c. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed April 2022)
Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek
1978 “ Luiseño.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8 California, edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 550–563, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bradley, Donna
2009 Native Americans of San Diego County. Arcadia Publishing. Dubois.
City of Carlsbad
n.d. Working Paper 4: History, the Arts and Cultural Resources; High Quality Education and Community Services. City of Carlsbad. n.d. Carlsbad General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report.
2015 Carlsbad General Plan. September 2015.
2017 Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad by ECORP Consulting, Inc. September 2017. 2019 “Historic” Properties in Carlsbad. November 21, 2019. Document on file with the City of Carlsbad.
Constance G. and Alfred Kroeber
1908 “ The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California.” American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3): 69–186.
Gamble, Lynn H. and Irma Carmen Zepeda
2002 “Social Differentiation and Exchange Among the Kumeyaay Indians during the Historic Period in California.” Historical Archaeology, Vol. 36, No. 2.
Gifford, Edward W.
1931 The Kamia of Imperial Valley. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 97. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hedges, Ken
2002 “ Rock Art Styles in Southern California.” American Indian Rock Art 28: 25–40.
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-7
Jordan, Peter and Stephen Shennan
2002 “Cultural Transmission, Language, and Basketry Traditions amongst the California Indians.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22: 42–74.
Kroeber, Alfred J.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.
Originally published 1925, Smithsonian Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
Luomala, Katherine
1978 “Tipai and Ipai.” In “California,” edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Mithun, Marianne
2001 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1999, Cambridge Univer University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
O’Neil, Stephen
2002 “ The Acjachemen in the Franciscan Mission System: Demographic Collapse and Social Change.” Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
2020 “ History.” Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. Electronic Resource. Rincon-nsn.gov/culture- history/history. Accessed October 22, 2021.
Roth & Associates
1990 City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Survey. Prepared for City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment. February 18, 1990.
Shipek, Florence
1982 “Kumeyaay Socio-Political Structure.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2): 296–303.
1985 “Kuuchamaa: The Kumeyaay Sacred Mountain.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7(1): 67–74.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. Reprinted by Ballena Press, Ramona, California
Wallace, William J.
1978 “Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C.” In “California,” edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 592–609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-8
WESTEC Services, Inc.
1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study, Carlsbad, CA. Prepared for Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region. April 19, 1980.
White, Phillip M.and Stephen Fitt
1998 Bibliography of the Indians of San Diego County: The Kumeyaay, Diegueno, Luiseno, and Cupeno. Scarecrow Press.
White, Raymond C.
1963 “Luiseño Social Organization.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 91-194. AnthroHub, University of California Berkeley, https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/82967?ln=en. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023.
1953 “Two Surviving Luiseño Indian Ceremonies.” American Anthropologist, vol. 55, no. 4, 1953, pp. 569–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/663785. Accessed 23 Feb. 2023.
Section 4.5, Geology and Soils
California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf (accessed March 2023). ______. 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones: A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California. Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/publications/special- publications/SP_042.pdf (accessed March 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 1993. Geotechnical Report Guidelines. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/326/637425982499200000 (accessed March 2023).
______. 2014. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed February 2023). ______. 2016. Landscape Manual.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11160/637985942877070000 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2017. Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. September 2017.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan. 2007. Geologic map of the Oceanside 30 x 60 quadrangle and adjacent areas, California. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map RGM-2, scale 1:100,000.
San Diego, County of. 2007. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance:
Paleontological Resources. Land Use and Environment Group, Department of Planning and Land Use & Department of Public Works. March 19, 2007.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/Paleo-Guidelines.pdf References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-9
______. 2018. Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Carlsbad. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/HazMit/ 2017/City-of-Carlsbad-HazMit-Section-5.pdf (accessed February 2023). ______. 2023. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan . https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/HazMit/ 2023/MJHMP%20SD%20County%20Base%20Plan%202023.pdf (accessed July 2023).
United States Bureau of Reclamation. 1992. Characteristics and Problems of Collapsible Soils. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/rec/R9202.pdf (accessed May 2023).
United States Geologic Survey 2023. U.S. Quaternary Faults. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0 aadf88412fcf (accessed March 2023).
