Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 96-02; Terraces at Sunny Creek; Tentative Map (CT) (3)RUSSELL W. GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.mi 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 760/438-3141 FAX 760/438-7615 Brian Hunter April 9, 1998 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: The Terraces at Sunny Creek Amendment to Sycamore Creek Specific Plan Dear Brian: As you are aware, we have several applications for discretionary approval relative to amending that portion of the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan relating to the office park and hotel to allow instead a single family residential development. This amendment would delete in large part the substantive elements of the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan as very little detail of the Specific Plan related to the balance of the property included within the Specific Plan, and specifically to Lot 11, which is zoned for a Community Shopping Center. By rescinding the Specific Plan in its entirety, the balance of the property contained in the original Specific Plan would be developed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad standards. Lot 11 would be processed as a commercial development requiring Site Plan Approval. Based on conversations we have had with you and members of our consultant team, it appears that it would be simpler and cleaner to rescind rather than amend the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan. We would be willing to rescind the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan with the following understandings: 1. The change from an amendment of the Specific Plan to rescinding the Specific Plan will not delay the processing of the discretionary applications for the Terraces at Sunny Creek. 2. The Sycamore Creek Specific Plan and its existing approved office project would not be rescinded unless the Terraces at Sunny Creek project was approved. This change will clarify the process and make it easier for the decision makers to understand the proposed project. Please call me if you need any additional information or you foresee any problems or potential delays that this letter may create. Sincerely yours, CANAM PROPERTIES, LLC By: / Tl^f^HF/frs Russell W. Grosse, Presidem Contractors License No. 378383 J. Whalen Associates 4517 Santa Monica Avenue San Diego, California 92107 619,222-5856 619. 222-6450 FAX Balancing the needs of the environment with those of bus iTTe~i• January 20,1998 Mr. Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 RE: Response to Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report The Terraces at Sunny Creek Dear Mr. Hunter: I have been asked by my client, Can-Am Properties, to review and respond to the comments submitted by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game on the Draft EIR for the Terraces at Sunny Creek project. The responses are based on conversations, meetings, and field trips held with the wildlife agencies subsequent to the receipt of the comments. They also include review by the Terraces consultant team . The responses are numbered according to the annotated letters (attached). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Very trulv, yours, Attachments cc: Don Rideout (City of Carlsbad) Ruth Alter (Affinis) Gary Harrison (Can-Am Properties) The Terraces at Sunny Creek Draft Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments California Department of Fish & Game comments: 1. Measures have been incorporated into the project design to reduce the likelihood of erosion-caused deposition of sediment into Agua Hedionda Creek and the associated lagoon. These measures include the use of sedimentation basins at selected locations, silt fences and hay bales during grading, and hydroseeding completed slopes. In addition, the EIR acknowledges that significant erosion and ensuing sedimentation impacts could occur if runoff from graded areas is not controlled. However, the EIR has identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to water quality and erosion (including sedimentation impacts) to below a level of significance. Those measures include: (a) Regular street sweeping, at a minimum during the latter stages of the dry season, shall be implemented to reduce materials potentially carried in the runoff. (b) Sedimentation basins shall be incorporated during construction. Standard temporary slope erosion measure shall be used as appropriate, including use of sandbags and silt fences. (c) Several measures to control erosion have been listed and detailed in Section 5.1, Soils and Geology, and further detailed in Appendix B. These include (in summary): exposed soils shall be moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction; subdrains shall discharge into the storm drain system or into natural drainage swales; when appropriate, fill shall be benched into temporary slopes and into competent natural soils; cut slopes will have sawtooth profiles, and keys shall be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes. Fill slopes will also have polymer applied to stabilize them. (d) The design of all storm drain outlets shall include discharge into a stretch of riprap to eliminate erosion in the outlet, and to prevent an increase of sedimentation into the creek. (e) All grading and fill placement shall be performed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendation of the geotechnical report and its appendices (Appendix B). (f) The Grading Plan calls for the entire site to be graded at one time. This allows erosion control measures to be done as an entity, rather than piecemeal. (g) A Landscape Plan has been developed for the project area (Section 3.0). The vegetation shall reduce erosion and sedimentation. In particular, straw wattles and erosion control fabric on slope surfaces will be used to help stabilize slopes. Enhanced cover crop plantings will also be provided. (h) An NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Plan would be required, and must be approved prior to grading. The NPDES Plan would include applicable measures here. The NPDES Plan would incorporate Best Management Practices, based on the state-of-the-art at the time of preparation. 2. Water quality in the lagoon and creek could be negatively affected by increased urban runoff from the project. However, measures have been identified in the EIR (Section 5.2) to reduce potential impacts to water quality and erosion to below a level of significance. Please see Response #1, above. During the construction process there exists the potential for short term erosion during the construction if there was no attention paid to soil conservation measures. However with best management practices such as sandbagging of streets and lots, erosion control fences at all boundaries, desedimentation basins and construction controlled entrances and exits, hydroseeding and other temporary landscape and irrigation measures, frequent watering to control dust, grass-stabilized outlet structures, and rip-rap energy dissipaters to control velocities, erosion and the resulting sedimentation can be kept to a minimum. For the residential area, the long term effect on the water quality can be mitigated by the use of rip rap at the outlets of structures to reduce velocities thereby reducing erosion and resultant sedimentation, grass lined channels can be used at outlet structures to connect with the main channel thereby reducing pollutant loads to the main creek. Storm drain inlets shall be designed with bottoms lower than the outlet pipes to trap non-rainy season silts. These silts will be removed prior to the onset of the rainy season and will also result in the removal of the summer oil and contaminant-laden sands that collect within the bottom of the inlet structures. The other thing important to note is that today this property is farmed with little to no provisions for the prevention of erosion, control of sedimentation or control of animal wastes discharged into the creek. 3. The project minimizes impacts to sensitive habitats to the extent feasible. Where impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation is proposed. Since the circulation of the Draft EIR, the project design has been revised to reflect the deletion of property belonging to the adjoining property owner, Rancho Carlsbad, which had been added to the project footprint. Also, impacts to the riparian woodlands adjoining the affordable housing were reduced by moving one of the buildings to the south. Finally, a four-foot (4') concrete block wall has been added to pull back the grading along lots 161-165. As a result, overall impacts are reduced to riparian woodlands along Agua Hedionda Creek. The riparian revegetation mitigation area shown on the revised Figure 5.4-3 has also been changed due to the deletion of Rancho Carlsbad's property. The riparian revegetation mitigation area lost at the western end of the project has been added to the area on the northern side of Agua Hedionda Creek. The EIR text has been changed on page 5-35, last paragraph, to read as follows: "A total of .62 acre of impacts would occur to oak woodland, riparian woodlands, and freshwater marsh habitats. Impacts to freshwater marsh are confined to an agricultural field drainage way; it is not part of any wildlife corridor. Approximately 1.74 acres of riparian woodland and freshwater marsh would be revegetated off site, including .46 acre adjacent to the south and 1.28 acres to the north of Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 5.4-3). In addition, the EIR text has been changed on page 5-37, third, fourth and fifth full paragraphs, to read as follows: "Natural Open Space Buffer. The extent and location of the natural open space buffer between the edge of development (or top of slope) and the edge of the habitat is shown in Figure 5.4-3. The buffer would extent along about 1,200 feet of the project boundary and would average 66 ft in width (varying from a minimum of 30 ft to a maximum of 300 ft)." "Manufactured Slopes. Where project grading ...and to discourage human encroachment. Approximately 62,000 sq ft of manufactured slopes would be included within the open space buffer." "Mitigation Plantings, Northern Edge of Agua Hedionda Creek. An expanded riparian/wildlife movement corridor shall be established on the north and south sides of the creek. The proposed expansion areas, shown in figure 5.4-3, would increase the corridor width by between 1 and 140 ft." Oak woodlands are impacted at the eastern end of the project, along lots 76-78 and also along lots 170-172. Due to the site topography and constraints imposed by nearby El Camino Real, impacts cannot be reduced further without loss of project viability due to the cascading effect of pulling back from all impacts to the oak woodlands. Instead, the project proposes to mitigate the loss of oak woodlands by replanting oaks at a 10:1 ratio for each oak tree lost. The oak replanting areas are shown in the revised Figure 5.4-3, and total approximately 1 acre adjoining existing oak woodlands. 4. The boundaries of the Corridor Management Area (CMA) are shown in the revised Figure 5.4-3. Management will be the responsibility of an approved habitat management organization such as the Center for Natural Lands Management, the Environmental Trust, or similar organization. Operating endowment is expected to be provided through the project applicant, although eventually the obligation may be transferred to a regional habitat management body, should voters approve funding. It is anticipated that biological monitoring within the CMA will be overseen by the wildlife agencies and the City of Carlsbad as part of the implementation of the Habitat Management Plan. 5. No sedimentation basins will be placed within Agua Hedionda Creek. All basins will be located within the development envelope. Temporary sedimentation basins for the residential area will be positioned before any inlet structure which connects to a storm drain. In addition, the streets will have sandbagging during the construction process. The sandbag dikes act as localized sedimentation basins. Treatment of surface runoff for the commercial area will be handled in one or a combination of the following methods: (a) Storm Water Interceptor - Precast concrete from Jensen Precast. The site might require several 10,000-gallon interceptors, which are basically septic tanks with absorbent "pillows" to collect oils. The interceptor will be cleaned out or pumped on a periodic basis. The private site drainage system will be directed to one or more "master" underground interceptors, then discharged to the public drain. The private system will be maintained by the Plaza Owners Association or the project applicant. (b) Fossil Filters- Cartridges installed at catch basin grate rim to intercept low initial surface flows. They are filled with an absorbent material akin to vermiculite. Cartridges are replaced annually or as needed. Each parking lot basin will get a set of four, each curb inlet one. 6. The project will acquire 3.4 acres of coastal sage scrub as offsite mitigation, a 2:1 ratio, to mitigate the wildlife corridor encroachment and illegal clearing dealings. 7. The project will acquire 3.0 acres of native grassland as offsite mitigation, assuming that it is acquired separately from the 3.4 acres of coastal sage scrub land. However, a mitigation site comprising a mixture of coastal sage scrub and native grassland will be sought in the immediate area, in which case a total of 5 acres of offsite mitigation will be acquired, which is a 1.5 :1 average ratio over both habitats. The total offsite mitigation requirement will be reduced as long as the land acquired is a matrix and is higher quality habitat than the project vegetation being impacted. Negotiations are underway with a nearby property owner possessing the appropriate mix of native grasslands and coastal sage scrub. 8. As noted in the Draft EIR, the chaparral plant species observed on the site were identified in surveys conducted in March, 1996, by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists. Based on the plant species observed, the recorded chaparral vegetation should be classified as mixed chaparral, not southern maritime chaparral. This vegetation community has a long list of characteristic shrubs, including chamise, mission manzanita, Nuttalls' scrub oak (Quercus dumoso), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), laurel sumac (Malosma lamina), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Mojave yucca, redberry (Rliamnus crocea), white flowered currant (Ribes indecorum), fuchsia-flowered gooseberry (Ribes spedosum], and locally, San Diego mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus minutiflorus) and Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus ssp. olivaceus). Vines are also an important component of southern mixed chaparral, especially on north-facing slopes, and include manroot (Marah macrocarpus), southern honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. denudata), pipestem virgin's bower (Clematis lasiantha), and San Diego sweet pea (Lathyrus vestitus var. alefeldii). Follow-up site visits by Natural Resource Consultants (NRC) have indicated an increase in coyote bush and black sage in areas mapped as southern mixed chaparral. Southern maritime chaparral occurs typically in weathered sandstone soils, and lies within the coastal fog belt, neither of which are characteristic of the Terraces site. Further, the chaparral on site does not include Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. cmssifolia), white coast ceanothus (Ceanothus verrucosus), and several other species more restricted to the immediate coastal area. No Del Mar manzanita was recorded on the site. While southern maritime chaparral is a mixed dominance plant community like southern mixed chaparral, and in fact, contains some of the same species, the Terraces site vegetation is correctly classified as southern mixed chaparral, and as such, is neither rare nor sensitive. 9. Please see Response #1, above. In addition, runoff from the project site will not go directly into Agua Hedionda Creek. Two drainage areas have a moderate quantity of storm water discharging into upland vegetation, not into the Creek. The lion's share of the stormwater drainage goes into the City's 60" storm drain which already exists south of the project site. About 20% of the drainage into the 60" drain is anticipated to come from the Terraces project. The remaining 80% consists of runoff from the industrial areas to the south; these areas generally utilize best management practices on site to reduce levels of pollution in runoff. The riprap outfall is not in the creek bed. It is proposed to be located in the existing Sunny Creek Road right of way. 10. Comment noted. Site meetings have been conducted with Ms. Dickerson. Please see Response #3, above. 11. The project is anticipated to be considered for approval prior to adoption of the Carlsbad HMP. Acting under the assumption that HMP approval will follow project approval, the Final EIR will be revised to include a discussion of the NCCP Findings for the Habitat Loss Permit. United States Fish & Wildlife Service comments: 12. See Response #11 to the CDFG comments. 13. See Response #6 to the CDFG comments. 14. See Response #11 to the CDFG comments. 15. See Responses #6 and #7 to the CDFG comments. 16. The Sweetwater Environmental Biologists report has been included in the technical appendices to the Final EIR. 17. The soil types on the Terraces site include Quaternary Alluvium and Point Loma Formation. Both of these soil types include sand, silts, and clays. The presence of these soil types indicates that thread-leaved brodiaea may occur on site. Affinis and Sweetwater Environmental Biologists conducted sensitive plant surveys at the appropriate time of the year (April and May) in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and did not detect the thread-leaved brodiaea on the Terraces site. 18. On page 3, first paragraph, of the USFWS letter, Ms. Barrett suggests that the EIR should be revised to do the following: (a) include a discussion or table identifying species potentially occurring but not found onsite; and (b) include a reference to the focused survey that was performed in May, 1997, for the thread-leaved brodiaea. A discussion of the likelihood of species potentially occurring onsite, but not found, has been included in the Final EIR, as well as a reference to the May, 1997, brodiaea survey. 19. Please see Response #3 to CDFG comments. Additionally, in response to the question about the oddly configured revegetation areas, the mitigation planting approach proposes to fill in bare spots in existing riparian vegetation or plant in areas which are currently in another land use, such as agricultural equipment storage. The "gaps" in the riparian areas are not considered natural openings in the vegetation; they are remnants of past farming activities. 20. Comment noted. 21. See Comment #3. 22. Comment noted. January 20, 1998 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Ken Quon, Associate Engineer TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK, CT 96-02 The following is the response to the comments from Caltrans on the draft EIR for the above referenced project: Additional analyses at freeway interchanges are not needed as the current Terraces at Sunny Creek project is a revised version of a previously approved project, Carlsbad Tract 83-36, which was approved with a considerably higher amount of traffic generation. The previously approved project was expected to generate 24,746 Average Daily Trips (ADT), while this revised project, which includes the Sunny Creek Shopping Center and the Terraces at Sunny Creek, is expected to generate only 14,438 ADT. The previously approved project, with a higher trip generation, is considered to be in compliance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, as traffic impacts from the buildout General Plan at freeway interchanges were evaluated in the 1 994 City of Carlsbad Final Master EIR. Since the trip generation of the current project is considerably lower (43% reduction in trip generation) than traffic impacts from the previously approved project as evaluated in the 1994 City of Carlsbad Final Master EIR, traffic impacts at buildout are considered to have been already identified. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer Corlsbid Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Engineering: (619) 438-3367 Administration: (619)438-2722 FAX: 431-1601 Date: Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: _,the DistrictIn response to your inquiry of / has reviewed subject project and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District conditions for potable water, reclaimed water and sewer systems are as follows: 1. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met. 2. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. "Serving Carlsbad for over 40 years" Page 2 City of Carlsbad 3. Sequentially, the Developers Engineer shall do the following: A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate parties. B. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning Department for processing and approval. C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (ie - GPM - EDU). 4. This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the final map. yjju have-any questions, please contact the undersigned Ricnard Goedert Engineering Technician RGrjm IIQji-iIM-r?97 09:4'? FPOH nLFPED GOEnP HSSOC TO 17804337815 P. 01 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES November 3, 1997 Mr. Mike O'Hara CANAM PROPERTIES 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Fiscal/Employment Overview of Sunnycreek Dear Mr. O'Hara: The proposed Sunnycreek residential and commercial development program will have a measurable effect on fiscal and economic opportunities within the City of Carlsbad. The primary socioeconomic effects associated with development and occupancy of the project can be evaluated in terms of key sources of fiscal revenue and commercial employment generated on- site. This overview analysis evaluates the proposed project in terms of its net continuing effect on selected sources of fiscal revenue supporting the City's General Fund Budget and permanent employment opportunities created by on-site commercial activity. The project concept evaluated is briefly described as follows. The residential component includes 172 single-family detached dwellings and 50 affordable- housing apartment units. The single-family subdivision totals approximately 37.8 gross acres with an effective density of 4.6 units per acre. Single-family units generally range in size from 1,600 to 2,500 square feet. Proposed pricing for the single-family dwellings ranges from about $220,000 to $282,000 with premiums adding another 2.0 percent to the base values. The apartment complex is to be situated on about 2.2 acres with an effective gross density just under 23 dwellings per acre. The apartment complex will include a mix of studio, 1-beuruum, 2- bedroom, and 3-bedroom units with asking rents generally ranging from $550 to $880 per month, depending on bedroom count A large neighborhood-retail component will occupy 19.0 gross acres situated at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and College Boulevard. The proposed center is proposed to include a supermarket anchor (46.500 square feet), a drug store anchor (16,700 square feet) and a third retail anchor space (22,300 square feet). The general site layout consist of a block of anchor and in-line shops at the rear of the site with several restaurant and retail pads situated along the perimeter of the site. The center will total 176,500 square feet (including anchor stores) and achieve an effective gross floor area ratio equal to 23.0 percent of the total site area. Fiscal Revenue Exhibit A identifies the net effect on property tax and retail sales tax revenue that is expected to occur on an annual basis upon project development and occupancy. All figures noted are described in terms of 1997 equivalent dollars. No adjustment has been made tu rcflcu a feasible 721 Kimberty Avenue. Placentia, CA 92870-6343 (714) 524-100O FAX (714) 524-0149 rruri ni_rt-cu LiUbHK HcoUL ||j 17bCM387bl? P. 02 November 3. 