Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-24; City Council; 20344 ATTACHMENTS; GENERAL COMMERCIAL AMENDMENT PALOMAR COMMONS08/24/2010 Palomar Commons G PA 04-03 GPA 09-07/ZC 09-08 General Commercial Land Use - Provide for a greater mix of general commercial services. - Stand alone general commercial uses - Two or more general commercial uses - Local and Regional 08/24/2010 Daily needs and convenience Anchor tenant and secondary tenants - At least three establishments May include Community Commercial - Department stores - Warehouse/club stores — Theaters -Specie- Shopping goods and services in full depth and variety — General merchandise — Automotive sales -Apparel - Home furnishings and furniture 08/24/2010 08/24/2010 Diverse economic base for economic growth and stability to serve the employment and shopping needs of Carlsbad residents. Limit to provide basic commercial service. Development standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Implementation Application accompanied by development plan and market study. Comprehensive design Architectural design Project amenities Discourage strip commercial 08/24/2010 t t-"r>(»' t~>5;\" -/'"•., Trade Area Site Size (acres) Gross Lease area Primary Trade Area Primary Trade Area Primary Trade population t. /, t ' '„* *I-~ ' "•' '*** * i"-*» *?r Local daily goods and services 8-20 60,000 - 1 50,000 sq ft 5-10 minutes 1.5 miles 10,000- 40,000 people " ' M , ~ IX-fc^X^***** «* sj-Hjf ~ **! _).UF|l»-y , Local, plus community serving To 30 Up to 400,000 sqft 10-20 minutes 3-5 miles 40,000 - 150,000 people ?1"I4 ' >. •i-ff t -^ \ ¥ ^£>fc. »'T -'#,; : ' H fl'ni General local or community serving Varies Varies 5-20 minutes 3-5 miles Up to 150,000 people '-ifi»T«fc ,•„* .••• g|i,;. Regional 30 - 100 300,000 to 1.5 million 20-30 minutes 8-12 miles 150,000 + people _^ Application and review by Staff Recommendation by Planning Commission Approved by City Council 08/24/2010 Palomar Commons GPA 09-07/ZC 09-08 UKrlL. 08/24/2010 16.65 acre site 185,244 square feet of commercial - 153,974 square feet home improvement store - 31,270 square feet of retail (gas station/car wash/bank/retail) Revision to County Animal Shelter CUP 08/24/2010 From Travel Recreation (T-R) and Planned Industrial (PM) to: General Commercial (GC) From Commercial Tourist - Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-T-Q) and Planned Industrial (P-M) to: General Commercial - Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-2-Q) 08/24/2010 ;*?$*', Yt -* <*> "jftf »*."•**;*>*s . 6J1 ,^- »-• B**^ «t. **»< >**•,*., Bldg 2 - Bank Bldg 7 - Retail . -.4. Bldg 3 - Gas Station Bldg 6 - Retail 08/24/2010 Agency Review Mitigation measures - Air Quality (Construction related) - Green House Gases (energy/operational) - Biological Resources • Mitigation fees and Migratory bird survey - Paleontological Resources - Hazards • Methane gas - Transportation and Circulation - Noise Global Climate Change Evaluation Transportation - bus route/bike lanes Exceed 2005 Title 24 by 20% Water efficiency - low flow and landscape Building design - efficient heating, cooling, and lighting. Redevelopment and location 10 08/24/2010 Agency Review Mitigation measures - Air Quality (Construction related) - Green House Gases (energy/operational) - Biological Resources • Mitigation fees and Migratory bird survey - Paleontological Resources - Hazards • Methane gas - Transportation and Circulation - Noise Staff worked closely with consultant team on all data used in the traffic analyses Staff concurs with Palomar Commons Traffic Report findings that all intersections meet traffic standards after mitigation measures are implemented 11 08/24/2010 Mitigation measures include fully funding intersection improvements and purchasing TMC related equipment |>ALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 12 08/24/2010 Previous improvements — Vista Sewer line and outfall line - Olympic Resort and Spa, golf driving range Pacific Athletic Club - 102,000 sq ft health facility ; That the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. That the City Council approve GPA 04-03 establishing a General Commercial Land Use designation. That the City Council approve GPA 09-07 and ZC 09-08. 13 08/24/2010 14 GPA09-07/ZC09-08/SDP 09-05/SUP 09-08/CUP 03-21 (A)/ CUP 09-07 / CUP 10-05 / V 10-01 City Council Hearing August 24, 2010 jSy Siidtxrry ^Development & Sudbcmj 'DeeebpitKiit Site Constraints Airport Safety Zone 1 Boundary "•*. •' •*'\ 4 A R C 0 M M O N S Traffic Enhancements ® Dual Left Turn Lanes on Northbound ECR '\ 4 Traffic Enhancements ® New traffic signal on PAR controlling access to site and creating safer access to Animal Shelter >-,LOUAR COMMONS Traffic Enhancements ® 2 new deceleration lanes and 1 new dedicated right turn lane on westbound PAR, eliminating existing stacking Traffic Enhancements ® 2 new deceleration lanes on southbound ECR Traffic Enhancements ® installation of video monitoring system on traffic signals to allow for remote monitoring of traffic r^t?tf .ITS -S:*:*$7'5*i,«-"?.•»»$««<»» * •;•-.•«-*.,» .-I: * •« , i*.»»•».*-«»»»» *« .«» * DUMU'I p AL Q M A R i, D M M O K S Traffic Enhancements ® Eliminating existing uncontrolled left turn from northbound ECR COMMONS The "Creek" Issue ® No creek on property ® Historic grading and development since the 1960's have altered and eliminated natural water flow upstream, 6n-site and downstream ® Olympic Resort and Golf Facility existed on site since 1983 and water has drained from site by man-made drainage structures and sheet run-off ever since Olympic Resort & Golf Facility Improvements in Water Quality of Downstream Drainage ® The current property has uncontrolled and untreated water discharge including pollutants, fertilizers and erosion sediment ® Project will install water quality devices including bio-swales that currently do not exist today ® Flow of storm water leaving the site post- development does not exceed current conditions Land Use Compatibility ® Proposed General Plan designation fits this site because: > Parcel size -17 acres > Located on two prime arterials > Less than 25% lot coverage > No adjacent residential land uses > Project provides services and retail goods focused on local residents and businesses Benefits of Project ® Lowe's is a quality retail store ® Convenient location for residents and businesses ® Improve traffic within city limits because residents will not have to drive outside of city limits ® Significant tax revenues for City of Carlsbad, estimated at $550-$850K annually ® 150 to 250 new permanent jobs and over 300 construction jobs, providing economic stimulus to the community ® Developing a prominently located site that is currently in a state of disrepair / ® Over $2 million in fees to City /' CITY OF CARLSBAD Memorandum All Receive-Agenda Item #_J_L_ For the Information of the: CITY CpUNCIL Asst._ CC 08/04/2010 To: From: Via Re: Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager Don Neu, City Planner \i/[ Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director^ Palomar Commons Market Study - GPA 09-07 Please find attached the Market Study that was submitted with the Palomar Commons project located at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, GPA 09-07. The study is a requirement of General Plan Land Use Elemenl: Commercial Implementing Policies and Action Program C.I (attached). The study is referenced, but not included within the Planning Commission staff report for the project that is attached to the City Council Agenda Bill. We are forwarding the study at this time as additional background information pertinent to the City Council's consideration of the project. Attachments DN:VL:bd Distribution: CftyCterk *tt City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2710 760-602-8560 fax GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT COMMERCIAL C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.1 Applications for the re-designation of land to shopping center uses shall be accompanied by a conceptual development plan of the site and a market study that demonstrates the economic viability of using the land in the way being requested. Such studies shall give due consideration to existing and future sites that may compete within shared trade areas. Market, REALTY ADVISORS email: mark@sudprop.com April 14, 2010 Mr. Mark K. Radelow, LEEP AP Vice President & Senior Project Manager SUDBERRY PROPERTIES, INC. 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 260 San Diego CA 92121 Dear Mark: MarketPointe Realty Advisors has undertaken and now completed a market feasibility study for your Lowe's-anchored Palomar Commons retail center at the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad. The purpose of the study is to determine: * the demand for home improvement stores in the north San Diego County trade area; * The positioning of Carlsbad in the home improvement marketplace; *:» the future supply of new retail space in the market area; and <» the mix of ancillary tenants that would most likely be attracted to the center. We have analyzed the relevant market area, looking at the retail facilities currently available in the nearby area and the demography of the population in terms of household income and education and buying power. In this report, we will concentrate on the market for the Lowe's store, as it is the primary focus of the proposed center in terms of its drawing power, importance to success of the center, and percentage of total square footage. Base data utilized in this study is from multiple sources including the San Diego Association of Governments, Claritas, U.S. Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics and MarketPointe's proprietary database. 1901 First Avenue, Suite 219, San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619.233.3781 Fax: 619.233.3203 www.marketpointe.com Market The study is segmented into five sections: • Section 1: Project Description • Section 2: Demographics and Population/Household Projections • Section 3: Retail Demand: Subject Property Trade Area • Section 4: Retail Space Leasing Market • Section 5: Findings and Conclusions: Palomar Commons Palomar Commons 9 4/14/2010 Market • ;•»•••—.--^•••M — The subject property is located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad. Average daily traffic (ADT) counts at that intersection are typically 35,000-40,000. The property is located across the street from Carlsbad Palomar Airport, the commuter airport for North County. El Camino Real to the property's eastern border is the primary north south commercial corridor for the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad. The total site area is 16.32 acres with 148,528 square feet of building space; 20.8% site coverage. There will be 658 parking spaces or a ratio of 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (this includes 24 handicapped spaces). The property is segmented into two parcels, west and east. The western parcel is 4.30 acres with 26,272 of smaller retail space. The eastern parcel has the Lowe's anchor retail store, a 122,256 square foot building with a 31,718 square foot garden center. The adjacent tenancies are tentatively planned for a gas station/convenience store/carwash, bank, three individual buildings with a total of 13,000 square feet and one pad of 5,000 square feet that would accommodate a free-standing tenant. The center developer anticipates completion of the center by fall 2011. The two aerial photographs below show "close in" and area-wide views of the subject property. Southbound Overhead Site View Palomar Commons 4/14/2010 Market Northbound Macro View Palomar Commons 4/14/2010 Market The City of Carlsbad currently has an estimated population of 109,611. This represents 3.4% of the 3,245,279 population of San Diego County. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has prepared a twenty-year population and household forecast (2010-2030) for Carlsbad and the other cities in north San Diego County. POPULATION / HOUSEHOLD FORECAST 2010-2030 NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRADE AREA SANDAG AREA CARLSBAD DEL MAR ENCINITAS OCEANSIDE SAN MARCOS SOLANA BEACH VISTA ESCONDIDO REGION 2010 POP 109,611 4,661 65,358 186,785 82,608 13,807 98,182 148,630 709,642 HH 45,757 2,531 25,227 66,686 28,620 6,539 30,911 48,116 254,387 2020 POP 119,095 5,138 68,030 196,482 90,026 14,839 106,075 158,494 758,179 HH 48,558 2,544 26,054 69,832 31,032 6,697 33,507 51,404 269,628 2030 POP 127,046 5,497 73,170 207,237 95,553 15,761 115,768 169,929 809,961 HH 49,899 2,546 27,066 70,428 31,696 6,728 34,947 53,087 276,397 MARKETPOINTE REALTY ADVISORS 4.10 CHANGE IN POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION /HOUSEHOLD FORECAST 2010-2030 SANDAG AREA CARLSBAD DEL MAR ENCINITAS OCEANSIDE SAN MARCOS SOLANA BEACH VISTA ESCONDIDO REGION POPULATION 2010 2030 | CHANGE X CHANGE 109,611 4,661 65,358 186,785 82,608 13,807 98,182 148,630 709,642 127,046 5,497 73,170 207,237 95,553 15,761 115,768 169,929 809,961 17,435 836 7,812 20,452 12,945 1,954 17,586 21,299 100,319 16% 18% 12% 11% 16% 14% 18% 14% 14% HOUSEHOLDS 2010 2030 CHANGE % CHANGE 45,757 2,531 25,227 66,686 28,620 6,539 30,911 48,116 254,387 49,899 2,546 27,066 70,428 31,696 6,728 34,947 53,087 276,397 4,142 15 1,839 3,742 3,076 189 4,036 4,971 22,010 9% 1% 7% 6% 11% 3% 13% 10% 9% SOURCE: SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MARKETPOINTE REALTY ADVISORS 4.10 Palomar Commons 4/14/2010 Market SANDAG forecasts the household count in the City of Carlsbad to expand by 9.0% between 2010-2030 with a projection approaching 50,000 households in 2030. This total represents a change of more than 200 households annually. The relevant cities of Northwest San Diego County (Del Mar to Oceanside and east to Escondido), currently have a combined population of 709,642 comprising 21.8% of the countywide population. This population is expected to increase to 758,179 in 2020 and 809,961 by 2030. Thus, the north San Diego County trade area is anticipated to expand by 22,010 households annually during the next two decades. Note that SANDAG is projecting that the household count will not grow as fast as the population. SANDAG is therefore projecting that household sizes will grow over the next two decades. These data do not include the military stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside. Currently, that military population is approximately 30,000 and is projected to expand by another 40-50% in the next few years as a result of the overall expansion of the U.S. Marine Corps. Demographic Profile To analyze the relevant demographics of the subject property, we have identified a rectangular geographic section (displayed in the graphic below) and compared it to the countywide demographics. The defined area includes Carlsbad, Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach, Carmel Valley and Del Mar. The reason for the selection of this macro area is discussed later in the report. The area has a current population of 238,314 compared with the countywide population estimate of 3,064,619 (Claritas numbers will slightly differ from SANDAG forecast figures). Population growth on a percentage basis was more robust in the county during the 1990's versus the 2000's when our defined coastal area saw more rapid growth (19.2%). The ethnic make up of the defined area is much less diverse than the county as a whole: 85.1% of the defined area is classified as Caucasian, 11.9% are Hispanic and 5% are Asian, this compares with countywide figures of 63.4% Caucasian and 30.8% Hispanic. Almost half of all residents in the defined area have at least a four-year college degree versus only 30 percent countywide. This translates to an average household income of $122,825 in the defined area versus $84,359 countywide. A much higher percentage of those employed are in typical white-collar professions. •••••••••••••••MniWMBttfi$3$^^ --:"/.•••-' 7'•--•'-'. •'•-.-.' . . - ., Palomar Commons 6 4/14/2010 Marketl • •j-j^J^JiM-frM..:».•» ,, <»A , ,*• -4:> A••-'L—. • % •• , BEST ORIGINAL Palomar Commons 4/14/2010 Market ,m.m-mmfimmm Demographics Palomar Commons Defined A r Description Total | ea County % Total % Population 2009 Estimate 238,314 3,064,619 2000 Census 199,959 2,813,833 1990 Census 172,445 2,498,016 Growth 2000-2009 19.2% 8.9% Growth 1990-2000 16.0% 12.6% 2009 Est. Population by Race / Ethnicity White Alone Black or African American Alone Asian Alone Hispanic or Latino: 2009 Est Median Age 41 .54 2009 Est. Pop, Age 25+ :> 4 Year Degree 2009 Est. Average Household Size 2.46 2009 Est. Average Household Income $122,825 2009 Est. Per Capita Income $49.902 2009 Civ Employed Pop 16+ by Occupation 116,088 Management. Business, and Financial Professional and Related Occupations Service, Farming, Fishing Sales and Office Construction, Extraction, Maintenance Production, Transportation 2009 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Attached Detached 85.1 63.4 1.0 5.0 5.0 10.2 11.9 30.8 34.56 48.1 30.2 2.75 $ 84,359 $ 30,204 1.372,212 23.9 15.4 27.9 23.1 11.6 16.2 26.5 27.1 5.4 8.5 4.8 9.7 71.4 56.3 28.6 43.7 38.5 44.3 56.9 51.3 SOURCE: CLARfTAS !>/ARKETPO!NTE REALTY ADVISORS 4.10 Palomar Commons 4/14/2010 Market*m:mm*mf^WVbm.-m:mm.-m From a retail strength perspective, the most desirable traits of the defined area are: two-fold: the household income levels and the high percentage of owner-occupied housing. Countywide, owner occupancy is 56.3%. In the subject trade area, it is 71.4%, the highest level by far in San Diego County. In the graph beiow, it is evident that when looking at all households, the percentage of those in Carlsbad that earn over $100,000 is significantly higher than countywide. Progressively, as the income brackets get higher, the discrepancy widens. This is the "cream of the crop" in terms of income in the county. 20 18 16 14 n oo 10$ 6 4 2 Household Income Distribution Defined Area Countywide = $24,999 $25.000- $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000- $99,999 $500,000 < Palomar Commons 4/14/2010 Market, »,«»»•»•».»•»».•«.•:»•« Lowe's/Home Depot Customer Base Though Lowe's and Home Depot are both home improvement retailers, their product assortment, merchandising techniques, store layouts and business format appeal to different sectors of the marketplace. In other words, there is a definite overlap in merchandise, but we perceive a definite differential in their customer bases. Lowe's caters to and appeals more to the do-it-yourself homeowners that are more apt to consider the aesthetic aspects of their purchases. Lowe's also has a large share of the appliance business and is the second largest appliance retailer in the United States. Home Depot caters more to the contractor and investor-owner market. This differential is particularly important in this analysis because of the unusually high percentage of homeowners, high-income levels, and the high percentage of older and more expensive single-family homes in the trade area. The Palomar Commons Trade Area The two predominant "home improvement" chains, Lowe's and Home Depot, are well served in the Highway 78 corridor stretching from Oceanside to Escondido. In the vicinity of that corridor are four Lowe's stores and seven Home Depot stores. There are no Lowe's or Home Depot stores in the City of Carlsbad at the present time. LOWE'S AND HOME DEPOT STORES HIGHWAY 78 CORRIDOR HOME DEPOT 1001 N EL CAMINO REAL 1550 W VALLEY PKWY 1475 E VALLEY PKWY 5755 MISSION AVE. 3838 W VISTA WAY 550 SAN MARCOS 2430 S MELROSE ENCINITAS ESCONDIDO ESCONDIDO OCEANSIDE OCEANSIDE SAN MARCOS VISTA 92024 92029 92027 92057 92056 92069 92081 LOWE'S 620 W MISSION 151 VISTA VILLAGE 555 GRAND AVE 155 OLD GROVE ESCONDIDO VISTA SAN MARCOS OCEANSIDE 92025 92083 92069 92057 The trade area between the subject property and southward to Del Mar/Sorrento Valley remains completely unserved by Lowe's and has only one Home Depot store, that in Encinitas on El Camino Real. Thus, the "richest" homeowner market in the County is entirely unserved by Lowe's. Of equal importance to the City of Carlsbad is the "leakage" of home improvement business to the other cities in the north San Diego County trade Palomar Commons 10 4/14/2010 ••••••••BBMMBMMMrai Market• •»••-••.»