______. 2015. Assessing Lateral Spread Hazards in Areas Prone to Great and Long Duration Earthquakes.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/external_grants/reports/G14AP00067.pdf (accessed May 2023).
Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. October. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf (accessed April 2023).
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change:
Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January. http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf (accessed April 2023).
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022a. “2022 Scoping Plan Documents.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab- 32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed April 2023). ______. 2022b. “Regional Plan Targets.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable- communities-program/regional- plan-targets (accessed April 2023).
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation- library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed April 2023).
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2020. California Agricultural Production Statistics. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ (accessed July 2023).
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-
change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed April 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-10
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed April 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed February 2023).
______. 2016. Landscape Manual.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11160/637985942877070000 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2020a. City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan. Adopted September 2015. Amended May 2020.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4192/637446665168800000 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2020b. Sustainable Mobility Plan. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/streets- traffic/biking-walking/mobility/sustainable-mobility-plan (accessed July 2023).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg3/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf (accessed April 2023).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2022. Tracking 30 Years of Sea Level rise. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150192/tracking-30-years-of-sea-level-rise (accessed July 2023).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and California Air Resources Board. 2016. Draft Technical Assessment Report (TAR) of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2022-2025. July 2016.
______. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws- regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed April 2023).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Report for Annual 2019.” State of the Climate. January 2020. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 (accessed April 2023).
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. August. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Parmesan_2006.p df (accessed April 2023).
San Diego County Association of Governments. 2021. Final 2021 Regional Plan. December 2021. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan (accessed April 2023).
State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM- CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed April 2023).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated: May 18, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse- gases (accessed April 2023).
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-11
______. 2022b. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” April 25, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/climate- change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section- 202a (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019.” April 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks- 1990-2021 (accessed April 2023).
United States Government Publishing Office. 2016. NHTSA 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 523, 534, 535, and 538, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2, 2016. Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 206.
October 25, 2016.
World Meteorological Organization. 2013. WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2013. https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7862 (accessed April 2023).
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. EnviroStor Database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015a. Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3430/637434861110100000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2015b. Carlsbad General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3420/637434861092000000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2020. West Oaks Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/263140-2/attachment/lHmc0obzOPvg-jfSF8Ug4Chh-0RGC- 5YwYBAro0m_8YwBLtr0-nv0VuEMW8XKw_pOWVHMwfa_IiKQxAG0 (accessed July 2023) San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2011. https://www.lee-
associates.com/elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf (accessed February 2023).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker Database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed February 2023).
Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County of San Diego. 2022.
Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. Adopted September 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/plans/o p-area-plan/2022/EOP2022_Complete%20Plan.pdf (accessed February 2023).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. Learn About Asbestos. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about-asbestos#effects (accessed February 2023). ______. 2023b. Learn About Lead. https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#effects (accessed February 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-12
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
California Department of Water Resources. 2004. Batiquitos Lagoon Valley Groundwater Basin. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater- Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-Basin-
Descriptions/9_022_BatiquitosLagoonValley.pdf (accessed May 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2021. Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. March 2021. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6267/637570999538900000 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2023. Project Clean Water Overview. https://projectcleanwater.org/watersheds/carlsbad- wma/ (accessed July 2023).
Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 2019. Potable Water Master Plan. June 17, 2019. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6093/637568438821170000 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6819/637704842994970000 (accessed April 2023).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed July 2023).
San Diego County Water Authority. 2023. Basins by Sustainability Priority. https://www.sdcwa.org/your-water/local-water-
supplies/groundwater/#:~:text=The%20three%20Sustainable%20Groundwater%20Manage ment,Borrego%20Valley%20(high%20priority) (accessed April 2023).
Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2023. Regional housing Needs Allocation. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community- development/regional-housing-needs-
allocation#:~:text=Since%201969%2C%20California%20has%20required,of%20everyone%20 in%20the%20community. (accessed July 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023. About Growth Management. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community- development/growth-management/about-growth-management (accessed February 2023).
San Diego County Association of Governments. 2021. Final 2021 Regional Plan. December 2021. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan (accessed April 2023).
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted January 25, 2010. Available at: https://www.lee- associates.com/elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf
(accessed February 2023).
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-13
Section 4.10, Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf. (accessed February 2023).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan (accessed February 2023).
