Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 06-03; Rancho Milagro Part II; General Plan Amendment (GPA)Pr es er ve C id aver a 11 \iiH ll Sill [)iiv"-:i Ciiil 111 1- March 26, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 CBV Dr Carlsbad, CA Subject: Rancho Milagro Honorable Mayor and City Council: I am sure you agree that designing projects for our natural environment is just as important as designing for the built environment. Initially we had a number of concerns about the impacts of the Rancho Milagro project on our natural environment. But we very much appreciate the developer's s willingness to work with us and resolve these issues. There is only one area that has not been fully addressed yet- and that is the height of the wildlife undercrossing. The developer has agreed they will work to achieve as close to the full 8' height that is desired. We assume that they are honorable people and will keep their word. But we also would like a commitment from city staff that they will work to improve both this undercrossing- but more importantly the city standards for undercrossings. We all need to do a better job of designing wildlife undercrossings. The WLA's and city need better standards- and developers need to pay more attention to this in their design. We will continue to work with the Wildlife Agencies and city staff to achieve that. This is particularly important in areas like this where deer have now returned to our natural lands. A collision with a deer is never good for the deer, but can cause serious damage and injury to autos and their occupants also. We need better design and monitoring- and we can co-exist with our local wildlife - in a way that enriches all of our lives. We appreciate this developer's willingness to modify their project to address this important issue. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056 www.preservecalavera.org Nonprofit 501(c)3 ID#33-0955504 w- w P==ji ["II C ^35^C,TYOF •MLL V (CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION February 16, 2012 Jack Henthorn 8i Associates Attn: Jack Henthorn PO Box 237 Carisbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO At the February 15, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend adoption and recommend approval of GPA 06-03, ZC 06-02 and HDP 06-01. The decision of the Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council. The Planning Commission also voted 7-0 to approve CT 06-04, SUP 06-05, and HIVIP 09-01. The decision of the Planning Commission will become final on October 29, 2011. The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Planner, Don Neu, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please contact your project planner Jason Goff at (760) 602-4643 or iason.goff@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AICP City Planner DN:JG:bd c: Data Entry File enc: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6860, 6861, 6862, 6863, 6864, 5865 and 6866 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® c : FILE COFY ^^fP CITY OF V^CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov January 24, 2012 Jack Henthorn & Associates Attn: Jack Henthorn PO Box 237 Carisbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, February 1, 2012, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on February 6, 2012. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 AM. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or provide It to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission: 1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations 2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations The colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your proiect could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at the Planning Commission Hearing. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above. Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting (slides, maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Division for at least 60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request. If you need additional information conceming this matter, please contact your Planner, Jason Goff at (760) 602-4643. Sincerely, DON NEU, AICP City Planner DN:JG:sm c: File Copy Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® n^/^a/a//^ C J FILE COPY CITY OF V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov February 1, 2012 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Preserve Calavera Attn: Diane Nygaard 5020 Nighthawk Way Oceanside, CA 92056 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PRESERVE CALAVERA COMMENTS REGARDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MitlGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RANCHO MILAGRO - PROJECT NO. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06- 05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 Dear Ms. Nygaard, This letter replaces our January 5, 2012 response to comments letter, which has been revised to reflect your meeting with the developer's representative Jack Henthorn of Jack Henthorn and Associates. As previously noted, thank you for your comment letter dated September 26, 2011 responding to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rancho Milagro project, which is proposed on a site generally located approximately one half- mile northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real, within the northeast quadrant of the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California, Assessor's Parcel Number 209-060-61 and a portion of 209-060-23. Staff has subdivided this response letter into the three issue areas (i.e.. Biological Resources, Hydrology, and Traffic) identified in your letter. Each comment of yours is identified below in italic text followed by staff response. Biological Resources: -The project has eliminated impacts to the wetlands and 100' buifer except for the single road crossing which is consistent with the provisions of the HMP. However, the MND does not specify that the buffer is being restored to acceptable conditions. Full HMP consistency requires that this buffer is restored. We believe this should be to coastal sage scrub but other habitat types could be considered in consultation with the wildlife agencies. RESPONSE: The project is proposing to restore all of the wetland buffer area in question by converting all of remaining agricultural lands and most of the non-native grassland to coastal sage scrub in the 100 foot buffer area ofthe wetlands (i.e.. Open Space Lots 23 and 24). The only area not proposed for conversion is the western most area of non-native grassland. This area contains the dirt access road that serves the adjacent properties, and thus through discussions with the Wildlife Agencies, was not identified as a reasonable site for restoration. Mitigation Measure No. 8 addresses this area of comment concern. -The road crossing over Agua Hedionda does not specify the height of the Conspan bridge. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® RANCHO MILAGRO MND-PRESERVE CALEVERA RESPONSE LETTER February 1, 2012 Paoe 2 The Biological Resources technical study identified, and we confirm, the presence of deer in this area. Adequate undercrossings for deer require 8' height. Please clarify the height of this undercrossing and explain what additional measures will be used to assure this crossing supports the movement of deer This should include consideration of appropriate fencing and signage. RESPONSE: Please be aware that in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, the applicant was advised that an openness factor (height x width/distance) of greater than 0.6 should be used for the design of the Con-span bridge crossing. The EIA states, and is confirmed by the plans, that the Con-span bridge crossing is 5 ft. in height and 12 ft. in width, for a distance of 75 ft., resulting in an openness factor of 0.8 and exceeding the minimum requirements recommended by the Wildlife Agencies. Staff has conferred with the developer, and they have agreed that at final design they will analyze any grading constraints and increase the height of the bridge opening as close to eight (8) feet as is practical, but not less than five (5) feet in height or 12 feet in width. Also, the 16 foot wide all weather maintenance access road leading down into the northern drainage adjacent to the bridge will be gated in a manner to discourage pedestrian encroachment into the preserve and furthermore to discourage wildlife movement onto or across "K" Street. Conditions will be added to the project to reflect these revisions -There is a small area of eucalyptus woodland that will be located within the southem hardline preserve. Since eucalyptus do not support understory native plants, support very limited native wildlife, and change soil chemistry we request that the PAR and management plan for the hardline preserve include restoring this eucalyptus woodland to the appropriate native habitat. RESPONSE: Many factors go into the decision to remove eucalyptus within the preserve area including cost/benefit, potential use of trees by raptors, and aesthetics. These factors are considered by the biologist and future preserve manager when preparing the Preserve Management Plan and PAR. Even if not removed, limiting the expansion of the existing eucalyptus stand is always included in the management plan. -The MND includes that the management plan will include monitoring for cowbirds, but there are no provisions for trapping/removal when they are found to be present. They are already present in the area and since this is formally designated as an equestrian area it should be assumed that they will continue to be present. Monitoring without a plan for trapping/removal is meaningless. It also is not possible to have an effective removal program that only addresses the boundaries of this single project when cowbirds are present throughout the area. There needs to be a broader area-wide program, not just for cowbird monitoring, but for trapping and removal. The management endowment for all projects in the area needs to include a portion of the costs needed for such a program. RESPONSE: The long-term management plan still needs to be developed. The need to trap cowbirds will be assessed and if warranted, trapping will be included in the Preserve Management Plan and PAR. A condition will be added to the project requiring that during the preparation of the Preserve Management Plan, the Preserve Manager will evaluate the need for cowbird trapping within the Rancho Milagro preserve and any necessary coordination with the City's Preserve Steward on any cowbird trapping activities in the immediate vicinity. -There is a 5' wide meandering trail through the project site that connects to Cantarini/Holly springs on one end and to Mandana on the other Our concern is that providing a section of trail ^D - PRESERVE CALEVERA RESPO^^E RANCHO MILAGRO MND - PRESERVE CALEVERA RESPONSE LETTER February 1, 2012 Paqe 3 that ends In what is currently open space on each end will encourage increased public use of these adjacent lands and nearby hardline preserves, potentially adding to ongoing problems of habitat loss from unauthorized trail building use. This continues to be a significant problem in the Calavera Highlands and Lake Calavera areas that connect to this area. There needs to be specific provisions to limit public access at both ends of this trail until there is trail continuation through the adjacent projects. This needs to include some reasonable level of monitoring and enforcement to restrict unauthorized public access. RESPONSE: The proposed project cannot be built until the circulation roads that connect through Cantarini Ranch have been constructed. Thus the northern end of the meandering 5-ft. trail would not end on unregulated open space. The eastern end of the trail ending at the Mandana property will need to be physically closed (e.g. fenced) and/or signed to warn of illegal trespass. While these factors will be considered by the biologist and future preserve manager when preparing the Preserve Management Plan and PAR, a condition will be added to the project requiring the installation of a fence at the subdivision boundary adjacent to the Mandana property, which will be designed to discourage pedestrian access onto private property. -It Is not clear what level/type of management will be provided on the two open space lots that are designated as HOA lands. Please clarify what management will be done on those two lots and include provisions that they will meet all edge effect conditions per the MHCP/HMP including invasives removal, trash control, and night lighting. RESPONSE: These issues will be addressed as provisions of the required project Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as normally required through the conditions of project approval. Hvdroloqv: -The MND specifies the process that will be used If there are additional impacts associated with fracturing from the drilling for the sewer line under Agua Hedionda. Nowhere does this mention any public reporting or opportunity for the public to review the impacts and proposed mitigation if this should occur Please clarify how the public will be able to be involved for the mitigation for any such future impacts that are not known at this time. We would request that this specifically include notification to Preserve Calavera and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation. RESPONSE: The procedures for mitigating the impacts of fracturing as outlined in the MND include an assessment by a qualified biologist who will notify the City and appropriate agencies within 24 hours. Mitigation for any impacts will be performed at a ratio of not less than 3:1 (mitigation to impact). All reports and plans will be available as public records through the City of Carisbad. -The mitigation measures (MM) specify there will be restrictions to limit the amount of fertilizer used on the land adjacent to the hardline preserve, but there are numerous common chemicals used that should have similar restrictions, for example, herbicides, and insecticides. Please modify the MM to include a broader range of chemicals. RESPONSE: Per your request, we have revised Mitigation Measure No. 15 to address your concern. An addendum to the MND will be prepared to reflect this revision and the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program will be revised accordingly. The change is reflected below in underiined text: RANCHO MILAGRO MND -l^JRESERVE CALEVERA RESPONSE L^ITER February 1, 2012 Page 4 15. Landscaping Restrictions: The Final Landscape plans for the brush management zones and along development slopes adjacent to the HMP open space conservation areas shall require the use of a native plant palette consistent with the adjacent native vegetation communities, prohibit the use of ornamental invasive species, and limit the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to prevent excess run-off from entering the HMP open space conservation areas. The project shall control irrigation of landscaping adjacent to the HMP conservation areas so as to prevent runoff from spreading into the preserve. In addition, the use of cultivars of native species shall be prohibited to avoid genetic contamination ofthe native plant species in the preserve. Traffic: -The settlement agreement between Preserve Calavera and the City of Carlsbad for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs Project includes a condition related to increasing traffic volumes above 2,615 on "P" street. This project connects through Cantarini/Holly Springs and presumably will result in a minor Increase in traffic on the roads in this adjacent project. However in addition to these minor increases the city is also processing an application for another project that will increase traffic volumes through Cantarini/Holly Springs. Please clarify how the city will determine these cumulative impacts on the proposed roads through Cantarini/'Holly Springs in order to verify if total traffic volumes remain below 2,615 ADT or, if not, what further action will be taken to protect the secondary wildlife movement corridor through this area. RESPONSE: Traffic from Rancho Milagro is served by 'K' Street, 'A' Street and College Avenue. 