1997 ^ ^ ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES Mike O'Hara Page 2 time frame for development. This fiscal analysis evaluates annual revenue that can be reasonably anticipated if the proposed development scope were completed today. With respect to property tax, Exhibit A shows that the total assessed value of Sunnycreek is estimated at approximately $74.9 million upon completion. The project site location, however, has a current assessed value of approximately $3.8 million. Consequently, additional property tax revenue that can be anticipated with prujcct development is defined by the net increase over the current year assessed value generated by proposed site improvements. The net increase in property tax value generated by the proposed project is estimated at $71.1 million. The project site is located in tax rate area number 09125. The tax rate area determines the proportionate share of property tax appropriated to each agency with taxing authority at the site location. The total amount of property tax revenue that will accrue to the City of Carlsbad is equal to approximately 13.99 percent of the basic 1.0- percent property tax levy or about $99,500 per year. Upon project completion, the net increase in property tax revenue will be over 18 times the current level of revenue generated. Each land use component of the project contributes to total property tax values as follows. The residential component of the project accounts for about 62.0 percent of the total net increase in property tax revenue, after adjusting for the existing tax base value of the site. The proposed siaylc-family residential subdivision has an average equivalent value of $1.16 million per gross acre. The corresponding average unit value is equal to $255,000 per detached dwelling. The affordable housing apartment complex is projected to have an average value of approximately $1.19 million per gross acre with a corresponding average unit value of $51,900 per apartment dwelling. The commercial-retail component of the project is estimated to have an average value of $ 1.5 million per gross acre of development with an equivalent unit value of $161 per square foot of building space. With respect to sales tax, this form of fiscal revenue is generated from two alternative sources associated with the proposed land use activities. A portion of total retail sales tax revenue must be attributed to retail expenditure potential associated with resident households of the project and the corresponding share of taxable expenditures captured by City-based establishments. Exhibit A identifies taxable expenditures associated with households expected to occupy the proposed housing units at the prices and rental rates proposed. As shown, the absolute level of taxable expenditures per household rises as the value of housing increases. This relationship, however, is not linear because higher income households tend to spend a decreasing share of their total annual income on taxable purchases. On a combined basis, taxable expenditure potential of resident households living at the project site is estimated at $3.96 million per year. City-based establishments are projected to capture 85.0 percent of the estimated potential or an equivalent $33.700 per year in sales tax revenue. The majority uf sales la.\ revenue generated at the project site is attributable to retail operations within the proposed neighborhood center. As shown in Exhibit A, normative levels of performance for the type of center proposed is projected to average $143 per square foot in taxable retail sales or approximately $25.2 million a year. Normative levels of performance are iOj-04-1^97 09= TO FPOri HLFPEO GO BMP HbSU': TO 17604337*15 P. 0.3 November 3, 1997 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES Mike O'Hara Page 3 also shown for distinct retail components of the center, such as the food store and fast-food restaurants. A portion of total sales achieved in the neighborhood center must be attributed to expenditure potential of the resident households. For purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that 3 retail center at the site location will account for 75.0 percent of resident expenditure potential estimated to be captured by City-based establishments. The net increase in retail sales tax revenue that can be assigned to the project, therefore, is equal to approximately $261,000 per year. Employment Generation Development and occupancy of the proposed retail center will create jobs and increase the absolute number of permanent employment opportunities within the local area. Exhibit B identifies estimated levels of employment associated with the scope of retail activities expected to characterize the neighborhood center. As shown, the estimate of employment generated on site is based on 1992 normative levels of empluyrnenL supported by retail sales performance throughout San Diego County and employment densities described in terms of equivalent floor space per employee. On an overall basis, the proposed retail center is estimated to generate 248 full-time equivalent jobs once it is completed and rally occupied. An allowance for 5.0 percent retail vacancy suggests that approximately 218 retail-sector and 18 service-sector jobs will be demanded by the businesses occupying the 176,500 square foot center. Summary and Conclusion Based on the above analysis, the proposed Sunnycreek development can be expected to make a significant contribution to the fiscal revenue stream of the City of Carlsbad. Upon buildout, annual fiscal revenue generated by property tax and sales tax that will accrue to the City's General Fund operating budget is projected at $360,000 per year. Also, the retail component of the project is expected to generate a significant number of local employment opportunities. Upon buildout and occupancy of the proposed 176,500 square foot center approximately 236 full-time equivalent jobs will be needed to support merchandising and service operations of the businesses occupying the center. The above analysis should provide a good overview of key fiscal and employment effects associated with buildout of the proposed residential and commercial land uses. If you have any questions about our methodology and approach, please give me a call. Sincerely Alon^fl Pedrin Senior Consultant EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF ON-StTE PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT GENERATED BY THE PLAZA AT SUNNYCREEK COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT On-SXe Commercial Activity Total On-Site Retail Sales San Diego County Retail Employment 1992 Survey Of Retail Trade 1997Equiv. J_f>*yrc*L^nnPl°y.e^ Sates Driven Employment Generation Payroll Empbyees Sq. Ft. Per Employee Sq. Ft Per FTE Effective FTE Food Drug Other Anchor In-U'ne Shops Fast Food Rest. Sit Down Rest. Service Station Offices Vehicle Storage Total Orv-Site: $14,947.000 5,013,000 3,898,000 6,785,000 2,385,000 4,375,000 2,117,000 Neg'l Neg'l $39,520.000 $3,129,492 752,742 3,701.658 1,746.051 2.167,123 1,058,147 179,175 n.a. n.a. 19,445 4.923 29.191 19,061 89,006 34,854 627 n.a. n.a. 'Total For Selected Retail Categories) $12,734,388 177,107 (Total For All Retail Categories) $19,215,928 179.885 S186,574 177,257 147.005 106,193 36.407 35,195 331,281 n.a. n.a. $83,354 $123,833 80 28 27 64 66 124 6 n.a. n.a. 395 580 591 840 850 121 141 704 330 n.a. 447 726 738 1,050 1.699 368 282 880 347 n.a 711 64 23 21 32 22 62 5 19 n.a 248 Soiree: Alfred Gobar Associates; U.S. Department of Commerce -1992 Census of Retail Trade -o ^n iIiri"-fu~i9?7 09: 5 FROM HLFRED GOEnP HSSOC TO 17b04337bl5 P.04 EXHIBIT A SUMMARY OF PROJECT GENERATED PROPERTY AND SALES TAX REVENUE THE TERRACES AND PLAZA AT SUNNYCREEK Development Unit Intensity Intensity Residential Single-Family (Units) (Sq Ft/Unit) 19 1.605 62 1.889 62 2.138 20 2,514 172 2.053 Apartments (Units) (Bdrm Equiv) 12 0.5 12 1.0 20 2.0 6 3.0 SO 1.5 Total: 222 ^^^^^^^^^a^^^^^^^^^^Commercial/Retail (Comml Activity) (Sq Ft) Food 46,500 Drug 16,708 Other Anchor 22,270 In-Line Shops 54,280 Fast Food Rest. 7.950 Sit Down Rest. 17,500 Service Station 4,500 Offices 6,720 Vehicle Storage Q Total: 176.500 ^^^S^j^^^^^^^pi^^^^Overall Project Totals- Combined Sub-Total Less Adjustments: 1997 Tax Base Value On-Site Res. Potential Net Total: Assessed Valuation Per Unit | All Units J^ Tax Revenue (A.VAInlt) (Total A.V.) (At 13.99% Rate) $223.600 $4,249,000 $5,945 242,000 15,008,300 21,000 263.100 16,312,600 22,825 ?ftfi 3nO 8.304 600 11 620 $255,000 $43,874,431 $61.391 $41.600 $499.200 $698 47.800 573,600 803 56,300 1,126,000 1,b76 66TOOQ 396.000 554 $61,000 $2,594,800 $3.631 $209,321 $46,469,231 $65,021 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^S^^^^»^SS^ra^ (A.V./Sq Ft) (Total A.V.) (At 1 3.99% Rate) 110 $5,115,000 $7,1&/ 140 2,339,120 3,273 140 3.117.800 4,363 180 9,770,400 13,671 275 2.186,250 3,059 225 3,937,500 5,509 194 875,000 1.224 165 1.108,800 1.551 n.a^ 25.QQO 25 i $161 $28,475,000 $39,843 ^ji^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^ff^^y^'^^^vS:$«^^P^^^'^i^^^^* $74.944.231 $104.864 3.850.700 5,388 n.a. n.a. $71,093,531 $99,476 Taxable Sales/Revenue Sales/Unit Total Taxable j Tax Revenue (Exp/HshW) (All Hshld Exp) (At 85% Capture) $18.100 $343,900 $2,923 19,100 1,184,200 10,066 20.200 1,252,400 10,645 21,400 S2&5QQ 5j?7_5. $19,800 $3,401,100 $28,948 $9,400 $112,800 $959 10,400 124,800 1,061 12,000 240,000 2,040 IS^QQ 82.200 699 $ 1 1 .200 $559, 800 $4,760 $17,863 $3.960,900 $33,708 ^^^S^^^^^^I^^fiSj^^m^^SP^^^^^^^ (Sales/Sq Ft) (Taxable Sales) (On-Site Stfteft) 90 54,185,000 $41,850 150 2,506,200 25,062 175 3.897,250 38,973 125 6.785,000 67,850 300 2,385,000 23,850 250 4.375.000 43,750 470 2,117,000 21,170 5 33,600 336 $149 $26,285.000 $262,841 $30,245,900 $296,548 n.a. n.a. 2.525.074 25,251 $27,720,826 $271,297 Source.- Alfred Gobar Associates OOTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC. URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS September 25, 1997 Mr. Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Screencheck 1 EIR dated August 29,1997 for the Terraces at Sunny Creek Project (CanAm Properties) In response to your request and in accordance with our September 24, 1997 contract with the City of Carlsbad, Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. (CBA) has conducted a review of the Draft Screencheck 1 Environmental Impact Report for the Terraces at Sunny Creek Project. In general, the Screencheck document appears to be well researched and provides a comprehensive environmental analysis of the proposed project. We have compiled a list of comments to assist the City and the project environmental consultant in preparing the next draft of the EIR. Should the City and/or Affinis wish to discuss any of our comments, questions, or recommendations identified in this letter, we would be pleased to do so. The comments listed below include both substantive comments that address statements related to impacts or conclusions of the document, in addition to less substantive comments that address the document's format or are editorial, but nonetheless will help provide a cleaner, more understandable document. These comments, along with minor edits of less significance are also provided on the attached marked-up pages of the document. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 The last sentence of paragraph 1 states, "The potential environmental effects associated with a 19-acre commercial parcel, which is also part of this project, where previously addressed (Recon 1983), and are reiterated where applicable in this document." It is our understanding that the environmental effects of the commercial parcel development were addressed as part of a previous application, which was approved by the City. The commercial parcel does need a Site Development Permit approval, however no further environmental review is required of that project. The development of the commercial parcel can move ahead independently of the Terraces project. 747 EAST GREEN STREET SUITE 400 • PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2119 (818) 304-0102 FAX (818) 304-0402 6310 GREENWICH DRIVE SUITE 220 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122-5918 (619) 625-0056 FAX (619) 625-0545 Brian Hunter September 25, 1997 Page two The EIR should provide a clearer separation between the previously approved commercial component and the residential component currently under consideration. The commercial component is a related project, and should be described under its own heading "Related Projects" in the project description section. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-1 "To be submitted with FEIR" CBA did not review this section as the executive summary was not prepared as part of the screencheck submittal. Please note, it is important to maintain consistency between the executive summary and the main body of the EIR, especially with the conclusions of the document. The executive summary is one section in which we often detect inconsistencies that may create confusion for readers. The Draft EIR released for public review and the Final EIR must include an executive summary. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 Paragraph 1. Several different acreage figures are used throughout the document to describe the size of the project and its components. One set of figures should be used throughout the entire document to avoid confusion. 3-1 Project Objectives. These objectives address the residential component only. If, for some reason the commercial component needs to be considered as part of the Terraces project, then objectives would need to be revised to address the commercial development. 3-4 Project Features. The two-acre off-site area should be discussed here. The access road that will be provided to the Sunny Creek area properties (to the north and northeast of the site) should be described. As proposed, the project would eliminate the existing access via dirt road to properties located north and northeast of the project site. The new access would be provided through the project via the road through the affordable housing component. The description should address the following questions: How big is the road? Is it to remain as a dirt road? Will it be improved beyond the project limits? Brian Hunter September 25, 1997 Page three 5.3 AIR QUALITY General comment: Several different thresholds are described in this section, then the EIR says that there are no thresholds. If thresholds are included, the EIR should use them for measuring impact significance. 5-21 Paragraph 4 discusses the air quality impacts of commercial parcel development. Discussion should be moved to cumulative analysis section if the commercial parcel is not part of the Terraces project. 5-24 Paragraph 1. The discussion in this paragraph should make it clear that there are no mobile emission standards and the state standard used is for stationary emissions not mobile emissions. Thresholds are utilized only as a basis for comparison. 5-24 Paragraph 2. The discussion of the commercial component is more appropriate in the alternatives section and cumulative analysis section if it is not a part of the Terraces project. 5-24 The EIR discusses stationary emissions for the commercial center (i.e. some of potential commercial uses may require APCD permits). If the commercial center is not a part of the Terraces project, this discussion should be eliminated. Emissions estimates for non-point stationary emissions as a result of gas and electric usage from the residential development should be provided. 5-26 First paragraph, last sentence. Impact analysis provided for the commercial center is unnecessary if it is not a part of the Terraces project. 5-27 Mitigation Measure for commercial parcel should be deleted if it is not part of the Terraces project. 5-28 The air quality impact of the proposed project (project impact, rather than cumulative impact) is not clear. Is the impact significant but mitigable, or significant and unavoidable? 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Figure 5.4-3 Does the road that provides access to Sunny Creek cut through the "Buffer Area"? If so, how does the "buffer" function if a road runs through it. Brian Hunter September 25, 1997 Page four 5.5 LAND USE What happens to Sunny Creek Road? Is it vacated? Describe the "intervening parcel" - location, size, use. 5.6 CIRCULATION Traffic analysis includes the commercial parcel as part of the proposed project. A statement should be made in this section to clarify that commercial project is a related project, and that traffic generation of the commercial parcel has been considered in the analysis (cumulative). 5.7 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5-73 First paragraph. "Off-site parcels to be affected by the proposed off-site improvements were surveyed in November 1996." Are these off-site parcels the same as the two acres off-site? What are the proposed off-site improvements? 5.10 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES Any reference to payment of fees as mitigation should state what facility or service the fee provides. A fee by itself does not mitigate, but the use of a fee to provide services or facilities provides mitigation. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Objectives in the Project Description do not include the commercial parcel. If the commercial parcel is part of the project, and a factor in the alternatives analysis, then the objectives should be strengthened to include the commercial parcel. If the commercial parcel is not part of this project, then the commercial parcel should not be included as part basis of comparison between the project and other alternative. For example, page 7-6 references the commercial parcel in the circulation discussion. Even though the conclusion of significance may be the same (i.e. unavoidable air quality) a particular alternative may result in greater emissions or reduce overall emissions more than the proposed project. Brian Hunter September 25, 1997 Page five Please give Tim Gnibus or me a call at (619) 625-0056 if you have any questions regarding the comments above or contained within the attached text. Sincerely, John E. Bridges, &£P Principal 996.00 City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 13, 1997 Gary Harrison Grosse Development Company, Inc. 5850 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT: SYCAMORE CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR STANDARDS Dear Gary; I posited your question regarding the height restrictions within the El Camino Real Corridor Standards as it pertains to the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan to the Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne. Fortuitously, Mr. Wayne worked with the planners that prepared both of these plans. It was his determination that as the Specific Plan was adopted by ordinance after the Corridor standards (which were adopted by resolution), and as the Corridor standards speak to a rural residential design themes, then the determination of any height limitation for the commercial site should be made via the Specific Plan. Please be advised that the wording within the Specific Plan requires an amendment to the Specific Plan to develop the commercial site at College Avenue. Sincerely; BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:kr c: Assistant Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1 576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (G19) 438-0894 ffi BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE* 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800)423-6054 JOAN C. ARNESON MEVPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX (714) 851-2014 WILLIAM J. KADI (714) 851-1300 WENDY H. WILES* RESPOND TO NEWPORT BEACH PATRICIA B. GIANNONE „,. OUR ^ ROBERT E. ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET, SUITE 715 ARTO J. NUUTINEN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 DANIEL J. PAYNE (909) 222-2750 MARLON SIMON ISABELLA ALASTI DEBORAH R. G. CESARIO LYSAM.SALTZMAN February 7, 1997 •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Ruth Alter Affinis 847 Jamacha Road ElCajon,CA92019 Re: Terraces at Sunny Creek Dear Ms. Alter: This letter is being forwarded to you pursuant to your request for clarification of the Local Facilities Management Plan ("LFMP") performance standard, as it would relate to this firm's client, the Carlsbad Unified School District ("District"). As I previously mentioned to you, the standard mitigation condition included as a performance standard in the applicable Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan and in all other zones in which the City of Carlsbad imposes on new residential housing projects involving legislative land use applications which are approved by the City Council, provides as follows: "Prior to the issuance of building permit, the Developer shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in conformance with the City's Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello- Roos Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Plan including City Council Policy Statement No. 38, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing district." BAKW&G/AJN/34946.02 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Ms. Ruth Alter February 7,1997 Page 2 You have informed me that the existing text of the Zone 15 LFMP school performance standard directs the payment of development impact fees pursuant to State statute as a mitigation condition. However, please be advised that the schools performance standard, which is restated in this correspondence and in my earlier letter of February 4, 1997, is the adopted policy of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad. Accordingly, the schools performance standard for Zone 15 will be updated to reflect this requirement1, as will any other City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Zone where new residential zoning or specific plan or general plan amendments are sought or required as part of the approval of residential construction applications, to the extent such LMFPs reference any performance standards not reflective of the City Council's policy as set forth herein. Therefore, any environmental documentation relative to the Terraces at Sunny Creek project within Local Facilities Management Zone 15 will need to conform with this LFMP requirement as the standard City mitigation requirement applicable to school facilities, in order to properly reflect the City's existing policies. If you have any additional questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & ien cc: Mr. John Blair 'Source: Brian Hunter, Senior Planner, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. BAKW&G/AJN/34946.02 FROM 2. 7. 1997 10:40 P. 2 Hofmon Planning Associates February 7, 1997 Brian Hunter 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 RE: COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Dear Brian: Per the conversations we have previously had with you, it is our understanding that the Site Development Plan for the multi-family portion of the Terraces was the only remaining item that needed to be submitted to have this project deemed complete. It is our intention to submit the application fee of $5,530.00 along with the site plan, floor plans and elevations for the multi-family area next week after you have had a chance to review the plans we gave you earlier this week at your next Seniors meeting. This would provide us the opportunity to make any necessary revisions based on staff comments that may come out of that meeting. If this is correct, we would appreciate getting a letter from the Planning Department deeming the overall Terraces project complete once we have submitted the fee and exhibits for the Site Development Plan. In addition, we believe that we have addressed all project issues that were listed in the previous correspondence from the Planning Department. Please call me if you have any questions or there are any additional items that we need to submit to you to have this project deemed complete or address issues. Sincerely, <PMf% Mike Howes cc Mike O'Hara ***END*** Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis February 5, 1997 Brian Hunter 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 RE: SDP FOR THE AFFORDABLE COMPONENT OF THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Dear Brian: This letter accompanies a check for $5,530.00 for the Site Development Plan for the 50 unit multiple family affordable component of The Terraces at Sunny Creek. It is our understanding that we do not need to submit a new application form for this project since this site was covered by the previous applications we have submitted for the Terraces. Furthermore, since the below listed items have already been submitted with other applications for the Terraces at Sunny Creek, there is no need for us to submit copies of the following: • Constraints Map Location Map EIA Part I PFF Agreement • Disclosure Statement • Preliminary Title Report Traffic Study • Noise Study • Preliminary Soils Report • Project Description • Signed 'Notice of Time Limits on Discretionary Applications' • Photos of the site This letter is, however, accompanied by: Site Plan • Floor Plans and Elevations Landscape Plans Color Board Check for $5,530.00 2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 • Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443 As we discussed on Tuesday February 4th, we will be providing two Site Plans for this project. One will be prepared by Manitou Engineering and will provide all of the detailed engineering information required as well as the dimensions within the driveways. The other exhibit will be prepared by the architect working on the project and will provide the required architectural information and setbacks. As we have already discussed, the reason we are submitting two Site Plans is because it would be impractical to fit all of this information on one exhibit. Both of these Site Plans as well as the Landscape Plan will be at 20 scale. Please call me as soon as possible if you disagree with anything on how we are putting this application together. Sincerely, Mike Howes cc Mike O'Hara enclosures BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONSATTORNEYS AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE* 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE (800) 423-6054 JOAN C. ARNESON NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 FAX (714) 851-2014 WILLIAM J. KADI (714) 851-1300 WENDY H. WILES* RESPOND TO NEWPORT BEACH PATRICIA B. GIANNONE REF OUR f^ ROBERT E. ANSLOW 3403 TENTH STREET, SUITE 715 ARTO J. NUUTINEN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 DANIEL J. PAYNE (909) 222-2750 MARLON SIMON 104.9 7<?ISABELLA ALASTI JVtA.