••.-•.»M MMMBMMNHNMMMHIHMM area. Plainly put, Carlsbad is not getting its rightful share of the home improvement market and the tax revenue that flows from it. Retail Spending - Gap / Surplus Analysis As a primary means of determining retail demand, we use a retail opportunity gap analysis. This method combines data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, and plots the amount spent by consumers in a given area versus the amount sold by businesses in said area. As was touched upon earlier in the report, we feel very strongly that the correct identification of the target consumer market is paramount to properly analyzing the retail demand for this type of product. Traditionally, a radius approach is used, looking at the surrounding equidistant five or ten mile "rings" from a subject property. For this assignment, the problem with that type of methodology is that the dynamics of the supply and demand curve are not necessarily equal in a concentric radius. The Highway 78 corridor to the north of the subject site has a very strong existing retail presence - particularly with regard to big box home improvement stores. Starting in Escondido and heading west, just between Home Depot and Lowe's, there are nine home improvement stores. To look at the consumer expenditures and local retail sales in just the five-mile radius, would paint an inaccurate picture. There is simply too much existing product along Highway 78. The key to the success of the subject property is acknowledging that the real market void is located south of the subject property, out to a fifteen-mile distance (Sorrento Valley/Del Mar). Despite an enormous segment of high end home owners, Home Depot has the only presence along the Coastal Corridor. For comparison's sake, the first table below gives the retail opportunity gap using the radius method. There is quite clearly a negative amount of retail demand in the five-mile radius. There are nearly one billion dollars in surplus supply using the Palomar Commons 11 4/14/2010 Market radius method and looking five miles out. Consumers from within this radius spend $930,424,429 less than the stores in this radius sell. Thus, these retail stores in the five- mile radius are already drawing on consumers from outside this area and are cannibalizing from outside areas. RETAIL SPENDING - GAP / SURPLUS ANALYSIS 5 MILE RADIUS - Retail Category Building Material, Garden Equip Stores Building Material and Supply Dealers Home Centers Paint and Wallpaper Stores Hardware Stores Other Building Materials Dealers Building Materials, Lumberyards Lawn, Garden Equipment, Supplies Stores Outdoor Power Equipment Stores Nursery and Garden Centers Total Retail Sales Incl Eating / Drinking SOURCE: CLARITAS (VIACENSUS AND BLS DATA) MARKETPOINTE REALTY ADVISORS 4.10 PALOMAR COMMONS 2009 Demand (Expenditures) $ 433,343,768 $ 398,589,610 $ 165,390,901 $ 9,336,635 $ 34,354,919 $ 189,507,155 $ 74,132,184 $ 34,754,158 $ 5,216,503 $ 29,537,655 $ 3,936,592,861 2009 Supply (Retail Sales) $ 603,003,365 $ 564,120,489 $ 270,487,337 $ 14,498,708 $ 17,765,563 $ 261,368,880 $ 102,251,392 $ 38,882,876 $ 1,320,831 $ 37,562,045 $ 4,867,017,290 Opportunity Gap/Surplus $ (169,659,597) $ (165,530,879) $ (105,096,436) $ (5,162,073) $ 16,589,356 $ (71,861,725) $ (28,119,208) $ (4,128,718) $ 3,895,672 $ (8,024,390) $ (930,424,429) The map below on the left side is the typical radius map showing the five and ten mile radii home improvement market. The map on the right shows what we believe will be the primary consumer draw area for the subject property. Palomar Commons 12 4/14/2010 Market , *C.I --. '*=•-•• »»»•» .. ., .l '. \ XV ..,;,, I\ »«*'?•"•'••'•.'••". .i.'sJLjr-, . *,w* , : y *-i ^ • • ** -• ""*" "•'•-•* \ ' *\ ,>. L^ •*•' r«f»*ry«*«' . -t As we shift from the site radius to our defined trade market area, there is a significant difference. Overall, there is an opportunity gap of $124,225,658 for all retail spending. As we focus on just building materials, consumers in this area spend more than stores in the area sell by 39%. Economically, there is $152,117,193 in consumer spending dollars being spent by local consumers in stores outside the area - due to a lack of available supply. Using nationwide average annual sales per square foot from Lowes ($258) and inputting the size of the retail space at Palomar Commons (122,256 square feet) and a regional pricing premium, an expected annual sales for the Palomar Commons store of $35,000,000 - $40,000,000 would only represent one quarter of the building/ garden materials retail opportunity gap that is present in this area. Therefore, it is logical to assume that a Lowe's store would be highly successful at the subject property location. Palomar Commons 13 4/14/2010 Market?; RETAIL SPENDING - GAP / SURPLUS ANALYSIS DEFINED MARKET AREA - PALOMAR COMMONS Retail Category Building Material, Garden Equip Stores Building Material and Supply Dealers Home Centers Paint and Wallpaper Stores Hardware Stores Other Building Materials Dealers Building Materials, Lumberyards Lawn, Garden Equipment, Supplies Stores Outdoor Power Equipment Stores Nursery and Garden Centers Total Retail Sales Incl Eating / Drinking SOURCE: CLARITAS (VIACENSUS AND BLS DATA) IW«KETPOINTE REALTY ADVISORS 4.10 2009 Demand (Expenditures) $ 543,312,919 $ 499,274,277 $ 207,305,520 $ 11,884,053 $ 42,786,362 $ 237,298,341 $ 93,036,405 $ 44,038,642 $ 6,645,597 $ 37,393,045 $ 4,791,231,963 2009 Supply (Retail Sales) $ 391,195,726 $ 339,851,092 $ 164,960,152 $ 13,293,854 $ 12,635,630 $ 148,961,456 $ 58,275,946 $ 51,344,634 $ 1,091,849 $ 50,252,784 $4,667,006,305 Opportunity Gap/Surplus $152,117,193 $159,423,185 $ 42,345,368 $ (1,409,801) $ 30,150,732 $ 88,336,885 $ 34,760,459 $ (7,305,992) $ 5,553,748 $ (12,859,739) $124,225,658 Supply of Developable Land Although identification of the supply of land available for new home improvement stores in the trade area is beyond the scope of this report, our knowledge of the coastal cities in the County and the dominant trade area leads to a conclusion that the supply of sites that would be appropriate for other home improvement stores is sparse. It is also important to note that within the City of Carlsbad, there are virtually no undeveloped sites remaining that would accommodate a home improvement store of the Lowe's type. Typically, a Lowe's would require a ten-acre site or larger to accommodate a 120,000-130,000 square foot store plus the outdoor garden center. Palomar Commons 14 4/14/2010 Market m.m=.mmm^m*m-mm.-m,m.m.-m In recently released data from several of the major commercial real estate brokerage firms, San Diego County is rated among the top three retail markets in the nation in terms of stability and continued strength. Whereas many markets have seen retail vacancy rates soar to the 8-10% level, San Diego's retail vacancy rate is approximately 6.0%. Vacancy rates in the County have traditionally been in the sub-3.0% range. Vacancy Rale m 4006 '307 K07 3007 4037 !CM i3»453? Unlike many of the major metropolitan areas, San Diego County has a relatively small number of big-box stores remaining empty. One year ago, there were approximately 50 big box stores empty as a result of the demise of several major retail chains. Today, there are fewer than 25 vacant big-box stores and local commercial brokers indicate that most will be leased prior to the end of 2010. Construction of retail space is virtually non-existent and has been that way for the past six months. There were no new deliveries in the fourth quarter of 2009. This will help to absorb the existing space and drive the vacancy rates back down to the 3-4% range. 2CO.OOO 150.000 100.000 Construction Activity Under Consl-jclion H Deliveries 4008 1009 2009 3Q09 • 0!0 :e '.('"iird Ft',-:. • ::: Palomar Commons 15 4/14/2010 Market Retail Occupancy Rates: North San Diego County Trade Area 25% of the entire stock of retail space in San Diego lies in Northwestern San Diego County (Del Mar north to Oceanside, east to San Marcos). Oceanside has the largest amount of retail space (4,260,501) in the defined trade area. Carlsbad / La Costa has a total of 2,096,379 square feet of retail leasing space and a vacancy rate of 6.6%. RETAIL LEASING MARKET DATA 4TH QUARTER 2009 SAN DIEGO SUBMARKET _J SQFT J^ CARDIFF /ENCINITAS 2,200,782 CARLSBAD / LA COSTA 2,096,379 DELMAR/SOLANA 1,627,049 OCEANSIDE 4,260,501 SAN MARCOS 2,301,693 VISTA 2,076,932 SAN DIEGO TOTAL * 58,963,934 * INCLUDES SW RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOURCE: CBRE MARKETPOINTE REALTY ADVISORS 4.10 VAC% 4.9% 6.6% 2.5% 10.8% 8.4% 7.5% 6.4% Palomar Commons Fit'.* f '•> 16 4/14/2010 Market weswaww*i•>«:?? • v •> . ,»•':> »..>nvt •> The Lowe's site is located within the north San Diego County market area. The area straddles two freeways: State Route 78 and Interstate 5. The 78 freeway to the east and north is well served with home improvement stores. There are no large format home improvement retailers in the City of Carlsbad at this time. Conversely, the north coastal San Diego County trade area between the subject properly and southward toward Del Mar and Sorrento Valley along the 1-5 spine has only one home improvement store which is a Home Depot in Encinitas. The subject property trade area as described in the paragraph above is the most affluent in San Diego County and has the highest rate of homeownership. The area, for the most part, is substantially built out, with few opportunities remaining for the addition of home improvement stores requiring acreage of the type required by Lowe's. Currently, persons living in the trade area and desirous of shopping at Lowe's have to drive substantial distances. Although Lowe's and Home Depot are both home improvement retailers, they serve different strata of the marketplace. Lowe's appeals more to the home-owner and particularly the more affluent sector of the market. Given the facts described in this report, it is highly likely that the Lowe's to be built at El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will be successful. Our research clearly shows that there is far more home improvement buying power in the trade area than is being accommodated. By developing the Lowe's at the Carlsbad site, it will partially arrest the leakage that results from the home improvement market being served by the surrounding communities. The other retail space in the Palomar Commons Center will prove to be equally successful as a result of the traffic generated by Lowe's. ********* Palomar Commons 17 4/14/2010 Market •••»•»••-••»••mmtmmm We have enjoyed working on this assignment with you and stand prepared to respond to any inquiries you may have. Respectfully submitted, MARKETPOINTE REALTY ADVISORS Alan N. Nevin Director of Economic Research . Palomar Commons jg 4/14/2010 Kira Linberg -c-ive-Agenda Item For the, Information of the-CITY (OT r\r From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Asst- Date Eric Munoz [emunoz@hofmanplanning.com] Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:04 AM Council Internet Email 'Mark Radelow'; 'Bill Hofman'; Don Neu; Van Lynch; Gary Barberio Follow.up Applicant Response to Preserve Calavera letter.Palomar Commons Palomar Commons.Cumltv AQ Response.doc; Palomar Commons.Trip Allocation Response.pdf High Hi Kira Please pass this information on to Mayor/City Council for tonight. This email clarifies/augments three items from the previously submitted Applicant response to the Preserve Calavera letter generated for this project: • Cumulative Air Quality Impacts: please see attachment labled Cumltv AQ Response by technical member of cut team. Construction Water Quality: this issue of water quality during construction is adequately addressed via exis'.'nc conditions of approval on the project that ensure compliance including implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's): See conditions #36 -41 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 6704 for our SDP approval by Planning Commission. Allocation/Distribution of Trips: please see attachment labied Trip Allocation by technical member of our team Thank You - EM 24 August 2010 Eric Munoz Director of Planning Hofman Planning & Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 direct phone: 760.692.4011 Date: g Distribution: ' City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book sra Scientific Resources Associated August 23, 2010 Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Palomar Airport Commons Response to Comments on Air Quality Impacts Gentlemen: The comment letter on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palomar Airport Commons Project provided comments on potential cumulative air quality impacts, commenting that the project would result in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and stating that "The analysis has not demonstrated that these would be offset by people choosing to go to this destination home improvement store rather than another one." The purpose of this letter is to respond to the comment regarding VMT and to demonstrate that the VMT would be lower by people choosing to shop at the Palomar Airport Commons Lowe's than another home improvement store. In evaluating cumulative air quality impacts, as noted in the comment letter, nonattainment pollutants NOx and VOCs are of concern because they are a regional air quality issue. Thus it is appropriate to evaluate emissions, and VMT, on a regional level. To address site-specific travel distances, the trip distances were evaluated based on the relative location of other home improvement stores. A review of Mapquest identified the nearest Lowe's and Home Depot locations to the site. It was assumed that the Palomar Airport Commons Lowe's store would attract customers from a radius of half the distance from each of the other home improvement store locations. The locations and their distances from the project site are shown below. Existing Home Improvement Store Lowe's, 151 Vista Village Drive, Vista, CA Lowe's, 555 Grand Avenue, San Marcos, CA Lowe's, 155 Old Grove Road, Oceanside, CA Home Depot, 2430 Melrose Drive, Vista, CA Home Depot, 3838 W. Vista Way, Oceanside, CA Home Depot, 1001 N. El Camino Real, Encinitas, CA Home Depot, 550 San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, CA Home Depot, 5755 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA Average Distance to Other Home Improvement Stores Half the Average Distance Distance to Site, miles 4.72 5.14 7.4 1.52 4.12 4.38 5.4 8.44 5.14 2.57 1328 Kaimalino Lane San Diego, CA 92109 (858)488-298? Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad August 23, 2010 Page 2 The average distance traveled to the Lowe's retail store at the Palomar Airport Commons site would therefore be estimated to be 2.57 miles. It should be noted that this distance is less than the default distance assumed in the URBEMIS Model runs, and is also less than the average trip length in San Diego County of 5.8 miles based on SANDAG estimates. Vehicular emissions of nonattainment pollutants, for which cumulative air quality impacts are of concern, are a function of the total vehicle miles traveled, which is based on average daily trips and trip lengths. Providing access to a local Lowe's in the Palomar Airport Commons area would reduce the average trip length to 2.57 miles. Without the Palomar Airport Commons Lowe's, customers in the area would need to travel to the Vista, San Marcos, or Oceanside Lowe's retail center, which are all located outside of the 2.57 mile radius that would account for the majority of the customers for this project. The only home improvement store within the 2.57 mile radius from the Palomar Airport Commons site is the Home Depot located on Melrose Drive in Vista. Should customers prefer to shop at Lowe's, they would need to travel a greater distance (an average of 5.75 miles from the project site) to shop at any of the other Lowe's retail centers. Thus the siting of the Lowe's at the Palomar Airport Commons project site provides customers within the anticipated customer radius with an opportunity to shop at a location that is closer to their residences/businesses, which would reduce VMT overall. Sincerely, Valorie L. Thompson, Ph.D. Principal 1328 Kaimalino Lane S&n Diego, CA 92109 (858)488-298? URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. ^PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT MEMO ATTN:Cotton Sudberry Sudberry Properties, Inc.Phone: T Fax: T (858) 546-3000 (858) 245-4616 FROM: JtosjjiF.Sfylaefli, PE TOTAL PAGES (Incl. Cover): 2 + Attachments DATE: August 23,2010 TIME2:48:52 PM JOB NUMBER: 001609 SUBJECT: Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Modifications and Assumptions Confidential Communications This transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this information. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, at our expense and destroy the information. As you are aware, several modifications and changes which were made to the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the Palomar Airport Commons project have generated questions. Additionally, several assumptions underlying the TIA results have generated questions. In order to discuss those modifications and assumptions, I am providing this memo for your information and use. Specific concerns we have heard from community members include questions about distribution, traffic modeling assumptions, and conservative assumptions. All of this information has either been discussed in previous memos, response to comments, or meetings with community members. Therefore, the intent of this memo is simply to memorialize and summarize the answers we have previously provided. TRIP DISTRIBUTION As a result of discussions with City Staff and the project team, changes were made to the trip distribution contained in the TIA between the traffic study drafts and the final version. As discussed in the TIA, these changes were made "to account for other home improvements stores to the north and east". In the first draft of the TIA, trip distribution calculations were generally based on the Sandag "select-zone" forecast obtained for the project as required by regional guidelines. Certain adjustments were made to the original "select-zone" distribution to account for the demand for services caused by residential development to the south and west. Subsequently, as the TIA assumptions were discussed among the project team and with City Staff, it was decided to make further minor adjustments to the trip distribution contained in the TIA based on the close proximity of other home improvement stores to the east and north of the project site. It is felt that these minor modifications which acknowledge existing conditions not necessarily considered or calculated in the computer traffic forecast represents a more realistic distribution for the project. This change in distribution also results in more conservative assumptions by increasing traffic to the south on El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway and to the west on Palomar Airport Road. Please refer to Attachment A for excerpted pages from the first draft TIA and the final TIA to see details of the changes. As can be seen in the excerpted pages, no significant change in impacts or LOS resulted from the change in distribution. TRAFFIC MODELING ASSUMPTIONS 0016Q9-082310-memo-Jps 4540 Keamy Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Colton Sudberry © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Sudberry Properties, Inc. 8/23/10 In order to determine future traffic volumes for use in the TIA, the Sandag, Series 11, Combined North County Model was used. This is consistent with the regional guidelines and other recent traffic studies completed in Carlsbad. The model year used was Year 2030 which represents currently planned buildout of the North County Communities. This includes existing growth along with planned growth and project traffic to estimate volumes well into the future. This allows project impacts to be evaluated in combination with the cumulative effects of other planned projects in the region as required by CEQA and regional Guidelines. Therefore, growth from currently planned projects are included and planned for in addition to project traffic. CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS In addition to the trip distribution adjustments completed in order to provide a more conservative analysis, project trip generation calculations were conservatively estimated to produce a truly conservative analysis. Specifically, diverted, pass-by and internalized trips were not discounted when calculating the trip generation for the project. Each of these is a well known and documented principle in trip generation studies which serve to decrease project trip generation based on statistically observed results. Perhaps the largest and most obvious trip reduction which could have been applied to the project trip generation for the TIA is so-called "pass-by" traffic. This reduction is discussed and is recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) on a national level as well as Sandag and the City of San Diego locally. ITE defines pass-by trips as "pass-by trips are made by intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion". In other words, pass-by trips occur when somebody stops for coffee or a gas station or a home improvement store on their way home or on their way to work. ITE recommends in their Trip Generation Handbook that pass-by trips "should be recognized when examining the traffic impact of a development on the adjacent street system". Using Sandag rates, a pass-by reduction for the Palomar Airport Commons Site could have resulted in a direct reduction of project traffic of between 15% and 28%. This would mean that project impacts are conservatively estimated to be 15% to 28% higher than they would be if these reductions had been taken. These reductions were not taken in order to ensure and maintain a conservative analysis. Please let me know if you have any further questions related to the Palomar Airport Commons TIA. 001609-082310-memo-jps 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Colton Sudberry © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Sudberry Properties, Inc. 8/23/10 ATTACHMENT A 3 001609-082310-memo-jps 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Colton Sudberry © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Sudberry Properties, Inc. 8/23/10 ATTACHMENT A 001609-082310-memo-jps 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Palomar Airport Commons Sudberty Properties Urban Systems Associates, Inc. November 18, 2009 24% 9% Figure 3-2 Project Directional Distribution Percentages 001609 3-5 OOl609-111809-Report_A.doc Palomar Airport Commons Sudberry Properties Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 20JO 9% 16% 9% Figure 3-2 Project Directional Distribution Percentages 001609 3-5 001609-041410-Report_C. doc Palomar Airport Commons Sudberry Properties i Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 2010 Page 1 of 2 50/63- > // /->f /69/67. 51/30 in |i' 77/97—*. <,-•; 2 •O— 60/100 o 5 V / " **>. 85/101— — &» Palomor Airport Rood at Armado Drive • v': •' \ k *^- 6/1 0 m .-5 O— 63/103 ^ ~ ^-43/7' | .§ ^ . \ j 150/180— BB- 01U) COin Palomar Airport Road at College Boulevard X — X 1 / — N O— — 1 12/184 ^ X, Falomar Airport Road at Comino Vida Roble / — v 58/190 1 IE/1945/5 ^22/37—^ 16/27 - 55/89™^ ^ 2S/49 •<—— 4.2/49 : Figure 3-5 Project Only AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 001609 3-8 Q016Q9-0414IO-Repon_C.doc Pahmar Airport Commons Sudberry Properties ' Urban Systems Associates, Inc. November 18, 2009 Page 1 of 2 V --7 ** 0 !-. c f 93/130— —Ss- ^ 3/5 ° I •at— 72/130 ~n £ V Palomar Airport Road at Armada Drive x — s V 102/i35— «B- S ' y -c > " S -0— -75/135 U ./v,;,,,,,,,- .(u-,,,,,-1 r.,l. C, Jo COCM Palomar Airport Road at College Boulevard ^ — s \i *3i— 102/189 ^3/5 ^,,ra,,.,,r M,;,a,; K,l. fm Palomar Airport Rood at Comino Vida Roble x — ^ 139/190 105/19- 20/37 20/37 28/5B r*H coto ro^ \iO ^) O OLT) :T) r-: CM 40/74 Figure 3-5 Project Only AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 001609 3-8 007 609-111809-Report_A. doc Palomar Airport Commons Sudberry Properties © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. November 18, 2009 Page 2 of 2 44/60 3/5 32/60 5/10 PaloTiar Airport Road at El Fuerte Street 8/15-^ c 16/30 .11/15 'io Palomar Airport Road ot Melrose Drive ''I i i I 11/14 7/10 El Gam'no Real atFaraday Avenue in o m ft;M ai w 18/25 18/25 I'uinxrllia /..i ] 4/20 .108/149 1-43/19S CO-d-^ in 81/149 Figure 3-5 Project Only AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 001609 3-9 001609-111809-Report_A. doc Palomar Airport Commons Sudberry Properties © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. November 18, 2009 TABLE 6-2 Buildout Without Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection AM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Palomar Airport Road / 1-5 SB Ramps 'alomar Airport Road / 1-5 NB Ramps Palomar Airport Road / Paseo del Norte 'alomar Airport Road / Armada Drive Alomar Airport Road / College Boulevard 'alomar Airport Road / Camino Vida Roble Palomar Airport Road / Yarrow Drive Palomar Airport Road / El Camino Real® 'alomar Airport Road / Loker Avenue West 'alomar Airport Road / El Fuerte Street Palomar Airport Road / Melrose Drive© 31 Camino Real / Faraday Avenue 31 Camino Real / Town Garden Court El Cammo Real / Camino Vida Roble 31 Carm'no Real / Poinsettia Lane El Camino Real / Alga Road 13.1 44.3 43.8 43.3 42.8 39.6 26.1 28.5 48.4 41.7 43.5 42.2 29.1 22.2 39.6 50.5 B D D D D D C C D D D D C C D D 13.4 42.4 39.8 40.3 49.8 32.2 31.3 46.9 44.1 48.8 40,9 48.0 39.2 22.8 47.4 43.9 B D D D D C C D D D D D D C D D Note: Significance threshold of more than 2.0 seconds of additional delay only applies at LOS E or F Delay = Total control delay per vehicle (Seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual © = With mitigation identified during near-term conditions evaluation. © = With mitigation identified during existing conditions evalution. LOS A B C D E F Delay 0.00-10.0 10.1 -20.0 20.1 -35.0 35.1-55.0 55.1-80.0 Over 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity manual 001609 6-11 OOJ6Q9-lll809-Report_A.doc Palomar Airport Commons Sudberry Properties © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. April 14, 2010 TABLE 6-2 Buildout Without Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection AM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS PM PEAK HOUR Delay LOS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Alomar Airport Road / 1-5 SB Ramps 3alomar Airport Road / 1-5 NB Ramps Palomar Airport Road / Paseo del Norte© 'alomar Airport Road / Armada Drive 5alomar Airport Road / College Boulevard •"alomar Airport Road / Camino Vida Roble 'alomar Airport Road / Yarrow Drive Palomar Airport Road / El Camino Real© Palomar Airport Road / Loker Avenue West Palomar Airport Road / El Fuerte Street 5alomar Airport Road / Melrose Drive® 31 Camino Real / Faraday Avenue El Camino Real / Town Garden Court El Camino Real / Camino Vida Roble 31 Camino Real / Poinsettia Lane El Camino Real / Alga Road 13.1 44.6 59.3 45.5 43.6 39.0 25.7 28.4 49.1 42.0 43.0 42.2 29.2 22.0 39.6 50.5 B D E D D D C C D D D D C C D D 13.5 42.7 59.5 41.8 48.0 32.2 31.2 47.5 46.0 50.2 41.2 48.0 39.2 22.8 47.4 43.9 B D E D D C C D D D D D D C D D Note.1 Significance threshold of more than 2.0 seconds of additional delay only applies at LOS E or F DeJay = Total control delay per vehicle (Seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual CD = The City of Carlsbad 2009-2010 Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.) includes a future eastbound right-tum-only lane at this location. With the right-tum-only lane both the AM and Pm peak hour levels of service will be at acceptable LOS "D" (AM delay = 45.6 seconds; PM delay = 38.5 seconds). © = With mitigation identified during near-term conditions evaluation. ® = With added southbound right-turn-only-lane as included in the City of Carlsbad 2009-2010 Capital Improvements Program, scheduled for Year 2010-2011. LOS A B C D E F Delay 0.00 - 10.0 10.1-20.0 20.1-35.0 35.1 -55.0 55.1 -80.0 Over 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 001609 6-12 001609-041410-Report_C- doc Kira Linberg All Receive-Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CITY TOT r\rrn From: Sent: To: Subject: Asst. Bill Blank [brblank@roadrunner.com] Monday, August 23, 2010 10:36 AM r>-t,» Council Internet Email Zoning at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real-Palomar Commons/Lowe's Carlsbad City Council Members: Both of us were very disappointed when the Carlsbad Planning Commission recommended approval of a Lowe's B Box Store on the former site of The Olympic Resort. We ask that you vote not to approve the recommendation of t1 e Planning Commission. We moved to Carlsbad approximately seven years ago, primarily due to its coastal location, a low key urban seti ic without all the big box stores and strip malls, a fiscally responsible city government and a excellent General Develop n . Plan. The recent action of the Planning Commission seeks to negate many of these attributes by "spot zoning" tha: undermines the General Plan and would/could be extended to other locations. As you know the intersection at Paiorr Airport Road and El Camino Real is already very busy and this new store would add to the traffic burden WE DO NOT WANT BIG BOX STORES BUILT IN CARLSBAD!!!!! Bill & Pat Blank 2917 Rancho Rio Chico Carlsbad, CA 92009 Date: i Distribution: City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book Kira Linberg From: Phil Rogul [rogul@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:34 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: Palomar Commons/Lowes Dear City Council, Many local citizens in this area of Carlsbad are ready-and-willing to aggressively fight this proposed development. Having spoken to quite a number of neighbors I have not heard of anyone who is in favor o! t project. And who in fact were visibly distressed to hear of it! Many of us are still unhappy/angry with your $70MilIion golf course debacle! It displaced our proposed aquatics park which many of us from the local schools and aquatics community had supported and lobb'cc I over a number of years, and which would have been consistent with the (limited) role of government pnn idi needed parks and services to its people, not golf courses and polo fields! Thank you for your time! Some of us are paying close attention! Phil Rogul Ph 760-804- 1870 THE CITY IS BREAKING !TS O^N-RUiES • M -; . i~HEY ARE LOWERING THE BAR 'FOR AIL OF .CArU- UNDERMINING THE CITY S GENERAt'^LAN v' - , CHANGING THE LAND USE/ZOMNG ^POTeiyji&L EVELOPMENT ........ "' ''•"''' V:" '""'" ' : IGNORING TRAFFIC CONGESTION A'T BUSIEST' CARLSBAD INTERSECTION IGNORING ENVISION CARLSBAD Batiqiiltos Lagoon Foundatioi August 4, 2010 The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 Subject: Comments on the Proposed Palomar Commons Project (Lowes Store at the Corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) Mayor and City Council Members: The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) is writing to express our concern over the proposed "Palomar Commons Project" that has been approved by Carlsbad's Planning Commission. We feel that the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program (LCP) analysis requirements have not properly addressed the impacts that this project will have on the Encinas Creek which is within the property boundary. Our specific concerns are summarized below. This project is located in the Canyon De las Encinas sub-watershed, one of the smallest in coastal north San Diego County. The watershed begins a few hundred feet east of El Camino Real and runs parallel to Palomar Airport Road to the coast. The single creek in this watershed is Canyon de las Encinas Creek which has no tributaries. This creek runs right through the proposed Palomar Commons Project. Unfortunately the upper and lower reaches of this creek have been highly degraded by urban development. The midsection of the watershed includes significant stands of natural habitat that are identified in the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) and City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as a Biological Core and Linkage Area. Part of this midsection recently became formally protected as the North County Mitigation Bank which has been used to mitigate both private and city projects. The Drainage Study for the Palomar Commons Project completely ignores the fact that there is a creek through this project site. It describes three storm drain outfalls that discharge on the site and then states"... the storm water discharges then flow overland through the existing golf driving range and exit the site at the southwesterly corner of the site." It further says "The existing project site runoff pattern generally flows from east to west within the existing concrete swales and man-made vegetated depressed areas." This implies that Encinas Creek originates downstream from the project site rather than runs through it. Please refer to the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan of February 2002 pages 4-73 through 4-82 for a more complete description of this sub- watershed. It clearly shows Encinas Creek running through the proposed Palomar Commons project site. Even the cartographers who prepare the Thomas Guide identify the creek running through this property. By ignoring the creek, this project will only add to the cumulative impacts associated with this watershed and the declining water quality along the coast. This is the only sub-watershed in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit that is not identified on the 303(d) list as an Impaired Water Body. When questioned about this, staff at the Regional Water Quality Control Board said there is no reason to assume this waterbody is not impaired. It is just so small that it hasn't been tested and evaluated. The Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of this sub-watershed as non-contact recreation and wildlife habitat. By ignoring the creek, removing the eucalyptus woodland and replacing it with other non-native vegetation, and treating this area as merely a storm water conveyance system these beneficial uses are lost on this part of the watershed. Taking such action in the upper reaches of the watershed has the potential to adversely affect the entire downstream area. This is of particular concern with this project as the downstream area includes an important regional wetland mitigation bank. The project-specific, direct, indirect and cumulative impact of these losses were not adequately considered or mitigated in the project proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which you will have to certify should you approve the project. The BLF is asking that the Carlsbad City Council deny approval and ask that the concerns about Encinas Creek be included in meeting the CEQA requirements. Being cautious upfront and having more complete information of the project impacts when making a decision on Palomar Commons makes sense for the City. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at (760) 918-2408. Sincerejy, / / ' / • ' " T Fred C. Sandquist President cum Member Organizations Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation Canyons Network Cottonwood Creek Conservancy The Escondido Creek Conservancy Resources Conservation District of Greater San .Diego. County Preserve Calavera San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy August 4, 2010 Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Comments on Palomar Commons Project Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (TVIND) Honorable Mayor and City Council: These comments are made on behalf of the Carlsbad Watershed Network (CWN). CWN is a coalition of organizations whose goal is to protect, restore and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats, and other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (CHU) and the adjacent coastal shoreline. All CWN member organizations voted approval of this letter with the exception of the following member organizations which have not been able to take a vote or have not taken a position on the proposed project to date: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation, Canyons Network, and the Resources Conservation District of Greater San Diego County. CWN has a long history of involvement with the City of Carlsbad on watershed protection issues from our invasive plant removal program to the Master Drainage Plan, Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan, and stream buffer guidelines. We feel that the proposed Palomar Commons project is a step in the wrong direction toward protecting our local coastal watersheds. This project is located in the Canyon de las Encinas sub-watershed, one of the smallest in coastal north San Diego County. The watershed begins a few hundred feet east of El Camino Real and runs parallel to Palomar Airport Road to the coast. The single creek in this watershed is Canyon de las Encinas Creek which has no tributaries. This creek runs right through the proposed Palomar Commons project. Unfortunately the upper and lower reaches of this creek have been highly degraded by urban development. The midsection of the watershed includes significant stands of natural habitat that are identified in the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) and City of Carlsbad Habitat Management (HMP) as a Biological Core and Linkage Area. Part of this midsection recently became formally protected as the North County Mitigation Bank which has been used to mitigate both private and city projects. Mission: To protect, restore, and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats, and other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carisbad Hydrologic Unit and the adjacent coastal shoreline. www.carlsbadwatershednetworkorg The Drainage Study for the Palomar Commons Project completely ignores the fact that there is a creek through this project site. It describes three storm drain outfalls that discharge on the site and then states "the storm water discharges then flow overland through the existing golf driving range and exit the site at the southwesterly corner of the site." It goes on to say "The