'P' Street is located on the opposite side of the development serving the Holly Springs project (CT 00-21). Therefore, the Rancho Milagro project would not impact traffic to 'P' Street. In reviewing the traffic study prepared for the Cantarini/Holly Springs project (EIR 02-02) certain development activity and land use assumptions were made for projects within Zone 15. Land use assumptions for Rancho Milagro were drawn from the Local Facilities Management Plan (Zone 15), which are projected at 88 dwelling units. Since this project is constructing less than 88 dwelling units (19 proposed), the projected traffic from the analysis is expected to be less than originally anticipated. Therefore, no further analysis is required regarding this issue. We thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments on the Rancho Milagro project and hope that we have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 602-4643, or via email at iason.goff@carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner c: Jack Henthorn & Associates, PO Box 237, Carisbad, CA 92018 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File copy %^^W> CITY OF V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov January 5, 2012 Tribal Legal Council Attn: Merri Lopez-Keifer San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92081 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENT ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RANCHO MILAGRO PROJECT NO. - GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 Dear Ms. Lopez-Keifer, Thank you for your comment letter dated October 7, 2011 responding to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rancho Milagro project, which is proposed on a site generally located approximately one half-mile northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real, within the northeast quadrant of the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California, Assessor's Parcel Number 209-060-61 and a portion of 209-060-23. Per your request, we have revised Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure No. 19a - 19f to address the four items of concern raised in your comment letter. The changes are reflected below in underiined text. An addendum to the MND will be prepared to reflect this revision and the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program will be revised to include the following measure: 19. Archeological mitigation measures shall be implemented as follows: a. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or initiation of the data recovery program discussed below, the owner/developer shall enter into a pre-excavation agreement with a representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. Verification shall be documented bv a letter from the propertv owner/developer and the San Luis Rev Band of Mission Indians to the Citv of Carisbad Citv Planner. The purpose of this agreement will be to establish the requirement of tribal monitoring and to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. b. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the propertv owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist to oversee and implement the cultural resources mitigation measures as discussed herein. Verification shall be documented by a letter from the propertv owner/developer and the archeologist to the City of Carisbad City Planner. c. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the collection and documentation of a valid sample of the significant scientific data contained within CA-SDI-9698, CA-SDI-9699, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® -SAI RANCHO MILAGRO MND - SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INOTXNS RESPONSE LETTER JANUARY 5, 2012 PAGE 2 and the portion of CA-SDI-9701 impacted by the project shall be performed. The collection and documentation shall involve the following actions: 1) preparation of a research design; 2) excavation of a phased sample (the size of the samples shall be sufficient to recover the scientific data for which the resources were determined significant); 3) catalogue and report results of the field work; and 4) curation of all cultural materials, including original maps, field notes, catalog information, and final report with an appropriate institution, or as mav be stipulated in the pre-excavation agreement entered into with the San Luis Rev Band of Mission Indians, consistent with state and federal standards. All work shall be completed under the direction of a qualified archeologist and to the satisfaction ofthe City of Carisbad City Planner. A copy of the final data recovery findinqs report shall be provided to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. d. Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified archeologist and Native American Monitor and/or representative of the San Luis Rev Band of Mission Indians shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. e. In the event that any cultural resources, concentration of artifacts, or culturally modified soil deposits are discovered within the project area at any time during brushing, grading, and/or construction activities, the archeologist shall be empowered to suspend work in the immediate area of the discovery until such time as a data recovery plan can be developed and implemented. f The discovery of any resource shall be reported to the City of Carisbad City Planner prior to any evaluation testing. g. If any deposits are evaluated as significant under CEQA, mitigation may be required as recommended by the archeologist in coordination with the Native American Monitor. We thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments on the Rancho Milagro project and hope that we have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 602-4643, or via email at jason.goff(gcarisbadca.gov. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner c: Jack Henthorn & Associates, PO Box 237, Carisbad, CA 92018 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner File copy tm'LJii) i I lcj 19- ^ c w FILECOPY VXARLSBAD CITY OF Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov January 5, 2012 Preserve Calavera Attn: Diane Nygaard 5020 Nighthawk Way Oceanside, CA 92056 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PRESERVE CALAVERA COMMENTS REGARDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RANCHO MILAGRO - PROJECT NO. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06- 05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 Dear Ms. Nygaard, Thank you for your comment letter dated September 26, 2011 responding to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rancho Milagro project, which is proposed on a site generally located approximately one half-mile northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real, within the northeast quadrant of the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California, Assessor's Parcel Number 209-060-61 and a portion of 209-060-23. Staff has subdivided this response letter into the three issue areas (i.e.. Biological Resources, Hydrology, and Traffic) identified in your letter. Each comment of yours is identified below in /'fa//c text followed by staff response. Biological Resources: -The project has eliminated impacts to the wetlands and 100' buffer except for the single road crossing which is consistent with the provisions of tfie HMP. However, the MND does not specify that the buffer is being restored to acceptable conditions. Full HMP consistency requires that this buffer is restored. We believe this should be to coastal sage scrub but other habitat types could be considered in consultation with the wildlife agencies. RESPONSE: The project is proposing to restore all of the wetland buffer area in question by converting all of remaining agricultural lands and most of the non-native grassland to coastal sage scrub in the 100 foot buffer area of the wetlands (i.e.. Open Space Lots 23 and 24). The only area not proposed for conversion is the western most area of non-native grassland. This area contains the dirt access road that serves the adjacent properties, and thus through discussions with the Wildlife Agencies, was not identified as a reasonable site for restoration. Mitigation Measure No. 8 addresses this area of comment concern. -The road crossing over Agua Hedionda does not specify the height of the Conspan bridge. The Biological Resources technical study identified, and we confirm, the presence of deer in this area. Adequate undercrossings for deer require 8' height. Please clarify the height of this undercrossing and explain what additional measures will be used to assure this crossing 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® 1% 1^ -PRE RANCHO MILAGRO MND - PRESERVE CALEVERA RESPONSE L'&ITER January 5, 2012 Page 2 supports the movement of deer This should include consideration of appropriate fencing and signage. RESPONSE: In consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, the applicant was advised that an openness factor (height x width/distance) of greater than 0.6 should be used for the design of the Con-span bridge crossing. The EIA states, and is confirmed by the plans, that the Con-span bridge crossing is 5 ft. in height and 12 ft. in width, for a distance of 75 ft., resulting in an openness factor of 0.8 and exceeding the minimum requirements recommended by the Wildlife Agencies. -There is a small area of eucalyptus woodland that will be located within the southern hardline preserve. Since eucalyptus do not support understory native plants, support very limited native wildlife, and change soil chemistry we request that the PAR and management plan for the hardline preserve Include restoring this eucalyptus woodland to the appropriate native habitat. RESPONSE: Many factors go into the decision to remove eucalyptus within the preserve area including cost/benefit, potential use of trees by raptors, and aesthetics. These factors are considered by the biologist and future preserve manager when preparing the Preserve Management Plan and PAR. Even if not removed, limiting the expansiori of the existing eucalyptus stand is always included in the management plan. -The MND includes that the management plan will include monitoring for cowbirds, but there are no provisions for trapping/removal when they are found to be present. They are already present in the area and since this is formally designated as an equestrian area it should be assumed that they will continue to be present. Monitoring without a plan for trapping/removal is meaningless. It also is not possible to have an effective removal program that only addresses the boundaries of this single project when cowbirds are present throughout the area. There needs to be a broader area-wide program, not just for cowbird monitoring, but for trapping and removal. The management endowment for all projects in the area needs to include a portion of the costs needed for such a program. RESPONSE: The long-term management plan still needs to be developed. The need to trap cowbirds will be assessed and if warranted, trapping will be included in the Preserve Management Plan and PAR. -There is a 5' wide meandering trail through the project site that connects to Cantarini/Holly springs on one end and to Mandana on the other Our concern is that providing a section of trail that ends in what is currently open space on each end will encourage increased public use of these adjacent lands and nearby hardline preserves, potentially adding to ongoing problems of habitat loss from unauthorized trail building use. This continues to be a significant problem in the Calavera Highlands and Lake Calavera areas that connect to this area. There needs to be specific provisions to limit public access at both ends of this trail until there is trail continuation through the adjacent projects. This needs to Include some reasonable level of monitoring and enforcement to restrict unauthorized public access. RESPONSE: The proposed project cannot be built until the circulation roads that connect through Cantarini Ranch have been constructed. Thus the northern end of the meandering 5-ft. trail would not end on unregulated open space. The eastern end of the trail ending at the Mandana property will need to be physically closed (e.g. fenced) and/or signed to warn of illegal trespass. These factors will be considered by the biologist and future preserve manager when preparing the Preserve Management Plan and PAR. FiANCHO MILAGRO WiD - PRESERVE CALEVERA RESPCMSE LETTER January 5, 2012 Page 3 -It Is not clear what level/type of management will be provided on the two open space lots that are designated as HOA lands. Please clarify what management will be done on those two lots and Include provisions that they will meet all edge effect conditions per the MHCP/HMP including invasives removal, trash control, and night lighting. RESPONSE: These issues will be addressed as provisions of the required project Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCStRs) as normally required through the conditions of project approval. Hvdrologv: -The MND specifies the process that will be used if there are additional impacts associated with fracturing from the drilling for the sewer line under Agua Hedionda. Nowhere does this mention any public reporting or opportunity for the public to review the impacts and proposed mitigation if this should occur Please clarify how the public will be able to be involved for the mitigation for any such future impacts that are not known at this time. We would request that this specifically include notification to Preserve Calavera and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation. RESPONSE: The procedures for mitigating the impacts of fracturing as outlined in the MND include an assessment by a qualified biologist who will notify the City and appropriate agencies within 24 hours. Mitigation for any impacts will be performed at a ratio of not less than 3:1 (mitigation to impact). All reports and plans will be available as public records through the City of Carisbad. -The mitigation measures (MM) specify there will be restrictions to limit the amount of fertilizer used on the land adjacent to the hardline preserve, but there are numerous common chemicals used that should have similar restrictions, for example, herbicides, and insecticides. Please modify the MM to include a broader range of chemicals. RESPONSE: The site has been designed to minimize the amount of drainage from the developed land areas adjacent to the hardline preserve. As a result, it is unlikely that any significant concentration of herbicides of insecticides would enter the hardline preserve. Any such material used on the developed area of the site would be used in compliance with applicable regulations and manufacturer recommendations supported by the over sight of the HOA through CC&R provisions. Traffic: -The settlement agreement between Preserve Calavera and the City of Carlsbad for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs Project includes a condition related to Increasing traffic volumes above 2,615 on "P" street. This project connects through Cantarini/Holly Springs and presumably will result in a minor increase in traffic on the roads in this adjacent project. However in addition to these minor increases the city is also processing an application for another project that will increase traffic volumes through Cantarini/Holly Springs. Please clarify how the city will determine these cumulative impacts on the proposed roads through Cantarini/'Holly Springs in order to verify if total traffic volumes remain below 2,615 ADT or, if not, what further action will be taken to protect the secondary wildlife movement corridor through this area. RESPONSE: Traffic from Rancho Milagro is served by 'K' Street, 'A' Street and College Avenue. 'P' Street is located on the opposite side of the development serving the Holly Springs project (CT 00-21). Therefore, the Rancho Milagro project would not impact traffic RANCHO MILAGRO MND - ^S^ESERVE CALEVERA RESPONSE LWFER January 5, 2012 Page 4 to 'P' Street. In reviewing the traffic study prepared for the Cantarini/Holly Springs project (EIR 02-02) certain development activity and land use assumptions were made for projects within Zone 15. Land use assumptions for Rancho Milagro were drawn from the Local Facilities Management Plan (Zone 15), which are projected at 88 dwelling units. Since this project is constructing less than 88 dwelling units (19 proposed), the projected traffic from the analysis is expected to be less than originally anticipated. Therefore, no further analysis is required regarding this issue. We thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments on the Rancho Milagro project and hope that we have addressed all of your concerns. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 602-4643, or via email at iason.goff@carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner c: Jack Henthorn & Associates, PO Box 237, Carisbad, CA 92018 Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File copy <#»^ CITY OF VICARLSBAD Planning Division I COP'I www.carlsbadca.gov January 4, 2012 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates PO Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on February 15, 2012. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by January 17, 2012, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. Please submit the following plans: A) 11 copies of the full plan set on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 9" x 12" size. B) One reduced 8/4" x 11" copy of the full plan set. quality which is photographically reproducible. These copies must be of a As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners, including all forms of interval ownership, within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) 100' Occupant List - (Coastal Development Permits Only) a typewritten list of names and addresses of all occupants within a 100 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® o o GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO January 4, 2012 Page 2 C) Mailing Labels - If the number of owners within the 600 foot radius is 1,000 or greater, a display advertisement in two papers of general circulation will be placed in lieu of direct mailing and labels will not be required to be submitted. If the number of owners within the 600 foot radius is less than 1,000, please submit two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. For any address other than a single-family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt. Courier 14 pt. Courier New 11 pt, and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE (with APN) 209-060-34-00 Mrs. Jane Smith 123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 MRS JANE SMITH Carisbad, CA 92008 APT 3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 D) Radius Map - a map to scale; not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the City Planner if the required scale is impractical. E) Fee - a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. In the case of ownership list that is 1,000 or greater, the fee is equal to the current cost of publishing an 1/8 page ad in two newspapers of general circulation. Cash check (payable to the City of Carisbad) and credit cards are accepted. Sincerely, t, JASON GOFF ' Associate Planner JG:sm Attachment c: File I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 1889 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081 760-724-8505 • FAX 760-724-2172 www. slrmissionindians. org October 7, 2011 Mr. Jason Goff City Planner VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Department Jason.Goff@carlsbadca.org CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carisbad, CA 92008 RE: COMMENT ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RANCHO MILARGO PROJECT; CASE NO. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ SUP 06-05/ HDP 06-01/ HMP 09-01 Dear Mr. Goff: We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"), have received and reviewed the City of Carlsbad's ("City's") Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and all of its supporting documentation as it pertains specifically to the protection and preservation of cultural resources that exist within the parameters of the Rancho Milargo Project's ("Project's") property boundaries. After our review, the Tribe is supportive of the measures of mitigation for the Project; however, we must stress that if during the excavation process additional cultural resources are located, then the Project may need to be redesigned in order to avoid these additional cultural resources. We understand that the comment period ended previous to today's date; however, we respectfiilly request that our comments be included in the official public record for this project. As you are aware, we are a San Diego County Tribe whose traditional territory includes the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido, as well as the communities of Fallbrook and Bonsall. As you also know, we are resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within all these jurisdictions. Although we appreciate the current language of the MND including the presence of a Native American monitor in several key aspects of the Project's development and the incorporation of the requirement that Developer must enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the Tribe, we would prefer the language of the mitigation measures be Comment Letter to the City of Carlsbad MND for the Rancho Milargo Project Page lofi amended to include (1) the presence of Native American monitor and/or a representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians be present at the pre-construction meeting, along wdth the contracted archaeologist [See Mitigation Measure 19c]; (2) that in the event any artifacts are recovered that they be retumed to the San Luis Rey Band for repatriation purposes and not curated; (3) that any data recovery findings report created during this Project be provided to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians [See Mitigation Measure 19b]; and (4) when artifacts or cultural resources are discovered, that the contracted archaeologist work in coordination with the Native American monitor in determining whether said artifact and/or cultural resource is "significant" [See Mitigation Measure 19g]. The Tribe therefore formally requests that the above additions to the proposed mitigation measures be incorporated as additional conditions of approval and integrated into the Final MND to ensure that this Project is handled in a manner consistent with the requirements of the law and which respects the Tribe's cultural beliefs and religious practices. The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the Rancho Milargo Project. The Tribe hopes the City will adopt and amend the mitigation measures as herein requested and that they will appear in the Final MND. As always, we look forward to working with the City to guarantee that the requirements of the CEQA are rigorously applied to this Project and all projects. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our invaluable Luisefio cultural resources. Sincerely, Merri Lopez-Keifer Tribal Legal Counsel cc: Melvin Vemon, Tribal Captain Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Govemment Relations and President of Saving Sacred Sites Comment Letter to the City of Carlsbad MND for the Rancho Milargo Project Page 2 of 2 U. S. Fish and WilflW Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101 Carlsbad, Califomia 92011 760-431-9440 FAX 760-431-9618 fifomia Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, Califomia 92123 858-467-4201 FAX 858-467-4299 SEP 27 2011 SEP 2 9 2011 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFG-SDG-07B0062-10TA0828 Mr. Jason Goff, Associate Planner CityofCarlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-7314 Subject: Comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Habitat Management Plan Consistency Findings for the Rancho Milagro Residential Development Project, City ofCarisbad, Califomia (SCH# 2011081091) Dear Mr. Goff: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (Department), collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the August 22, 2011, Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rancho Milagro Residential Development Project (Project), City of Carlsbad (City), Califomia. The Wildlife Agencies previously provided comments and recommendations on the Project in a letter dated October 12, 2007. Our review of the proposed Project is based upon: the information provided in the MND, including the Revised Biological Technical Report (Recon 2011) and the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) consistency findings; project-related communications and meetings subsequent to our previous letter; our knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities in the County of San Diego; and our participation in regional conservation plarming efforts and the City's HMP. The primary concem and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including habitat conservation plans (HCP) developed under section 10(a) (1) of the Act, such as the City's HMP. The Department is a Tmstee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the State's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the Califomia Endangered Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). The City is currently participating in the NCCP and the Service's HCP programs by implementing its HMP. Mr. Jason Goff (FWS/CDFG-SDG-07B0062-10TA0828) 2 The proposed Project is located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real, within the northeast quadrant of the City (APN 209-060-61). The HMP identifies the property as a Standards Area (Zone 15); it is adjacent to and south of an Existing Hardline Preserve Area, and includes a small finger shaped portion of Core Area 5 which mns east'west along Agua Hedionda Creek in the southem half of the property. The 43.63-acre study area is composed of the 43.57-acre Rancho Milagro property and the adjacent offsite 0.06-acre section of a previously approved sewer line. The southem 16.3 acres have been designated as open space, a portion of which is a mitigation and restoration area established in conjunction with wetiand habitat impacts associated with the adjacent Terraces at Sunny Creek development. The project proposes the development of 19 single-family houses, associated infrastmcture, a bio-filtration detention area, and a sewer line. The Project will impact a total of 18.10 acres on site and 0.06 acre off site. Impacts to individual vegetation communities and land cover types are shown in Table 1 and the proposed mitigation is summarized in Table 2. Table 1. Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Biological Resource Existing Conditions (acres) Total Impacts' (acres) Mitigation Biological Resource Rancho Milagro Terraces Mitigation Area' Off-site Sewer Total study Area Total Impacts' (acres) Mitigation Ratio Required Mitigation Mitigation Available Onsite' Wetland/Riiiariaa - Freshwater marsh 0.21 0.21 0.00 3:1 0.00 0.21 - Southem willow scrub 0.90 1.68 2.58 0.05 3:1 0.15 0.85 - Mule fat scrub 0.04 0.04 0.00 3:1 0.00 0,04 - Sycamore/oak woodland 0.11 9.34 9.45 0.02 3:1 0.06 0.09 Upland - Diegan coastal sage scrub 7.46 1.05 8.51 2.56 1:1 (no net loss) 2.56 5.95'' - Coast live oak woodland 1.05 2.36 3.41 0.02 3:1 0.06 1.03 - Non-native grassland 4.40 0.96 5.36 2.50^ 0.5:1 1.25 1.90 - Eucalyptus woodland 0.06 0.06 0.00 In-Lieu Fee In-Lieu Fee 0.06 - Agricultural land 12.06 12.06 11.83^ In-Lieu Fee In-Lieu Fee 0.23 - Developed land 0.98 0.91 0.06 1.95 1.18 N/A N/A 0.77 TOTAL 27.27 16.30 0.06 43.63 18.16 11.13 Refers to a portion of the study area that was previously dedicated as open space for wetland mitigation associated with mitigation for impacts to the off-site Terraces at Sunny Creek project. Includes impacts from proposed restoration when it consists of conversion from one mapped vegetation community to coastal sage scrub or riparian scrub. Acres remaining within study area available for mitigation after excluding the development impact area and the area previously dedicated as open space for mitigation for the Terraces at Sunny Creek. Acreage is based on all coastal sage scrub present within the total study area. Mr. Jason Goff (FWS/CDFG-SDG-07B0062-10TA0828) Biological Resource Proposed Mitigation Wetland/Riparian - Freshwater marsh The project-related Wetland/Riparian community impacts are being mitigated as described below in the Jurisdictional Areas section of this table (see below). - Southem willow scmb The project-related Wetland/Riparian community impacts are being mitigated as described below in the Jurisdictional Areas section of this table (see below). - Mule fat scmb The project-related Wetland/Riparian community impacts are being mitigated as described below in the Jurisdictional Areas section of this table (see below). - Sycamore/oak woodland The project-related Wetland/Riparian community impacts are being mitigated as described below in the Jurisdictional Areas section of this table (see below). Upland - Diegan coastal sage scrub The project is required to restore/create at least 2.56 acres of CSS to achieve a no-net-loss of this vegetation community. The project is creating a total of 2.94 acres of CSS on-site through the conversion of 1.50 acres of agricultural land, 0.04 acre of developed land, and 1.40 acres of non-native grasslands within the northem open space lots (Lots 23 and 24). The proposed 2.94 acres of restoration will result in a net gain of total CSS. - Coast live oak woodland Through on-site preservation, the project is preserving 0.06 acre of coast live oak woodland in Open Space Lots 21, 23, and 24. - Non-native grassland Through on-site preservation, the project is preserving 1.25 acres of non-native grassland in Open Space Lots 21 and 23. - Eucalyptus woodland Through on-site preservation, the project is preserving 0.06 acre of Eucalyptus woodland in Open Space Lot 21. - Agricultural land Payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee = 11.83 acres of HMP Group F habitat type. Jurisdictional Areas Corps Jurisdiction Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. - Wedand Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. - Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. Department Jurisdiction Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. - Riparian Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. - Streambed Impacts to wetland communities, including southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, with a minimum 1:1 creation component that achieves the "no net loss" standard. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.05 acre of southem willow scmb through the on-site creation of 0.15 acre of southem willow scmb in preserved open space. The project is proposing to mitigate impacts to 0.02 acre of sycamore/oak woodland through the on-site creation of 0.06 acre of sycamore/oak woodland in preserved open space. A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared as part of the project biotechnical report which is proposing to convert a minimum of 0.21 acre of agricultural fields located in Open Space Lot 23 adjacent to the northem drainage to suitable wetland/riparian habitat. The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetland habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be located within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. Prior to issuance of a grading pennit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on-site, a final wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department (with concurrence by the Service, Department, and Corps) to mitigate for the above impacts. In addition, impacts to Corps (Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.) and Department (Riparian and Streambed) jurisdictional areas will require a Section 404 nationwide permit from the Corps, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the Department, and a 401 State Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, all of which must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on site. Km/ Mr. Jason Goff (FWS/CDFG-SDG-07B0062-10TA0828) 4 As a Condition of Approval, the MND requires the implementation of significant conservation measures including, but not limited to, the mitigation in Table 2. All on-site riparian habitat and floodplains will be preserved, except where impacts are required in order to provide essential infrastmcture. On the south side of the Project, adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, the average setback from the wetland will be approximately 300 feet, with the exception of the proposed bio-filtration detention area on the westem edge of the property. The bio-flltration detention area will have an earthen berm and bottom to allow growth of native vegetation that will be planted on it consistent with the buffer requirements of the HMP. The bio-filtration detention area will be inspected annually, but maintenance is not expected to be needed as trash and sediment will be caught and removed at a storm receptor. The setback on the north side of the Project will be a minimum of 100 feet except for storm outfalls and a 16-foot wide emergency all-weather access road for bridge maintenance. The Project proposes to create, restore, and enhance wetland/riparian habitat within the open space lots on site to achieve no net loss of wetland/riparian habitat The creation of 0.07 acre, representing a 1:1 mitigation ratio, will be accomplished outside of the 100-foot wetiand habitat buffer. The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be conducted within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. The proposed Project will impact 2.56 acres (30 percent) of the existing 8.51 acres of coastal sage scmb resulting in 5.95 acres (70 percent) remaining in proposed open space (Tables 1 and 2). This is in compliance with the goals for overall preservation of 67 percent of coastal sage scrab within the standards area, as identified in the HMP (Carlsbad 2004). In addition, the 2.56- acre impact will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio through on-site creation of 2.94 acres of coastal sage scmb, which will occur through the conversion of 1.50 acres of agricultural land, 0.04 acre of developed land, and 1.40 acres of non-native grasslands within the northem open space lots (Lots 23 and 24). When added together, the 2.94 acres of restoration and the 5.95 acres of preservation will result in 8.89 acres of coastal sage scrab conserved on site a net gain of 0.38 acre of coastal sage scrab. Impacts to Eucalyptus woodland and agricultural land will be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City. The setback for all development impacts will be at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats. As required by the Zone 15 Planning Standards in the HMP, all non-native vegetation within the buffer zone will be restored to native vegetation. In addition, all fire management will occur completely within the development boundaries and will not occur within any of the HMP conservation/buffer areas. Landscaping on slopes adjacent to the conservation/buffer areas will include low-fuel native species in compliance with the HMP. Mr. Jason Goff (FWS/CDFG-SDG-07B0062-10TA0828) 5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on site, whichever occurs first, a final restoration plan will be approved by the City Planning Department, with concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies, for all of the above impacts. While no federally or State-endangered or threatened species were observed on site, several sensitive plants and animals were detected during biological surveys. Three sensitive plants were observed, including: Califomia adolphia (Adolphia californica), a Califomia Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 2 species; spiny rash (Juncus acutus spp. leopoldii), a CNPS List 4 species; and Nuttall's scmb oak (Quercus dumosa), a CNPS List IB species, which is also covered by the Carlsbad HMP. Five sensitive bird species were observed in the study area, including: white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a Califomia fully protected species; and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northem harrier (Circus cyaneus hudsonius), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), which are all Califomia Department of Fish and Game species of special concem. Neither the coastal Califomia gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, "gnatcatcher") nor the least BeU's vireo (Vireo belliipusillus, "vireo") was observed during protocol surveys conducted in 2005. To avoid potential impacts to avian species (including vireo, flycatcher, or gnatcatcher), all grading and vegetation clearing activities within 500 feet of riparian and coastal sage scmb vegetation will be conducted outside of the breeding season (Febmary 15 to September 15, and as early as January for some avian raptor species). Impacts to 15 Califomia adolphia will be mitigated through the onsite planting of 30 Califomia adolphia, which will be included in the plan palette of the required coastal sage scrab restoration. Seeds will be collected from the plants on site and propagated in an appropriate nursery facility until they are of sufficient size for planting. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, and/or the clearing of any habitat on site, whichever occurs first, the applicant will take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to Open Space Lots 20, 21, 23, and 24, which are being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's HMP: 1. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, which possesses qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes. 2. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the Multiple Species Habitat Plan and the City's HMP. 3. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity, if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 4. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s). Mr. Jason Goff (FWS/CDFG-SDG-07B0062-10TA0828) 5. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to review the MND for the Project. Based on the description of the proposed Project and the applicant's commitment to implement the mitigation measures discussed above and in the MND, the Wildlife Agencies concur that the Rancho Milagro project is consistent with the City's HMP. Thank you for the opportunity to review the MND. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the City's and the applicant's efforts to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the HMP. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Janet Stuckrath (Service) at (760) 431 - 9440 extension 270 or Bryand Duke (Department) at (858) 637-5511. Sincerely, Karen A. Goebel Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stephen M. Juarez Environmental Program Manager Califomia Department of Fish and Game Literature Cited Carlsbad, City of 2004. Habitat management plan for natural communities in the City of Carlsbad. November. Recon. 2011. Revised biological technical report for the Rancho Milagro study area, Carlsbad, Califomia. Prepared for Lyall Enterprises, Inc. April. mil reserve v_iUavera CITYOFCARLSBAD SFP 28 2011 September 26, 2011 Jason Goff, Planner City (rfCartsbaJ 1200 Carisbad Village Dr Carisbad, CA 92008 Subject: Rancho Milagro MND Dear Mr. Goff: These comments on the Rancho MUagro Project 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. This project is for the development of agricultural lands into 19 lai^e residential lots and open space. We appreciate that this project has undergone substantial changes since it was originally approved and that the project as now proposed does a much tietter job of preserving the natural resources of the Sunny Creek area and Agua Hedionda watershed. We particulariy note that this project did a very thorough job of evaluating consistency with the requirements of the HMP which is particulariy important in sensitive areas like this. The following are our remaining concems with this project: Biological Resources - The prpject has eliminated impacts to the wetlands and 100' buffer except for the singie road crossing which is consistentwith the provisions ofthe HMP. However, the MND does not specify that the buffer is tieing restored to acceptable conditions. Full HMP consistency requires that this buffer is restored. We tielieve this should be to coastal sage scrub but other habitat types could be considered in consultation with the wildlife agencies. - The road crossing over Agua Hedionda does not specify the height of the Consfi^n bridge. The Biological Resources technical study iderrtihed, and we confirm, the presence of deer in this area. Adequate undercrossings for deer require 8' height. Please clarify the heigbt of this undercrossing and explain what additional measures will be used to assure this crossing supports the movement of deer. This should include consideration of appropriate fencing and signage. - There is a small area of eucalyptus woodland that will t)e located within the soutfiem hardline preserve. Since eucalyptus do not support understory native plants, support very limited native wildlife, and change soil chemistiv we request that the PAR and management plan for the hardline preserve include restoring this eucalyptus woodland to the appropriate native habitat. 