^J DEBORAH R. G. CESARIO LYSAM.SALTZMAN ,February 4, 1997 •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA FEDEX Ms. Ruth Alter Affinis 847 Jamacha Road ElCajon, CA92019 Re: Terraces at Sunny Creek Dear Ms. Alter: As you requested, please find enclosed a standard Carlsbad Unified School District Mitigation Agreement, a copy of which was also sent to Mr. Mike O'Hara on January 15, 1997, relative to the R.W. Gross Development Co.'s "Terraces at Sunny Creek" project. As I mentioned to you, the standard mitigation condition included as a performance standard in the applicable Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan and in all other zones in which the City of Carlsbad imposes on new residential housing projects involving legislative land use applications which are approved by the City Council, provides as follows: "Prior to the issuance of building permit, the Developer shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that impacts to school facilities have been mitigated in confornwnce with the City's Growth Management Plan to the extent permitted by applicable state law. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello- Roos Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Plan including City Council Policy Statement No. 38, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing district." BAKW&G/AJN/34946 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE Ms. Ruth Alter • February 4, 1997 Page 2 Therefore, rather than referencing the payment of impact fees as a mitigation condition, any environmental documentation needs to identify the existence of this LFMP requirement as the standard City mitigation requirement applicable to school facilities. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GTANNC Enclosure cc: Mr. John Blair (w/o enclosure) BAKW&G/AJN/34946 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 JamMr. Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad, Planning 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re; Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terraces at Sunny Creek Dear Mr. Hunter: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received and reviewed the above referenced document pertaining to the Terraces at Sunny Creek project in Carlsbad, California. The Service provides the following comments to assist the City of Carlsbad (City) in preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the subject project. Our comments are based on the above referenced document, the draft Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (July 1994), and our knowledge of the project area. The project site is located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad. It is the Service's understanding that the subject project involves a zone change, general plan amendment, special use permit, and tentative map for the development of 33 affordable multifamily residential units and 179 single family homes. To adequately evaluate the proposed project in terms of NCCP, the following information should be included in the EIR: 1. A determination as to the long-term conservation value of the land to be impacted, based on the evaluation process described in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Note in the guidelines that this evaluation should also include natural lands with no coastal sage scrub present, which, according to the guidelines, includes other habitat types and disturbed or recently cleared land. The draft Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (July 1994) indicates that the subject site is part of the City's Preserve Planning Area (PPA) #2, which supports a core population of the federally threatened California gnatcatcher and other sensitive biological resources. The EIR should incorporate this information in its analysis of the site's long-term conservation value, and should Mr. Hunter 2 discuss the importance of the subject site as a component of PPA #2. 2. A discussion as to whether the open space configuration has been designed taking into consideration the basic tenets of reserve design as outlined in the NCCP guidelines, including: Large blocks of habitat containing large populations are preferable for preservation over small habitat blocks; Habitat that occurs in less fragmented, contiguous blocks with minimal edge is preferable to habitat that is fragmented or isolated by developed lands; Interconnected blocks of habitat serve conservation purposes better than do isolated blocks of habitat, and linkages function better when the habitat within them resembles habitat that is preferred by the target species; and Reserves should be protected from encroachment. Blocks of habitat that are roadless or otherwise inaccessible to human disturbances serve to better conserve target species than do accessible habitat blocks. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed project would foreclose long-term planning options. This should focus on the maintenance of•sufficient connectivity for gnatcatchers and other target species between the Lake Calaveras area and habitat south of the project site. The EIR should also contain the following information: 1. A complete discussion of the purpose and need for the project. 2. A complete description of all potential land use changes, and how these changes are expected to affect biological resources on-site and in adjacent habitat. 3 . Specific acreages and detailed description of the amount and types of habitats which may be affected by each of the land use alternatives. Maps and tables should be used to summarize information. 4. Descriptions of the biological resources associated with each habitat type. These descriptions should include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the resources present on the site. Mr. Hunter 3 5. An assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife and associated habitats, for each of the land use alternatives. Information on cumulative impacts to biological resources which occur within the area should be specific and address regional habitat losses, wildlife corridors, and fragmentation. 7. A list of Federal candidate, proposed or listed species, state- listed species, and locally sensitive species that are on or near the lands to be effected by the proposed action. A detailed discussion of these species, including information pertaining to their local status and distribution, should be included in this report. The anticipated or real impacts of the project on these species should be addressed fully. 8. A discussion of potential impacts to any wetland habitat on-site should be included. 9. Specific mitigation plans to fully offset project-related impacts including cumulative impacts of direct and indirect habitat losses of upland and wetland resources. The objective of each mitigation plan should be to offset the project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Any mitigation plan involving revegetation should include: a) a detailed map noting the locations of areas to be revegetated; b) criteria used to establish minimum survival rates for all plant species used; c) a monitoring program to determine the success of the revegetation effort; d) the number and size of plant species used; e) planting methods, the time of year planting will be conducted and the type of irrigation that will be implemented; and f) an analysis of potential success of such a program. We look forward to receiving the draft EIR. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ellen Berryman of this office at 619/431-9440. \Sincerely, Cobetich Field Supervisor #l-6-HC-97-53 CC: Bill Tippets, CDFG City of Carlsbad Community Development January 27, 1997 Gary W. Harrison Russell Grosse Development 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Thank you for your letter of January 3, 1997, regarding land clearing and other environmental issues for the Sunny Creek property. The information contained in the letter and the attachment is helpful in assessing the progress that has been made. We appreciate the role assumed by Russell Grosse Development in overseeing the review of the entire 600 acre area, and we note in particular that further clearing has not occurred. We have some questions regarding the attachment to your letter. The memorandum from J. Whalen Associates states that detailed field studies have been conducted by Natural Resource Consultants (NRC) to ascertain the amount and type of vegetation that was affected. The memo states that NRC delineated all impacts which have occurred since March 1993, and maps have been prepared. Finally, the memo states that a single gnatcatcher was observed near some of the cleared vegetation, but NRC does not believe that the property supports viable populations of California gnatcatchers. Although aggregate acreage figures were provided in the memo, no mapping was included to show the locations of these impacts, and no breakdown of the impacts by habitat type was provided. The statement that the property does not support a viable population of the California gnatcatcher appears to be inconsistent with the sighting of a gnatcatcher in the area. The continued presence of a gnatcatcher would seem to be significant in view of the fact that approximately 60 acres of habitat have been removed over the past three years. Because this matter was brought to our attention by the federal authorities, the City believes it is important to be able to verify in an objective and scientific manner all information regarding the impacts. Therefore, we request that you submit the original report by NRC which was the basis for the acreage numbers and other information contained in the memo from J. Whalen Associates. We in turn will commission the City's biological consultant to review NRC's report and provide indedependent verification of the findings. After review of the report, it would be appropriate to begin discussion of appropriate methods for mitigating the impacts consistent with the City's draft Habitat Management Plan. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 As noted in the memo from J. Whalen Associates, there is tacit agreement to defer sanctions as long as reasonable progress is being made to address the impacts. The City views receipt and review of the NRC study as essential to demonstrating reasonable good-faith progress. We have contacted the resource agencies, and they concur on the importance of having the biologists report. Thank you again for your assistance and cooperation in the resolution of this important matter. Sincerely; Don Rideout c: City Manager Community Development Director Planning Director :NIRUSSELL VV^GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. <v - *'£&'*' "*', < *? v ^ !fJ^4^Pi^l*C -"^23 TA^S?^-*?* = A Ml f^^tlfflEI^^^^^Sj^SSHSi^S! 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, California 92008 • Phone 619/438-3141 • FAX 619/438-7615 January 3, 1997 City of Carlsbad Growth Management Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 ATTN: Mr. Don Rideout Senior Management Analyst RE: Sunny Creek Locale Land Clearing and Other Environmental Issues Further to previous mid-year communications with you regarding the subject matter, we are enclosing a progress report prepared by our consultant Mr. Jim Whalen, which outlines activities and findings to this date. As you recall, when the land clearing issues were first raised regarding various Sunny Creek landowners and properties, Russell W. Grosse Development volunteered to coordinate the landowners to ensure (a) further clearing would not occur, and (b) that the impacts were delineated and a mitigation plan developed. The attached report noted that the brushing which occurred in 1996 as compared to that which has occurred over time was difficult if not impossible to enumerate and would have been a subjective opinion at best. It was therefore decided to look at the impact to the entire ± 600 AC area using aerial photos prior to and subsequent to the 1993 listing. This commitment to oversee has grown beyond our original expectations and has since consumed a considerable amount of manpower with the associated costs. However, we continue to honor this commitment and, as you can see, have increased the scope by creating the 'Agua Hedionda Watershed Plan' which we hope will prove to be a major benefit to the City, environmental agencies, and affected homeowners. Contractors License No. 378383 Mr. Don Hideout Januarys, 1997 Page 2 If you require further clarification on any of the enclosed report comments or statements, please contact the undersigned prior to the January 15, 1997 scheduled property owners meeting. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting and continuing this process through to a mutually acceptable conclusion for all parties. Yours truly, Gary W. Harrison, P.Eng Enclosure Pat\010397\GWH\Rideout J. Whalen Associates lalancing the needs of the environment with those of business 4517 Santa Monica Avenue San Diego, California 92107 619.222-5856 619.222-6450 FAX Memorandum Date: December 26,1996 To: Gary Harrison From: Jim Whalen Re: Progress Report Environmental Issues As the end of the year approaches, I thought it timely to give a progress report on the three areas where I am providing you environmental consulting support • Terraces at Sunny Creek • Sunny Creek Estates • Agua Hedionda Watershed Plan Background Earlier this year, brushing impacts of varying intensity were observed to have occurred in the small areas of coastal sage scrub which are found in scattered locations throughout the Terraces and Sunny Creek Estates sites. These impacts, which ranged from thinning of vegetation to complete clearing, were brought to my attention by your office and the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. On your initiative, I subsequently instructed Natural Resource Consultants (NRQ to field verify what had been reported as having occurred and prepare a "before-and-after" chart for your review. It became apparent that the brushing impacts noticed this past spring were intermingled with similar impacts which had occurred over a long period of time. There was a need for a more comprehensive study to get the most accurate picture of activities occurring within the 600-plus-acre area. Because of this, the NRC surveys, which were in part based on a review of historical aerial photographs, delineate all impacts which occurred after the listing of the California gnatcatcher in March, 1993. The NRC surveys show aggregate impacts which have occurred within the two project areas since the 1993 listing. Apparently, fanning activities have led to bits of habitat being removed over a number of years. Sometimes the habitat has grown back, sometimes the land has been kept in agricultural production. Quantitatively, the results of the NRC surveys for the period from March, 1993, to the present are: Terraces: 1.2 acres of clearing Sunny Creek Estates: 33.6 acres of thinning 54.6 acres of brushing 5.5 acres of clearing Explanatory Notes "Thinning" is akin to fuels management where approximately 50% of the biomass is removed. Vegetation grows back completely in 1-2 years. It is not generally considered a significant impact by the wildlife agencies when done according to approved protocols. "Brushing" is characterized by complete removal of brush vegetation down to the ground level, with preservation of root burls and the integrity of the root systems. The vegetation would require more time to recover. The impact is midway in significance between clearing and thinning. "Clearing" entails the removal of all vegetation to the ground level. The impact is significant, though temporary because the vegetation will grow back. Typically, the mitigation for authorized clearing of low value coastal scrub ranges from 1:1 to 1.5:1. Intermediate and high quality sage scrub is usually mitigated at 2:1. Though a single gnatcatcher was found near some of the cleared vegetation, NRC does not believe the property supports viable populations of the threatened songbird. Hence the lower value of the coastal scrub. Discussion Once we had a better picture of exactly what impacts had occurred, I contacted the City of Carlsbad (Don Hideout), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Gail Kobetich), and California Department of Fish & Game (RonRempel). The question arose from them as to which property owner (or owners) had responsibility for what appeared to be violations of the Endangered Species Act Since the responsibility for the impacts to the sage scrub could not always be attributed to a particular parry, and in fact, the majority of the clearing was done by third- party farm lessees using itinerant farmworkers, it became clear that a satisfactory resolution indicated a more comprehensive approach. Essentially, your direction to me has been that we would work with the City and agencies to plan the development of the properties by integrating comprehensive conservation planning into the process, the ultimate goal being to complete a segment of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, eventually obtaining Take Authorizations for the gnatcatcher and the other species which are or would be (if left unaddressed} protected by state or federal law. That process would provide for the mitigation of the unauthorized clearing and grading impacts. As you recall, your office agreed to take charge of coordinating the process so that appropriate corrective measures could be taken. (This assumes the cooperation of the other Sunny Creek property owners.) To date, these actions have been acceptable to the wildlife agencies; there is tacit agreement to defer sanctions unless no progress is made in addressing the sage scrub losses. The following steps have been taken to move this complicated endeavor to completion: 1. All unauthorized clearing, brushing and thinning was stopped upon discovery in late spring, 19%. The property owners have been advised of the seriousness of ESA violations in several meetings with the wildlife agencies and the City of Carlsbad. To my knowledge, no additional impacts have occurred since the matter was first noticed. 2. Detailed field studies have been conducted to ascertain the amount and type of vegetation that was affected. Maps have been prepared and then verified. (The impacts cited earlier in this memo were determined in this step.) 3. Several meetings were held with Don Rideout and the agencies to inform them fully of what steps we planned to take once we knew the nature of the impacts. 4. Our original proposal to jointly plan for development and open space between the six or so property owners in the Sunny Creek area has been expanded to include all of the property owners in the entire Agua Hedionda Watershed. The rationale for this is to provide greater certainty for all of the parties involved. By certainty, I mean the environmentalists know that impacts are mitigated and the crucial habitat areas are preserved, the property owners can make business plans without undue concern over endangered species, and the regulators get a much more efficient multi-species conservation plan. The result of a comprehensive approach is that the agencies get a complete picture of an important sector of the HMP. Acting collectively, landowners may be able to develop greater portions of their property than they would otherwise acting as individuals. And finally, the City gets a cooperative group of property owners with whom they can efficiently plan the development of the area. Future Activities All of the Agua Hedionda property owners have been contacted fay either your or my office. Besides the property owners in the Sunny Creek area, the list includes: SDG&E, Hillman Properties, the Kelly and Robertson families, Rancho Carlsbad, Metropolitan Life (Calavera Hills), the County of San Diego, and the City of Carlsbad (city government water and school districts). They have agreed to proceed with what has been termed the Agua Hedionda Watershed Plan (AHWP) and work towards agreement on a work program and schedule, including the following steps: 1. Pre-Meeting with Sunny Creek management team on January 14,1997, to set agenda for 1/15/97 meeting. 2. Meeting with property owners to be held on January 15,1997, at the offices of Russell Grosse Development Co. Don Rideout will open the meeting and then depart after his remarks. We have agreed that JWhalen Associates is to act as coordinator between the owners' group. 3. At meeting, solidify the commitment of the property owners to participate in the AHWP. Present suggested work program and schedule before the group for their review and comment, eventually leading to adoption. 4. Have City and wildlife agencies sanction the work program. 5. Implement program and finish by the year's end. Conclusion For the Sunny Creek area of Carlsbad, all unauthorized clearing activities have stopped. The property owners have agreed, at least in the Sunny Creek area, to embark on a comprehensive habitat conservation plan for this biologically sensitive areas in Carlsbad. This is what the environmental groups and agencies want The City will have stronger property-owner interest to help push the city-wide HMP to conclusion. In the end, all of the interest groups should have their goals met Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss the contents of this memorandum. m MAIMITOU ENGINEERING COMPANY PLANNING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING December 23, 1996 Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Re: C.T. 96-02 "The Terraces" Discussion regarding grading over 40% slope areas Dear Brian, There are two isolated ravines located in the east-central area of the project, each containing small pockets of slope exceeding 40%. Both ravines are crossed by "C" Street as it extends access to the east end of the property. If an attempt is made to preserve as much of these steep slope areas as possible, by eliminating certain lots fronting on "C" Street and constructing only the street itself, only small portions of the steep slope areas will remain because the grading for the street itself will cover much of it. This is quantified as follows: In the westerly ravine, there is an area of 40% slope containing approximately 8,764 square feet. The southerly portion of this area, containing 5,464 square feet, is covered by grading for "C" Street, leaving 3,300 square feet preserved to the north. This could be done at the expense of five lots. South of this area, also in the westerly ravine, is a small pocket of 40% slope containing about 1,744 square feet. This entire area could be preserved by sloping up from the surrounding lots, resulting in an isolated area of natural ground perched on a knoll from two feet to twenty nine feet above the surrounding lots. This could be done at the expense of three lots. In the easterly ravine, there is a horseshoe shaped area of steep slope containing approximately 14,098 square feet. The southerly portion of this area, containing about 2,944 square feet, can be preserved by sloping down from the surrounding area, resulting in a depression from two feet to fifty feet deep. This could be done at the expense of nine lots. The remainder of this horeseshoe shaped area is covered by grading for "C" Street. Even if a downslope is constructed on the north side of "C" Street, at the expense of six more lots, no further preservation is achieved. 350 WEST NINTH AVENUE • SUITE B • ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 • (619)741-9921 • FAX (619) 745-7487 MAIMITOU In summary, out of a total of 24,606 square feet, approximately 7,988 square feet of ground he nreserveH if twentv three, lots are sacrificed.be preserved if twenty three lots are sacrificed. can There are two lots at the extreme east end of "C" Street which back onto an adjacent steep slope area of significant size. The grading at the rear of these lots has been redesigned to preclude any encroachment into the steep slope area. This results in the preservation of approximately 4,540 square feet of steep slope area, while not losing any lots at all. If the goal is to preserve all of the steep slope areas, then impact to the project would be as follows: The right-angle knuckle on "C" Street would become a cul-de-sac bulb and the remainder of "C" Street east of this bulb would disappear. All of the lots adjacent to this lost portion of "C" Street would be lost. There would be no "E" Street. Thirty three lots would be lost. These lots are shown on the exhibit titled "Alternate Site Design to Retain 40% Natural Slopes". Should you have any questions feel free to call. Sincere fan C. Re Vice Presi CC: Mike O'Hara Mike Howse file 1416st IVIAMITOU ENGINEERING COIVIPANV PLANNING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING December 23, 1996 Mr. Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Re: Ct.T. 96-02 "The Terraces" grading quantity justification Dear Brian There are two factors which cause the grading quantities for Carlsbad Tract 96-02 to be higher than they otherwise would be. First, large areas of the site are underlain by compressible alluvial soils. These soils, after removal and recompaction, will compress by approximately 62,000 cubic yards. Second, the construction of the circulation element roads, El Camino Real and College Boulevard, requires a net additional fill of approximately 114,200 cubic yards. The additional fill required by these two factors is designed into the project so that sufficient additional cut is generated and the entire site will balance. For the purpose of calculating a "cubic yards per acre" quantity, the additional cut mentioned above is subtracted from the overall grading volume. This calculation is tabulated as follows: Maximum earthwork volume (cut): Additional cut to compensate for compression in alluvial soils: Additional cut to compensate for construction of circulation element roads (El Camino Real and College Blvd.: Net quantity after adjustments: Total acres graded: 621,870 cubic yards - 62,000 cubic yards -114,200 cubic yards 445,670 cubic yards 61 acres Cubic yards per acre: 445,670 761= 7,306 cubic yards per acre. If you have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to call. 350 WEST NINTH AVENUE • SUITE B • ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 • (619)741-9921 • FAX (619) 745-7487 C. Regan P.E., P.L.S. Vice President cc:Mike O'Hara Mike Howse file 1416ej MAIMITOU FROM 12.20.1996 15:58 P. 1 Hofmon Planning Associates ' a n n • n a December 20, 1996 Evan Becker 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MEETING NOTES FROM DECEMBER 16, 1996 - THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Dear Evan: The following are the meeting notes I took during our meeting held on Monday, December 16, 1996 with you, Brian Hunter, Mike O'Hara, and myself. If there is anything incorrect in these notes please to call me or markup these notes and fax them back to me. Mike O'Hara explained the revisions to the proposed project and mentioned the affordable housing developers that they had discussed the project with. You suggested that we might want to contact Jennifer Lesor of Community Housing of North County, another possible affordable non-profit developer for this site. I explained that using the City's method of calculating affordable requirements this project would be required to provide 77 affordable units and this project was providing 79 affordable units. This was based on requiring that 30% of the units be affordable rather than the standard 15% requirement. 179 market rate units 29 second units SO apartments (79 affordable units are provided) 258 total units 258X0.15=38,7X2 = 77 required affordable units I also pointed out that the project was proposing 179 market rate units and 79 affordable units which was equal to 42% of the market rate units, ***END*** FROM 12.20.1996 15=49 You said there is still some lack of clarity as to where second units stand towards fulfilling the Inclusionary requirements; there is a problem with the City Attorney's office as to whether second units can be counted towards meeting the Inclusionary requirement. You said the City Attorney's issue is that second dwelling units do not have the restriction that Inclusionary units do. Homeowners would not have to rent their seconds units or income qualify people who do rent them. The attorney's office wants the units offered for rent and homeowner's would have to income qualify the renters to be less than 80% of the median income.. You said that since our 50 apartment units are considered affordable and would count as 19% of the total units, staff could support the second units in the remainder of the project as they are now planned without rent restrictions. You confirmed that the Inclusionary Ordinance has a clause which allows Council to approve alternatives to the typical Inclusionary unit. You said that from your point of view the 50 affordable units provided in the apartment portion of the project meets the City's Inclusionary requirement and this project is acceptable to you. You also mentioned and it was confirmed by Brian Hunter that there was no planning problems with the affordable site, but there were other aspects of the project that would have to be resolved with the Planning Department. I pointed out that the 50 unit project on this site would have a density of approximately 28 dwelling unit per acre which exceeded the maximum of 23 dwelling unit allowed by the RH General Plan designation. We discussed this and it was determined that this would not be an issue since GPA 92-6 approved by the City Council in April, 1993 allowed affordable projects to be approved at densities above that allowed by their General Plan designation. I believe that these notes accurately reflect our meeting on Monday, December 16. Based on this understanding we are proceeding with the detailed design of the multifamily portion of the project for a formal submittal to the City. If there are any inaccuracies or misunderstandings in these notes please call me or mark them up and fax them back to me. Sincerely, Mike Howes cc Mike OHara Brian Hunter ***END*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGtRJY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Regions 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (310)590-5113 December 17,1996 Mr. Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad, Planning 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Dear Mr. Hunter Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Terraces at Sunny Creek SCH 96111050, San Diego County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. Athorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Mr. Brian Hunter December 17,1996 Page Two d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. c. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. d. The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation programs. Under § 2800-§ 2840 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department, through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, is coordinating with local jurisdictions, landowners, and the Federal Government to preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub is the first natural community to be planned for under the NCCP program. The Department recommends that the City ensure that the development of this and other proposed projects do not preclude long-term preserve planning options and that projects conform with other requirements of the NCCP program. Jurisdictions participating in the NCCP program should assess specific projects for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Additionally, the jurisdictions should quantify and qualify: 1) the amount of coastal sage scrub within their boundaries; 2) the acreage of coastal sage scrub habitat removed by individual projects; and 3) any acreage set aside for mitigation. This information should be kept in an updated ledger system. These issues must be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report per CEQA Guidelines, § 15065 and § 15380. Mr. Brian Hunter December 17,1996 Page Three 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project- related impacts (Attachment 2). c. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/ortransplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful. 4. If the project has the potential to adversely affect species of plants or animals listed underthe California Endangered Species Act (CESA), either during construction or overthe life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU) must be obtained under §2081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOU'sare issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA-MOU. a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA-MOU. b. A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare underthe Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. Mr. Brian Hunter December 17,1996 Page Four a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code §1600 et. seq. in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife . resources. b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. The Department holds regularly scheduled pre-project planning/early consultation meetings. To make an appointment, please call our regional office at (310) 590-5137. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Tim Dillingham, Wildlife Biologist, at (619) 467-4204. Sincerely, Patricia Wolf O Acting Regional Manager Attachments cc: See attached list Mr. Brian Hunter December 17,1996 Page Five cc: Mr.TimDillingham Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California Mr. Alex Vejar Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California Mr. Jim Dice Department of Fish and Game Borrego Springs, California Ms. Terri Dickerson Department of Fish and Game Laguna Hills, California Mr. William Tippets Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, California State Clearinghouse Sacramento, California - THE RESOURCES AGETO1STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY . _~_ PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 467-4212 December 11, 1997 Mr. Brian Hunter Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Terraces at Sunny Creek Project (GPA-96-01, ZC-96-01, SP 1*90(6), CT 96-2, SUP 96-01 to 04, PUD 96-02, HDP96-02) Dear Mr. Hunter: The California Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) staff has completed its review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Terraces at Sunny Creek Project and is submitting the following comments. The approximately 59-acre proposed development is located in northeastern Carlsbad, north of El Camino Real, south of Aqua Hedionda Creek, and opposite the Junction of El Camino Real and College Blvd. The property is composed of two parcels, a 39.9-acre eastern parcel proposed for single and multi-family residential development, and a 19.0-acre western parcel slated for commercial development. The eastern parcel would be developed as a part of the Terraces at Sunny Creek Project, but the western commercial site, under a separate Site Development Plan, is proposed only for grading at the same time. The project would develop 172 single family detached homes, 28 affordable efficiency units, and 50 affordable multi-family residential units. Agua Hedionda Creek abuts the project to the north. This wetland and its immediate watershed are projected to play a key role in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in terms of sustaining habitat linkage between conserved biological core habitats in the Lake Calavera/Carlsbad Highlands Conservation Bank area and coastal habitats in and around Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Because of the already constricted and disturbed condition of this corridor along the creek, further impacts to it must be considered significant. Most of the 59-acre property has been heavily disturbed in the past from agricultural activities. The following habitats occur on-site: agricultural fields (28.2 ac.), disturbed non-native grasslands (20.45 ac.), riparian woodlands (0.3 ac.), southern mixed chaparral (2.6 ac.), southern mixed chaparral-brushed (0.88 ac.), oak woodlands (0.96 ac.), coastal sage scrub-brushed (1.7 ac.), native grassland (1.5 ac.), freshwater marsh (0.02 ac.), eucalyptus woodlands (0.4 ac.), and Mr. Brian Hunter December 11, 1997 Page 2 developed (3.94 ac.). Three sensitive species were observed on-site: the federally threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californicd) - an individual female, California adolphia (Adolphia californicd) - 70 plants, and southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus) - one plant. The proposed project would impact 98 percent of the site, with only approximately 1.0 acres of existing habitat to remain, primarily oak woodlands. A portion of the affordable housing area would fall within the floodplain of Aqua Hedionda Creek, requiring the placement of fill material within the creek drainage way to raise the development above the floodplain elevation. All of the sensitive plant and animal species on-site would be directly impacted, and would not persist on the property. Grading activities could result in.significant erosion on-site, and deposition of sediment into Aqua Hedionda Creek and the lagoon downstream. Water quality in the creek and lagoon could also be negatively affected by increased urban runoff from the development. Proposed mitigation measures include: 1) Off-site acquisition of 2.6 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, with the parcel supporting both sage scrub and native grassland; 2) 1.74 acres of riparian woodland revegetation off-site within Aqua Hedionda Creek adjacent to the development; 3) establishment of a natural buffer zone with an average width of 69 feet between the riparian vegetation and the edge of development (varying from 0 to 300 feet); 4) establishment of a Corridor Management Area; 5) construction of-sedimentation basins during the construction phase; and 6) development of a National Pollutant Elimination System Plan and institution of Best Management Practices to address water quality issues. The DFG has the following comments and recommendations: 1. The DFG believes that Aqua Hedionda Creek is a significant biological resource within the City of Carlsbad, not only for its intrinsic habitat values but for its linkage value. This already tenuous habitat connection between habitat lands to the east of the Terraces project and lands in and around Aqua Hedionda Lagoon makes any additional impacts significant. Given that 98 percent of the 59-acre site is proposed for development, it does not appear that any significant effort was made to avoid impacts to the oak woodland and wetland habitats associated with the creek. The DFG believes that the proposed project needs to be redesigned to avoid all impacts to oak woodlands and wetland habitats. The redesign should also incorporate a minimum undeveloped natural buffer zone of 50 feet between the edge of development and the woodlands/wetlands habitats. Not only would this eliminate the need to mitigate off-site for wetlands, it would simplify the development approval process by eliminating any permit processing by the DFG and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetland impacts. 2. Because of the indirect effects from the development on the wildlife corridor, the Mr. Brian Hunter December 11, 1997 Page 3 DFG concurs with the mitigation proposal to establish a Corridor Management Area. However, the Final EIR needs to clarify the boundaries of the management area, who will be responsible for overseeing this area, and who will fund monitoring and management of this area. 3. Please clarify where proposed sedimentation basins will be located. No basins were noted on the various development illustrations in the DEIR. The DFG strongly opposes placing any sedimentation basins within Aqua Hedionda Creek. Any basins needed for erosion control should be contained within the development envelope.. 4. The project proposes to mitigate for impacts to coastal sage scrub at a 1.5:1 ratio, for a total off-site mitigation obligation of 2.6 acres. The DFG believes that because the coastal sage on-site was illegally cleared, the sage scrub habitat was occupied by the California gnatcatcher, and it is an upland component of a significant wildlife corridor, that a ratio of 2:1 is more appropriate. This would result in an off-site coastal sage scrub obligation of 3.4 acres. The City should address whether or not additional compensation measures should be required for the illegal clearing. 5. The DFG believes that because of the rarity and sensitivity of native grassland habitat within San Diego County, mitigation at a 2:1 ratio is appropriate for impacts to this vegetative community. This would result in an off-site mitigation obligation of 3.0 acres. Although the DEIR proposes to mitigate for both coastal sage scrub and native grasslands on one 2.6-acre mitigation site, we do not believe that this mitigation is commensurate with the level of impacts. The 3.0 acres of mitigation for native grassland impacts should be in addition to 3.4 acres of coastal sage scrub mitigation. If a mitigation site is found that supports a mixture of both habitat types, then some reduction in overall mitigation acreage may be warranted. 6. The chaparral habitat on-site is classified as southern mixed chaparral. The DFG has concerns that this vegetation community should have been mapped as southern maritime chaparral. This issue should be clarified and addressed in the Final EIR. This vegetation type is known to occur immediately west and south of the project property. While we are not necessarily recommending preservation of the 2.6 acres of chaparral remaining on-site, southern maritime chaparral is considered a rare and sensitive habitat type, with mitigation ratios typically being 2:1. 7. The DFG is particularly concerned with how the proposed development will affect water quality within Aqua Hedionda Creek, and even more importantly DFG- owned lands in and around Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Runoff from parking lots, Mr. Brian Hunter December 11, 1997 Page 4 streets, and landscaping may pose a significant threat to the water quality in the creek and lagoon. This is even more of a concern given the close proximity of the development to the lagoon, and the general lack of wetlands vegetation between the proposed development and where the creek crosses under El Camino Real, which could serve to filter pollutants. If possible, the DFG recommends that runoff from the development be diverted into the sewer system, and not directly discharged into Aqua Hedionda Creek. 8. Impacts to any stream-related habitats will require a DFG Streambed Alteration Agreement (1601). The DFG biologist responsible for these agreements is Ms. Terri Dickerson, who can be contacted at (714) 363-7538. However, we reiterate that we believe the project should be redesigned to avoid all wetlands impacts. 9. The Biological Resources section of the Final EIR should include a discussion of the NCCP Findings. This discussion is necessary if the project is to process incidental take of the California gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub habitat through the City's 4(d) Rule Habitat Loss Permit process. This concludes our comments on the Terraces at Sunny Creek Project, We are available to work with the project proponent and the City in redesigning the project to avoid wetland habitats. If you have any questions please contact David Lawhead at (6 1 9) 467-42 1 1 . Thank you. Sincerely, William E. Tippets NCCP Field Supervisor cc: Department of Fish and Game Mr. Ron Rempel Sacramento Mr. Curt Taucher Long Beach Mr. David Lawhead San Diego United States Department of the Interior tia \FISH * WILDLU'ESERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 DEC 11 Mr. Brian Hunter f City of Carlsbad, Planning 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terraces at Sunny Creek Dear Mr. Hunter: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terraces at Sunny Creek (DEIR), dated October, 1997. The Service previously provided comments on this proposed project in a letter dated January 9, 1997, in response to a Notice of Preparation of an EIR for the subject project. The following comments are based on the DEIR and technical appendices, and our knowledge of the project area and regional conservation efforts being developed for the City of Carlsbad and other local jurisdictions in northern coastal San Diego county. The approximately 60-acre project site consists of two parcels located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad (project site acreage differs slightly throughout the DEIR). It is the Service's understanding that the subject project involves an amendment to the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan. The amendment entails deletion of the Terraces at Sunny Creek property from the previously approved specific plan. The project also involves a Tentative Tract Map for development of 172 single family detached homes, 28 affordable efficiency units and 50 affordable multi-family residential units (apartments) on the 39.9-acre parcel. The DEIR states that the project requires a Habitat Loss Permit (HLP) under provisions of the Interim Rule 4(d) implementing ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. This ordinance is intended to implement measures required under the Special Rule for the federally listed California gnatcatcher pursuant to section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act. The gnatcatcher Special Rule allows for a loss of up to 5 percent of the habitat for the California gnatcatcher (coastal sage scrub) during an interim period while long-term conservation plans are being developed, provided such loss meets criteria specified in California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG's) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Conservation Guidelines (November 1993). The EIR should include a thorough analysis as to whether the NCCP criteria are met under the plan. Because the coastal sage scrub on-site was illegally cleared (see attached letter from the City of Carlsbad, dated May 24, 1996), was occupied by the California gnatcatcher, and is an upland component of a significant wildlife corridor, the Service believes Mr. Hunter 2 that a 2:1 mitigation ratio is more appropriate than the proposed 1.5:1 ratio for the coastal sage scrub impacts. The mitigation should consist of preservation of land with high long-term conservation value for the California gnatcatcher that contributes to the Carlsbad HMP preserve system, as approved by the Service. The Service and CDFG have been working closely with the City of Carlsbad to complete the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), a long-term multiple species conservation plan for the City. Once this plan is finalized, the City's Interim Rule 4(d) implementing ordinance and interim loss provisions under the gnatcatcher Special Rule will no longer apply. If the project applicant has not submitted an application for a HLP prior to finalization of the HMP, then the HLP is no longer necessary but the project must be consistent with project design and mitigation measures specified in the HMP. The Service is concerned that the proposed mitigation for native grassland may not be adequate to offset significant impacts to this plant community. Native grasslands were widespread in California 200 years ago, but were altered with the introduction of livestock and invasive non- native annual grasses from Europe (Crampton 1974). European grasses are able to withstand a greater intensity of cattle grazing than native grasses, and so out-compete the natives in grazed areas. Native grasslands in the coastal lowlands of San Diego county currently occur only in scattered remnants. Table 5.4-3 of the DEIR indicates that impacts to 1.5 acres of native grassland will be mitigated through the off-site acquisition of 2.6 acres of coastal sage scrub. The DEIR assumes that the 2.6 acres to be used for coastal sage scrub and California gnatcatcher mitigation will have an understory of native grasses and will therefore be suitable mitigation for native grassland, The mitigation site has not yet been identified, so it is unclear how the project applicant intends to locate a site that supports coastal sage scrub with native grass understory. Even if a site with these parameters were located, a plant community comprised of coastal sage scrub with an understory of native grasses is likely to provide very different habitat values than a community comprised purely of grassland. For example, open grasslands provide prime foraging habitat for raptors. Project mitigation should include preservation of land supporting native grassland at a mitigation ratio of at least 2:1, in addition to the preservation of land necessary for coastal sage scrub mitigation. The Biology Report (appendix to the DEIR; Natural Resource Consultants, December 1996) references an earlier report prepared by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists (SEB) in March of 1996. The SEB report should be included in the DEIR technical appendices to provide details regarding the surveys performed in March, 1996. The DEIR should indicate the soil types that are present on the subject site, and provide a discussion regarding any sensitive species potentially occurring in certain soil types, especially clay soils. It is the Service's understanding that clay soils supporting two federally proposed endangered plant species, San Diego thommint and thread-leaved brodiaea, are present in the project vicinity. Mr. Hunter 3 While the Biology Report includes a table of species potentially occurring on-site but not found, it does not include a discussion of the likelihood of occurrence for these species. The technical appendix includes a letter dated October 20, 1997, from Marsha Gross to the project applicant, stating that a focused survey for thread-leaved brodiaea was performed in May of 1997 but that this species was not found. The DEIR itself makes no mention of this survey and includes no information regarding sensitive species that potentially occur on-site but were not found. The DEIR should include this information so that the reader can assess potential impacts to sensitive species without