Carrier Enterprise. 2011. Product Data.
https://resource.carrierenterprise.com/is/content/Watscocom/carrier_40qac048--- 3_article_1391689409148_en_ss (accessed July 2023).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook. Accessed November 2018. (accessed February 2023).
______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed February 2023).
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted January 25, 2010. Available at: https://www.lee- associates.com/elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Section 4.11, Population and Housing
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2023. Regional housing Needs Allocation. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community- development/regional-housing-needs-
allocation#:~:text=Since%201969%2C%20California%20has%20required,of%20everyone%20 in%20the%20community. (accessed July 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General Plan Update Chapter 3.9: Land Use, Housing, and Population.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3538/637434881261470000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2021. 2021-2029 Housing Element.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3438/637638423849900000 (accessed February 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-14
______. 2023a. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13525/638182837741030000 (accessed March 2023).
______. 2023b. About Growth Management.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/growth- management/about-growth-management (accessed February 2023).
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast Documentation and Baseline Subregional Allocation. https://www.sandag.org/data-and- research/socioeconomics/-/media/285C8F0581204B40A918F53642B8473D.ashx (accessed February 2023).
______. 2021. Final Regional Transportation Plan Chapter 2. Adopted December 10, 2021. https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/regional-plan/2021-regional- plan/final-2021-regional-plan/2021-regional-plan-chapter-2-2021-12-01.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation
Carlsbad, City of. 1986. Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. Amended August 22, 2017. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3986/637436599570630000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2015a. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General Plan Update Chapter 3.11: Public Facilities and Services.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3524/637434881238500000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2015b. Carlsbad General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3424/637434861099030000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2015c. Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3430/637434861110100000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2015d. Carlsbad General Plan Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3432/637434861113400000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2021. City of Carlsbad Fiscal Year 2020-21 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11022/637968699806830000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023a. Emergency Operations. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/fire/fire- operations (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023b. Fire Department Improvements.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/fire/fire-department-improvements (accessed February 2023).
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-15
______. 2023c. Goal Update: Fire and Emergency Services. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/fire/about/goal-update-fire-emergency-services (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023d. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13525/638182837741030000 (accessed March 2023).
______. 2023e. Annual Report CY-2021.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5409/637817549168700000 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023f. Police Divisions and Services.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/police/inside-the-cpd/police-divisions-services (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023g. Parks. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/parks-recreation/parks- community-centers/parks (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023h. Fire Station 2 Replacement Project.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/fire/about/fire-station-2 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023i. Future Park Planning. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/parks- recreation/parks-community-centers/parks/future-park-planning (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. 2023. City of Carlsbad Opens 165M Safety Training Center. https://carlsbad.org/City-of-Carlsbad-opens-165M-Safety-Training-Center/ (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD). 2018. Long Range Facility Master Plan. http://cusd- ca.schoolloop.com/file/1514016721555/1218679748465/2830177015767619031.pdf (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023. School Information. https://www.carlsbadusd.k12.ca.us/school-info (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad Village Academy. 2023. General Information.
https://cva.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1530973333468&vdid=05 2ip16e1wthbcm (accessed February 2023).
California Department of Education 2023a. 2021-22 Enrollment by Grade Carlsbad Unified Report. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3773551&agglevel=distr ict&year=2021-22 (accessed February 2023).
______. 2023b. 2020-2021 Enrollment by Grade Carlsbad Unified Report. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3773551&agglevel=distr ict&year=2020-21 (accessed February 2023).
US Census Bureau. 2023. Carlsbad QuickFacts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/carlsbadcitycalifornia/PST045221 (accessed February 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-16
Section 4.13, Transportation
California Air Resources Board. 2022. Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan- documents#:~:text=The%202022%20Scoping%20Plan%20for,directed%20by%20Assembly% 20Bill%201279. (accessed April 2023).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010. Smart Mobility Framework 2010. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation- planning/documents/office-of-smart-mobility-and-climate-change/smf-handbook-062210- a-a11y.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2014. Chapter 20 – Section 4(f). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental- analysis/standard-environmental-reference-ser/volume-1-guidance-for-compliance/ch-20- section-4f (accessed April 2023).
______. 2020. Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation- planning/documents/sb-743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safety-review-guidance- a11y.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2021a. Caltrans 2020-2024 Strategic Plan. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/risk-strategic-management/documents/sp-2020-16p-web-a11y.pdf (accessed April 2023).