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056 www.preservecalavera.orq Monprofit 501 (c)3 lD#33-0955504 - The MND includes that the managemerrt plan VMH inchJde monttoring for cowbirds, but there are no provisrons for trappir^Aiemo^l when they are found to be present. They are aheacfy present in the area and sin^ this is formally designated as an equestrian area it shouki be assumed ttiat they wilt continue to be present. Ktoriitoririgwitt)outaplan fbr trapplng/irernoyatte meaningless. It also is not possible to have an ^fecSve removat program that only adcfaesses the boumfemes of ^ m^ie pt3^ ene {Mt^i^ tiiroi^jlKJirt tive m^. Thexe needs to be a broader area-wide program, not just for cowbird monitoring, but for trappnng and removal. The man^ment endowrmnt for all projects in the area ne^ to indtKle a portton of the costs fweded for such a program. - There is a 5' wide meandering trail through ffie projed site that connects to Cantarin'i/Hotty springs on one end and to Mandana on the crtber. Oyr ccMicem is ttiat proMdmg a secttcm ttaH that encte in what» currently open space on eadi end witt encour^ increa^d pubiic tse of these ac^cent lands and i^arby hardline preserves, jx>terttialiy adding to or^pir^ problems of habitat toss from unauttiorized trail buifdtng use. This continues to be a significant profotem in the Calavera HigblarKis and Lake Calavera areas that conned to this area. TTi^ nee(te to be specific f^t^vsions to ttntt pt^k: acx^ srt botti aids <^ this hnaril until ^h&e is ax^Hjation thn3ugh the adjacent pra|ects. This needs to indude some reasonable level of mcHirtoring and enforcement to r^trid unauttiorized put»tk; ac(»ss. - It is ncA. dear whM levet%p6 of mans^ement will be provided on the hMO open sp&ce UAs ttiat are des^nated as HOA lands. Please darify what management will be done on those hwo lots and indude prov^kvis tt^ they will me^ att ec^ efted condttions per the MHCP/HMP induding invasives removal, trash control, and night l^rbting. Hydrology - The MNO spedfies tte j^tx^^s tttat wntt he i^ed if ttiere are addttkmal nrpEKte ^^iderted witti fracturing ffom the drilttng for the sewer line undier Agua Hedionda. Nowhere does this mention any put^c reporting or t^portuntty for ttie put^Hc to r^iew the impacte and prqaosed mftigation if this shouki occur. Please darify bow ttie pubtic niriH he able to he invohred for the nutigation for any such ff^tture impsK^te ttiat are nc^ known att tttis time. We would r«:^iest that this spedfically include notification lo Preserve Calavera and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation. - The mttigation measwBs (Mfi^ spedfy there witt be restridions to limtt the amount of fertiltzer used on the iand ac^acent to the iiardline preserve, but there are numerous common diemk^als used that shouki have simHar restridrons, fbr example, herbicides, and rnsediddes. Rease modify the MM to indude a t>roader range of diemicats. Traffic - The s^ement agreement between Preserve Calavera and the Ctty of Cartsbad for the Cantarini Randi/HoUy Springs Projed indudes a condttion related to increasing tre^ volumes ahove 2,615 on *P" street. This preyed conneds through Cantarini/Hotty Springs and presumably ni^l r^utt m a minc»^ increase in traffic on the roads in this ad|acent prcjed. However in addttbn to these minor increases ttie dfy is also prex»ssing an eqapKcatton fbr another proj^ that wiU increase tr^c volumes through Cantarini/Hotty Sprir^s. Please darify how the dfy witt detenmine these cumulative impacts on the proposed roads through Cantarini/'Holly Springs in order to verify if totel traffic volumes remain betow 2,615 ADT or, if not, whatt lurtter at^m witt he taken to pt}t^ ttie serondary wikHie movi^ii^ ccmidor through this area. We \ook Hxvmd to working ymi to asstffe thstt aH of th^e isst^ are achiressed b^ore ttiis projed moves fiorward. Thank you for considering the^ comments. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard Preserve Calavera Cc: Janet ShJckratti,FVVS STATE OF CALIFORNIA i^.-inund G. Brown, Jr., Qoverngi. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-6251 Fax (916) 657-5390 Web Site www.nahc.ca.gov ds_nahc@pacbell.net September 20, 2011 Mr. Jason Goff, Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 CITY OFCARL?'^^ SEP 22 2011 I PUN Re: SCH#2011081091: CEQA Notice of Completion: proposed Mitigated Neqative Declration. for the "Rancho Milagro Proiect:" located in the Citv of Carlsbad: San Dieqo Countv. California. Dear Mr. Goff: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. Z"^ 604). The NAHC wishes to comment on the proposed project. This project is also subject to government-to-government consultation pursuant to California Government Code §§65352.3, 65352.4 et seq. This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) perthe CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ...objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search resulted as follows: Native American cultural resources were not identified within one-half mile of some ofthe 'area of potential effect (APE) based on the USGS coordinates provided. Note: the absence of recorded Native American cultural resources does not preclude their existence. This area is known to the NAHC as being very culturally sensitive. The NAHC "Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sttes once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge ofthe religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation wtth Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consutting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance wtth the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 ef seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Qualify (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 ef seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary ofthe Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource fypes included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cuttural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards include recommendations for all lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effed.' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cuttural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf 42 U.S.C, 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cuttural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safefy Code Sedion 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery'. To be effective, consuttation on specific projects must be the resutt of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies^ projed proponents and their contractors, in the opinion ofthe NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship buitt around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consuttation tribal input on specific projects. If you have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to me at (916)953-62)61. Program Anal) Cc: Stat^ )2learinghouse Attachment: Native American Contact List Native American Contacts San Diego County September 20, 2011 Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Edwin Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona Road Diegueno Lakeside . CA 92040 sue @ barona-nsn .gov (619) 443-6612 619-443-0681 Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Anthony R. Pico, Chairperson PO Box 908 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine . CA 91903 jrothauff@viejas-nsn.gov (619)445-3810 (619)445-5337 Fax San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Diegueno Valley Center. CA 92082 allenl@sanpasqualband.com (760) 749-3200 (760) 749-3876 Fax Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee Ron Christman 56 Viejas Grade Road Alpine . CA 92001 (619)445-0385 Diegueno/Kumeyaay lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez, Spokesman PO Box 130 Santa Ysabel. CA 92070 brandietaylor@yahoo.com (760) 765-0845 (760) 765-0320 Fax Diegueno Jamul Indian Village Kenneth Meza, Chairperson P.O. Box 612 Jamul . CA 91935 jamulrez@sctdv.net (619) 669-4785 (619) 669-48178-Fax Diegueno/Kumeyaay Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Danny Tucker, Chairperson 5459 Sycuan Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay El Cajon . CA 92021 ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov 619 445-2613 619 445-1927 Fax Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Mark Romero, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Diegueno Santa Ysabel. CA 92070 mesagrandeband@msn.com (760) 782-3818 (760) 782-9092 Fax This list is current oniy as of tlie date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 ofthe Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2011081091; CEQA Notice of Completion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Rancho Nliiagro Project; located in the City of Carlsbad; San Diego County, Califomia. Native American Contacts f*^ San Diego County ^ September 20, 2011 Rincon Band of Mission Indians Tiffany Wolfe, Cultural & Environmental P.O. Box 68 Luiseno Valley Center. CA 92082 twolf e @ rincontribe. org (760) 297-2632 (760) 297-2639 Fax Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Steve Banegas, Spokesperson 1095 Barona Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay Lakeside . CA 92040 (619) 742-5587-cell (619) 742-5587 (619)443-0681 FAX Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation Paul Cuero 36190 Church Road, Suite 5 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Campo . CA 91906 (619) 478-9046 (619) 478-9505 (619) 478-5818 Fax Pauma Valley Band of Luisefio Indians Bennae Calac, Tribal Council Member P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma Valley CA 92061 bennaecalac@aol.com (760) 617-2872 (760) 742-3422 - FAX Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Diegueno - Pine Valley . CA 91962 (619) 709-4207 San Pasqual Band of Indians Kristie Orosco, Environmental Coordinator P.O. Box 365 Luiseno Valley Center. CA 92082 Diegueno (760) 749-3200 council @sanpasqualtribe.org (760) 749-3876 Fax Inaja Band of Mission Indians Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Diegueno Escondido . CA 92025 (760) 737-7628 (760) 747-8568 Fax Ewilaapaayp Tribal Office Will Micklin, Executive Director 4054 Willows Road Alpine . CA 9i90i wmicklin @ leaningrock.net (619) 445-6315-voice (619) 445-9126-fax Diegueno/Kumeyaay This iist is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section $097.94 ofthe Pubiic Resources Code and Section 5097.98 ofthe Public Resources Code. This iist is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2011081091; CEQA Notice of Compietion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Rancho Milagro Project; located in the City of Carlsbad; San Diego County, Califomia. Native American Contacts San Diego County ^ September 20, 2011 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Cultural Department 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista . CA 92081 Cupeno 760-724-8505 Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Bernice Paipa, Vice Spokesperson P.O. Box 1120 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Boulevard . CA 91905 (619)478-2113 760-724-2172-fax Kupa Cultural Center (Pala Band) Shasta Gaughen, Assistant Director 35008 Pala-Temecula Rd.PMB 445 Lulseno Pala . CA 92059 cupa@palatribe.com (760) 891-3590 (760) 742-4543 - FAX Diegueno/Kumeyaay Ipai Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources P.O. Box 507 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 cjlinton73@aol.com (760) 803-5694 cjlinton73@aol.com Inter-Tribal Cultural Resource Council Frank Brown, Coordinator 240 Brown Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine . CA 91901 FIREFIGHTER69TFF@AOL. COM ((619) 884-8437 This iist is current oniy as of the date of this document. Distribution of this iist does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Pubiic Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Pubiic Resources Code. This list is applicable fbr contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2011081091; CEQA Notice of Compietion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rancho Milagro Project; located in the City of Carlsbad; San Diego County, Califomia. <#l^ CITY OF V (CARLSBAD Planning Division FILE COPY www.carlsbadca.gov July 19, 2011 Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates P.O. Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPLICABILITY/PROCESS DETERMINATION This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the project (fees effective January 1, 2009): IEI A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) will be prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Please submit the Environmental Impact Assessment Fee of $1604.00 for the continued processing of the CEQA documentation. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the project planner, Jason Goff, at (760) 602-4643 or jason.goff@carisbadca.qov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AICP Planning Director DN:JG:bd c: Lyall Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Warren Lyall, 15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® Jason Goff From: Elizabeth Lucas [ELiicas@dfg.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:55 AM To: Jason Goff Cc: Mike Grim; Van Lynch; David Mayer; David_Zoutendyk@fws.gov; Janet Stuckrath Subject: Rancho Milagro - consistency with the HMP Importance: High ** High Priority ** Jason, On Thursday, March 3, the Wildlife Agencies had a telephone conference to discuss our interpretation of the standards requirements for Zone 15 and how they apply to the Rancho Milagro project. Below are our conclusions on the two outstanding issues to be resolved for the Wildlife Agencies to find the project consistent with the City's HMP. 1. Mitigation The last paragraph on page D-73 of the HMP states: "...67% of coastal sage scrub shall be conserved overall within the Standards Areas " In addition, page D-90 states: "...mitigation ratios apply whether a project is located inside or outside the preserve system. Projects which conserve at least 67% of habitat onsite shall not be subject to offsite mitigation." The Wildlife Agencies' October 17, 2007, letter on the HMP Consistency for Rancho Milagro, stated, "Within the 100-foot buffer of the northern drainage on site, any habitat that is not native or is degraded should be restored to native habitat suitable for the location. Therefore, the project's mitigation obligations are separate from this standard and should occur outside of the 100-foot buffer." However, this statement did not account for the credit afforded towards CSS mitigation by conformance with the 67% requirement. Therefore, the on-site preservation of approximately 70% (5.95 ac) of the coastal sage scrub on the Rancho Milagro site (both inside and outside the buffers) applies toward and fully satisfies the required 1:1 mitigation ratio (2.55 ac) for unoccupied gnatcatcher habitat. 