existing project site runoff pattern generally flows from east to west within the existing concrete swales and man-made vegetated depressed areas." These statements imply that Encinas Creek originates downstream from the project site. Please refer to the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan of February 2002, pages 4-73 through 4-82, for a more complete description of this sub-watershed. It clearly shows Encinas Creek running through the proposed Palomar Commons project site. Even the cartographers who prepare the Thomas Guide identify the creek running through the property. By ignoring the creek, this project will only add to the cumulative impacts on this watershed and the declining water quality along the coast. This is the only sub-watershed in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit that is not identified on the 303(d) list as an Impaired Water Body. When questioned about this, staff at the Regional Water Quality Control Board said there is no reason to assume this waterbody is not impaired. It is just so small that it hasn't been tested and evaluated. The Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of this sub-watershed as non-contact recreation and wildlife habitat. By ignoring the creek, removing the eucalyptus woodland and replacing it with other non-native vegetation, and treating this area as merely a storm water conveyance system these beneficial uses are lost on this part of the watershed. Taking such action in the upper reaches of the watershed can adversely affect the entire downstream area. This is of particular concern with this project as the downstream area includes an important regional wetland mitigation bank. The project-specific, direct, indirect and cumulative impact of these losses was not adequately considered or mitigated in the project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Since you are being asked to certify the MND, we urge you to deny this project and require that a new MND be prepared that that correctly identifies and mitigates for the impacts to this watershed. With more complete information, you will then be able to make a more informed decision. Since/ely of 'Fred C. Sandquist, ActMg Chair Carlsbad Watershed fretwork (CWN) (760 918-2408 6408 Crossbill Court Carlsbad, CA 92011-2783 cc: Janet Fairbanks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) David Mayer, California Department of Fish and Game (CD&FG) Michelle Mattson, Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Michael Porter, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) www.carlsbadwatershednetwork.org Page 2 of 2 _(.!..I ileceive-Agenda Item # For the Information of the: CUT COUNCIL Asst. CM LA COSTA MSORT AND SPA" August 10, 2010 Mayor Claude lBud' Lewis Carlsbad City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 <*-v — i Mayor and City Council Members: Resort and Spa is in Date: Distribution: ' City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book establish a new zoning district on the property. The histon, and existing C ie .urist, commission and would conditions over time, the use of the from a financial or land consistent with CT zoning district. was unabie to coon is the fact that after the ng ^quent entitlement was secured for United to grade and deve,op the s,te a y^'^S^^SSSffi6 development in the geographic core of the city. as far as appropriate use Therefore, we support not only the specific retail uses; pn,^, ^ _ land use designation changes proposed ^^WW^ redevelopment of the site for standards, the airport land use plan an a pr resjdents^ the busjness community as well as city visitors. Sincerel Paul^fcCormick' Vic6 President and General Manager ao...»..o.o = ,.c.....com ,.00 C..,. =.. ».- -o- <=•""-• "'•""" ' "™ Sherry Freisinger From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Diane Nygaard [dandd2@peoplepc.com] Monday, August 16, 2010 1:50 PM Lorraine Wood; Council Internet Email Tim Landis; Michael Porter; Van Lynch Comments on Palomar Commons- Tim Landis Exported comnt Ltr.doc Honorable Mayor and Council Please include the attached letter from Tim Landis as part of the comments on the Palomar Commons Project. Please reply to confirm receipt of these comments and the separately submitted comment letter by Preserve Calavera. Thank you. Diane Nygaard Preserve Calavera Date: Distribution: City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book COMMENT LETTER REPORT August 14, 2010 To: Diane Nygaard From: Tim Landis Certified Professional Hydrologist Subject: Comments on Palomar Commons Proposed Project. INTRODUCTION I've reviewed the proposed project submittals that form the basis for my comments on the Proposed Palomar Commons Project. As you requested I've focused these comments on the stormwater, water quality and drainage impact mitigation and BMP design. The comments arte divided into main Topics, each with an underlined header line. The project understanding is further divided into sub-topics; Project Description, Site Topography/Land Use and Site Hydrology. The materials reviewed are listed below. My main references were the Project Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and the two Project Environmental Site Assessments (ESA). REPORTS/DESIGN PLANS REVIEWED Carlsbad Watershed Mgmt. Plan (2000) Carlsbad Watershed Urban Runoff Mgmt. Program (March 2008) Project Stormwater Mgmt Plan (SWMP) (Revised 6/16/10) plus attachments Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) Phase I and II - EEI Geotechnical Services - (Jan 2010) EEI Geotechnical Study (1/13/2010) Lang Engineering Project Drainage Design Study Planning Report Submittal - 4 (6/24/2010) Analysis of Project Impacts on Local Facility Mgmt Plan Zone 5 - by Hofman Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Defined in Order 2007-001 Map (updated 2009) PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Project Description Project consists of 154,000 ft2 commercial/retail center on a 16.1 acre site known as a portion of Lot G, Map 823 in the city of Carlsbad, more commonly known as the former Olympic Club site. Project will incorporate six- commercial/retail buildings, associated on-grade parking, along with off-site traffic improvements. These improvements include numerous traffic lanes and signals at the project's main entrance off Palomar Airport Rd. One of the larger properties is located in Parcel A, portion of Lot G, Rancho Aqua Hedionda Map 823 which originally was the Olympic Golf facility, which consisted of a club house, swimming pools, tennis courts, golf driving range and guest accommodations. The ESA reports that their proposed project description is based on a "Site Plan Scheme F prepared by SPGA Architecture (dated 7/20/2009) and that the greater portion of the project (12.02 acres) is to be a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse (HIW). The balance (4.71 acres) is being developed by Sudberry Properties as several out-pads totaling approx. 40,000 ft2 and a retention pond. Comments 1) It's unclear how Parcel A and B fit combine as part of Lot G. The figures in the SWMP don't clearly define these boundaries. As the project descriptions state, both Parcels A and B are part of the proposed project but its unclear where the property boundary is for Parcel B and if all of this Parcel is to be developed. Page 1 2) "Retail" buildings are shown on the SWMP design plans. The largest is identified in other reports as the Lowes Home Improvement Ware (LHIW). Is this the large retail building shown on the design drawings? If so, then the site plans need to show the outside garden retail and trash compactor areas. 3) The projects should be clearly split between the LHIW, the Sudberry Company and the County Operations to the west and south. 4) For the purposes of the stormwater and drainage designs, one of the retail buildings has fuel islands, should be designated as a Service Station. The retail building to the immediate east of the Service station may be a car wash facility. These retain buildings need to be designated as such, and thus will need to be re-analizedin all the stormwater and hydrology/water quality issues of the project Site Topography/Land Use The site was originally an Olympic Golf Facility with numerous recreational facilities, including a clubhouse, swimming pools, tennis courts, golf driving range etc. The resort has since ceased operation has started to be demolished. The ESA field investigations (12/23/2009) reported the main hotel building, tennis courts and golf driving range remain but a portion of the golf practice (central portion of the overall site) was filled with what appeared to be imported soil. The Parcel B portion of Lot G, Rancho Aqua Hedionda Map 823 of the project site houses the North County Animal Shelter, recently re-constructed in accordance with drawing numbers 416-2 and 4162A, CUP 03-21. This shelter will remain in operation and may only impact the easterly portion of the proposed project site. Significant coordination between the developer and the Shelter Operators has been on-going to ensure these two projects fit seamlessly together once construction is complete. At present both Parcel A and B lie below the surrounding public streets. Parcel A, where the majority of the proposed development development will occur, slopes from east to west approximately 40ft. The project is bordered on the south by office and light industrial, on west by the animal shelter and to north and east by Palomar Rd and El Camino Real. Comments 5) County owned property was also mentioned, how does this fit in with the project site runoff conditions? 6) Hofman Zone 5 is an in-fill zone and therefore has no open space requirements. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Defined in Order 2007 - 001 Map (updated 2009) shows distinctly that Encinas Creek, which is a blue line stream from El Camino to Ocean, has 200ft buffer zones on both sides of the creek. This is contradictory to the Zoning Analysis and will need to be included in the open space requirements for the proposed project. These buffer zones need to be discussed in both the hydrology and mitigation on-site areas. 7) The existing site description will need to be revised to include the disposition of the existing building and facilities of the Olympic Golf Facility. At this time it is unclear how much demolition has been done to the existing site and under what permit conditions this was done. 8) As discussed above the reported import material will need to be documented and the subject of a follow up ESA report on existing soil conditions. 9) The planned service station needs to be clearly identified and discussed in the SWMP and other appropriate places to show how the impacts from this site can be mitigated to below a level of significance as assumed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) documents. 10) The construction Phase of the proposed project needs to be added to the SWMP and other documents. Construction will impact the site run on and off of both Parcels of the project. This is especially true for the downstream potions of Lot G that includes the County Animal Shelter. Site Hydrology Currently two pipes (30" and 36") discharge from PAR and one 36" pipe discharges from El Camino and flows overland through the existing golf range and exits the site at the southwesterly corner of the site into Encinas Cr and into the Ocean. Page 2 Groundwater EEI has reported at 37ft bis and water quality samples have been taken. These results are reported in the ESA II appendix tables as ND for all measured parameters. However there may be an issue with the Labs LLD that was reported higher than the maximum allowable concentration. At this time, this is not a large issue. Project is located within the Carlsbad hydrologic unit 904.4, and is 5.4 mi2 (3,434 acres) and is a "priority project" level for a significant redevelopment for stormwater management criteria. Comments 11) The Design Drawing from the SWMP - called DM-2 shows "ridges" designed to separate the drainage areas of the flat parking area. There were no design calculations that show their height (not specified) would not be over-toped by a 110 year event. Along those same lines, the roof areas of the large building are separated however this drawing doesn't show their discharge points. 12) The SWMP and the 2 ESA Reports discuss the 3 public storm outfalls, with subsequent flows going overland and exiting the site down slope to Encinas Creek. This assumes that the previous development had no surface drainage facilities, which is hard to conceive, considering all the different facilities and buildings on the site. The current site drainage conditions need to be shown on a figure to clarify current site conditions. 13) Many of the comment for the other two topics, the project description and the site topography are also directly applicable to the site hydrology and should be included in any hydrology issues and mitigations. GENERAL COMMENTS/QUESTIONS Most of the comments apply the Project Stormwater Mgmt. Plan. This plan should explain the proposed drainage and stormwater design for the project, including their corresponding mitigations to bring the impacts to below a level of significance. Because these impacts and mitigations are only outlined in the MND for this project, this plan along with the drainage design form the basis for describing project impact mitigations and their required BMP's that are also discussed in the SWPPP's. 14) The design drawings furnished with the project SWMP were not adequate in their details to review the design calculations furnished with the plan. For example, there were no flow arrows to show direction of flow and "node" points to help follow the total facility design. The sub-drainage areas and individual smaller sub drainages were not labeled nor clearly shown on the maps. 15) Parcel's A and B and the portion of Lot G need to be clarified with a figure showing their property lines. 16) In summary, these documents reviewed in the comment letter, do not adequately describe or identify the significant impact mitigations for the proposed project. Page3 Sherry Freisinger From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Diane Nygaard [dandd2@peoplepc.com] Monday, August 16, 2010 1:44 PM Lorraine Wood; Council Internet Email Van Lynch; Michael Porter Comments on Palomar Commons MND- Palomar Commons MND- July 2010.doc Honorable Mayor and Council Att are comments on the MND and zoning for the proposed Palomar Commons project. A hard copy of this letter which includes the referenced attachments will be hand delivered separately to the City Clerk's office. Our greatest concern with this project is that the historic creek through this project site has been ignored. We cannot protect our coastal waters, and the tourism industry that relies on them, without considering the creeks that flow to the coast. We urge you to direct that a proper analysis of the impacts to the creek are considered before this project moves forward. Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera Date: Distribution: City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book "- \-J^J-~& ill* Yfe C-ilki'/^Jfii T -i August 16, 2010 AUG 2 o am CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mayor and C'rty Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Honorable Mayor and Council Subject: Palomar Commons MND Zoning and CUP's These comments on the Palomar Commons project, MND and zoning are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots conservation organization whose goal is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of coastal north San Diego County. White most of the natural resources on this project site were lost years ago, the project as proposed could cause further direct and indirect impacts to the natural resources of this area, primarily the Canyon de las Encinas watershed. In addition, it may reduce the city's and region's ability to implement smart growth projects and to achieve the GHG reduction targets that will be included in the next SANDAG regional plan. Several of these impacts were not properly identified , analyzed and/or mitigated in the MND nor were they presented at the Planning Commission hearing on July 7, 2010. The Planning Commission had insufficient information upon which to make their decisions on this project. These errors and omissions need to be corrected prior to your consideration of this project. We are also concerned about the lack of adequate public notice for the creation of a new zoning code that could be applied anywhere in the city. The residents of Carlsbad have expressed their concerns about big box retail at numerous times over many years. They have also supported preserving the scenic character of El Camino Real. This proposed project ignores years of community input on these issues and has not allowed the public reasonable opportunity to understand or comment.. We are also concerned that this zoning change is occurring while the city is in the midst of a General Plan Update. If the public was aware of the potential impacts of this change we believe you would have heard from them. According to the records fifed with the MND the public notice went to 124 landowners within 600' of the project boundary. What about the 100's of residents who provided input on the Envision Carlsbad Plan or the 1,000's of residents who drive by that intersection every day? 