having to read the technical appendix. Page 12 of the DEIR states that the project would directly impact 0.3 acres of riparian woodland, 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh, and 0.4 acres of oak woodland. To be consistent with section 404 of the Clean Water Act, wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives to the proposed action should include scenarios that avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative should be adopted. Any unavoidable wetland impacts should be adequately mitigated. The Service concurs with the proposal to mitigate any unavoidable impacts to riparian woodland at a 3:1 ratio and freshwater marsh at a 2:1 ratio through revegetation of riparian woodland along Agua Hedionda Creek. However, the proposed location for the revegetation along the creek is questionable. Figure 5.4-3 of the DIER indicates that much of the proposed revegetation south of the creek would be within the proposed buffer area, adjacent to development. The proposed revegetation area north of the creek as shown oh Figure 5.4-3 of the DEIR differs from that shown on Exhibit 4 of the Biological Technical Report. In both documents, the revegetation area north of the creek is oddly configured with large geometrically-shaped gaps interdigitated with narrow revegetation areas. It is unclear why this configuration of revegetation is proposed; it appears as though the gaps between the revegetation areas could either be future development areas or existing riparian area. If the gaps are future development areas, the Service would not consider revegetation in this configuration to adequately mitigate wetland impacts because the resulting habitat is likely to be highly vulnerable to edge effects. If the gaps are existing riparian areas, the Service is concerned that they may be natural openings in the vegetation where revegetation efforts would not afford an ecological benefit. The revegetation should be contiguous with habitat on Agua Hedionda Creek, should be configured with minimal edge, and should contribute to the ecological viability of the local riparian system. A buffer should be provided between development and riparian habitat (both currently intact and future revegetated habitat). The optimum buffer for this area would be 100 feet in width on either side of the habitat. Page 5-37 of the DEIR states that the type of planting that would take place as mitigation for wetland impacts would be based upon the hydrology, soils, and exposure of each site. The revegetated area should result in no net loss of wetland acreage, function and values. Therefore, the mitigation area must have suitable soils and hydrological characteristics to accomplish this goal. Impacts to any land that qualifies as a wetland under Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction, pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act, should be mitigated with habitat of Mr. Hunter 4 equal or greater value that also qualifies as Corps jurisdictional wetland. The project would impact 0.4 acres of oak woodland. The proposed mitigation involves revegetation with riparian woodland at a 2:1 ratio. Due to the unique nature of oak woodlands, mitigation for this habitat type should be in-kind. Planted oak trees often experience high mortality rates, and once oak woodland is lost the habitat values cannot be restored for many years due to the slow growth rate of oak trees. For this reason, oak mitigation often involves planting at a ratio of 10 trees for each tree lost in order to fully mitigate impacts to a level below significance. In conclusion, the Service concurs with the HLP findings and proposed coastal sage scrub mitigation provided the mitigation site is in an area approved by the Service with high long-term conservation value and contributes to the City's HMP preserve system. The Service remains concerned regarding significant impacts to native grasslands, oak woodlands, and jurisdictional wetlands. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to'the maximum extent practicable, and unavoidable impacts should be adequately mitigated. Mitigation for loss of riparian woodlands should involve revegetation in a configuration that minimizes edge effect, and should include an adequate buffer between riparian habitat and adjacent development. The project should result in no net loss of habitat acreage, function, and value for wetlands. Native grasslands and oak woodlands should be mitigated in-kind as discussed above. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terraces at Sunny Creek. The Service is willing to work with the City and project applicant to resolve the issues raised above. Please contact Ellen Berryman of this office at 760/431-9440. Sincerely, \ Gail C. Kotetich Field Supervisor #l-6-HC-98-CA-25 cc: Bill Tippets, CDFG Literature Cited Crampton, B. 1974. Grasses in California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA Mr. Hunter 5 from NOP- The draft Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (July 1994) indicates that the subject site is part of the City's Preserve Planning Area (PPA) #2, which supports a core population of the federally threatened California gnatcatcher and other sensitive biological resources. Specific mitigation plans to fully offset project-related impacts including cumulative impacts of direct and indirect habitat losses of upland and wetland resources. The objective of each mitigation plan should be to offset the project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Any mitigation plan involving revegetation should include: a) a detailed map noting the locations of areas to be revegetated; b) criteria used to establish minimum survival rates for all plant species used; c) a monitoring program to determine the success of the revegetation effort; d) the number and size of plant species used; e) planting methods, the time of year planting will be conducted and the type of irrigation that will be implemented; and f) an analysis of potential success of such a program. bcc: N. Gilbert Enclosure City of Carlsbad Community Development May 24, 1996 To Property Owners in Sunny Creek Area of Carlsbad: It has been brought to the City's attention that there has been a significant amount of vegetation clearing in recent months in the Sunny Creek/Sycamore Creek area. This was reported to us by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is concerned that the clearing may have been a violation of federal law. The City is concerned that the clearing may also have been in violation of the City's grading ordinance and/or other ordinances. At this time the full extent of the clearing has not been determined, and the City is continuing to investigate. It is also not clear which particular properties have been involved. Therefore, this notice is being sent to all property owners in the area. Property owners will be responsible for communicating this information to renters or lessees. If some or all of the clearing is determined to have been in violation of federal law, there are serious implications for both property owners and the City. It is the City's intent to address this situation immediately and directly in order to minimize negative consequences to all parties. For this reason, your cooperation is requested in discontinuing all clearing of brush and trees until the City is able to assess the situation. It is not our intention to interfere with normal agricultural operations on land that has already been cleared or has only non-native annual grasses. The City's concern is only with clearing of native vegetation such as sagebrush, buckwheat, cactus, and native trees such as oaks, sycamores, willows, and cottonwoods. Also, any vegetation surrounding springs or seeps should not be cleared. A meeting has been scheduled for Monday, June 3, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. at the Community Development Building, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, to discuss how to respond to the possible violations. This is an important meeting, and ail piopcity owners are requested to attend. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact Don Rideout at 438-1161 extension 4212. ' Marty Orenyak Community Development Director c: City Manager City Attorney Fish and Wildlife Service •vriA z -,-I r-A QonnQ.-i c;v(=; . ffi-iq^ 4.^8-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 1600 Pacific Highway • Room 452 San Diego, CA 92101 • (619) 531-5400 San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission Chairwoman Dianne Jacob County Board of Supervisors Members Bill Horn County Board of Supervisors Shirley Norton Mayor, City of Chula Vista Lori Howard Councilmember, Santee City of Harry Mathis Councilmember, City of San Diego Dr. Lillian M. Childs Helix Water District John Sasso President, Borrego Water District November 26, 1996 Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report: Terraces at Sunny Creek - General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Subdivision, Site Development Plan from Office to Residential Dear Mr. Hunter: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. The Notice to Prepare this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not specifically identify any changes to local government organization associated with the project, which implies that LAFCO will not be a responsible agency for environmental review. The site appears to be entirely within the City of Carlsbad. However, if the project area is not within the boundaries of agencies that furnish public services required for development, then annexation to one or more districts would be necessary, and Alternate Members should be listed in the project description and discretionary actions sections in the Draft EIR. If jurisdictional boundary changes are proposed, of particular interest to LAFCO would be the provision of public services (such as water, sewer, etc.) and the ability of agencies to provide service to the territory. Any changes to local government organization and/or spheres of influence would require thai LAFCO be a responsible agency for environmental review. Andrew L. Vanderlaan Public Member Greg Cox County Board of Supervisors Julianne Nygaard Councilmember, City of Carlsbad Vargas Councilmember, City of San Diego Ronald W. Wootton Vista Fire Protection District David A. Perkins Public Member Executive Officer Michael D. Ott Counsel John J. Sansone If we mav * Sincerely, a further assistance, please contact me at 531-5400.' r INGRID E. HANSEN Local Governmental Analyst IEH:hm City of Carlsbad Planning Department November 20, 1996 CanAm Properties LLC 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 04/ PUD 96- 02/HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Special Use Permits, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit, application nos. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/ SUP 96-01 through 96- 047 PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02, as to its completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:kr c: Gary Wayne Ken Quon Marty Orenyak File Copy Bobbie Hoder Data Entry Bob Wojcik Planning Aide Evan Becker 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Project No. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 96- 04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Planning: 1. Per our correspondence of October 10, 1996, any request for a modification to the development and design standards of the Hillside Development Regulations shall be accompanied by two preliminary grading plans per the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC 21.95.070(b)). One set shall illustrate how a site would be developed with a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.95,060. The second set, which you have submitted, shall illustrate the extent and type of the requested modification. Applications proposing grading volumes which are potentially acceptable shall submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading proposed (CMC 21.95.060 (j) (4)). ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. As noted in our correspondence of October 10, 1996, present administrative policy for assigning units from the excess dwelling bank to this project requires a 30% affordable commitment on the part of the project proponents. The Housing and Redevelopment Director still requests a fifty (50) unit apartment project along with your proposed twenty nine (29) second dwelling units as the appropriate vehicle to meet this requirement consistent with our correspondence of October 10, 1996 and your meeting with him of October 7, 1996. With the addition of those units, the present siting of the affordable housing project and its relationship to the adjacent open space is appropriate. The relocation of the recreational vehicle storage access separate from the Affordable Housing circulation system meets the Planning Department's concerns, but its review by the Engineering Department is incomplete. 2. While it is evident that the submitted residential project is a total concept that has specific merits when working with constrained site planning, the modified z-lot product type you are proposing does not lend itself to conformity with the planned development ordinance, and staff is unable to support a project at odds with the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Building separation and the ability to vary setbacks is considerably constrained by the essential use of the side yard in a fashion similar to a rear yard in a typical single family neighborhood. This requires privacy and convenience structures to encroach within typical building separation setbacks. The modified z-lot product type links each lot with its neighbor which limits the ability to vary front yard setbacks and 4 /< enhance the streetscape. The proposed structure type is more appropriate for a flat, non constrained site, and inconsistent with the design guidelines manual as it does not vary with the topography where the low side of the building would be placed on the low side of the lot. 3. Thank you for the letter dated Oct. 30, 1996 which attempts to justify development of those portions of the property which are undevelopable per Section 21.53.230. Staff does not agree that the areas in question constitute small isolated ravines. It is staffs contention that they are undevelopable areas on large, contiguous slopes that are the representative dominant topographic feature of the Agua Hedionda drainage in this location. While it may be argued that they are small when compared to the overall slope they are a part of, this relationship precludes them from being isolated. The argument that all affected 40% slopes would have been impacted by the previously approved grading plans for CT 83-36 is specious, as the proposed project is reviewed by existing standards rather than any speculative approvals that were not brought to fruition. 4. The latest submittals of November 5, 1996 and November 12, 1996 indicate a redesign of the affordable site to 36 dwelling units. The ongoing changes to the project in its present incomplete state makes the development of an adequate scoping of the environmental impact problematic at best and may require additional delays in the certification of such document, if the project description in the notice of preparation which has been prepared is determined to have changed significantly at such time as the project is determined complete. While staff has been working diligently in a good faith effort to bring the project to the decisionmakers in a timely fashion, to include publishing a notice of preparation of an environmental impact report, the legal necessity exists that requires the City to analyze within the environmental impact report the project as described within the notice of preparation. 5. In the interest of time and money, unless you are willing to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, it may be appropriate to forego further environmental review pending direction by the appropriate decision making body and agree to go forward with a recommendation of denial. The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves, and at this point staff believes that it is without legal authority to recommend approval of this project. FROM 11.14.1996 13:32 P. 2 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis November 14, 1996 Brian Hunter 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 RE: MEETING NOTES FROM NOVEMBER 5, 1996 - FIELD MEETING - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Dear Brian: The following are the notes I took during our meeting held on Tuesday November 5, 1996 at the project site with you, Evan Becker, Mike O'Hara, Brian Regan and myself. The purpose of this meeting was to evaluate the location of the proposed 36 unit multi-family, affordable housing component of the Terraces at Sunny Creek. If there is anything incorrect in these notes please call me or mark them up and FAX them back to me. After meeting at the entrance to the site, we all drove to the location of the affordable units. At the start of our meeting we showed you and Evan the revisions that had been made to the plans to address staffs earlier concerns. These changes included the following: 1. The addition of two more three bedroom units and six more two bedroom units. 2. Increase in the size of the two bedroom units. 3. Addition of one handicapped, two bedroom unit. 4. Increase in the overall number of units from 33 to 36. 5. Relocating the entrance of the RV storage area, so people using this facility would not have to drive through the apartments' parking lot. 2386 Faraday Avenue • Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 . (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 11.14.1996 13:33 P- 3 FROM _ 6. Increasing the square footage of the recreation area, providing more amenities and showing the type of facilities that will be provided. Mike O'Hara also discussed the meeting that he had with Jim Silverwood regarding this project and Mr. Silverwood1 s support for the proposed project. I provided exhibits that showed that the apartment units would be closer to the common passive recreation area than the majority of the single family market rate units. I also provided exhibits that showed how the affordable units were centrally located within walking distance to the future commercial and shopping area, public transportation along College Avenue and El Camino Real and the existing golf course at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Mike O'Hara pointed out how these units would be located adjacent to the permanent open space with a park like setting along Sunny Creek. These units would also have views of a future golf course that will be developed as a part of the Sunny Creek II project. After our discussion, Evan and you felt that you had a better understanding of the benefits of this location. Evan said that most affordable housing builders would appreciate the opportunity to build affordable units at a location like this compared to some of the sites that they had to work with. That concluded our meeting. We left the meeting with the impression that both you and Evan could support the proposed location of the affordable units. I believe that these notes accurately reflect our field meeting on November 5, 1996. If there are any inaccuracies, please call me or mark them up and FAX them back to me. Sincerely, jtot1, Mike Howes cc Evan Becker Brian Hunter Mike O'Hara Brian Regan ***END*** Hofmon Planning Associates TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK November 5, 1996 Phone conversation with Dee Landers - City of Carlsbad Planning Department I mentioned to Dee the problem with the text in Section 5.6.2 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the update of Carlsbad's General Plan. She said that it was never the intent to require every project to provide 15% open space. The 15% open space must be met on a Local Facilities Management basis, not a project basis. She agreed that in some projects it was not realistic to expect to provide 15% unconstrained open space. She was going to put a note in her copy of the Master EIR to reflect this if the question ever came up again. Dee Landers was the planner in charge of coordinating the update of Carlsbad's General Plan and the preparation of the Master EIR by Cotton/Beland in 1994. CITY OF fJARI SBAO 5.6.2 Threshold For Determining Sinnificnnoe A level of significance for land use impacts associated with the update of the Carlsbad General Plan is determined by two factors: 1) the policy content of the plan, and 2) the impacts resulting from land IKA ideations and IntansitiesVo'an.SUies. Trig prufjusuU umiuu wiil have pot«nt(eliv oloniflcarft lmgffgta_ ILSl- 1. Conflicts with established regional plans and airport master plans; 2. Establishes uses that have a severe affect on the public's health, safety and welfare; 3. Represents a substantial change in the design character and form, and/or the mix or arrangement of uses in the City; or Establishes less than fifteen percent of the total land area, exclusive of environmentally nnn.rinvfllnpahle land, as oermanent open space. 5.6.3 Environmental Impact The Land Use Element of the updated Genera! Plan establishes the maximum intensity of development that can occur within the City under buildout conditions. The overall area of development within the City will increase from approximately 7,989 gross acres to 25,21 5 gross acres. At buildout a total Of 5,761 acres of land will be preserved aa op?" .-.pace. Proposed land uses in tha updated General Mian tan* i.1** t^www »"» «»niuun in Maa D.G-2: Proooacd General Plan Land Us« M*p Tahta B.8'5: Comparison Between Existing Development and Development of the Updated General Plan, provides * rnmparison of 1 990 development and buildout development at 201 0 under the updated General Plan. The actual buiidout asvelopmani may MUI ucuu» uy 20 10 ana may bu luwur If r«m»iniri8 18 flOl /JfiVfilOpBO SI IK maximum Uensliv anU Adoption ond implementation «f thfl ypdvtv* riH.wai Flan Land Ua« EJumcnt wilt add •pproxlmatviy 25,339 dwelling units to the City's housing stock for a total of 52,638 dwelling units. The overall ImuimiiY ul leaidentitl development will bu rslativsly low »t >?v'l/1n|»T nf thn City. Lower density l^nd uses (Residential Low and Residential Low-Medium) will occupy approximately 35 percent of the City- The lower density residential development will occur in the northern, southeastern, and southcentral sectors of the City. Medium and higher density residential land uses will occupy approximately IS percent of the City and will occur west of Interstate 5 and south of State Route 78 within the City boundaries. Non-Residential uses and Mixed use will occupy approximately 1 8 percent of the City. Adoption and implementation of the updated General Plan Land Use Element will add approximately 45,584,841 square feet of Non-Residential uses for a total of 09,100,037 square feet at buildout. The juxtaposition of land uses of the updated General Plan are regarded aa compatible. Significant or severe impacts to public health, safety and welfare through buildout of the General Plan are not anticipated. The conversion of existing undeveloped land to urban uses will result in a substantial change to the design character and form of the City. A LAND USE 3.0-9 TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. INTRODUCTION The Terraces at Sunny Creek, located at the northeast corner of El Camino real and College Boulevard, consists of 179 market rate units which includes 29 second units. The lots range in size from 3,870 to 25,850 square feet, with an average lot size of 6,768 square feet. The lots will terrace down the hillside, away from El Camino Real, to take advantage of views of the open space to the north along the riparian corridor. As shown by the Floor Plans and Elevations concurrently submitted with the Tentative Map Application, CanAm proposes to develop the Terraces at Sunny Creek with four models. The Tentative Map shows the location of the lots which will be developed with Floor Plan Number 4, which contains the second unit. The Tentative Map shows the remainder of the lots plotted with the Floor Plan Number 1 model. Floor Plan Number 1 has a larger footprint than Floor Plan Numbers 2 and 3, therefore all lots can accommodate Floor Plan Numbers 1, 2 or 3 and meet the setback requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. CanAm will build Floor Plan Numbers 1, 2 or 3 on these lots as determined by market demand. Home buyers will be able to select their lot, the floor plan, elevation and a number of other interior and exterior details to create a semi-custom look to their home. The color scheme will be restricted so that two homes with the exact same color scheme will not be plotted directly adjacent to one another. As shown by the following Section the various combinations of roof colors, floor plans, front elevation treatments and color schemes will create a diversified and attractive streetscape. 