2. No net loss of CSS within Zone 15 The Zone 15 standards, page D-79, include: "When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and require habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas." We still hold to our general interpretation of this standard - "Within the 100-foot buffer of the northern drainage on site, any habitat that is not native or is degraded should be restored to native habitat suitable for the location." We acknowledge that there may be projects whose biological conditions warrant an exception from this interpretation (e.g., contiguous biologically functional non-native grassland not posing a long-term management risk from invasive species), in which case we would apply some latitude in applying the Zone 15 standard as we interpret it. For Rancho Milagro, we still believe that all the non-native habitat within the buffer for the northern drainage should be restored to CSS. f /•% Upon further consideration of'the no-net-loss standard, we ags^ that ALL the acreage of the lands restored to CSS within the northern buffer should apply to the 2.55-acre no-net- loss obligation for CSS. We are hopeful that this allowance will eliminate or reduce the acreage needed for restoration within the (a) 0.01-ac, 0.03-ac, and 0.04-ac etc. slivers of NNG/AG along the western boundary of the site adjacent to seed sources of the non-native habitat off site to the west, and (b) larger areas of NNG in the southern portion of the site. If the above comments are adhered to in addition to the other biological commitments for the Rancho Milagro project as described in the November 11, 2011, project-related biological technical report (Recon), the Wildlife Agencies concur that the project would be consistent with the HMP. We apologize for any confusion we have caused in our deliberations on this project. Please let us know if you have any questions about our conclusions. Thank you. Libby Lucas NCCP Program California Department of Fish and Game Phone: 858 467-4230 Fax: 858 467-4299 and Janet Stuckrath U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (760) 431-9440 ext. 270 (760) 431-5902 (fax) Jason Goff From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:28 PM To: Jane Mobaldi; Gary Barberio; Don Neu; Charles McBride; John Coates Cc: Jason Goff Subject: RE: Housing Policy Team Feedback Thanks all for the comments. It seems like everyone is OK with Rancho Milagro purchasing credits. I contacted Jack Henthorn, as the project representative. I told him that if he didn't have a written commitment from the Kelly family or McMillin to purchase housing credits within their project at the time of processing, they would need to have an on-site "back-up" plan set out for their project. He said that their back up plan would be second dwelling units. They would identify the lots within their subdivision to include the units. I shared with him that the preference was to have them purchase credits within the Holly Springs/Cantarini MDR site because that would allow for the conversion of market rate units to low income affordable units (producing "new units"). Our second choice is the Glen Ridge project. The third choice would be the 2"'' dwelling units. I told Jack that I would send him a letter outlining this recommendation from the Housing Policy Team. I shared that they will not be able to finai the map until such time as we have an approved/executed affordable housing agreement. It is his belief that the current property simply intends to sell the property once the tentative map is approved. So, we may need to have these discussions again with the new owner. © ^ CITt OF CARLSBAD Housing & Neighborhood Services Debbie Fountain Housing and Neighborhood Services Director 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Website: www.carlsbadca.gov P:(760) 434-2935 - Direct P:(760) 434-2811 - Office F:(760) 720-2037 - Fax E: debbie.fountain(a)carlsbadca.gov From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:12 AM To: Gary Barberio; Don Neu; Charles McBride; Jane Mobaldi; John Coates Cc:Jason Goff Subject: FW: Housing Policy Team Feedback As an additional note, another opportunity for an off-site satisfaction may be the Cantarini/Holly Springs Multi-family site if David Bentley can negotiate a commitment from the Kelly Family to sell them credits. This would mean that the Kelly Family would need to convert market rate units to restricted low income affordable units which is probably unlikely. But, if Bentley can negotiate a deal at that project, that might be an option as well. At this time, I am just looking for your support to allow Rancho Milagro to go off-site to satisfy their inclusionary by purchasing affordable housing credits. If they are not able to negotiate a deal with one ofthe two noted developers, then they will need to identify an on-site option which mostliS^ly would be second dwelling units. Their Otfier option is to find 3 market rate units within the Northeast Quadrant that they can convert to a restricted price for-sale or rental product. Hope this didn't confuse you. Let me know if you have questions. © From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:54 AM To: Gary Bartierio; Don Neu; Jane Mobaldi; Charies McBride; John Coates Cc:Jason Goff Subject: Housing Policy Team Feedback Hi all. We have a request for the purchase of credits in a combined affordable housing project, Glen Ridge Apts, for the Rancho Milagro development. Rather than schedule a meeting, I was hoping you all could just respond to this email and let me know if you are OK with this solution for meeting the inclusionary housing requirements. Description of Rancho Milagro: This is a 43.58 acre parcel that will be subdivided to provide for 19 custom single family lots/homes. It will have 4 open space conservation lots, and 2 HOA maintained open space lots. The project is located in the northeast quadrant ofthe City, approximately Yi mile northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The property is within the Sunny Creek Specific Plan. The project is required to provide 3 affordable units on-site or off-site. This developer is proposing to make a deal with the appropriate private parties to purchase 3 ofthe excess housing credits in the Glen Ridge Affordable housing development off of Cannon to satisfy the inclusionary requirement. Both developments are located in the Northeast Quadrant. Glen Ridge Apartments: The Glen Ridge Apartments were constructed to satisfy the inclusionary obligation ofthe Robertson Ranch East Village development. These Apartments are constructed and fully leased. Per the Affordable Housing Agreement for Robertson Ranch (East), six (6) of the units (total 78 units) in Glen Ridge are "excess units that may be used as affordable housing credit for an alternate development of Master Developer or a third party designated by theMaster Developer and at the sole discretion ofthe City Council". The Master Developer is Calavera Hills II, LLC/McMillin. The affordable housing developer is Chelsea Investment Corporation. Recommendation: At this time, there are no other combined projects in the Northeast Quadrant which can provide excess units to satisfy the inclusionary requirements of other developers. Ifthe developers of Rancho Milagro are able to obtain a commitment letter from Calavera Hills/McMillin for the purchase of credits within the Glen Ridge development, it is my recommendation that the Housing Policy Team support the purchase of credits to satisfy the Rancho Milagro inclusionary. The City Council will ultimately need to approve this solution. Let me know if you are OK with the recommendation. If so, the developer of Rancho Milagro will then be directed to obtain a commitment letter from the developer of Glen Ridge before proceeding with the approvals for their development. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Debbie. 4^ CITr Of CARLSBAD Housing & Neighborhood .Services Debbie Fountain Housing and Neighborhood Services Director 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B Carisbad, Ca. 92008 Website: www.carlsbadca.gov P:(760) 434-2935 - Direct P:(760) 434-2811-Office F:(760) 720-2037 - Fax E: debbie.fountain(5)carlsbadca.gov m Agenda Date: April 6, 2011 Time: 9:30 to 11:00 AM Meeting Location: Project Site Project Name: Rancho Milagro File Numbers: GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ SUP 06-05/ HDP 06-01/ HMP 09-01 RE: SB 18 Consultation Meeting w/ San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Discussion Items: 1. Pre-Excavation Agreement? 2. Tribal Monitoring? Attendees: Jason Goff, City of Carlsbad Shannon Werneke, City of Carlsbad Cami Mojado, San Luis Rey Band, Monitor P.J. Stonebumer, San Luis Rey Band, Monitor "Mary Lopez-Keifer, San Luis Rey Band, Council Attomey Ni-ciriri SA REG N DIEGO CqftM GIONAL AIRPO TY ORT AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 82776. SAN DIEGO. CA 92138-2776 619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG CITYOFCARLSBAD] MARl-2aii PLANNINGDEPARTMENT March 16,2011 Mr. Van Lynch City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination - Rancho Milagro Tract, City of Carlsbad; General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification to construct 19 single-family residential units; APN 209-060-61 and portion of209-060-23; McClellan-Palomar Airport - Airport Land U.se Compatibility Plan - PAL-11-002; Resolution No. 2011-0005 ALUC Dear Mr. Lynch: This letter is to notify the City of Carlsbad ("City") of the March 3, 2011, consistency determination that was made by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ("Authority" or "SDCRAA"), acting in its capacity as the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC"), for the referenced project. The ALUC has determined that the proposed project is conditionally consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"). A copy of Resolution 2011-0005 ALUC, approved by the ALUC on March 3, 2011, and memorializing the consistency determination, is enclosed for your information. The ALUC's determination that the Rancho Milagro Tract project is conditionally consistent with the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP was made consistent with the ALUC Policies and the State Aeronautics Act provisions (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §21670-21679.5), and was based on numerous facts and fmdings, including those summarized below: (1) The proposed project involves a general plan amendment and zone reclassification to construct 19 single-family residential units. (2) The proposed project is located outside thc 60 dB CNEL noise contour. The ALUCP identifies residential uses located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour as compatible with airport uses. (3) The proposed project is in compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection surfaces because the maximum potential height of structures does not exceed the 35 foot height limit as specified by the ALUCP. (4) The proposed project is located within Safety Zone 6. The ALUCP identifies residential uses located within Safety Zone6 as compatible with airport uses. SAN DIEGO ^ INTERNATIONAL iV AIRPORT Q Mr. Lynch Page 2 (5) The proposed project is located within the overflight notification area. The ALUCP requires that an overflight notification be recorded with the County Recorder for new residential land uses. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, an overflight notification must be recorded for the project with the County Recorder. (6) Therefore, if the proposed project contains the above-required conditions, the proposed project would be consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP. (7) This Board action is not a "project" as defined by the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pub. Res. Code Section 21065; and is not a "development" as defined by the Califomia Coastal Act Pub. Res. Code Section 30106. Please contact Mr. Ed Gowens at (619) 400-2244 if you have any questions regarding the issues addressed in this letter. Very tmly yours, Thella F. Bowens President/CEO TFB/EG Enclosures: Resolution 2011 -0005 ALUC cc: Amy Gonzalez, SDCRA, General Counsel Ron Bolyard, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Chris Schmidt, Caltrans, Division 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-0005 ALUC A RESOLUTION OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION TO CONSTRUCT 19 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT RANCHO MILAGRO TRACT, CITY OF CARLSBAD, IS CONDITIONALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE MCCLELLAN - PALOMAR AIRPORT - AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBIUTY PLAN. WHEREAS, the Board ofthe San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, acting in its capacity as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, pursuant to Section 21670.3 ofthe Public Utilities Code, was requested by the City of Carisbad to detennine the consistency of a proposed development project: General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification to Constmct 19 Single-Family Residential Units at Rancho Milagro Tract, City of Carisbad, which Is located within the Airport Infiuence Area (AIA) forthe McClellan-Palomar Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian (ALUCP), originally adopted on January 25,2010 and amended on March 4, 2010; and WHEREAS, the plans submitted to the ALUC for the proposed project indicate that it would involve a general plan amendment and zone reclassification to construct 19 single-family residential units; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would be located outside the 60 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour, and the ALUCP identifies residential uses located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour as compatible with airport uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is In compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection surfaces because the maximum potential height of structures does not exceed the 35 foot height limit as specified by the ALUCP; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within Safety 6, and the ALUCP identifies residential uses located within Safety Zone 6 as compatible with airport uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within the overflight notification area, and the ALUCP requires recordation of an overflight notiflcation with the County Reconder for new residential land uses; and Resolution No. 2011-0005 ALUC Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the ALUC has considered the information provided by staff, including Infonnation in the staff report and other relevant material regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the ALUC has provided an opportijnity for the City of Carlsbad and interested members ofthe public to present infonnation regarding this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ALUC determines that the proposed project: General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification to Construct 19 Single-Family Residential Units at Rancho Milagro Tract, City of Carisbad, is conditionally consistentwith the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP, which was adopted and amended In 2010, based upon the following facts and findings: (1) The proposed project Involves a general plan amendment and zone reclassification to construct 19 single-family residential units. (2) The proposed project is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. The ALUCP Identifies residential uses located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour as compatible with airport uses. (3) The proposed project is in compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection surfaces because the maximum potential height of structures does not exceed the 35 foot height limit as specified by the ALUCP. (4) The proposed project is located within Safety Zone 6. The ALUCP identifies residential uses located within Safety Zone6 as compatible with airport uses. (5) The proposed project is located within the overflight notification area. The ALUCP requires that an overflight notiflcation be recorded with the County Recorder for new residential land uses. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, an overflight notiflcation must be recorded for the project with the County Recorder. (6) Therefore, if the proposed project contains tiie above-required conditions, the proposed project would be consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport ALUCP. Resolution No. 2011-0005 ALUC Page 3 of 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED thai this ALUC detennination is not a "project" as deflned by the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Res. Code Section 21065, and is not a "development" as deflned by the Califomia Coastal Act, Pub. Res. Code Section 30106. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the ALUC for San Dlego County at a regular meeting this 3"^ day of March, 2011, by the Ibllowing vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Boland. Cox, Desmond, Gleason, Panknin, Robinson, Smiseic None Young ATTEST: MYRlRU IECTOR, TONYRi RUSSELL DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SERVICES/ AUTHORITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: BRETON K. LOBNER GENERAL COUNSEL Jason Goff From: Elizabeth Lucas [ELucas@dfg.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:55 AM To: Jason Goff Cc: Mike Grim; Van Lynch; David Mayer; David_Zoutendyk@fws.gov; Janet Stuckrath Subject: Rancho Milagro - consistency with the HMP Importance: High ** High Priority ** Jason, On Thursday, March 3, the Wildlife Agencies had a telephone conference to discuss our interpretation of the standards requirements for Zone 15 and how they apply to the Rancho Milagro project. Below are our conclusions on the two outstanding issues to be resolved for the Wildlife Agencies to find the project consistent with the City's HMP. 1. Mitigation The last paragraph on page D-73 of the HMP states: "...67% of coastal sage scrub shall be conserved overall within the Standards Areas...." In addition, page D-90 states: "...mitigation ratios apply whether a project is located inside or outside the preserve system. Projects which conserve at least 67% of habitat onsite shall not be subject to offsite mitigation." The Wildlife Agencies' October 17, 2007, letter on the HMP Consistency for Rancho Milagro, stated, "Within the 100-foot buffer of the northern drainage on site, any habitat that is not native or is degraded should be restored to native habitat suitable for the location. Therefore, the project's mitigation obligations are separate from this standard and should occur outside of the 100-foot buffer." However, this statement did not account for the credit afforded towards CSS mitigation by conformance with the 67% requirement. Therefore, the on-site preservation of approximately 70% (5.95 ac) of the coastal sage scrub on the Rancho Milagro site (both inside and outside the buffers) applies toward and fully satisfies the required 1:1 mitigation ratio (2.55 ac) for unoccupied gnatcatcher habitat. 2. No net loss of CSS within Zone 15 The Zone 15 standards, page D-79, include: "When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and require habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas." We still hold to our general interpretation of this standard - "Within the 100-foot buffer of the northern drainage on site, any habitat that is not native or is degraded should be restored to native habitat suitable for the location." We acknowledge that there may be projects whose biological conditions warrant an exception from this interpretation (e.g., contiguous biologically functional non-native grassland not posing a long-term management risk from invasive species), in which case we would apply some latitude in applying the Zone 15 standard as we interpret it. For Rancho Milagro, we still believe that all the non-native habitat within the buffer for the northern drainage should be restored to CSS. the no-net-loss standard, we agfee that ALL the acreage of the lands restored to CSS within the northern buffer should apply to the 2.55-acre no-net- loss obligation for CSS. We are hopeful that this allowance will eliminate or reduce the acreage needed for restoration within the (a) 0.01-ac, 0.03-ac, and 0.04-ac etc. slivers of NNG/AG along the western boundary qf the site adjacent to seed sources of the non-native habitat off site to the west, and (b) larger areas of NNG in the southern portion of the site. If the above comments are adhered to in addition to the other biological commitments for the Rancho Milagro project as described in the November 11, 2011, project-related biological technical report (Recon), the Wildlife Agencies concur that the project would be consistent with the HMP. We apologize for any confusion we have caused in our deliberations on this project. Please let us know if you have any questions about our conclusions. Thank you. Libby Lucas NCCP Program California Department of Fish and Game Phone: 858 467-4230 Fax: 858 467-4299 and Janet Stuckrath U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (760) 431-9440 ext. 270 (760) 431-5902 (fax) SAN DIEGO Cci^NTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 82776. SAN DIEGO. CA 92138-2776 619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG CITY OF CARLSBAD FEB 1 *y oni Oil PUNNiNCa LitPAR^ February 15, 2011 Mr. Van Lynch City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 Re: Airport Land Use Commission Determination General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification to construction a 19 single-family residential units at Rancho Milagro Tract, City of Carisbad; APN 209-060-61 and portion of 209-060-23 (for utility easement) Dear Mr. Lynch: As the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for San Diego County, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority acknowledges receipt of an application for a determination of consistency for the project described above. This project is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport ~ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). ALUC staff has reviewed your application and accompanying materials and has determined that it meets our requirements to complete a consistency determination. ALUC staff will proceed with review ofthe project and report its findings to the Airport Authority Board, acting as the ALUC, to issue a determination of consistency with the ALUCP within 60 days of the date of this letter. You will receive notice of the Airport Authority Board hearing which will consider your project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 400-2244 or egowens(gsan.org. Sincerely, Ed GoViJens Land Use Planner Airport Planning cc: Amy Gonzalez, SDCRAA, Director, Counsel Services Terry Barrie, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Chris Schmidt, Caltrans, Division 11 SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AC o FILE CQPY, , CITV OF MciAeA I mi V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov January 5, 2011 Jamison Nakaya Jack Henthorn & Associates PO Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO Dear Mr. Nakaya, There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. Please contact me at (760) 602-4643, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:bd Lyall Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Warren Lyall, 15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer James Weigand, Fire Prevention Liz Ketabian, Parks & Recreation Michael Elliott, PELA File Copy Data Entry k0 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 0&t)4/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-oV^ANCHO MILAGRO January 5, 2011 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: The Pianning Department completed its review of the November 30, 2010 resubmittal of the Rancho Milagro project exhibits. No further issues were raised. However, the following requests were submitted to outside agencies for which comments have not yet been returned: • December 8, 2010 - Application for Determination of Consistency with the McClellan- Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was submitted to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority's Airport Land Use Commission, • December 9, 2010 - Senate Bill 18 Tribal Consultation requests were sent out to the list of Native American tribes as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission in a letter dated December 9, 2010, and • December 17, 2010 - A request for determination of consistency with the City of Carisbad's Habitat Management Plan was submitted to the Wildlife Agencies along with revised the Biological Technical Report, project exhibits, and RECON letter dated 12/16/2010. We will notify you as comments are returned. Before the project can be scheduled for public hearing, any issues resulting from the above listed requests must be resolved, and an environmental assessment of the project must be completed and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once the environmental review process is complete, we will proceed with scheduling the project for the next available public hearing. Engineering: No further comments Fire Prevention: No further comments PELA: No further comments Parks (Liz Ketabian): No further comments CITY OF V CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov December 17, 2010 David Zoutendyk & Janet Stuckrath U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 David Mayer & Elizabeth Lucas California Department of Fish & Game 4949 Viewridge Drive San Diego, CA 92123 SUBJECT: CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR RANCHO MILAGRO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01) Dear Mr. Zoutendyk, Ms. Stuckrath, Mr. Mayer, and Ms. Lucas, The City of Carisbad is seeking your concurrence that the Rancho Milagro project is consistent with the City of Carisbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). This letter along with the associated attachments is intended to facilitate your continued review of the project and its application of the standards in the Cityof Carlsbad's HMP. As background, a similar request was submitted initially to your offices on August 8, 2007 followed by subsequent meetings and revisions to the project and biological technical reports. A second submittal was made on May 24, 2010 followed by two interagency meetings held on June 2, 2010 and August 4, 2010. Additional direction resulted from these meetings regarding allowed mitigation within the biological buffer areas, and in an email dated July 16, 2010 some additional clarifications regarding the Biological Technical Report (May 20, 2010) were requested from Elizabeth Lucas. Since that time, several steps have been taken to address the issues and clarify your concerns. In regards to restoration/enhancement of the 100 foot wide wetland buffer area (i.e., the northem drainage area), the applicant is aware of this requirement and understands it will be included as a mitigation measure made part of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. In regards to receiving mitigation credit within the 100 foot wetland buffer area, the applicant is no longer requesting mitigation credit within the buffer, except for 0.76 acres of Non-native Grassland (NNG), which they are proposing to convert to Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS). In regards to Ms. Lucas questions, Senior Biologist Wendy Loeffler of RECON has revised the Biological Technical Report to address your questions and has included a letter for clarification (see attached). We hope you agree with the revisions, and therefore are requesting that you provide written concurrence for the proposed hardline design for the Rancho Milagro project within 30 days. The project requires public review in accordance with CEQA guidelines and the City will commence preparation of a MND upon receipt of your concurrence. Following CEQA review, the City will formally consider the consistency of the project with the HMP in its findings regarding the project. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® FOR RANCHO MILAGRO RESIDENTIAL DE ^OPMENT PROJECT December 17, 2010 ^ Page 2 Please contact me at (760) 602-4643 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, JASON GOFF I Associate Planner JG:bd Attachments: 1. Revised Biological Technical Report, Rancho Milagro Study Area, RECON, revised 11/11/2010. 2. Project Exhibits, date stamped 11/30/2010. 3. RECON letter dated 12/16/2010. Jack Henthorn & Associates (Letter only) file 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego. CA 92101-2357 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 www. recon-us. com 525 W. Wetmore Rd, Suite 111 Tucson, AZ 85705 P 520.325.9977 F 520.293.3051 1412 W. Sth 1/2 Street Austin, TX 78703-5150 P 512.913.1200 F 512.474.1184 RECON A Company of Specialists December 16, 2010 Mr. Jack Henthom P.O. Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018-0237 Reference: Rancho Milagro: Response to Libby Lucas' Questions (RECON Number 3889-1B) Dear Mr. Henthom: Per your request, I have prepared a response to the questions and comments provided by Libby Lucas of the Califomia Department of Fish and Game via e-mail on July 10, 2010. 