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056 \^\ \\.prescrvccajavera.ora Nonprofit 50 l(c)3 ID#33-0955504 In addition to our comments below we also call your attention to the separately submitted comments of Tim Landis. Mr. Landis is a hydrology expert who has raised significant concerns about the adequacy of the hydrologic evaluation, SWPP and proposed mitigation measures. We therefor urge you to table this project until such time as all of these issues have been addressed and a full EIR is prepared that properly analyzes and mitigates for all of the potential impacts of this project. The following are our specific comments on the draft MND : Land Use Compatibility Compatibility analysis is based on zoning that does not exist and was poorly described and insufficiently analyzed The MND did not adequately evaluate the impact of the proposed new zoning. There was some discussion at the Planning Commission hearing but that did not include the kind of details essential for the Planning Commission and the public to evaluate the potential impacts. The table presented at the hearing that compared the various commercial zoning describes the site size and gross lease area for this new zoning as "varies." Staff testified it could be applied on a site as small as % acre. There are numerous such sites scattered throughout the city. What guidelines will be used to determine the use of this zoning? Must it only be applied to commercial sites or could other industrial, or visitor serving uses be re-zoned as well? Since lot size and lease sq ft are not specified how are there any assurances that the building size /intensity is appropriate for the lot size? - No discussion of compatibility with General Plan update now in process The city is currently in the process of a comprehensive update of the General Plan. This process has been underway for about 2 years and recently Phase II- preparing the detailed parcel plans was initiated. Several of the Planning Commissioners raised concerns about how this proposed zoning would impact the General Plan update underway and we concur with these concerns. The MND failed to evaluate how instituting such a major change, that applies city-wide, would be integrated with this on-going General Plan update. - Project description in the MND is not consistent with the economic analysis The att include page 13 from the Market Feasibility Analysis dated 4/14/10. This is not a store designed to provide goods to Carlsbad residents- it is capturing retail sates from surrounding areas. The market feasibility analysis and figure showing the area served makes it clear this is intended to be a regional center serving more than just Carlsbad residents. There was no discussion of the adverse indirect impacts of this changed land use The city's "traffic guru" testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the traffic generated by this project will put the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Ei Camino Real at the limit of what can be done to mitigate impacts for a signalized intersection. This means that this proposed project, by allowing such an intense use, will result in any other projects that add traffic along this corridor to go into failure. The corridor along El Camino Real is identified on the SANDAG Smart Growth map as a place targeted for high density, smart growth projects. Analyse by NCTD and comments on the regional Transportation Plan identify the Palomar Airport Rd corridor as one of the highest employment trip generators in north county- another area that could really benefit from smart growth projects. Allowing this project that is the opposite of smart growth to proceed jeopardizes the ability to move forward with real smart growth projects in both of these two corridors. This potentially causes indirect traffic, air quality and cumulative GHG impact that were not analyzed or mitigated in this MND. Air quality Impacts - Insufficient mitigation for operational air quality impacts from CO The proposed mitigation measures to address operational impacts for CO, primarily from auto emissions, include two key items : "20 weekday buses stopping within % mile of site" and " bicycle and pedestrian friendly access to the site." Air quality impacts are not reduced because people have an option to get to the site by means other than an auto. They are only reduced if people actually use alternative transportation. The problem with this assumption is that the actual use of alternative transportation to big box home improvement retail stores is actually less than it would be for other retail uses. Having alternative transportation options might affect employee travel patterns However the analysis did not asses any differential impact for customers vs employees. Furthermore the traffic analysis as discussed in the comments under traffic did not distribute project related traffic accurately. Most of the traffic will be to the south- either along already congested El Camino Real or 1-5. Correctly allocating traffic may in fact result in CO hotspots and this could result in an unmitigated impact. The operational CO impacts don't just exceed the threshold by a little bit- it exceeds it by a lot .with projected CO emissions of 812.93 Ibs/day and a significance threshold of only 550 Ibs/day. Given the magnitude of these impacts the MND should have done a much better job of providing mitigation for CO. - Inadequate analysis of cumulative air quality impacts Section 4.3 of the Air Quality technical report concludes that "Because the project provides in-fill development, it would not be anticipated to increase vehicle trips in the region; rather the project would serve the needs of providing local retail to the community. The project would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable inc rease emissions of ozone precursors (NOX and VOCS)." As shown in the economic analysis and the Market Feasibility Analysis very few of the trips to this retail center are local serving trips that would not result in an increase in VMT. In fact this is a destination retail center. There will certainly be a significant increase in local VMT. The analysis has not demonstrated that these would be offset by people choosing to go to this destination home improvement store rather than another one. Traffic Trip distribution is not supported in the analysis The att include Page 11 of 19 of staff comments on the draft traffic analysis for the MND. Item 48 in reference to Figure 3-2 says "The report should consider re- distributing tips off of I-5 and east on PAR while allocating more trips in the neighborhood to the southwest section of the study area." The consultants response to this was" The trip distribution has been revised reasonably to direct more project traffic to the residential areas to the southwest as suggested." Figure 3-2 shows 35% of the project trips on El Camino Real to the south and 14 % to the north and 40 % along Palomar Airport Road to the west and 11% to the east. The original trip distribution is not provided so it is not possible to determine how much of a redistribution of trips was done. There is also no basis provided for the staff "suggestion" to redistribute the traffic or for how the consultant determined that the change they made in response to this suggestion was "reasonable." This allocation of trips to direction could have a huge impact in the results as many of the intersections are at LOS D and several could go to LOS E or even F with a relatively small change in this traffic distribution. Please provide the initial trip distribution and an explanation for how these numbers were adjusted and what analysis was used to support this change. Corrected trip distribution could result in additional peak hour intersection impacts SANTEC/ITE Guidelines require analysis of intersections where a proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. At this time it cannot be determined if a revised trip distribution would result in changing any of the area intersections sufficiently to reach 50 peak hour trips per day which would require further analysis. - Questionable traffic impacts along El Camino Real The re-circulated FEIR traffic study for the Carlsbad High School shows "P level of service at the intersection of College and El Camino Real (see att.) at Horizon year with project and with mitigation. El Caminio Real has been identified as a . highly congested regional arterial corridor for years. This congestion is not just in Carlsbad, but extends to the north and south. This project seems to be using different traffic assumptions as it does not show traffic failures. Please clarify the differences in projected trip numbers along El Camino Real for this project as compared to those for the recently completed traffic studies for the new Carlsbad High School project. - Questionable traffic impacts on 1-5 The Market Feasibility Analysis assumes the trade market area is primarily coastal and to the south- extending over 15 miles south from the project site. The directional trip distribution shows 4.5% of project trips on I-5 north and 4.5% on I-5 to the south. This does not seem reasonable given the results of the market analysis. It very clearly says the # 78 corridor has several competing stores. In addition there is a new Home Depot just a little over three miles to the east- which is actually closer to all of the Rancho Carillo neighborhoods. They assumed the majority of trips would come from the south. Please provide the orginal trip distributions and an explanation that supports how these numbers were revised. Only when these directional trip number are confirmed can there be any reliability in the analysis of impacts to both the freeway intersection and segments. It is also possible that peak hour impacts will be sufficient to require additional analysis of these freeway impacts per Caltrans guidelines. Hydrology - Drainage Study completely ignores that there is a creek through this project site. The study describes three storm drain outfalls that discharge on the site and then states" the storm water discharges then flow overland through the existing golf driving range and exit the site at the southwesterly corner of the site." It goes on to say" The existing project site runoff pattern generally flows from east to west within the existing concrete swales and man-made vegetated depressed areas." It implies that Encinas Creek originates downstream from the project site. The Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan of February 2002 pages 4-73 through 4- 82 clearly shows Encinas Creek running through the proposed Palomar Commons project site. The USGS also showed this as a blue line (year round) creek. (See attached). The fact that this creek has been degraded over time does not mean it can be treated as merely a storm water conveyance system. Failure to property characterize this creek has resulted in inadequate analysis of potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on this reach of the creek and the watershed. - Incomplete hydrologic data The Drainage Study states" A recent records search at the City of Carisbad did not find a hydrology study for drawing number 3-23. An assumption needed to be made for the respective times of concentration for the two flow rates." It then goes on to explain the method used to approximate this number. In the absence of this hydrologic data it is not possible to know how closely the methodology used approximates actual flow volumes, velocity and concentration times. There is insufficient data provided in the MND to support any of these numbers- not just the concentration times. Further hydrologic analysis is required to assure that the proposed storm drain system will adequately address flows onto the site from the culverts under El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road and those from the site itself. - Water quality is impaired in this portion of the watershed This is the only subwatershed in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit that is not identified on the 303(d) list as an Impaired Water Body, When questioned about this, staff at the Regional Water Quality Control Board said there is no reason to assume this waterbody is not impaired. It is just so small that it hasn't been tested and evaluated. The hydrologic study should have assessed this area for impairment and considered this in designing the appropriate BMP's that preserved some natural functions of the creek while also addressing site run-off. There is nothing in the MND that indicates the BMP's have been designed considering the specific issues of concern with this sub-watershed. - Inadequate analysis of beneficial uses of the c reek The Storm Water Management Plan identified the correct beneficial uses for this creek- Non-contact Recreation, Freshwater Habitat and Wildlife Habitat. The project as proposed essentially eliminates all three of these beneficial uses from the entire reach of the creek that runs through this project site. The MND failed to evaluate the direct, indirect and potential cumulative impacts of eliminating these uses from hundreds of linear feet of creek- in the critical upper reaches. This is of particular concern because the mid -section of this watershed includes significant stands of natural habitat that are identified in the MHCP and City of Carlsbad HMP as a Biological Core and Linkage Area(BCLA). Part of this midsection recently became formally protected as the North County Mitigation Bank which has been used to mitigate both private and city projects. The MND should have considered the effect on this downstream BCLA and the existing mitigation bank. - Excess impermeable cover The latest JURMP identifies this subwatershed as already having 48% impervious cover- a level at which a natural watershed cannot maintain natural functions and is in a state of decline without intervention. The MND for this project failed to identify the percentage of the total site that is proposed for impervious cover- just says that 6 % of the parking lot will be pervious (landscaped area). Big box stores usually have extremely high lot coverage. This project has not analyzed the potential adverse impact of this- nor has it identified any methods to reduce the amount of impervious cover. Low Impact development methods(LID) such as reducing the amount of impervious c over are one of the most important means to minimize cumulative impacts to the watershed. There is nothing in the MND that indicates any effort has been made to do this. Global Climate Change - No demonstration that project exceeds the 30% below "business as usual" threshold Most of the design features and mitigation measures included as the methods to meet this standard are not quantified. The few measures that are quatified such as "exceeds Title 24 requirements by 20% " are on factors that are a relatively small component of the overall green house gas emissions. The major project contributor of green house gasses(GHG) is the 12,000 plus ADTs and associated VMT that will be added. This ADT has increased by over 200% above the existing zoning and the prior land use ADT. Furthermore per the city's "traffic guru" this project will put this intersection at the threshold limit for a signalized intersection. A Smart growth project has been identified for this corridor. But since the land use intensity associated with this smart growth will result in a significant increase in ADT (although less than the same growth would cause if not smart growth) this in effect either means the smart growth projects that could have been built will be denied because they exceed the traffic limit for this area, or they will be built but the city will adopt overriding considerations to allow the projects to be built although they do not meet traffic or GHG standards. Either a better designed smart growth opportunity is lost- or adding such future projects will exceed traffic and GHG thresholds. Approving this project will result in a significant potential indirect impact on GHG that has not been identified or mitigated. - Inadequate provisions for bicycle access This project assumes significant benefit from being located within one-half mile of an existing or planned Class I or Class II bike lane. Being close to such a bike lane is irrelevant if the proposed land use is not one that is consistent with riding a bike. Check how many people access big box home improvement stores on a bicycle. Furthermore tile site itself needs to support bicycle use. This project did not include one bicycle rack until city staff commented this was a requirement Then a single bicycle rack was provided. On the back side of the lot next to the trash enclosure. This clearly is not intended to support any customer access by bicycles, nor does it make bicycle use attractive to employees. For bicycles use to be considered as part of the strategy to reduce GHG there needs to be much better integration of bicycle access into site planning, marketing , and employee education. As currently planned this project will not result in any appreciable number of bicycle trips and this should not be counted towards meeting the 30% reduction threshold. Unrealistic reliance on public transit to reduce auto trips The design features include 'bus service headways of one hour or less for stops within one-quarter mile;project provides safe and convenient bicycle/pedestrian access to transit stops(s)". There is no assurance of such transit headways when this project is built or throughout its life. The local bus service provider has had significant budget and service cuts and projected state and federal deficits(primary contributors to public transit funding) remain problematic for years to come. Furthermore even if there were high frequency service bus service the proposed land use is not one that supports any significant numbers of transit trips. The GHG analysis improperly considered public t ransit as one of the methods used to reduce the GHG generated by this project. The MND has not documented the required reduction of 30% above business as usual GHG emissions. Conclusion The draft MND has failed to adequately evaluate and/or mitigate numerous adverse direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that will result from the proposed Paiomar Commons project and the associated zoning change. Please require that a full EIR be prepared before proceeding with this project. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard Preserve Calavera Cc: Van Lynch. Michael Porter RWQCB ATT : Page from Market feasibility Analysis Page from Carlsbad High School Traffic Study Page 11 from staff comments memo USGS historic map As we shift from the site radius to our defined trade market area, there is a significant difference. Overall, there is an opportunity gap of $124,225,658 for all retail spending. As we focus on just building materials, consumers in this area spend more than stores in the area sell by 39%. Economically, there is $152,117,193 in consumer spending dollars being spent by local consumers in stores outside the area - due to a lack of available supply. Using nationwide average annual sales per square foot from Lowes ($258} and inputting the size of the retail space at Palomar Commons (122,256 square feet) and a regional pricing premium, an expected annual sales for the Palomar Commons store of $35,000,000 - $40,000,000 would only represent one quarter of the building/ garden materials retail opportunity gap that is present in this area, Therefore, it is logical to assume that a Lowe's store would be highly successful at the subject property location. Palomar Commons 13 4/14/2010 Supplemental Summary of intersection ConcSfons After Mfcgaton MIS US \ Oeta? j IPS | aaai I US 1 Petar I U8 I B*> I U» I P«*n I •I Cefcge EM S B Canoo tea 1235 SIS & Caorn W t BCa— eflta 913 47J •r 93 4 C*gea«f*BCa»«»t33.7 893 M 9 rr.»S3 WU 55,6 tos 914 O-1 Figure 2-2 (page 2-4): The lane configuration should he revised for the west approach {eastbound traffic) for the intersection of Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and Loker Avenue west. The PAR/Loker Avenue West intersection eastbound right turn lane has been added to existing conditions, as requested. 46. Figure 2-4 (page 2-8): The traffic volumes should be revised for the north approach (southbound traffic) for the intersection of PAR and Faraday Avenue. ECR/Farday Avenue volumes have been revised, as requested. 47. Table 2-2 (page 2-11): ICU results for the intersection of PAR and Melrose Drive should be consistent with 2009 Traffic Monitoring Program. The volumes in this document are adjusted for the southbound right turn movement to reflect overlap phasing that serves this southbound right turn traffic. No mitigation is necessary for the existing conditions with the revised ICU results reflecting adjusted volumes. The latest PAR/Melrose ICU has been included as requested. . Figure 3-2 (page 3-5): The trip distribution looks defensible. However, the report should consider re-distributing trips off of 1-5 and east on PAR while allocating more trips in the residential neighborhood to the southwest section of the study area. The trip distribution has been revised reasonably to direct more project traffic to the residential areas to the southwest, as suggested. 49. Figure 3-4 (page 3-7): The title should be revised to state Average Daily Traffic Volumes, The title has been corrected. 50. Table 4-2 (page 4-6): ICU results for the intersection of PAR and Melrose Drive should be consistent with 2009 Traffic Monitoring Program. The volumes in this document are adjusted for the southbound right turn movement to reflect overlap phasing that serves this southbound right turn traffic. No mitigation is necessary for the existing conditions with the revised ICU results reflecting adjusted volumes. The PAR/Melrose ICU has been revised, as requested. No project mitigation is necessary. 