2. UNIT MIX The project shall include a mix of floor plans and elevations as follows: Minimum Maximum Number of floor plans 4 4 Number of front elevations per floor plan 3 3 Number of color schemes 3 3 Terraces at Sunny Creek Design Guidelines 1 November 8,1996 3. PLOTTING Plotting shall alternate floor plans so that no individual floor plan is plotted for more than 60% of the total units on any individual street. No two units with identical front facades shall be plotted closer than 100 feet of each other on the same street. Identical front facade includes the same floor plan, same color scheme and same elevation. Units may be plotted in phases or sequences as long as they are plotted in conformance with the requirements of the Terraces at Sunny Creek Design Guidelines. The matrix, included herein as Exhibit A, of these conditions shall be attached to the plot plan for each building phase of this tentative map. This matrix shall show how each phase and the overall project complies with the requirements of this section. 4. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The following accessory structures may be located within side and rear yard setbacks on any residential lot: second story balcony, pool, spa, fountain, trellis, barbecue, gazebo and awnings. Exhibit B shows the potential location of these facilities. Accessory structures constructed in conformance with this exhibit shall not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this project. 5. WALLS AND FENCES Walls and fences shall be provided as shown by the Terraces at Sunny Creek Landscape Exhibit submitted and approved concurrently with the Tentative Map. 6. SIGNAGE Signage will be provided to identify the Terraces at Sunny Creek and provide directional information. All Signage will be developed in accordance with the Terraces at Sunny Creek Landscape Exhibit. The exact location of these signs will be determined prior to issuance of the first building permit. Signage shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Terraces at Sunny Creek Design Guidelines 2 November 8,1996 7. SECOND UNITS Twenty-nine of the lots in the Terraces at Sunny Creek will be developed with second dwelling units and designated as Floor Plan Number 4. These units will be located as shown on the approved Tentative Map. Second units shall be developed pursuant to the requirements of Carlsbad's Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. 8. GARDEN WALLS Future homeowners may construct side and rear yard garden walls to a maximum of 4 feet in height at their option. The construction of these walls will not require an amendment to the Planned Development Permit for this development. Terraces at Sunny Creek Design Guidelines 3 November 8,1996 LATTICE SCREEN LAP POOL 19X34 ; PLANS PLAN 4 PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK EXHIBITS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 048 16 FT. SCALE Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis October 30, 1996 Brian Hunter Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Terraces At Sunny Creek - Grading Of 40% Slopes Dear Brian: This letter is prepared as requested to address grading into 40% slopes within the Terraces At Sunny Creek project. As shown on the accompanying slope analysis exhibits for the Terraces, there is some grading proposed on slopes that are 40% and greater. The total area of these slopes within the graded area is 2.46 acres. Of this area, 1.44 acres will be graded due to the construction of College Boulevard and the widening of El Camino Real. Based on the wording in Section 21.95.090(b)(2), the Hillside Development Ordinance allows for the flexibility to grade or develop 40% slopes for circulation element roadways. The remaining 40% slope areas to be developed includes several small pockets ranging in size from 465 square feet to 0.32 acres and total 1 .02 acres. We believe that the City can allow for grading of these areas pursuant to Section 21.95.090(b)(4) which allows for the development of "small isolated ravines where there is not substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment". All of these areas are relatively small and can be considered as isolated ravines. By utilizing the flexibility provided in the Hillside Development Ordinance to allow for grading into 40% slopes under certain specified conditions, we believe that the City can evaluate this project and make the findings to allow for grading of the small isolated areas of 40% slopes. Without the ability to grade in these areas, it would not be possible to develop enough units in the Terraces to pay for the infrastructure requirements adjacent to this site. Furthermore, all affected 40% slopes would have been impacted by the previously approved grading plan in accordance with Tentative Map CT 83-36. Please review this letter at your earliest convenience and feel free to contact me regarding any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Mike Howes cc. Mike O'Hara q:\grosse\syc1\cor\mike\40%slop.doc 2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 = Carlsbad ° CA 92008 <= (619)438-1465 <> Fax: (619)438-2443 fRUSSELL W. GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A October 25, 1996 Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 619/438-3141 FAX 619/438-7615 Mr. Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: The Terraces at Sunny Creek Dear Brian: Enclosed please find two (2) revised Inclusionary housing site plans for your review and files. I would appreciate it if you would forward a copy onto Ken Quon. I will be delivering the same to Evan Becker during our meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 29th. Sincerely, CanAm Properties,LLC H.D. "Mike" O'Hara Consultant HDOH/jf Enclosures Contractors License No. 378383 City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 10, 1996 CanAm Properties LLC 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 047 PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract map, Special Use Permits, Planned Unit Development and Hillside Development Permit, application nos. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96- 02/SUP 96-01 through 04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02, as to its completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. Please note that once the applications are deemed complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457 , if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director c: Gary Wayne Bob Wojcik Planning Aide Team Leader File Copy Bobbie Hoder Data Entry 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Applications No. GPA 96-01 / ZC 96-01 / SP 190(B) / CT 96-02 / SUP 96-01 THROUGH 96-04 / PUD 96-02 / HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Planning: 1. Please quantify the information graphically depicted on the slope analysis exhibit for the Hillside Development Permit. 2. Any request for a modification to the development and design standards of the Hillside Development Regulations shall be accompanied by two preliminary grading plans per the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC 21.95.070(b). One plan shall illustrate how a site would be developed with a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.95.060. The second set, which you have submitted, shall illustrate the extent and type of the requested modification. Applications proposing grading volumes which are potentially acceptable (8-10,000 cubic yards per acre of cut or fill) shall submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading proposed (CMC 21.95.060 (j)(4)). ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. On September 10, 1996, the site plan for the multi-family affordable housing component of the project was submitted at the Housing and Redevelopment office during a meeting with the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Evan Becker. At this time the affordable site has been shifted from the commercial site to the northwest corner of the residential site. It was indicated by Mr. Becker that the project should provide more 2 and 3 bedroom units, since the site is no longer part of the commercial complex. The affordable residential project needs to be incorporated into the housing complex as a whole, rather than left as an island discriminated by a location where the more affluent property owners leave their recreational vehicles. At the staff affordable housing meeting of 9-18-96, and again when Mr. Becker met with Mike O'Hara, Gary Harrison and Mike Howes on 10-07- 96, these thoughts were reiterated as: A. It may be in the best interest of the project proponent to consider enlisting the assistance of a professional affordable housing developer, rather than assuming the economically infeasible stance that the developer will absorb the financial loss. It is the experience of the Housing and Redevelopment Director that 50 dwelling units is considered the smallest project feasible from a marketability standpoint for these type projects. 179 market rate units plus 29 granny flats plus 50 affordable housing units equals 258. 79 (total number of inclusionary units)/258 = 30.6%. Your present proposal provides 25.7%, not the 30% claimed, inclusionary housing. Present administrative policy for assigning units from the excess unit dwelling bank requires a 30% affordable assignment. B. Locate the recreational vehicle storage facility in a more suitable location where its access is not through the parking area and between the units of the affordable housing project. The commercial site may be a suitable temporary solution as it is staff's understanding that the residential development proposed is only the first phase of a larger development where a more permanent solution to recreational vehicle storage may be attained. C. Increase the number of two and three bedroom units. D. Develop a larger and more active open space area. Add active recreation to the area where there is now only barbecues and benches. Link the oak open space area directly to the affordable site rather than providing access solely down a driveway used for access by the adjacent offsite property owners. 2. Thank you for providing exhibits that are legible and at a scale we can review in response to our April 1996 correspondence. When more than ten structures in a row front or back on a street, the distance between two story structures shall not be less than twenty feet. The separation between Lots 38-39 which is part of a 30 structures in a row siting does not meet this standard. Further your product type includes an entrance wall which is not shown on the map and is considered part of the structure thereby giving a false indication of the setback proposed. 3. The proposed model complex is situated as an approximately 20' filled peninsula jutting out over the Agua Hedionda creek and looking down on the proposed affordable site, requiring a 12' retaining wall to protect what was once a steep oak lined slope adjacent to the floodplain that, if approved, would serve as a drainage ravine and a 7.5' retaining wall to allow access to offsite property owners. The oak lined slope has been heralded as the major open space benefit of this site, even though it is undevelopable due to its steepness. Filling of the floodplain with an anomalous manufactured earthwork is not in keeping with the intent of the hillside development permit or the planned development permit. 4. Lot 63 - the dimension "varies" is not acceptable. 5. Please identify location of required visitor parking. 6. The proposed planned development permit is required to be designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the design guidelines manual from which the following comments have been developed. This would include a circulation system which does not dominate the project. "B" street suggests a drag strip or runway. This not only promotes unsafe speeds, but is monotonous. This monotony is heightened by building setbacks which do not create an attractive streetscape. Varying building height and roof shape would further enhance the streetscape by creating a varied and rhythmical appearance of building mass. When developing on sloping streets, place the low side of the building (your product type doesn't have a low side, which makes it more appropriate for a flat, non constrained site, and inconsistent with the guidelines) on the low side of the lot. 7. As there are over 120 retaining walls shown on site, please explain the general design note on sheet 1 of CT 96-02 which allows an additional 90 walls during construction. The 11.8' wall shown adjacent to lots 77-79 that is above and may encroach into the undevelopable slope to the north is unacceptable. Retaining walls in general may be viewed as indicators that the site is not adequate to handle the product type or the intensity of development proposed. While it is understandable the property owner is attempting to develop the necessary dwelling unit count to enable the commercial site adjacent to develop, adequate site planning should recognize constraints as well as opportunities. 8. Please explain how development of those portions of the property which are undevelopable per Section 21.53.230 can occur. 9. Thank you for submitting the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment on October 4, 1996. It is noted as listed as an item of completion from our April 1996 incomplete letter. Review of the Local Facilities Management Plan is not included in this correspondence. City of Carlsbad—— sf— . ^•^•••^^^•^^••••^•^^•iMMHMHMMNBPlanning Department: October 10, 1996 CanAm Properties LLC 5550 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 130{B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 04/ PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract map, Special Use Permits, Planned Unit Development and Hillside Development Permit, application nos. GPA 96-01 /ZC 96*01/SP 190(B)/CT 96- 02/SUP 96-01 through 04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02, as to its completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals^ No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete, When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. Pieasc note that once the applications are deemed complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public heaving, in addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter; at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457 , if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMiLLER Planning Director Gsry Wayne Team Leador Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2O73 Las Paur;as Dr. • Car'SDaci. CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 - FAX t'61S'i 438-089^ MM FAX NO, 438i LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Applications Nc. GPA 96-01 / ZC 96-01 / SP 190(B) / CT 96-02 / SUP 96-01 THROUGH 96-04 / PUD 96-02 / HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Planning; 1 . Please quantify the information graphically depicted on the slope analysis exhibit for the Hillside Development Permit. Mxj^-^o -4& -aX 2. Any request for a modification to the development and design standards of the Hillside Development Regulations shall be accompanied by two preliminary grading plans per the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC 21.95.070(b). One plan shall illustrate how a site would be developed with a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.95.060. The second set, which you have submitted, shall illustrate the extent and type of the requested modification. Applications proposing grading volumes which are potentially acceptable (8-10,000 cubic yards per acre of cut or fill) shall submit for review specific written findings justifying the reasons for the amount of grading proposed (CMC 21.95.060 (j)(4)). ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: On September 10, 1996, the site plan for the multi-family affordable housing component of the project was submitted at the Housing and Redevelopment office during a meeting with the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Evan Becker. At this time the affordable site has been shifted from the commercial site to the northwest corner of the residential site. It was indicated by Mr. Becker that the project should provide more 2 and 3 bedroom units, since the site is no longer part of the commercial complex. The affordable residential project needs to be incorporated into the housing complex as a whole, rather than left as an island discriminated by a location where the more affluent property owners leave their recreational vehicles. At the staff affordable. housing meeting of 9-18-96, and again when Mr. Becker met with Mike O'Hara, Gary Harrison and Mike Howes on 10-07- 96, these thoughts were reiterated as: A, It may be in the best interest of the project proponent to consider enlisting the assistance of a professional affordable housing developer, rather than assuming the economically infeasible stance that the developer will absorb the financial loss. It is the experience of the Housing and Redp.velopment Director that 50 dwelling units is considered the smallest project feasible from a marketability standpoint for these type projects. 179 market rate units plus 29 granny flats plus 50 affordable housing units equals 258. 79 (total number of inclusionary units)/258 = 30.6%. Your present proposal provides 25.7%, not the 30% claimed, inciusionary housing. Present administrative policy for assigning units from the excess unit dwelling bank requires a 30% affordable assignment. \ MO /.canon/Iiiu. 4j B. Locate the recreational vehicle storage facility in a more suitable location where its access is not through the parking area and between the units of the affordable housing project. The commercial site may be a suitable (T)DV£P temporary solution as it is staff's understanding that the residential development proposed is only the first phase of a larger development where a more permanent solution to recreational vehicle storage may be attained. C. Increase the number of two and three bedroom units. D. Develop a larger and more active open space area. Add active recreation to the area where there is now only barbecues and benches. Link the oak open space area directly to the affordable site rather than providing access solely down a driveway used for access by the adjacent offsite property owners. 2. Thank you for providing exhibits that are legible and at a scale we can review in response to our April 1996 correspondence. When more than ten structures in a row front or back on a street, the distance between two story structures shall not be less than twenty feet. The separation between Lots 38-39 which is part of a 30 structures in a row siting does not meet this standard. Further your product type* includes an entrance wall which is not shown on the map and is considered part ofV the structure thereby giving a false indication of the setback proposed. c£_ w\ 3. The proposed model complex is situated as an approximately 20' filled peninsula jutting out over the Agua Hedionda creek and looking down on the proposed affordable site, requiring a 12' retaining wall to protect what was once a steep oak lined slope adjacent to the floodplain that, if approved, would serve as a drainage ~jJLyb ravine and a 7.5' retaining wall to allow access to offsite property owners. The oak P^V**5 lined slope has been heralded as the major open space benefit of this site, even (%££ though it is undevelopable due to its steepness. Filling of the floodplain with an anomalous manufactured earthwork is not in keeping with the intent of the hillside development permit or the planned development permit. Lot 63 • The dimension "varies" is not acceptable. CPtf££f Please identify location of required visitor parking. nv&twV) U& Ofc'PfireP rt>M> '(de^TlTMlicc The proposed planned development permit is required to be designed in accordance . . with the concepts contained in the design guidelines manual from which the Cu\ O^ following comments have been developed. This would include a circulation system which does not dominate the project. "B" street suggests a drag strip or runway, v i This not only promotes unsafe speeds, but is monotonous. This monotony is heightened by building setbacks which do not create an attractive streetscape. Varying building height and roof shape would further enhance the streetscape by creating a varied and rhythmical appearance of building mass. When developing on sloping streets, place the low side of the building (your product type doesn't have a low side, which makes it more appropriate for a fiat, non cons-trained site, inconsistent with the guidelines) on the low side of the lot. Vfcfulj As there are over 120 retaining walls shown on site, please explain the general design note on sheet 1 of CT 96-02 which allows an additional 90 walls during "IV"-' construction. The 11.8' wall shown adjacent to lots 77-79 that is above and may encroach into the undevelopable slope to the north is unacceptable. Retaining walls in general may be viewed as indicators that the site is not adequate to handle the product type or the intensity of development proposed. While it is understandable the property owner is attempting to develop the necessary dwelling unit count to enable the commercial site adjacent to develop, adequate site planning should recognize constraints as well as opportunities, • Please explain how development of those portions of the property which are undevelopable per Section 21.53,230 can occur. *f3t, W-^£ J^ tf>.^).Q/ Thank you for submitting the Local facilities Management Plan Amendment on October 4, 1396. It is nocsd as listed as an item of completion from our April 1996 incomplete Setter. Review of the Local Facilities Management Pian is not included in this correspondence. / RUSSELL \0GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. y 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, California 92008 October 18, 1996 'ffimsa&osKffi*. Phone 619/438-3141 FAX 619/438-7615 Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Subject: The Terraces at Sunny Creek, CT 96-02 Your Letter of October 3,1996 Dear Mr. Holzmiller: As requested by your referenced letter, please accept this as our authorization for the City of Carlsbad to undertake the "Request for Preparation" procedure for a possible future third party (peer) review of the draft EIR which is currently being prepared for "The Terraces at Sunny Creek" project. We anticipate you will find the draft EIR, when submitted, to be very complete due to the large amount of data available on this property, the very complete 'scope of work' which the consultant is undertaking and the fact that an EIR had already been previously undertaken, completed and accepted by the City of Carlsbad for this same property, albeit under different land use designations. We have determined that a cost range of $2,500 to $5,000 could be expected for a qualified firm to perform a peer review of an EIR document which would be comparable to the Sunny Creek EIR. We understand this would permit a 'sole source' selection procedure and would not require the approval of City Council (i.e., under $25,000). If the 'peer review' consultant was selected now and put on stand by, in case such a review was deemed necessary by the City, then our EIR review schedule, as alluded to in your letter, could be kept in sync with the production of the EIR document and without being seriously compromised. Contractors License No. 378383 • Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 18, 1996 Page 2 As we have discussed on previous occasions, our schedule to achieve project entitlement for "The Terraces at Sunny Creek" is very tight due to a number of constraints to which we are committed. We understand clearly that the City is not beholden to our scheduling and that every development going through the entitlement process probably claims the same sense of urgency. However, we assure you that our schedule issues are very real and not fabricated to produce the 'squeaky wheel' reaction. The cooperation you and the assigned team staff can provide us during this process, as you have done in the past, will continue to be most appreciated. If we can provide you any further information or assistance which may further expedite our project entitlement, we are available for discussion at any time. Very truly yours, Gary W. Harrison, P.Eng cc: Brian Hunter « City of Carlsbad PatU 01896\SCI\coi\Holzmiller.gwh City of Carlsbad Planning Department Octobers, 1996 Gary Harrison CanAm Properties LLC 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK - CT 96-02 Dear Mr. Harrison; At our last meeting with yourself and Mr. Whelan, we discussed the ability of your proposed project to pursue resolution of its environmental review via a mitigated negative declaration. It was determined that due to the General Plan Amendment required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was the proper instrument of evaluation. The focus of the meeting was solely whether the General Plan Amendment triggered an EIR, rather than on any other factors that may necessarily be evaluated as a part of that document. It is my understanding that you are going forward with the preparation of a draft EIR via a sole source contract with Affinis. Although the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.040.170 explicitly states that the applicant for city entitlement for any private project may prepare and submit a preliminary environmental impact report, that section goes on to state that the planning director may require additional information and assistance as he determines necessary for a full and complete report. Further The Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15084 (d) states, "The Lead Agency may choose one of the following arrangements or a combination of them for preparing a draft EIR. (1) Preparing the draft EIR directly with its own staff. (2) Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR. (3) Accepting a draft prepared by the applicant...". Section 15084 (e) goes on to state that before using a draft prepared by another person, the Lead Agency must subject the draft to the agency's own review and analysis. The draft EIR which is sent out for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR. I believe that you are aware the City of Carlsbad normally uses a competitive bid procedure and authorization by the City Council to award the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports. This helps to insure that the City produces a non biased document that fully represents input from not only the applicant, but other departments, other government entities, and the public 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 -FAX (619) 438-O894 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis MEMORANDUM DATE: October 1, 1996 TO: Brian Hunter FROM: Mike Howes SUBJECT: REVISED DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Brian: Here are the revised Design Guidelines for the Terraces at Sunny Creek. Please replace the previously submitted Design Guidelines with these Design Guidelines. Aside from a few grammatical changes, the only significant change is in Section 4, Accessory Structures. The third sentence of this section was revised to refer to the attached Exhibit B which shows potential locations of accessory structures in the rear and side yards. Please call me if you have any questions. 