______. 2021b. California Transportation Plan 2050. February 2021. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/ctp-2050-v3-a11y.pdf (accessed April 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2014. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed April 2023). ______. 2020. Sustainable Mobility Plan. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/streets- traffic/biking-walking/mobility/sustainable-mobility-plan (accessed April 2023).
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA. April 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan (Accessed May 2023).
California Cable & Telecommunications Association. 2021. Part I: The Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure, Affordability, and Devices. Available at: https://www.library.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/crb-reports/Broadband_in_California_May_2021.pdf (Accessed March 2023).
Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ (accessed July 2023).
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-17
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Palomar Transfer Station, Inc (37-AH-0001). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Index/2944 ______. 2019b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Otay Landfill (37-AA-0010). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1790?siteID=2863 ______. 2019c. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Sycamore Landfill (37-AA-0023). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1798?siteID=2871 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020. 2020 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf (accessed April 2023).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Accessible at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/1900 (accessed July 2023_). ______. 2021a. Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (Accessed March 2023). ______. 2021b. Gas Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (Accessed March 2023). ______. 2021c. California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Managed Forecast - Mid Demand / Mid AAEE Case. Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=236519%20 (Accessed April 2023).
______. 2023a Total System Electric Generation. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation (Accessed March 2023).
______. 2023b. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California . Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas- market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2008. Energy Action Plan. Accessible at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-
website/files/uploadedfiles/cpuc_public_website/content/utilities_and_industries/energy_- _electricity_and_natural_gas/2008-energy-action-plan-update.pdf (accessed July 2023). ______. 2021a. MNatural Gas and California. Accessible at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries- and-topics/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-california (acessed July 2023). ______. 2021b. Communications Division. Accessible at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/about- cpuc/divisions/communications-division (accessed July 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2008. Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan. Adopted July 3, 2008. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/282/637425979454500000 ______. 2016. Landscape Manual.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11160/637985942877070000 (accessed April 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-18
______. 2015. General Plan: Sustainability Element. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3436/637434861119970000 (Accessed April 2023).
______. 2020. City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan. Adopted September 2015. Amended May 2020. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4192/637446665168800000 (accessed April 2023).
______. 2022. Engineering Standards. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/330/638237395372978835 (Accessed July 2023).
______. 2023a. Wastewater. Available at: https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/utilities/sewer (Accessed March 2023).
______.
2023b. Maintenance. Available at: Shttps://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/streets- traffic/maintenance#:~:text=The%20Storm%20Drain%20Maintenance%20Department,at%2 0442%2D339%2D2799. (Accessed March 2023).
______. 2023c. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Growth Management Program Monitoring Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13525/638182837741030000 (accessed March 2023).
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). 2019a. Potable Water Master Plan. Adopted June 17, 2019.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6093/637568438821170000. (Accessed June 2023).
______. 2019b. Recycled Water Master Plan Update. Adopted July 15, 2019. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6097/637568466723600000 ______. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6819/637704842994970000 (Accessed June 2023).
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2022. California Electricity Profile 2021. Released November 2022. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/california/ (accessed February 2023).
Encina Wastewater Authority. 2021. FY2022 ENCINA COMPREHENSIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (E-CAMP). Available at: https://www.encinajpa.com/images/pdf/FY2022_E- CAMP_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf (Accessed March 2023).
Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: https://www.olivenhain.com/wp-content/uploads/2020-UWMP_FINAL-2.pdf (Accessed May 2023).
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). 2017. An Overview. Available at:
https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/overview-fs.pdf (Accessed March 2023).
San Diego Gas & Electric. 2022a. About Us. Available at: https://www.sdge.com/more- information/our-company/about-us (Accessed March 2023).
References
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-19
______. 2022b. 2022 INDIVIDUAL INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. Available at:
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/SDG%26E%202022%20Individual%20I ntegrated%20Resource%20Plan%20%28PUBLIC%29_0.pdf (Accessed April 2023).
Vallecitos Water District (VWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.vwd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13134/637746452966800000 (Accessed May 2023).
Section 4.15, Wildfire
CAL FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. November 7, 2007. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6822/fhszs_map49.pdf (accessed February 2023). ______. 2018. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. August 22, 2018. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf (accessed February 2023).