51. Table 5-2 (page 5-12): Delay results for the intersection of PAR and Melrose Drive should be revised to reflect the proposed eastbound right turn lane. All future scenarios should have this right turn lane included in the analyses. The note at the bottom of the page should be reflected to eliminate the need to mitigate existing conditions. The PAR/Melrose intersection has been revised to reflect the eastbound right-turn-only lane, as requested. No changes to the conclusions result from this revision. 52. Table 5-3 (page 5-13): Delay results for the intersection of PAR and Melrose Drive should be revised to reflect the proposed eastbound right turn lane. All future scenarios should have this right turn lane included in the analyses. The note at the bottom of the page should be reflected to eliminate the need to mitigate existing conditions. The note will need to include a mitigation measure for the proposed southbound dual right turn lane if this project has a significant traffic impact to this intersection. Page 11 of 19 ? ' I I ] Project Footprint 3 Historic Topo V Mlstorlc Blue Une {USQS'1975) Property Aerial 2008 All Receive- Agenda Item #. For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Asst. CM _ Summary Points for the Proposed General Commercial Land Use Designation Since 2004 Planning Staff has been working toward establishing a new General Plan Land Use Designation for general commercial uses which do not fit within either of the two existing commercial land uses of Local Shopping Center (L) or Regional Commercial (R). There is a need to establish a General Commercial (GC) land use designation to provide for the development of a range of retail, wholesale, office, and service land uses that may not lend themselves to being located within local or regional shopping centers. The proposed designation will fill the void created by the combining of the former Neighborhood and Community Commercial land use designations. The General Commercial land use designation would allow for commercial uses which do not meet the criteria for Local Shopping Center or are not at a scale or provide enough services to be considered Regional Commercial. General Commercial sites may not be able to accommodate the requirements of the Local Shopping Center (C-L) zone or may not be located in proximity to a residential neighborhood to provide daily goods and services. The following new policy C.5 is proposed to be added to the General Plan that states: "In addition to local and regional shopping centers, provide a greater mix of general commercial services to the community in convenient locations for residents. This may be accomplished through 1) the development of standalone general commercial uses, or 2) the development of two or more general commercial uses on the same site; provided that the commercial development is architecturally unified and avoids the creation of "strip commercial development" (i.e. long corridors of retail/service establishments with numerous curb cuts, inappropriate intersection spacing, disharmonious architectural styles, and a proliferation of signs) on discrete stand alone commercial lots which are not part of a local or regional shopping center or meet the size requirements of a local or regional shopping center." New Commercial Land Use Policy C. 17 is also proposed as follows: "Require that the Qualified Development Overlay Zone be placed on all general commercial land use designations and that a Site Development shall be required for the development of a general commercial site." This discretionary permit will ensure that site design, building architecture and landscaping is reviewed by staff and is subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The General Commercial (GC) land use designation is proposed to be applied exclusively to the Palomar Forum project site with this action. To redesignate other sites will require a General Plan amendment. Proposed General Plan Amendments to apply the General Commercial (GC) designation to other properties would need to comply with the policies of the General Plan, Growth Management Facility Performance Standards, other adopted plans such as the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Habitat Management Plan, and will be subject to environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 (Environmental Protection) of the Municipal Code. The existing General Commercial (C-2) or Neighborhood Commercial (C-l) zones will implement the General Commercial (GC) General Plan Land Use designation. LAW OFFICES OF EVERETT L. DELANO III 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, California 92025 , t (760) 510-1562 . .•..: ,:..-.::ivs-A3cnda Item #../ J (760) 510-1565 (fax) For the Information of the: August 21,2010 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL . ^.gg^City Manager. Lorraine M. Wood City Clerk City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Palomar Commons Project: GPA 04-03/GPA 09-07/ZC 09-08 Dear Ms. Wood: This letter is submitted on behalf of Friends of Aviara in connection with the proposed Palomar Commons ("Project") and related Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). Please ensure that copies of this letter are provided to all City Council members prior to their consideration of the Project at next Tuesday's meeting. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a 'manner required by law.'" Friends of "B" Street v. City ofHayward (1980) 106 Cal. App.3d 988,1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts. While the MND discusses the specific site and the impacts of the development of that site as planned, it does not discuss the impacts associated with the creation of the General Commercial category in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The likely impacts of this new change are substantial. See City ofRedlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4* 398,409 (city's analysis of a general plan amendment must "include a consideration of the larger project, i.e., the future' development permitted by the amendment"). The new category is likely to lead to significant impacts to land use and aesthetics, including in areas where commercial uses will be allowed that were not allowed under the current General Plan categories. The MND fails to acknowledge or discuss these issues. See Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App,3d 180,196-97. Comments re Palomar Commons August 21,2010 Page 2 of3 The Project is likely to lead to traffic and transportation impacts. The increased commercial space and population associated with the Project will increase demands on the existing and already overburdened transportation system. The Project is likely to lead to significant impacts to air quality. The analysis does not account for the existing air quality conditions. Assumed compliance with air emission requirements does not ensure that impacts will not be significant. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of'Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718. The Project is likely to lead to water impacts. The MND fails to discuss the adequacy of water supply for the change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715,721-22. There is no showing that an adequate supply of water will be available. The Project is likely to lead to population impacts, which are not adequately discussed. Nor is there an adequate discussion of noise or water quality impacts. Additionally, Project is likely to lead to significant impacts associated with construction, which are not adequately discussed. The Project is likely to lead to significant biological resource and Global Climate Change impacts, which are not adequately addressed in the MND. Analysis under CEQA must embrace future development that foreseeably will occur if the City approves the Project. City ofAntioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325,1333 - 36; CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(l). The MND fails to discuss likely additional development associated with the changed Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City is not free to piecemeal project review. "Environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283 - 84. Additionally, the Project's proposed mitigation measures are overly vague and fail to provide adequate criteria. Sacramento Old City Assn. V. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011,1029. The MND illegally relies on earlier analysis without adequately defining how that earlier analysis is relevant or intended to be utilized. Furthermore, incorporation by reference of substantive analysis is not allowed or proper. The City must demonstrate by substantial evidence that the findings are supportable. Pacific Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168,178. The evidence supporting an agency's findings must have "solid value" in light of the entire record, including contrary evidence. Bank of America v. State Water Res. Control Bd. Comments re Palomar Commons August 21,2010 Page 3 of 3 (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 198, 213. The proposed findings for the Project are not supported by substantial evidence. For the foregoing reasons, Friends of Aviara requests that the City reject the Project and MND. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ^jrgi Everert DeLano Kira Linberg From: Sent: To: Subject: bsestito@aoi.com Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:40 PM Council Internet Email No Lowe's! To Whom It May Concern: Vote NO on the Lowe's Project. I will be watching the vote. .' .2c^ive-Agc:ida Item # !*-[' For thf T*-,fo3Ti3tion of the: A?n. CM CA CC ur^iCity^Tanane Thanks! E3rian Sestito 2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 1 PonIK/ Carlsbad, CA 92008 KeaiTy 760.730.9100 • Fax 760.730.9200 www, lockwoodcommercial. com A black & white approach to professionalism. To: Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members, City of Carlsbad From: Chuck Currey, Lockwood Commercial Realty Inc. Re: Palomar Commons I am the Association Manager for The Palomar Lot 10 Business Owners Association, also known as The Landing Business Park located at the southwest corner of the proposed new retail project directly behind the County Animal Shelter as noted in the highlighted are on Item #2. The Association is in favor of this new development and appreciates the addition of much needed retail services for the business park and the residents of the City of Carlsbad. The challenge with this project though is that it will be just one more contributor to a drainage issue that already exists downstream from the new project. The City and the developer are trying to do the right things with this project and the retention basins appear to generate water flows that are less than those that existed previously. They are however now diverting all water flows that include not only the project but also Bressi Ranch and the newly expanded airport out of a 60 inch pipe and velocity once retention capacity is reached is questionable. Current water flow from the former Olympic Club came out a small concrete basin as shown in item # 4, at least not when it was raining very hard. The new project will sit approximately 30 feet above the level of the business park and it will convert over 14 acres of land to an impervious area much like what has occurred with Bressi Ranch, The Airport and other developments in the area. Item #1 in your packet is information compiled by Tory Walker Engineering in their analysis of the water flows unto this property. These flows include The Palomar Commons Project at 35 CFS with a developed flow of 30CFS and an additional flow of 23 to 38 CFS from 10 to 14 acres of previously approved development to include the mini storage project, the new hotel, the bank and others. This water all flows down a crude concrete swale at the back of the property and is then are supposed to go under the property in a 15 inch pipe that then exits into the concrete creek channel as shown in item # 5. This channel regularly spills over its top edge. Additionally the Animal Shelter has a black corrugated water pipe that comes from their retention basin which exits into the swale as shown on item #3. Supposedly this retention area is also designed for 100 year flows but I have seen water coming out of the pipe during winter storms each of the last three years that I have managed the property and it cascades over the swale wall into the parking area. All of these areas flow into a crude creek bed with a small concrete channel that is only 2 feet wide and 18 inches deep as shown in item #5. The methodology for dealing with water drainage issues has changed over the years and we also have 30 years of rainfall data sine the Landing was built. Its drainage improvements were never meant to contain the runoff for over 100 acres of land and its systems are close to capacity without debris and as we experienced two years ago it takes very little debris to cause flooding into the buildings themselves. It costs the Association over $5,000 each time trees and debris are removed from the creek bed that it owns and new improvements with more water will probably increase the scope of this work. Something needs to be done about the water issues at the headwaters of Encinas Creek or problems will continue on this site as well as the Corte Del Abeto and Camino Vida Roble intersections that also flood downstream in winter storms. Without changes there will be flooding issues on this property with further damage to retaining walls, the buildings, the business's and the owners and the occupants. At a minimum a D-40 dissipater needs to be installed at the end of the outflow pipe. A much better solution would be to enlarge the creek and improve it to handle the expected water flows. Other aesthetic improvements could also be added to create a creek side setting with walking trails and other amenities to benefit the public. Another consideration could also include the set up of a mitigation bank and getting the Army Corp of Engineers involved. Thank you for your consideration of this very important issue. ^^BE*wP^HJBj^^^M TORY R. WALKER ENGINEERING, INC. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING & ENGINEERING To: Chuck Currey Lockwood Commercial Realty From: Tory Walker Date: August 24, 2010 Memorandum Re: Offsite Drainage at Lot 17 Birtcher Business Park, Carlsbad,CA Introduction Tory R. Walker Engineering, Inc. (TRWE) prepared a preliminary study of offsite tributary areas, land uses, and flow data from record drawings with the intent of performing a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the flow of Encinas Creek adjacent to Lot 17 of Birtcher Business Park in Carlsbad, CA. The objective was to obtain a preliminary estimate of the inundation potential of the property due to Encinas Creek water surface elevations at the 100- year flows. The study was performed to estimate flow characteristics for the creek with the purpose of providing backup information for potential discussions with the business park property manager, the City of Carlsbad, and possibly adjacent property owners. Research The Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and historical project improvement and grading plans were reviewed for the areas tributary to the site. A field site investigation was conducted, photos were taken, and interviews with current employees of the Lot 17 business also provided historical anecdotal observations of flooding at the site over approximately the last 7 years. Offsite Tributary Areas and Flows The major tributary areas are Bressi Ranch to the east, Palomar Airport to the north and northwest, and from the northwest both the North County Animal Shelter and the Self Storage facility. Public street runoff from Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, and flows from the Viasat property to the east, also contribute to Encinas Creek. Due to the extensive vegetation in the Encinas Creek corridor, the exact point of confluence of the flows from Viasat is difficult to determine. The preliminary normal depth hydraulic analysis was performed for flow values for both cases; one with the Viasat flows, and one without. It should be noted that the Animal Shelter plans, verified by City staff, indicate that the runoff 373 VALE TERRACE DRIVE. SL'fTE 2O2. VISTA. CA 32G84 • PM: 76O.4 i 4 92 * 2 Fx. 76O 4 t 4 9277 : 4 Drainage Memorandum August 11,2010 from their four-acre site is stored in a retention basin. The actual storage and outflow characteristics of the basin were not determined from the plans, but their intent was to store onsite runoff. Flows from the former Olympic Resort property also enter the creek at the point in question, with the existing condition flow for the 16 acres calculated as 35 cfs. The drainage report for the proposed commercial center for that site indicates the developed condition flow is projected to be 30 cfs, due to proposed detention onsite. Flows from the northwest, (Palomar Airport, Palomar Airport Road, animal shelter, and self storage facility) were difficult to ascertain from records, but using the flow noted on Palomar Airport Road improvement plans, and using field observations, the approximate tributary acreage is 10 to 14 acres (not including the self-contained Animal Shelter property). Runoff for this acreage was approximated at a range of 23 cfs to 38 cfs. Hydraulic Analysis of the creek/channel at Lot 17 Using Manning's equation, and utilizing the channel cross-section data obtained in the field, flows were analyzed at two locations near the northeasterly corner of Lot 17. The most critical location was near the northeast corner of the building at the truck loading dock/parking lot interface The calculations indicate that the 100-year water surface elevations in the creek would result in inundation of the parking lot and truck loading dock at that point. Considerations: It should be noted that the Manning's roughness coefficient used is based on current field observations, however discussions with employees at the business indicate that historically over the last 7 years there has been considerable occasional debris buildup that most likely would be reflected by a much higher roughness coefficient, and therefore would result in even higher water surfaces and inundation of the property. In addition, the analysis provided was a simple channel section, without consideration for the potential for water surface backup in the creek caused by downstream choking or debris buildup in the creek along the back side of the Lot 17 building itself. Site observations indicate the vegetation buildup there is considerable, and a backup likely. Historical Observations Conversations with employees at the lot 17 business indicate significant inundation of the parking lot over the last 7 years. The eyewitness accounts indicate overtopping of the retaining wall at the point in question, along the northeast P/L adjacent to the creek. Water has filled the truck loading area and inundated the parking area. If the runoff overtopped the retaining wall as stated, the water surface also rose to the finish floor elevation of the building. Northerly Property Line Drainage Issues Drainage Memorandum August 11,2010 Review of plans, field observations, and conversations with current employees also point to a potential drainage problem at the northerly P/L. As noted earlier, approximately 10-14 acres of runoff from a portion of Palomar Airport, Palomar Airport Road, the self storage facility, etc. - contribute to an existing concrete ditch at the northerly P/L. A vegetated swale along the opposite side of the same P/L, on the animal shelter side, was intended to carry runoff from the fore-mentioned areas. Based on field observation, this swale has questionable capacity and appears to overflow into the existing concrete ditch on the business park side. That ditch drains easterly along the P/L to a catch basin where it is directed to the creek in a 15-inch pipe. Discussions with the same employees indicate that overtopping of the ditch and adjacent retaining wall, and spillover onto the parking lot has occurred on several occasions. The ditch is approximately 30 years old. It appears to be in need of repair in some places, and debris in the downstream pipe is likely contributing to the backup there. The record grading plan for the business park dated 1980 does not provide information on the intended flow and tributary area for this concrete ditch, but a visual observation indicates it's likely not sized to handle all the aforementioned flow from the tributary areas noted. The drainage issue described here for the northerly P/L is a separate issue from the Encinas Creek drainage, although it is possible the water surface in the creek could cause a backwater effect in the pipe and the ditch. A/ KINKY wonuv »ssoci»Tcr o^ tt«»(*W<l*» g •mwrtlWa » IUMU^ H* (1 t fc"-*T W-SI,*»r»j : /..