2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 » (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443 Affinis Shadow Volley Center • 847 Jamacha Rood September 26, 1996 Mr. Brian Hunter Senior Planner City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 El Cojon, California 92019 • (619) 441-0144 Reference: Terraces at Sunny Creek — Archaeological Testing Mr. Hunter: As we discussed briefly on the telephone, Affinis has conducted the archaeological survey of the Terraces at Sunny Creek property and identified four prehistoric archaeological sites and two historic resources. We have received authorization from the client to conduct the testing program. This letter outlines the proposed testing plan, which is consistent with the City's archaeological guidelines. Site descriptions SDM-W-3391: Site 1: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: cores, hammers, manos, debitage, scrapers, slab metate, shell (chione, pecten), midden soil. 130 m by 90 m manos, core, scraper, possible fire-affected rocks. 20 m by 10 m shell scatter (chione, pecten). 10 m diameter historic complex — three foundations, brick pathway, fruit trees. Shell around one foundation. 70 m diameter trash dump (cans, bottles, ceramics) ca. 1950s-1960s shell scatter near spoils pile, in disturbed area, possibly not cultural Scope of work o records searches have already been requested in conjunction with the survey; o collection of a sample of surface artifacts; o excavation of a north-south line and an east-west line of STPs at 10 m intervals at each of the prehistoric sites, to determine the nature and extent of subsurface cultural deposits; o excavation of one or two 1 m by 1 m units at each of the prehistoric sites; o historic archival and map research to assess the age and importance of the historic resources; o cataloging and analysis of the cultural material collected; Mr. Brian Hunter September 26, 1996 Page Two o completion of archaeolgoical site records and filing of records with South Coastal Information Center and San Diego Museum of Man; o completion of an archaeological survey and testing report; o development of mitigation recommendations if any resources are determined to be significant; o coordination with representatives of the Native American community. We plan to have a crew in the field on Monday, September 30 to begin the testing program. If you have questions, please call Tim Gross or me. Mary Rbbbins-Wade, SOPA Directorof Cultural Resources MRW:wbj ecexveo: » cuso01-jj|r6i944l6421 Affinls Shadow Volley Center • 647 Jamocha Road » El Phonet fsuc* PtWfM* Fax* Cajon, ColifornJQ 92019 *J&i9F441-0144 September 25, 1996 TO: John Blair, Assistant Superintendent Carlsbad Unified School District FROM: Ruth Alter, Analyst f\* Affrais Sgy REFERENCE: SCHOOL BACKGROUND INFORMATION^THE TERRACES .;; AT SUNNY CREEK PROJECT The information I am requesting is to be used to determine/verify impacts to the school district from The Terraces project. The project is located in the northeastern portion of Carlsbad (map attached), and would construct 179 detached single family homes, 29 efficiency units ("granny flats"), and 33 multifamily units. The granny flats and muUifamily units are designated as affordable housing. Your responses will be cited as personal communications in the EIR. The questions I need answered are: 1. Is the District, in general, operating below, at, or above capacity? 2. What schools would students from this project be assigned to attend? 3. What arc the capacities of these schools; what are the present enrollments? How would additional students from the project affect capacities at each? Ql944lb4i1 => CuSD OIST OFFICE; *2 i:6194416421 SEPjfl5'96 10 :47 No .002 P .02 Page 2 CUSD 4. What are the District's student generation rates for single family and multifamily units? 5. Would you assume students would be generated from the 29 1-bedroom "granny flat" units? If so, what generation rate would you use? 6. What is the current rate per sq ft of habitable living space currently used to determine developer's fees. 7. Will payment of developers fees provide full mitigation of impacts? Thank you for your lime and input! Received: 9/25/96; 10:55;6194416421 => CUSD DIST OFFICE; #1 6194416421 10:51 No.003 P.01 :;&\M?Clil»vs. PROJECT LOCATION ,?-$&$m$!m • ^^*^fcf; s^?'-*\':~ Project location on USQS 7.5' San Luis Rey quadrangle AffSnis Shadow Valley Center 847 Jamacha Road EJCajon, CA92019 Sent &y: CUSD OIST OFFICE 61B728S685 10/08/9611:47 Job 232 Page 2/3 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Carlsbad, California Octobers, 1996 TO: Ruth Alter, Analyst Affinis FROM: John H. Blair, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services SUBJECT: School Background Information/The Terraces At Sunny Creek Here are the responses to the questions you asked regarding school information; 1. In general, Carlsbad Unified School District is currently operating at capacity. 2. The students from this project would be assigned to attend the following schools: (also listed are their capacities, and their current-enrollment) School Name Capacity X Current Enrollment Kelly Elementary School (K-6) 600 —>\ 612 Valley Junior High School (7-8) 1200 £ J 1202 Carlsbad High School (9-12) 2300 / 2313 S 3. The students generated from this project would affect the schools in the following areas: Info from Bowie Ameson 4. Below are the District's student generation rates: Single Family Homes 0.485 Multi Family Units 0.775 The student generation rate for single family homes comes from the March 1996 "Southwest and Southeast Quadrant Dwelling Unit and Student Projection Study" conducted by Planning Systems for Carlsbad Unified School District. Because the Multi Family Units are designated as "affordable housing", the student generation rate listed came from a study titled "School Impacts of Law and Moderate Income Housing" prepared by Recht Haustrath & Associates for Carlsbad Unified School District in June 1994. Three methods were used to identify studem genessaon rates of affordable housing projects. The resulting figures of 0.756, 0.661 and 0.907 were averaged to provide you with a student generation rate of 0.775 FHet'9 9861 '6 VO Sent by: CUSO DIST OFFICE 6197299885 10/OB/B8 11:48 Job 232 Page 3/3 School Background Information -2- October 8,1996 The Terraces/Sunny Creek 5. In reference to the "granny flat" units, because they are also designated as "affordable housing", I refer you again to the Recta study. It found, in looking at surveys of apartment complexes, a student generation factor of 0252 students per bedroom. Therefore, that is the generation factor we would apply to the efficiency units. 6. The current rate per sq.ft. of habitable living space, as defined by school facilities fees levied on development projects pursuant to Government Code Section 53080, is $1.84 for residential development and $0 JO £or commercial/industrial. However, these fees ar* not used for undeveloped or newly developed areas of Carlsbad. Those developments are subject to separate mitigation agreements. Other iirfofrom Bowie Arnesan 7. The payment of developers fees do not provide full mitigation of impacts, there are other funding sources that must be also utilized. Other info from Bm>ie Arneson 9661'6 Add to Item 3 The impacts of the Project must be evaluated together with the estimated future total development of dwelling units. The direct significant environmental impacts of the Project and the cumulative significant adverse cumulative impact of all future development within the District must be considered and mitigated prior to any approval of the Project District facilities are currently operating at capacity, and the potential exists that increased service demands on school facilities will occur as a result of population increases anticipated from buildout of new development. Add to Item 5 It should be noted that the District has analyzed and concluded that the student generation rate for an affordable housing project would generate approximately twice the number of students than would be generated from a "standard" housing project (i.e. between 0.6 to 0.9 students per affordable housing dwelling unit, by comparison to 0.46 students per conventional residential dwelling unit. Source: Recto, Hausrath and Associates). n Item The District is currently is authored to levy school facilities fees ("Statutory School Fees") pursuant to Government Code Sections 53080 et £63. and 65995 gjssa in the amount of $1.84 per square foot of residential and $0.30 per square foot of commercial/industrial space. Statutory School Fees however, will not provide the District with the funds required to adequately house the students and mitigate the school facility impacts which will be generated from the Project, as Statutory School Fees alone only fund less than one-third of District's facilities costs to address the impact from new development Add to item 7 There is still a pending backlog of billions of dollars in unfunded school facilities needs statewide and the District would not receive State funding from these bonds relative to the Project. Accordingly, the State is not an assured source of future funding for the school facilities needs of the District as to the Project or other future development in the City. Therefore, the mitigation of school facilities impacts is achieved by inclusion of new development within Community Facilities District No. 3. BAKW&G/AJN/32249 d ZCSS'sfl fJHW W.$ 9661'6 School Background Information -2- October 8, 1996 The Terraces/Sunny Creek 5. In reference to the "granny flat" units, because they are also designated as "affordable housing", I refer again to the Recht study. It found, in looking at surveys of apartment complexes, a student generation factor of 0.252 students per bedroom. Therefore, that is the student generation rate we would apply to the efficiency units. It should be noted that the District has analyzed and concluded that the student generation rate for an affordable housing project would generate approximately twice the number of students than would be generated from a "standard" housing project (i.e. between 0.6 to 0.9 students per affordable dwelling unit by comparison to 0.46 students per conventional residential dwelling unit. (Source: Recht, Hausrath and Associates). 6. The District is currently authorized to levy school facilities fees ("Statutory School Fees") pursuant to Government Code Sections 53080 et seq. and 65995 et seq. in the amount of $1.84 per square foot of residential and $0.30 per square foot of commercial/ industrial space. Statutory School Fees, however, will not provide the District with the funds required to adequately house the students and mitigate the school facility impacts which will be generated from the Project, as Statutory School Fees alone only fund less than one-third of District's facilities costs to address the impact from new development. 7. The payment of developers fees do not provide full mitigation of impacts; other funding sources must also be utilized. There is still a pending backlog of billions of dollars in unfunded school facilities needs statewide and the District would not receive state funding from these bonds relative to the Project. Accordingly, the State is not an assured source of future funding for the school facilities mitigation of school facilities impacts is achieved by inclusion of new development within Community Facilities District No. 3. Hofman Planning Associates • © • Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis Septembers, 1998 Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK CT 96-02 Dear Brian: Pursuant to Gary Wayne's request, we are delivering to you a site plan designated "Planning Commission Conditions of Approval" which indicates the appropriate modifications to the site plan as required by the following three conditions of approval placed upon the project by the Planning Commission: 1. Additional active recreational facilities as shown by the exhibits which were provided at the July 1,1998 Planning Commission hearing. 2. The addition of a pedestrian access from 'B' Street to College Boulevard between Lots 33 and 32. 3. Require the Homeowners Association to maintain all slopes, front yards, and common areas and to so state in the project's CC&R's. Also enclosed is an exhibit designated "Developer's Proposed Modifications to the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval". The developer is requesting, rather than having all of the slopes maintained by the Homeowners Association, that a portion of the slopes be maintained by the individual homeowner to enable the homeowner to utilize the benefits of a portion of the slopes by incorporating the same into each homeowner's usable yard. Any full slope which is less than 20 feet will be maintained by the individual homeowner. For slopes in excess of 20 feet, approximately the lower 15 feet would be maintained by the individual homeowner. The part to be maintained by homeowner would be fenced off separately from the upper portions of the slopes which would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The purpose of this modification is to allow each individual homeowner to incorporate the lower part of the slope into his backyard ambiance. Small fruit trees and other embellished plant life could be controlled 2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 by each individual homeowner. The upper portion of the slope which would be visible from public streets and from outside the project would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. In addition to the forgoing, there were areas along the El Camino Real Corridor where the developer had an opportunity to increase the width of the planting area to enhance the view corridor, and those modification have been included in the second exhibit. The developer requests that staff present the requested modifications set forth in the developer's proposed "Modifications to Planning Commission Conditions" to the City Council at the public hearing for this project. It is our belief that these modifications are in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval and will still allow maximum utilization of each lot by each individual property owner. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Mike Howes enclosures cc Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis August 26, 1996 Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: REVISED EXHIBITS FOR THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK - GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/CT 96-02/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02/SP 190(B)/SUP 96-01through-04 Dear Brian: This letter accompanies the revised Tentative Map/Site Plan, Hillside Development Permit, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change exhibits for the Terraces at Sunny Creek. TENTATIVE MAP The Tentative Map is at 20 scale to facilitate your review. The Tentative Map shows plots of two floor plans, floor plans 1 and 4. Floor plan 4 contains the second unit, which requires a slightly larger lot. Floor plan 4 units will be located as shown on the Tentative Map. Floor plans 2 and 3 are not shown. This is because floor plan 1 has wider dimensions than floor plans 2 and 3, so floor plans 2 and 3 can fit on any lot that can accept a floor plan 1. Which of these three floor plans will be plotted on a particular lot will depend on the market demand. CanAm has previously submitted floor plans and elevations for all four of the proposed models. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Also accompanying this letter are the exhibits required for a Hillside Development Permit application. SPECIFIC PLAN Per our original Specific Plan submittal, CanAm is only amending the existing Sunny Creek Specific Plan to delete the property east of College Avenue. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Tentative Map shows a preliminary design for the 33 unit affordable housing/RV storage area. A Site Development Plan application will be prepared and submitted within the next few weeks. This submittal will provide a detailed site plan, floor plans, elevations and 2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 «• (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443 landscape plan to allow for your review. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE Also accompanying this submittal are revised Zone Change and General Plan Amendment exhibits that reflect the current project. REFUND OF FEES FOR SUP 96-04 The previous submittals for this site included four Special Use Permits. Two Special Use Permits for grading in the flood hazard area of the residential portion of the project and the commercial portion of the project. Can Am also submitted two Special Use Permits for development along the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. At this time all of the proposed market rate and affordable units will be located in the residential portion of the project and no development approvals are being requested for the commercial site. Therefore, CanAm is requesting a refund of fees for the Special Use Permit that addressed the development in the Commercial portion of the project adjacent to El Camino Real. CanAm is not requesting a refund of fees for the Special Use Permit for the flood hazard area of commercial site since as a part of the grading for residential portion of the site earth from the residential area will be deposited on to this area to create a level pad for future commercial development. This grading waspreviously addressed and approved as a part of the Sycamore Creek Specific Plan. A Special Use Permit for the portion of the commercial site within the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor will be submitted along with the Site Development Plan for this area at a future date. Hopefully, this letter adequately explains the revised project. We believe that these exhibits provide all of the information necessary for the City to start their review of these applications. As mentioned above, a Site Development Plan for the multifamily affordable portion of the project will be submitted in the next few weeks. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 438-1465. Sincerely, Mike Howes cc Ken Quon Mike O 'Kara Rusty Grosse Gary Harrison attachments N RLM to RH OS RH/C/O Existing General Plan: RLM & RH/C/O Proposed General Plan: RM & RH The Terraces at Sunny Creek Hofman Planning Associ at es General Plan L-C OS RMHP Existing Zoning: O, C-2, L-C Proposed Zoning: RDM The Terraces at Sunny Creek Hofman Planning Associ at es Zoning £. City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 16, 1996 Russell W. Grosse Russell W. Grosse Development Co., Inc. 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT. TERRACES AT SUNNYCREEK Dear Mr. Grosse; Thank you for your correspondence of June 4, 1996 regarding the Terraces at Sunnycreek. The City Attorney's office has provided staff with the opinion that the use of second dwelling units to meet the needs of inclusionary housing is reasonably permissible given the wording of the City's ordinance. At the Affordable Housing Project Team meeting of June 12, 1996, it was determined that staff is willing to support the transfer of dwelling units from the housing bank as requested since you are proposing providing approximately twice the required number of inclusionary units. However, as stated by Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, at the May 15, 1996 meeting with Mr. Kellogg and Mr. O'Hara your present proposal to provide 95% of those units as studios (at that meeting it was 100% studio) does not address the intent nor the letter of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which states in Section 21.85.120 (I) Inclusionary projects shall provide a mix of affordable dwelling units by number of bedroom in response to affordable housing demand priorities of the City, whenever feasible. Staff recommends that a mix of one and two bedroom dwellings be included in your proposal to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, along with the studio and three bedroom units. It is my understanding that the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Mr. Evan Becker , has suggested the following ratio of 15 studio, 8 1- bedroom, 7 2-bedroom, and 3 3-bedroom units for the commercial site. The City recognizes the potential and creativity of the mixed use project you have proposed. The nature of the commercial activity cannot preclude the quality of life and associated amenities that are the benchmark of residential living in this city. While it is recognized that the addition of residential units to your commercial site is a reaction to direction received from the Community Development Director and the Housing Director, site plans received to date do not show the attention to residential leisure and welfare that is to be expected from the quality of development you have espoused. If the mixed use site is to be supported it must be an integrated development giving equal weight to the needs of all users, rather than appear as a minimalist reaction to what may have been perceived as a belated intolerable demand. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1 576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 SUNNY CREEK JUNE 27, 1996 PAGE 2 Sincerely; BRIAN HUNTER Senior Planner BH:kc C: Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner RUSSELL^. GROSSE DEVELOPIVrlhT CO., INC. 