______. 2019. State of California Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). December 2019. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf (accessed February 2023). ______. 2023. Fire and Fuels Treatment. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resource- management/resource-protection-improvement/landowner-assistance/forest- stewardship/fire-and-fuels-treatment/ (accessed February 2023).
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2020. Fire Hazard Planning Technical Advisory. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20201109-Draft_Wildfire_TA.pdf (accessed February 2023).
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2017. General Order Number 166. December 2017. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/159184.htm (accessed February 2023).
Carlsbad, City of. 2014. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed February 2023). ______. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted September 2015. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan ______. 2016. Landscape Manual.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11160/637985942877070000 (accessed April 2023).
San Diego, County of. 2018. Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html (accessed February 2023).
______. 2022. San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/plans/o p-area-plan/2022/EOP2022_Complete%20Plan.pdf (accessed March 2023).
United States Department of Energy. 2023. Alternative Fuels Data Center. Available:
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_safety.html (accessed February 2023).
City of Carlsbad
Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update
7-20
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2023. Wildland Fire. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildfire (accessed February 2023) Section 4.16, Less Than Significant Environmental Effects California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed October 2020).
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed July 2023).
Section 5, Other CEQA Related Discussions
Carlsbad, City of. 2015. Carlsbad General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan/related-documents/-folder-148 (accessed July 2023).
Section 6, Alternatives
Fehr & Peers. 2021. Affordable Housing and SB 743 VMT Screening Considerations. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/PC/211210-pc- hearing/County%20of%20San%20Diego%20Trip%20Generation%20at%20Affordable%20Ho using%20Developments%20Final%2012032021.pdf
7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Carlsbad, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Matt Maddox, AICP, Principal
Karly Kaufman, MESM, Project Manager
Jenna Shaw, Environmental Planner
Jesse Voremberg, Environmental Planner
Leanna L. Flaherty, RPA, Cultural Resources Project Manager Nichole Yee, Environmental Planner
David Brodeur, Environmental Planner
Lucas Carneiro, Air Quality & GHG Specialist
Andrew McGrath, Ph.D., Paleontologist, Assistant Project Manager Destiny Brenneisen, Environmental Planner
Nicole West, CPSWQ, QSD/QSP, Supervising Environmental Planner Gina Gerlich, MSci, GIS Analyst
Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comments
NOTICE OF PREPARATION of a
{'Cityof
Carlsbad
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 15163(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a supplement to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given a draft EIR under Section 15087. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, when an EIR is required for a project, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) describing the project and its potential environmental effects shall be prepared.
You are being notified of the City of Carlsbad's (city) intent, as Lead Agency, to prepare a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update project as described below, which may be of interest to you and/or the organization or agency that you represent. The SEIR will be a supplement to the Carlsbad General Plan and Climate Action Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse# 2011011004), certified in 2015. This project is city initiated.
PROJECT NAME: Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update - GPA 2022-0001/ZCA 2022-0004/ZC 2022-0001/LCPA 2022-001/EIR 2022-0007 (PUB2022-0010) PROJECT LOCATION: Carlsbad is a coastal community with approximately 115,000 residents. The city is approximately 42 square miles in area and is located along the northern coast of San Diego County (about 30 miles north of the City of San Diego). Carlsbad is bordered to the north of the City of Oceanside, to the south by the City of Encinitas, to the east by the cities of Vista and San Marcos, and to the west by the Pacific Ocean.
The city contains a combination of industrial, commercial, and residential development, including a large regional shopping center, an auto-retail center, a large industrial park area, the LEGOLAND California Educational/Recreational Park, and a regional airport, as well as three lagoons, limited agricultural areas and large tracts of preserved open space.
Interstate 5, El Camino Real, and Carlsbad Boulevard provide the major north-south routes through the city, as does the San Diego Northern Railroad (SDNRR) line. Major east-west routes include Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Avenue, Cannon Road, Palomar Airport Road, Poinsettia Lane, and La Costa Avenue.
The regional setting is depicted in Figure 1. The Planning Area consists of the existing city limits and is depicted in Figure 2.
Community Development Department
Planning Division I 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2600 www.carlsbadca.gov Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update SEIR Notice of Preparation