-. ; J,,t.,' _^2i mj—M«M **twl Mtil >»»wn , ».> t .*a llw I'sT.Xi?™.0*".^8*0 I1""" SITE DEVELOPMENf PLAN ' SRADINS e1 RAVIM0c'»* Btf?TCHEff BUSiNESS CKMTCR «f? .- «w(..»•».,,, Friend o August 24, 2010 Mayor Bud Lewis City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Palomar Commons Project & Related Amendment to the General Plan Honorable Mayor and Council: Friends of Aviara, a citizens group organized to preserve the open space and quality of life in our city, is providing these comments on the Palomar Commons project in conjunction with a letter from our attorney, Everett Delano, which you have already received. Our concerns initially arose from two factors: First, this proposal includes a change to the General Plan that was not properly noticed to the community. This change would allow undeveloped parcels in the city to be zoned for a big box-anchored retail center. There would be significant impacts on many neighborhoods in terms of environment, traffic, quality of life and community integrity. To bury such a far reaching amendment in a specific project, notice less than 200 homes and leave the majority of the 105,000 residents in the dark is unacceptable. It may indicate the City Manager's standard of governance is out of touch with the community. But we would hope our elected representatives find this less than full disclosure unacceptable as well. Second, the traffic situation at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino is difficult and rated a "D" by traffic experts. We are concerned traffic seeking to avoid the intersection already has started to flow through our residential neighborhoods in search of shortcuts. Placing a destination retail project at the center of this traffic mess seems likely to increase the numbers of cars utilizing neighborhood streets to avoid congestion. We are not convinced these concerns are being sufficiently addressed. We do not think it is unrealistic for this Council to ask the following questions of our traffic experts: A. In similar circumstances - where D-rated intersections have attempted to handle an increase in traffic of this magnitude - how has the model performed? B. To further quantify the risk to this intersection, a probability analysis of the six individual measures employed to mitigate the traffic load would aid in assessing the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions - with an appropriate margin of error of 3 to 5 percent. Beyond the need for an environmental analysis on the impact of the land use amendment, there also are questions at this particular site that should be addressed with a site-specific Environmental Impact Review. Sudberry Properties graciously met with FOA members last week and discussed the efforts to ameliorate the environmental impact. That discussion focused on 5-foot tall French drains, bioftW-lechnology and baffle boxes and riprap - steps designed to make the water runoff cleaner and the flow manageable. Those are goals we endorse. We think an EIR would provide the opportunity to determine if these goals are achieved with these measures. We don't want to confuse the plausible with the possible because on its face these steps appear a swift and simple solution. We respectfully request that this council refer the project back to staff for further consideration of these issues. Thank you. Regards, De'Ann Weimer President, Friends of Aviara 6606 Fiona PI Carlsbad, Ca 92011 858.344.0436 Hofman Planning & Engineering Planning Civil Engineering Fiscal Services Coastal To: Allen Haynie From: Bob Wojci Date: August 24, 2010 RE: Water Usage Comparison for Lowes Site The proposed water demand for the Lowes project is computed to be 42,728 gallons per day (GPD). This is from the report done by Dexter Wilson and Associates using the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1. The Olympic Resort facility has a projected demand of 58,800 GPD. This is computed using the same Engineering Standard for the structures plus a demand usage for the driving range facility. There is no Engineering Standard for computing demand for such a facility. Therefore, a comparison was done using actual water usage for a similar facility, a golf course, and pro-rating the usage based on acreage. 3152 Lionshead Avenue > Carlsbad • CA 92010 * (760)692-4100 • Fax: (760)692-4105 North County Advocates 7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-258, Carlsbad CA 92009 Aug. 24, 2010 Carlsbad Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council, Re: Palomar Commons Project and proposed new General Commercial Landuse category North County Advocates, a public benefit nonprofit corporation located in Carlsbad with residents in La Costa, Carlsbad, Olivenhain, and Encinitas, is opposed to the above project as it stands now. We ask that you reject General Plan Amendment 04-03 and the new General Commercial landuse category because: 1) It apparently has no guidelines and likely applies to every neighborhood in Carlsbad at your choosing. Furthermore, Carlsbad did not adequately discuss how the zone change would affect the entire City. 2) It will likely lead to traffic impacts in an area that already has a "D" rating. Apparently there was no analysis on traffic bypassing the intersection on residential streets not in the SANDAG model. 3) It will certainly make air quality even worse. Carlsbad is already on the American Lung Assoc. list of 25 worst cities in the U.S. for ozone (#23) and particle pollution (#13) - data reported in 2008. 4) We question the need for the size of this project with so many empty commercial buildings. 5) We question your claims of needing more tax revenue since I understand Carlsbad is one of the richest cities in North County. 6) It overrides the General Plan which is currently being studied and will be updated considering the developmental impacts throughout the city and in which we taxpayers have already substantially invested. Why rush into something piecemeal? 7) We question the water supply in the future. It appears that was not addressed adequately. 8) Where's the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and the original traffic report before the developer was asked to revise it? In short, you have not thoroughly considered the needs of the residents to keep this a livable community. Reject this project as it stands now. Sincerely, Patricia Bleha, Exec. Dir. North County Advocates A community grass-roots special project under a non-profit 501© 3 corporation All Receive-Agenda Item #. For the Information of the: CITY COUNCILAsst. City Manager Michael W. MulvehiTT 8061 Paseo Arrayan Carlsbad, CA 92009 August 24, 2010 Honorable Mayor Lewis Carlsbad City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members, I have lived in La Costa Valley for over ten years and never want to move. It is a great development perfectly tailored for the needs of my family and has been a wonderful investment because our community's design was so well thought out. You have another chance to create a project that benefits our City by APPROVING the PALOMAR COMMONS retail project at tonight's Council Meeting. When 1 found out about Sudberry Property's development, I was excited for several reasons: 1) This is the perfect location for a Lowe's and retail restaurants that will be amenities for the nearby home developments and businesses. What better location than at one of the City's biggest intersections that can handle traffic. This central location has easy access from all parts of the City; it will benefit our residents. 2) Carlsbad needs a home improvement center and Lowe's meets the high end character of our City. 1 have been to Lowe's and Home Depot and frankly, Lowe's is more upscale in my opinion and many of my neighbor's share this opinion. 3) As a businessman, I know jobs and tax revenue are key to a strong city. This project will bring both and at a time when the jobs are sorely needed. As a matter of civic pride, I would rather spend my hard earned dollars where the taj£re^ejTi^j]^_p_ojts_^ur_City than go to Encinitas or Vista where Home Depot's are located. 4) Sudberry Properties builds quality project's that will meet the high end look of our City. 1 understand they will also contribute to infrastructure improvements to ease traffic as well. The vision of the Council has created real value, both economically and aesthetically, by approving quality projects that meet the needs of our citizens. Please_CQn_liriLielhis exceptional track record by approving Palomar Commonsj!] Sincerely, Michael W. Mulvehill Date: Distribution: City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book !0 HAYNIELAWGROUP A Professional Corporation Excel Centre 17140 Bernardo Center Drive Suite 354 San Diego, CA 92128 www.haynlaw.com August 24, 2010 Allen D. Haynie ahaynie@haynlaw.com tel: 858-485-7700 fax: 888-528-5504 (toll free) Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Palomar Commons Project - GPA 04-03/GPA 09-07/ZC 09-08 Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter provides a response to the August 21, 2010 letter ("Letter") submitted by Everett L. Delano III on behalf of Friends of Aviara ("FA") with respect to the Palomar Commons Project ("Project"). FA contends in the Letter that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Project is inadequate because it does not "discuss the impacts associated with the creation of the General Commercial category in the Land Use Element of the General Plan." FA cites to a decision in City ofRedlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398 to support its argument. City ofRedlands, however, does not apply to this situation because unlike the facts in that case, the General Plan Amendment ("GPA") being considered by the City of Carlsbad ("City") is only being applied to the Project area itself. Any other property in the City that desires to utilize the GPA Land Use Designation of General Commercial ("GC") would have to go through a separate GPA process. In City ofRedlands, the court of appeals rejected the County of San Bernardino's argument that it did not need to analyze the impacts of the involved amendment to the County's general plan because other approvals and environmental assessments would have to occur before anyone could take advantage of the amendment to the General Plan. The court of appeals found that the environmental document needed to include an analysis of the "future development permitted by the amendment" even if additional environmental assessment would occur in the future. In this instance, the MND does analyze the impacts associated with the development permitted by the GPA, which are only the impacts associated with the Project because no other property would be allowed to develop as GC property if the City approves the GPA. Such other property would have to first process its own GPA in order to obtain the GC designation. This case, therefore, is just like the situation that was addressed by the court of appeals in Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180. In that case, the City of San Marcos had adopted an amendment to its general plan to create criteria for the "location and HAYNIE LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation August 24, 2010 Page 2 designation of solid waste facilities within the 4,000-acre South City planning area" and then applied that designation to the 202-acre San Marcos Sanitary Landfill ("Landfill"). No other property within the South City planning area was given such a designation by the general plan amendment. Christward Ministry made two general arguments to the court of appeals. First, it argued that the City of San Marcos should have analyzed the impacts of the general plan amendment as if it had permitted the future siting of landfill facilities anywhere in the South City planning area. Second, it argued that the general plan amendment that was applied to the Landfill allowed for the expansion of uses at the Landfill and that the negative declaration prepared by the City failed to analyze such potential future uses. The court of appeal's answer to the first argument is the only one that is relevant to the City's determination that the MND should limit its analysis to the impacts of the Project and not other potential sites that would have to process a separate GPA in order to obtain the GC designation. The court of appeals in Christward Ministry ruled as follows: Christward contends an EIR was required because the amendments "effect [was] to change the land use designation of the entire Community Plan Area to permit the future siting of new and expanded types of solid waste management facilities." This assertion is not born out by the language of the amendment. While the amendment addresses the siting of "new" or "future" solid waste management facilities in the general South City planning area, the amendment actually applies the land use designation only to the 200-acre San Marcos landfill. No other area in South City is designated as a solid waste management facility site by the amendment. Only the San Marcos landfill is given such a designation. Only the San Marcos landfill area of the City's general plan land use map is authorized to have a solid waste management facility designation by the amendment. To apply the solid waste management facility designation to any other part of the South City planning area would require another general plan amendment. To the extent Christward's claim rest on a change of land use designation on the 4000 acres of South City, there is no merit. The argument advanced by FA runs counter to the court of appeal's decision in Christward Ministry. The GPA only applies the GC designation to the Project site and no other property. The GPA cannot be applied to any other property in the City without the processing of another GPA. As a result, FA's efforts to argue that the City should have analyzed the impacts of the GC designation being applied to other property in the City are not persuasive. FA also argues that the MND fails to analyze the Project's impacts with respect to traffic, air quality, noise, and water quality. We disagree. The MND adequately analyzes such impacts. FA's failure to be sufficiently specific in its comments makes it impossible to respond to any particular concerns that they may have about any of the traffic, air quality, noise or water quality analysis in the MND. HAYME LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation August 24, 2010 Page 3 FA also argues that the MND fails to discuss the "adequacy of water supply for the change in the Land Use Element of the General Plan." The MND concludes that the City's water facilities are adequate to accommodate the "growth projection for the City at build-out and that the Project does not require "the expansion or construction of new water facilities/supplies." That conclusion is supported by the fact that the prior resort hotel and driving range uses on the Project site used an average of 58,800 gallons per day and the Project is projected to use an average of 42,728 gallons per day. See letter from Hoffman Planning & Engineering authored by Bob Wojcik and dated August 24, 2010. Moreover, the Project is not large enough to fall within the definition of a substantial project within the meaning of California Water Code section 10912, and thus does not trigger the need to prepare a water supply assessment. The MND, therefore, is correct in concluding that the Project will not result in any significant impacts to water supply. To the extent that FA is arguing that the MND should have analyzed the water demand for any site that might pursue its own GPA to obtain a GC designation, the MND was not required to include such speculative analysis as was decided in Christward Ministry. FA also contends that the mitigation measures in the MND are "overly vague and fail to provide adequate criteria," but once again the lack of specificity makes it impossible to respond, to FA's comment. Moreover, the mitigation measures in the MND are not overly vague or fail to provide adequate criteria. Rather, they are consistent with current legal requirements for such mitigation measures. FA also contends that the MND "relies on earlier analysis" and that the City's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. FA, however, fails to point to any specific language in the MND or findings that if considers troubling. As a result, there is no ability to respond to any specific concerns or criticism that it has identified. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Letter and would be pleased to provide the City with any additional analysis that it may deem necessary. Very truly yours, HAYNIE LAW GROUP By: Allen D. Haynie cc: Ron Ball, City Attorney J August 24, 2010 Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Palomar Commons MND , Zoning and CUP's Honorable Mayor and Council: These comments on the Palomar Commons project, MND and zoning are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. We have reviewed the letter of August 19, 2010 from Hofman Planning "Response to Preserve Calavera Letter-Palomar Commons." We find the responses to many of the comments that we made on this project to be incomplete, inaccurate and in some cases misleading. You are being asked to make a decision on a major development that changes city zoning, asks for variances from the city's standard practices, and sets important precedents that could affect not only this project, but numerous such projects throughout the city. We believe it is very important that you have full, complete and accurate information upon which to make your decision. The following are examples of many of the errors/omissions and inconsistencies in the information that has been presented to you. References are to:the Hofman letter of August 19,2010 using the comment numbering system from that letter unless otherwise noted. #3 The issue raised by PC is not the adequacy of the project specific notice- it was to the inadequate notice for the zoning change that was being established with this project that would apply to the entire city and was not restricted to just this project. This initial notice was to only 124 landowners within 600' of the project boundaries which is fully consistent with notification requirements for a specific project, but not for a city-wide change.. This notification system has now apparently been expanded as Preserve Calavera received a postcard notice of this August 24,2010 public hearing. This postcard notice included a map of this specific project and again discussed this specific project and did not make it clear that the action of the City Council could establish a new zoning code that would apply city-wide. The public notification for this hearing again is not consistent with city-practice for informing residents of zoning changes that effect the entire city.. Both the original notice for the Planning Commission and the revised notice for the 5020 Nighthawk Way - Qceanskk, CA 92056 \vww;jn:cscrYcca]aycraA)rg Nonprofit 50! (c)3 ID#33-09555G4 August 24, 2010 public hearing were inadequate, confusing, and not consistent with standard city practices. CEQA requires adequate public notification. The notices for the proposed action were not adequate. #3 The response to the concern raised about visual impacts was" Regarding the noted "scenic character" of El Camino Real, the Project will redevelop the currently blighted appearance of the site along the street frontage." Putting landscaping along the borders of a big box, dense retail store and huge parking lot may change it from its current blighted appearance which is an abandoned business being demolished. The issue is the visual impacts of this project along a corridor that has been specifically identified in city documents as having special requirements to protect.. We found only one sentence in the MND that addressed this" The existing project will not degrade the existing visual character or the other qualities of the site and its surroundings in that it was previously developed with a tourist commercial use and the proposed project has been designed to comply with the C-2 Zone and the El Camino Real Scenic corridor development and design standards." The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards adopted on February 8, 1984( incorporated by reference) include numerous general and several specific requirements that effect this project. As stated the intent of the guidelines is " to provide an easily identifiable homogeneous corridor, with a single design concept ..." General guidelines include retaining the existing topography adjacent to the roadway (topography is being modified), minimal cut anfd fill that does not detract (fairly extensive cut and fill will be used to create the single large and several smaller flat pads), landscaping trees are specified (project landscaping plan is not consistent with these). In addition there are several specific standards for private properties in Area 4 that apply to this project: dseign theme is Planned "campus type" research, business, service center ( project does not have a campus appearance and is a different land use),signs are restricted to free standing monument signs not to exceed 5 feet above street grade and 24 sq feet "m area (a variance was requested for signs which are not consistent with this standard), in no cases can a 6 foot wall of parking area encroach closer than 25 feet of the; Right-of-Way. (some parking apprears to be within 25 feet of the roadway), no rooftop equipment shall be visible (not restricted) no change from existing tend use (project proposes a land use change). In all of these areas the proposed project is not consistent with the scenic character conditions for the El Camino Real corridor. These issues all could have an adverse impact on the visual character of this corridor. Each of these items should have been specifically addressed and called out as an exception to the standards, the impacts should have been analyzed, and mitigation should have been included. Furthermore the Project proposes sign variances. The specific nature of these sign variances is not yet even known. The Planning Commission deferred action on that portion of the project. The sign variance was scheduled for hearing by the Planning Commission on August 4, 2010, but at the request of the applicant this was continued until October. In some of the project backup material it was mentioned that because the gas station is so far interior on the site from the two major roads that the usual gas station signs advertising gasoline price per gallon would not be visible and therefore should be included on the project monument signs. This issue of gas prices included on the monument signs was not mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing as one of the proposed variances. We cannot tell from the information provided if it is still the intent to include gasoline pricing on the monument signs. If so that is another significant visual impact that was not disclosed or evaluated in the MND and is an additional precedent being established with this project that neither you or the public was informed of. What is clear is that the exact nature of the project signage has not yet been determined. Signs, particularly those for large retail operations, along two major roadways( one with specific requirements to protect the scenic character of the roadway) can have huge adverse impacts, both on surrounding neighborhoods and to those persons driving along the roadways. Presumably the City established sign requirements in order to reduce those impacts. This project has proposed variances, but those specific variances are now unknown as this issue has been deferred until October by the action of the Planning Commission. CEQA requires that project aesthetics are evaluated in the environmental document. This evaluation has been deferred which denies you and the public the opportunity to comment on the specific adverse impacts of the project signage. # 6C The response to comments was misleading and missed the point. The point is not that the Lowe's store would serve all of North county. The point is that the <Lowe's store and associated commercial uses have very specific impacts on two corridors that have been specifically identified for more dense development. This is documented in the SANDAG Smart growth maps (incorporated by reference) that shows dense smart growth development along the El Camtno Real corridor. This is further documented in the most recent city of Carlsbad Housing Element update( incorporated by reference) which includes hundreds of tow income housing units in the Westfield Mall on El Camino Real and other potential projects throughout the two corridors. Changing the zoning for this project creates an inconsistency with these other adopted plans which should have been both identified and analyzed in the CEQA document. The land use change therefore could have indirect impacts on other adopted city or regional plans that were not addressed in the MND. # 7A,7B 7C and 8A The comment justified the conclusion that the overall potential for CO concentrations was found to be below the federal and state ambient air quality standards and therefore the impact was considered less than significant. This completely ignores that one of the key issues of concern is that the trips were not correctly distributed. A correct distribution of project trips could increase CO emissions at a specific location to the point where the location no longer meets the standard. The response failed to provide an adequate justification for the trip distribution that was used in the TIA. The trip distribution is the key to determining the localized air quality impact. It is the trip distribution methodology that is in question- not the CO analysis of those trips. The MND and this response has still failed to support the trip distribution that is the basis for the determination that there is no adverse impact. This is of particular concern because it was clear from review of staff comments made on the draft MND that there was a change made to the trip distribution numbers. This change has still not been identified or justified. The response says that "appropriate adjustments to the select -zone forecast results were made" but has still not quantified the size of those adjustments. Absent that information it is not possible to determine if these adjustments were either" minor" or "appropriate." The MND needs to disclose sufficient information to support the conclusion that there are no significant impacts. In the absence of the requested data rt is not possible to make this determination. # 8B The response fails to address the key point that trip distributions were modified by some unknown amount with no explanation provided. It is possible that prior to this redistribution, or that another independent review of trip distribution , there were areas where the project accounts for 9% or more of the project trips and would therefore require the more extensive analysis required by SANTE/CITE or the CMP. # 8D The discussion in the TIA basically just says that adjustments were made based on the Market Feasibility Analysis- it does not identify the magnitude of the changes. Absent the number it is not possible to determine whether these changes made the project more consistent with the market feasibility analysis- or if they redistributed trips in a way that was not consistent but incorrectly resulted in reducing the projected traffic impacts. The MND and follow-up responses have failed to provide any assurances that the adjustments made to the model data are reasonable and supported by the analysis. # 9A This discussion on Blue Line Creek history is helpful and is part of the information that should have been included in the MND. However it stiff does not fully address all of the concerns related to the historic presence of the creek on this land, and the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on a watershed from converting so many linear feet of creek to an artificial drainage system. The proposed project changes may positively affect runoff velocity and quality- but do nothing to support the three identified beneficial uses of this watershed. Under state law wetlands are not just defined by water, but also by wetland associated plants and hydric soils. The presence of any one of these three legally constitutes a wetland in California. The comment discusses the water and vegetation but still has not addressed the potential presence of hydric soils. Furthermore it is not only the CWN Plan that identifies a creek through this site. Tim Landis personally reviewed a map in the city offices dated 2009 which also showed this as a Blue Line Creek. (see his comment # 6). # 9C Our letter already stipulated to the fact that this sub-watershed is not on the 303{d) list of impaired waterbodies. The point is that the MND should have identified anticipated constituents of concern and assured that the site specific BMP's proposed would address those constituents. In the absence of listing on 303(d) what methodology was used to determine what issues were of concern and assure that the BMP's targeted those specifically? #9D Our comment specifically mentioned direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the three beneficial uses. The response only identified direct impacts and fails to discuss (as the MND failed to discuss) any indirect or cumulative impacts. Hundreds of linear feet in the upper reaches of the watershed no longer provide any of the listed beneficial uses. The MND failed to identify or evaluate the reasonable assumption that there could be an indirect or cumulative impact. How many feet of creek need to be changed to an artificial drainage system before there is a recognition that this is damaging to the watershed? # 9G.9H the response indicates how the URBEMIS model traeats the dsign features and what was included in the calculations. However whenever one uses a complex computer model it is incumbent on the user to v alidate that the model assumptions are appropriate for the project at hand. In the case of the TIA the responder made it very clear that output from the model was modified to take into account project specific issues. We have identified several issues where direct application of the URBEMIS model for GHG is not appropriate for this specific project as the facors for bicycle and public transit use do not work for big box home improvement stores. Garbage in = garbage out. We submit that failure to correct the model assumptions has resulted in garbage out. As aresurt the conclusions of the model that GHG have been reduced sufficiently to meet the standards are not supported. We believe therir is a sign ificant GHG adverse impact from more than doubling the ADT for this project- in an area that already has highly congested roads. Other comments not discussed: Our letter included a discussion of concerns about excess impervious cover. We find no discussion in the MND or the response letter that identifies the total site percentage of impervious cover, how this will change with the project and the potential adverse impacts of this change.. The CWN Watershed Management Plan, and numerous other sources specifically identify the health of a creek as being directly related to the percentage of impervious cover in a watershed. The city's most recent JURMP (incorporated by reference) already identified this watershed at 48% impervious cover. This project will further increase what is already an unacceptable condition. This is a level at which a natural watershed cannot maintain natural functions and is in a state of decline without intervention. The MND for this project failed to identify the percentage of the total site that is proposed for impervious cover. It just says that 6 % of the parking lot will be pervious (landscaped area). Big box stores usually have extremely high lot coverage. This project has not analyzed the potential adverse impact of this- nor has it identified any methods to reduce the amount of impervious cover. Without such intervention this project will have a further cumulative impact on the degrading conditions of this watershed. Conclusion The MND and reponses to comments have still failed to adequately evaluate and/or mitigate numerous adverse direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that will result from the proposed Palomar Commons project and the associated zoning change. Please require that a full EIR be prepared before proceeding with this project. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard Preserve Calavera &£**' 1 »- j- t " . / .. II ,, / . IM ' •'" '• - - Limited Responses to comments made 8/19/10 to Tim Landis Hydrology for Patomar Commons Preserve Calavera Letter. Comment 5 Paragraph on Tim Lands attachment to Preserve CaJavera letter Note: same numbering used as in the above document 1. The SWMP figures are unclear about tine boundnes in question; as such it's not possible to review this part of the plan. If s important because, as is stated in response to Landis comment #3, "The project includes all three areas...." 2. see Landis response #1 above 4.1 still disagree, these need to be clearly spelled out on accompanying figures. 5. This information then needs to be included in the SWMP. 6. This was a map reviewed at the Cities Planning Desk, its current location is unknown. The comment remains valid and timely. It clearly shows the Encinas Creek as a blue line stream with 200ft buffer zones on each side. The Landis comment #6 remains valid. 7. Then this needs to be included in the SWMP. 8. see 7 above 9. section 4.2.3.4 spec's a Urban Green Biofifter, there is no literature in the SWMP that shows this is appropriate for such a site. 10. Pre and post construction and tile construction phase need to be addressed to show no significant impacts from surface water runon and runoff. For this reason the construction phase needs to be included, and in fact is called for in the Cities design packages submittals. 11. this information is needed in SWMP. 12. See #11 above 14. There is no key to any symbols on this map. It would be very helpful to show flow directions, because of the many flat areas on the project design. There still remains several "nodes'* where the flow could go in several directions due to these flat areas. 15. see Landis comment #1 above 16. this comment expresses a professional opinion and seeks to improve the overall sabmittafe for the project Preserve Calavera Letter: Comment #9. See Landis comment #6 above Preserve Calavera Letter: Comment #9e. see Landis comment #9 above S1GN®N SAN DIEGO AUG262010 ^ UTILITIES DEPARTMENTenlace. Classifieds P.O. Box 120191. San Diego, CA 92112-0191 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 FARADAY AVENUE ATTN: KEVIN DAVIS SR. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CARLSBAD, CA 92008 STATE OF CALIFORNIA} ss. County of San Diego} The Undersigned, declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California: That she is a resident of the County of San Diego. That she isandatall times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and that she is not a party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter; that she is Chief Clerk for the publisher of The San Diego Union-Tribune a newspaper of general circulation , printed and published daily in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, and which newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and which newspaper at all the times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the said City of San Diego, County of San Diego, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice hereinafter referred to, and which newspaper is not devoted to nor published for the interests, entertainment or instruction of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or denomination, or any number of same; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said newspaper in accordance with the instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, . and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: Augl4,2010 Ciiief Clerk for the Publisher 8/25/10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING HOTIQE IS HEKEBT QtVEH to you, fceoxuie your totoiest miybe affected, Uatthe CttjrrConncS at the. Cttyof Carlsbad will hold a pnbEo haanno at the Cqundl CliamhBn, 1200 Cailsbad UDaga Drtve, Codi&ed, California; 01 6:00 p.m on Tuawtojr, Alljuot at, 2Q10, to consider. approving t General Plan Amendment to gfflatiMti a now Ganoral Plan Land Use of GaD&al Comnaitdat {£&!). WhBTBOH, on July 7, 2010 th* C!iy ol cailBbadPlannlDO Coroinlaalon votad 6-2 approval to oetaljUsb anew G«n«ral Plan Lone U»e dedanotlon Tho«e psrions wishing to speak on thtr pnpo94li>i;«,o»dlUy tcvludtoanrad tho pttblla iuKgrtog. Capias of tha aganda t^U^HB'%a^avaIUblo on and after Aiigt»ti2D, 2010. If you' hara any;qub«llO]U; {AaaM cpntaot Van lynch In t]ia PlaanJiigDlTlsIon. at <760) 602-4613 nr If you: ohaHango tha Gauial Plan Amendment la oourt, you may bo limited to raiatng. onljr tfctose Issues you 01 spmaone eta* i^fsod; at the pnbUo hearing tWJ noUco or in wrtttsn oorraspoodenco delrvered to tie City of city QtnVa Often, 1200 Cadcbad VUlaae Drtvo, Cadsbad. CA 63008. at or prior to the pufitta beating, CA3EHLB: OPAO4-03 CA3EKAME:GENliHAlCOMMERaAL AMENDMENT PUBLBH: Auaust H 2010 C3TY OF CARLSBAD '. . CITY COUNQL WOKBIMIU Date Affidavit of Publication of Legal Advertisement Ad# 0010418690 ORDERED BY: DONNA HERATY