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A June 4, 1996 Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 619/438-3141 FAX 619/438-7615 Mr. Brian Hunter City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Terraces at Sunnycreek Dear Brian: Relative to the above application there are two major issues which need to be resolved in an orderly fashion and as soon as possible if we are to proceed with the processing of the project as it is conceived by us and has been presented to the City informally and formally over the last fourteen months. The first issue is the use of "granny flats" or secondary housing, as it is referred to in your ordinances, to satisfy the requirements of "City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Section 21.85.020(13)". It is our desire to construct 180 market rate units, therefore the formula as we understand it is as follows: 180 Market Rate Units/0.85 211.76 Total Units x 0.15 211.76 Total Units 32 (rounded up) lower income inclusionary unite' "' Based on the foregoing we should be providing thirty two (32) lower income inclusionary units. Of these inclusionary units it is our understanding that ten percent (10%) or 3.2 units should contain three bedrooms. It is also our understanding mat if we construct 3-3 bedroom units and pay a fee for the .2 units that this would satisfy the 3 bedroom unit requirements of Section 21.85.020(13).Pursuant to our numerous meetings with the various staff members as well as our numerous conversations with Hofman Planning Associates, we have designed and incorporated into our development plans the construction of twenty nine "granny flat" units. These twenty nine units together with the construction of 3-3 bedroom units and the payment of a fee should satisfy our inclusionary housing responsibilities. j \ t tf Contractors License No. 378383 t - '1C June 4, 1996 Page Two It has been our understanding that the only requirement for qualification of the "granny flat" as an inclusionary housing unit is that the owner make the unit available at a rate that is in accordance with the requirement of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, if he/she desires to rent the unit. It is our opinion that any deed restrictions that might require the unit to be available for rent at all times would make the marketing of these units extremely difficult. We can provide you with comments from our marketing analyst if it would help with this issue. It is our understanding that staff generally supports the "granny flat" concept as one of the best ways of integrating these inclusionary housing units into the overall development. This "deed restriction" issue appears to be affecting other developments in addition to the Terraces. We understand this is currently being ~s addressed by the City and that a resolution will be forthcoming within the next few jr days. Our assumption as of the date of this letter is mat the resolution will be £ favorable and that "granny flats" will satisfy, in part, our inclusionary housing requirements. We have requested the transfer of 159 D.U.'s from the N.E. Quadrant, which currently has an excess of 851 D.U.'s, which number is expected to increase. In accordance with Council Policy Number 43, (Objective 3.8 (Growth Management) Policy 3.8), our priority standing for allocation of excess units would be 5 place. We are, however, the first and currently the only applicant for unit allocation from the N.E. Quadrant. At a meeting held at the City on March 29th, we were informed for the first time (even though this issue has been the subject of every meeting we have had with staff over the past 14 months) mat staff had decided to "warehouse" all available units for the foreseeable future in the event a category with a higher priority than ours makes application1 for density transfer. The staff stated they would not support our application. At the end of this meeting it was stated staff support might be obtained if we could include some of the higher priority category of housing in our project. Senior housing, was specifically mentioned. The result of a subsequent meeting with Mr. Becker moved our efforts towards lower to moderate housing and away from Senior housing using a concept mat would incorporate die units into the retail development. Please refer to the attached letter from Mike Howes of Hofinan Planning Associates summarizing this meeting. We do not believe living units provided above commercial business is a Jffcumiycmk/cir/hirater/06/05/96 June 4, 1996 Page Three concept that would facilitate quality "family" housing and therefore we directed J? our designer to incorporate thirty (30) second floor studio units to accommodate employees working in the center or the nearby industrial tract that would be single or married without children. We believe we can incorporate six (6) additional studio units into the retail center in lieu of the 3-3 bedroom units. It would not be our desire but if staff prefers we could eliminate the six (6) additional studio units and attempt to develop the 3-3 bedroom units somewhere else within the project. We also believe the thirty to thirty six studio units seem to be the maximum f ~ number of units that can be incorporated into the shopping center without U •' infringing upon the integrity of both designs. , • fy.^ Our inability to obtain density transfer is the same as project denial. Our strong desire is to obtain staff support for our density transfer request as evidenced by our willingness to provide an additional 30 affordable units on the second floor of the commercial buildings in the retail center and we need to know if that support will be forthcoming. If the staff can not support our density transfer request we need to establish a vehicle to bring this issue to the City Council for resolution at the earliest possible time Sincerely, CanAm Properties, LLC Russell W. Grosse President RWG/jf Attachment cc: Mike Holzmiller Evan Becker Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo Marty Orenyak Jf7sumycreek/cir/hunter/06/05/96 City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 26, 1996 CanAm Properties LLC 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, four Special Use Permits, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit, applications no. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96- 02/SUP 96-01 through 04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02, as to its completeness for processing. Thank you for your submittal of April 10, 1996 which provided the signed applications of Martha Pillsbury and Marjess Evans. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your applications are still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your applications as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner bv appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your applications can occur until the applications are determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the applications are determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the applications will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the applications were initially filed, January 4, 1996 and February 26, 1996, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your applications complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the applications. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please note that once the applications are deemed complete that there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Please also note that it is at such time as the project is deemed complete that staff will be able to fully analyze the nature of the environmental work that will be required to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the applications, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the applications. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/ SUP 96-01-96-04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 APRIL 26, 1996 PAGE 2 Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the applications. Sincerely, ^M^^MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:vd c: Gary Wayne Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Planning Aide LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 PLANNING and ENGINEERING: 1. A project specific Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 15 is required. 2. The scale for the tentative map is required to be no smaller than 1 "=40*. All plans shall be fully dimensioned (i.e., setbacks, height, road widths, parking spaces, planters, yards, etc.). Due to the scale provided the submitted map is illegible as far as the required site information per application requirements, so it is impossible to critique your submittal from a completeness standpoint. This comment applies to the Site Development Plan also. 3. On the site plan for the Tentative Map please provide average daily traffic broken down by separate uses. 4. A constraints map must be submitted. 5. A noise study consistent with the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. 6. Two copies of preliminary soils/geologic report. 7. Preliminary Hydrology Map and calculations. Show before and after discharges including drainage basin. 8. The Specific Plan should be amended to reflect the project as proposed. 9. Submit slope analysis, slope profile, and necessary documentation to show how development fulfills the Hillside Development and Design Standards (21.95.060). ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING: 1. At the meeting attended by Mr. Grosse, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Holzmiller, Mr. Orenyak, Mr. Hofman and Mr. Hunter on March 29, 1996, the project's potential for acquiring support for the transfer of banked dwelling units was discussed. As submitted the project met the minimum criteria for consideration of such transfer. However, as pointed out in the original City Council Policy #43, there is no necessity to completely build the City out to the maximum number of units allowed under Proposition E, nor is it necessarily desirable to do so. At this meeting, staff made it clear that the project as proposed did not have our support for this density transfer. The applicants protested that it was there understanding that what staff had understood as procedural direction for application was construed as support for the project. The applicants were directed to meet with the Housing and Redevelopment Director to attempt to accomplish the beginning of an affordable housing plan that would potentially lead to a project that could meet with staff support for the transfer of dwelling units only. It is staff's understanding that you are working to amend your original application to include this direction. So that no further misunderstanding as regards staff's communication on this issue takes place, at this time staff neither supports nor is in a position to recommend denial of this project. The project is incomplete, and while the stated goal of adding affordable units to the commercial site in an integrated mixed use development would increase the potential for a recommendation of approval for the dwelling unit transfer, without complete site plans indicating the professional worthiness of such proposal our position remains strictly neutral. Further, a recommendation of approval of the density transfer is not to be misconstrued as unconditional support for the project as a whole. As stated previously, a complete understanding of the issues of such a complex multiple application is not attainable until such time as the application is complete. -t.5. I-?** Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Manogernt-nl fis'..n An-.iivii<, April 5, 1996 Evan Becker City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Director 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 RE: Terraces at Sunny Creek - Summary of Meeting held on April 2, 1996 Dear Evan: Thank you for meeting with Mike O'Hara, Bill Hofman and me last Tuesday. As Stated in our meeting we have applied for a General Plan Amendment for the purpose of developing 179 single family homes at the project that we have named the Terraces at Sunny Creek. The project currently has available to it 22 residential units. In order for us to construct the project we are requesting a density transfer within the Northeast Quadrant of 157 dwelling units. According to our calculations there are presently available 851 units. Their transfer is subject to Policy 43. Under the terms of the Policy we are ranked fifth in priority. Other than the issue of priority, our project qualifies for a density transfer under the existing General Plan designation of RH, all of course subject to the approval of the City Council. Presently, we are the only developer who has filed a formal application for any such density transfer. It certainly appears that there will be additional units available for transfer in the near future. At a previous meeting held with Mike Holzmiller, Marty Orenyak, Brian Hunter and Ken Quon it was suggested that it would be in the best interest of the City and the best interest of the development if the project could include a housing element which would move our application to a higher priority under Policy 43. Senior housing was mentioned as a possible method of accomplishing this. You expressed concerns about the viability of such a small senior affordable project, the problems with getting financing for a small senior project and the feasibility of doing such a project on a half acre site. You also mentioned that there was no fee reduction for senior 2386 Faraday Avenue • Suite 120 • Coilibod « CA o-/(iO!< . (619)'UK l-k-..'. • Fox (61V) .K*tf i'.-M.« 4 . '. . 1 •? •? 6 I *' '• * *•FROM t • - projects other than the elimination of school fees. It also came up that unless a senior project was located in a beach front location, the rents that could be demanded would probably fail into the affordable range due to the limited amount most seniors could afford. Next, we discussed the possibility of providing affordable units above the commercial uses. You felt that this concept would be acceptable to the City Council, since they are interested in mixed use projects. You felt that at least 30 affordable units should be located above the commercial buildings in addition to the second units located in the adjacent residential development. It was important to provide more that the minimum 15% requirement to justify the allocation of the excess dwelling units to this project. The affordable units over the commercial would probably be more acceptable to the decision makers if it served a variety of needs, not just seniors. Based on this it was decided that these units would not be limited to seniors, but would be designed so that an ambulatory 55 year old could still live there. These units would also provide ideal rentals for future workers in the commercial development on this site and adjacent R & D Park. You suggested that a more traditional type of unit such as a "Loft Apartment" would be more acceptable. You stressed the need for a comprehensively designed plan that was well integrated into the rest of the project to gain the support of staff. It was also mentioned that the parking ordinance does allow for a reduction in parking requirements for joint use projects. Based on this discussion we have set up a meeting with Brian Hunter and Ken Quon to discuss this proposal and how our current plans would need to be revised to accommodate affordable units above the commercial uses. Please call me if anything in this letter is not accurately stated. Again, thank you for meeting with us. Sincerely, Mike Howes cc Mike O'Hara • * * E N C* * * • City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 10, 1997 CanAm Properties LLC 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 through 04/PUD 96- 02/HDP 96-02/SDP 97-02 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Special Use Permits, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Site Development Plan, application nos. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/SUP 96-01 through 96-04/ PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02/ and SDP 97-02, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your application complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:kr c: Gary Wayne File Copy Ken Quon Data Entry Bobbie Hoder Planning Aide 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 Hofman Planning Associates o © © Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis February 26, 1996 Brian Hunter 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 RE: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 190(A) Dear Brian: This letter accompanies the fee for an amendment to rescind the existing Sycamore Creek Specific Plan. It is our understanding that this Specific Plan Amendment will processed concurrently with all of the other discretionary applications for the development of this site and the Specific Plan would not be rescinded unless all of the other applications were approved. Sincerely, Mike Howes 2386 Faraday Avenue « Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 * (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis memorandum date: February 26, 1996 to: Brian Hunter from: HPA project: The Terraces At Sunny Creek subject: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Revised Exhibits Enclosed with this memo are revised exhibits for the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change for The Terraces At Sunny Creek project. These exhibits should replace the original exhibits submitted with the GPA and ZC applications. The revisions are minor and were completed to include the Pillsbury property. The Pillsbury property is approximately 3.43 acres which is added to the original project site of 40.5 for a new total project site area of 43.93 acres. The existing General Plan land use designation is RH/C/0 with the existing Zoning designation of L-C. The proposed General Plan designation is RM with a proposed Zoning designation of RDM. If you have any questions, please feel free to give our office a call. 2386 Faraday Avenue • Suite 120 • Carlsbad « CA 92008 - (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 The Terraces at Sunny Creek L-C OS Project Acreage = 43.9 Existing Zoning = O, C-2 L-C Proposed Zoning = RDM tfjH 3 R T M " = 500' Hofman Planning Associates Zoning February 26, 1996 The Terraces at Sunny Creek Project Acreage = 43.9 Existing General Plan = RH/C/0 Proposed General Plan = RM B " = 500' n Planning Associates General Plan February 26, 1996 February 1, 1996 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer Quon VIA: Principal Civil Engineer COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT THE TERRACES, GPA 96-01 The Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this project are complete and suitable for continued engineering review. In addition, the Engineering Department made a preliminary review of the project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to conditioning of the project are as follows: 1. Relative to the existing land use and zoning designations, please have the applicant submit information that compares and identifies traffic impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. If you have questions regarding the comment above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer October 17, 1995 TO: BRIAN HUNTER, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer VIA: Principal Land Use Engineer /V/t/ wrt'l* SYCAMORE CREEK I, PRE 95-33 The Engineering Department offers the following comments: 1. If this project is submitted for a discretionary application, the City may request the applicant to provide an alternative street alignment to determine if the Street 'TV/Street "D" intersection can be removed off the curve. 2. We recommend a curved or meandering street alignment for Street "B" to reduce the potential for accelerated vehicular speeds. 3. It appears that there are two Lot No. 5's. 4. It appears that a portion of Lot 17 should be adjusted with Lot 18. 5. The plan should indicate the 100-year flood elevation instead of showing the "floodway". 6. The proposed raised curb island at the corner of El Camino Real and College Boulevard should be eliminated from the plan. Please forward the red-lined check print to the applicant. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON Associate Engineer FROM 1.28.1997 16:36 P. 2 Hofmon Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis MEMORANDUM DATE: January 28,1997 TO: Rusty Grosse, CC: Brian Hunter, Mike O'Hara FROM: Mike Howes; (NC) SUBJECT. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE GRADING OF THE COMMERCIAL SITE ADJACENT TO THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK I talked with Brian Hunter today regarding your concern about the possibility of the Planning Commission requiring a Special Use Permit for the grading of the commercial site adjacent to the Terraces at Sunny Creek. As we discussed, the export from the residential site will be used to create a flat pad on the commercial site. Brian Hunter said that this issue has been discussed with Gary Wayne and the Engineering Department and it was determined that a Special Use Permit will not be required for this grading since this grading was shown on the Tentative Map exhibits and was addressed by the EIR for the project. Please call me if you have any questions. 2386 Faraday Avenue « Suite 120 • Carlsbad . CA 92008 • (619)438-1/165 • Fax: (619)438-2443 ***END*** City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 24, 1996 CanAm Properties LLC 5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 04/ PUD 96- 02/HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Special Use Permits, Planned Unit Development, and Hillside Development Permit, application nos. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/ SUP 96-01 through 96- 04/ PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02, as to its completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, J. HOLZMILLER iing Director MJH:BH:kr Gary Wayne Ken Quon Marty Orenyak File Copy Bobbie Hoder Data Entry Bob Wojcik Planning Aide Evan Becker 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. GPA 96-01/ZC 96-01/SP 190(B)/CT 96-02/SUP 96-01 THROUGH 96-04/PUD 96-02/HDP 96-02 - TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK Planning: 1. Per our correspondence of October 10 and November 20, 1996 the Housing and Redevelopment Director was not in support of your affordable housing proposal. With your redesign and submittal of a preliminary site plan on December 16, 1996 to the Housing and Redevelopment Director which indicates a 50 unit apartment project, staff supports in concept this solution to your affordable housing requirement. Submittal of a Site Development Plan is the appropriate discretionary action to bring your proposal into conformance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and to allow staff to continue the review of your project. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Thank you for the letter dated Oct. 30, 1996 which attempts to justify development of those portions of the property which are undevelopable per Section 21.53.230. At that time staff supported your request for exclusion by reason of circulation element roadway. Per your meeting with the Community Development Director and the Planning Director of January 14, 1997 staff does agree that the additional areas in question constitute small isolated ravines. It is staffs contention that they are allowed exclusions under the Hillside Development Ordinance. 2. It is staffs understanding that the building separation issues identified previously will be resolved via the removal of all structures within the area in question. Please submit exhibits that document such compliance. City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 19, 1995 Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT: PRE 95-33 - SYCAMORE CREEK I APN: 209-090-1 THROUGH 12 AND 209-060-14 AND 59 Preliminary review of your project was conducted on October 12,1995. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. 1. The proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Specific Plan Amendment, a Special Use Permit for both the El Camino Real Corridor and the Agua Hedionda Creek floodplain, a Local Facility Plan Amendment, a Tentative Tract Map, a Planned Development Permit, and a Hillside Development Permit. 2. General Plan Amendment - A General Plan Amendment to a residential designation would be necessary to enable the achievement of this project. As it is staffs understanding that dwelling units are not being allocated from another area of the Specific Plan, the only process available to assign dwelling units to this property is through City Council Policy No. 43. While the amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for this zone should indicate the availability of additional units due to land use decisions regarding potential and existing environmental mitigation land, projects proposing a zone change from non-residential to residential are the lowest priority and may be approved if specific findings can be made. A copy of Policy #43 is enclosed. Any formal submittal should document how the required findings can be made. 3. Planned Development Permit - As no product siting occurs with this review comments regarding development standards apply only to subdivision and grading requirements for a Planned Development Permit. Potential future issues exist as regards product design and siting due to this omission. 4. The project proposes a residential Planned Development governed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45. Section 21.45.075 establishes basic design elements that shall be incorporated within the project as identified within the City of Carlsbad Design Guidelines Manual. Emphasis is placed on curvilinear streets and walkways, whereas Street "B" does not exhibit this trait. A curved or meandering street alignment is recommended for Street "B" to reduce the potential for accelerated vehicular speeds and to create a more interesting and varied street scene. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1 576 • (619)438-1161 PRE 95-33 - SYCAMORE CREEK I October 19, 1995 Page 2 5. Hillside Development Permit - Section 21.95.060 (j)(l) limits slopes to 30 feet, while Section 11.06.100(e) requires fill slopes over 30 feet to have drainage terraces provided every 25 feet with a width of not less than 8 feet. One such terrace would be required at the South side of the Eastern terminus of Street "D". It appears that a portion of Lot 17 should be adjusted with Lot 18 at this point. 6. The City may request the applicant to provide an alternative street alignment to determine if the Street "AVStreet "D" intersection can be removed off the curve. 7. It appears there are two lot no. 5's. 8. The plan should indicate the 100 year flood elevation instead of showing the "floodway". 9. The proposed raised curb island at the corner of El Camino Real and College Boulevard should be eliminated from the plan. 10. A thorough constraints analysis may further indicate areas of concern. 11. Please show top of wall and bottom of wall elevations. 12. Be sure to show the method for secondary overflow for drainage in a sump condition. Please contact Brian Hunter at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457 if you have any questions. Sincerely, / / '-GARY E WAYNE / Assistant Planning Director GEW:BH:kr c: Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Ken Quon