1. Regarding the coastal sage scmb (CSS) mitigation, both Attachment 4 and Table 9 of the Biological Technical Report: • Attachment 4, page 4. The report has been revised to read "Mitigation for impacts to the 2.56 acres of [CSS]..." • To clarify the CSS mitigation in Table 9: 5.95 acres (70 percent) is preserved in situ per the HMP Standards Areas requirements. In addition, the project proposes to convert 0.63 acre of agricultural lands, 0.11 acre of developed land, and 1.82 acres of non-native grasslands as stated in the Proposed Mitigation column. All totaled this equates to 8.51 acres of CSS upon completion of ali mitigation. 2. Regarding the calculation of 5.95 acres of CSS remaining on-site: • The calculation regarding CSS is based on the total amount of CSS within the project ownership of 8.51 acres. The HMP Standards Areas criteria requires 67 percent preservation of CSS, which equates to the preservation of 5.70 acres. The project will impact a total of 2.56 acres. This leaves 5.95 acres of CSS (undisturtsed and disturtaed) preserved, which exceeds the minimum preservation requirement. • In addition, 0.63 aae of agricultural lands, 0.11 of developed land, and 1.82 acre of non-native grassland will be converted to CSS. This equates to 2.56 acres of restored CSS to offset the prpject impacts and comply with the Zone 15 Planning Standard of no-net-loss of CSS. 3. Regarding the request for a full restoration plan: • Per your discussion with Mike Grim, a conceptual restoration plan as prepared is sufficient for the current entitlement purposes. Once an applicant is ready to move forward with actually developing a project, a full restoration plan will be prepared for the City, wildlife agencies, and wetland pennitting agencies as a requirement of subsequent approvals (e.g., wetland permits). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (619) 308-9333. Respectfully, 7endy Loeffler Senior Biologist 0) fi^iLed is-(9/id <^t^fW CITY OF ^ CARLSBAD Planning Division FILE COPY www.carlsbadca.gov December 9, 2010 SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 18 CONSULTATION RE: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO - CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA To Whom It May Concern: In accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 18, the purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation with the Native American tribes, as identitied by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in a letter dated December 9, 2010, regarding the proposed Rancho Milagro project located in the City of Carisbad, California. Project Description The project site is a 43.58-acre parcel located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carisbad, approximately one half-miles northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The property is currently accessed by a private dirt road extending east from Sunny Creek Road. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP) to subdivide and grade the subject parcel into 19 single-family residential lots with minimum lot areas of a !4-acre and six (6) open space lots. The residential development is clustered near the northern central portion of the subject parcel, with the southern portion of the site (16.32 acres), which is encumbered by an existing open space easement, remaining in open space. In addition to a Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP), the development proposal includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 06-03), which is proposing to change the existing land use designations ofthe property from RLM, OS, RH, C, and O to RLM and OS in order to 1) correct a niapping error, 2) to adjust the General Plan Land Use boundaries to coincide with the Sunny Creek Specific Plan land use type and density pattern, and 3) to preserve Open Space land in a configuration that coincides with the requirements of the City of Carisbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Cultural Resources Survey A cultural resources survey has been conducted for the proposed project by RECON in a report dated October 27, 2010 (RECON Number 3889.1 A). The results of the survey indicate that within a 0.5-mile radius ofthe project site there are five previously recorded sites (CA-SDI-9092, CA-SDI-9698, CA-SDI-9699, CA-SDI-9701 (SDM-W-601), and CA-SDI-14339H). A pedestrian survey of the area was conducted on August 2, 2010 by RECON archeologists, whereby three of those previously recorded sites (CA-SDI-9698, CA-SDI-9699, and CA-SDI-9701 (SDM-W- 601) were relocated on the Rancho Milagro project site. CA-SDI-9698 and CA-SDI-9699 are described as shell middens, and CA-SDI-9701 is described as a possible village site. As currently designed, the proposed project will impact all of CA-SDI-9698 and CA-SDI-9699, and part of CA-SDI-9701, thereby significantly impacfing historical resources as defined within 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® 4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 0BW4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 »^NCHO MILAGRO December 9, 2010 PAGE 2 Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, the preferred mitigafion for impacts is to redesign the project to avoid the three sites. However, because of other project constraints, avoidance is not possible. Therefore, in order to reduce impacts to a level below that of significance, RECON is recommending as mitigation, a data recovery program for CA- SDI-9698 and CA-SDI-9699, and for the part of CA-SDI-9701 that is within the project impact areas, all of which is to be completed under the direction of a qualified archeologist. A copy of the cultural resources study was sent to Ms. Carmen Majado of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on December 3, 2010. Notice of Completion The City of Carisbad is currently in the process of reviewing the proposed Rancho Milagro project. When the environment review for the project is complete, the City will issue a Notice of Completion in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Requested Deadline Pursuant to Government Code §65352.3(a)(2), please respond within 90 days (or sooner if possible) of receipt of this notice in the event your tribe wishes to consult with the City regarding this matter. Please contact: Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (760) 602-4643. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:sm Attachments: Location Map Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ^Fe^?aper See Instruction Sheet • for Easy Peel Feature^ I AVERY® 5160® Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Edwin Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona Road Lakeside, CA 92040 Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Mark Romero, Chairperson PO Box 270 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Ewilaapaayp Tribal Office Robert Pinto, Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA 91901 Pauma & Yuima Christobai C. Cevers, Chairperson PO Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 Rincon Band of Mission Indians Tiffany Wolf, Cultural & Environmental Department PO Box 68 Valley Center, CA 92082 lipay Nafion of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez, Spokesman PO Box 130 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas PO Box 775 Pine Valley, CA 91962 Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Danny Tucker, Chairperson 5459 Sycuan Road El Cajon, CA 92021 Inaja Band of Mission Indians Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson 2005 South Escondido Boulevard Escondido, CA 92025 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Co-Chair 1889 Sunset Drive Vista CA 92081 La Jolla Band of Mission Indians Attn: Rob Roy, Environmental Director 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Mel Vernon, Chairperson 1044 North Ivy Street Escondido, CA 92026 Etiquettes faciles a peler \a A\/CDV® c-icn® Spni de charaement Consultez la feuille H'irntriirtinn www.avery.com i-Rnn-r;n-AVFRY 1S-'09/2010 12:32 FAI 816 657 5390 NAHC Amerfcan Tribal Consuttation San Diago County ^ December 8,2010 121002/003 Barona Group Of the Capitan Qrande / Edwin Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona Road Diegueno Lakeside > CA 92040 sue@barona-nsn.90v (619)443-6612 Ewilaapaayp Tribal Office Robert Pinto, Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine , CA wmicklin@leaningrock.net (619) 445^15-voice Mesa Qrande Band of Missk>n Indians Mark Romero, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Diegueno Santa Ysabel > CA 92070 m»^andet>and(9msn.com (760) 782-3818 J Pauma & Yuima Christobai C. Devere, Chairperson Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 3^ Luiseno Pauma Valley > CA 92061 paumareservation@aol.com (760) 742-1289 San Pasqual Band of MIsston Indians j Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Diegueno Valiey Center . CA 92082 alieni@sanpa8qualband.oom (760) 749-3200 J Rincon BarKi of Mission Indians Tiffany Wolf, Cultural & Environmental Department P.O. Box 68 Luiseno Valley Center , OA 92082 counGil@rincontribe.org (760) 297-2632 lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgii Perez, Spokesman PO Box 130 Santa Ysabel , CA 92070 brandietayior@yahoo.com (760) 765-0846 J ^egueno Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission indlar^ Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Diegueno - Kwaaymii Pine Valley . CA 91962 (619)709-4207 Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation X Danny Tucker, Cfialrperson 5459 Sycuan Road El Cajon , CA 92021 ssliva@sycuan-nsn.gov J 619 445-2613 Ineja Band of Misskm Indians Rel)ecca Osuna, Spokesperson Diegueno/Kumeyaay 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Diegueno EsGondkJo > CA 92025 (760) 737-7628 Thto IM l> eurrent only M «f th* dptii «f tM» doeimiMil. DtoMMion c« tMs MM dOM not MMM any patM of aMu^ SoAoty Cods, iMSton ot ttw PuMe fteamiicOT CcMto and Tbia HM la appHcaMa oMiy for eoMMltadon wm Natlva AiMriM 15/09/2010 12:32 FAI 916 657 5390 NAHC 0003/003 ^•^Jve American Tribal Coneultatlon San Diego County December 8,2010 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Co-Chair 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno VIsta . CA 92081 (76(9 724-3172-FAX cmojado@sirmi8$ionindians. o^ I-a Joila Band of Mission Indians ATTN: Rob Roy,Environmental Director 22000 Highway 76 Luiseno / Pauma Valley , CA 92061 i^oila-sherry@aoi.com and (760) 742-3790 Mel Vemon, Chairperson San Luis Rey Band of Misskm Indians 1044 North Ivy Street / EsoondMo • CA 92026 ^ melveni@aol,eom Luiseno (760) 746-8692 (760) 703-1514-cell Thia Nat la eimonl only aa ot lha data o( thia doeumant safaiy coda^ SaeOon 5007.94 of tha PulNle l«aaoui«aa coda and Saetlon 6097.68 of tho Pufate TMa Mat appNeatiia onty Mr oenaullaiton wmt Nad«* AiiMrtean 12/09/2010 12:32 FAI 916 657 5390 NAHC iaoOl/003 NATIVE AMEI^ICAN HERrTAGE COMMISSION ««< GWITOL MALL. ROOM «« sunummotCAmu N)r<M«)«7-<»M MM SK* imiiLnKhsmaox Decembers, 2010 Mr. Jason Goff, Planner Cityof Carlsbaid 1635 Faraday Avenue Cartebad, CA 92008 Sent by FAX to 760402-8559 No. of Pages: 3 Re: Tribal Consultation Per Govemment Code ^ 65362.3. 653S2.4 and 65560 ^SB la/Saerad Landa File Search^ for Proiect- Qenewi Plan Ametmwent far the Rancho MMaoro Prolectr located in the Citv Qf Cartebad; San Dieae County. Califomia; Dear Mr. Goff: Government Code §65352.3, .4 and .5 requires local govemments fo consult with Caiifomia Native American tribes identitied by the l^e American Heritage Commission (NAHC) fbrthe purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cuib^ral places that might be impacted by a General Plan or Specific or modifications thereof. Attached is a Native American Tribal Consultatibn list of tribes with tredltional lands or cultural places located wtthin the requested plan, the Area of Potential Effect (APE). As a pan of consultation, the NAHC recommends that local governments conduct record searches through the NAHC and CaKfbmia Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) (Contact the OfTice of Historic Presen^on at (916) 445^7000 to find the nearest CHRis information Center) to determine if there are any recorded archaeologjcai sites are located within the area(s) effected by the proposed action, in the Califomia Historical Resources Infomnation System (CHRIS) inventory. The NAHC has knowledge of aichaeoiogicai sites from within the APE that are recorded in the CHRIS Inventory. A NAHC Sacred Lands File search was conducted based on the preyed site n information Included in your request; Native Amerioan cultural reeowrcee wera not idantiHed within the Araa of Potential Effect (APE). However, the absence of archaeological evidence does not mean that may not exist at the subsurface level when ground-breaifing activify is underway. Early consultation with the Nstive American tribes on the ^taohed list is the best way to find out if the proposed project may impact Native American cultural resources. Local govemments ahould be aware that reconjs searches do not prMlude the existence of and the discovery of saoed sites or a cultural place of spedal religious and cultural significance to totAi Native American tribes. And please note that a tribe or tribal members may be the only source of inftirmation regarding the existence of a sacfBcLsite or a| cultural place. se contact me at (916) 653-6251. '^Cc: State ClearinghoiJ Attachment: Native J erican Tribal Govemment Contacts 12/09/2010 12:32 FAI 916 657 5390 NAHC F^e American Tribal Consuttation W San Dlego County Decembers, 2010 21002/003 Barona Group of the Capitan Qrande Edwin Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona Road Diegueno Lakeskie > CA 92040 sue@t)arona-risn.gov (619) 443-6612 Mesa Qrande Band of Mission Indians Mark Romero, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Diegueno Santa Ysabel . CA 92070 mesa9randet>and@msn.com (760) 782-3818 EwNaapaayp Tribal Office Robert Pinto, Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine , CA wmicklin@leaningrock.net (619) 445-6315-voice Pauma & Yuima Christobai C. Devers, Chairperson Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma Valley • CA 92061 paumareservation@aol.com (760) 742-1289 San Pasqual Band of MIsston Indians Alien E. Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Diegueno Valley Center . CA 92082 atleni@sanpa8qualband.oom (760) 749-3200 Rincon Band of Mission Indians Ttffany Wolf, Cultural & Environmental Department P.O. Box 68 Luiseno Valiey Center > CA 92082 councii@rincontribe.org (760) 297-2632 lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez, Spokesman PO Box 130 Santa Ysabel . CA 92070 brandietayior@yahoo.com (760) 765-0845 Diegueno Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Diegueno - Kwaaymii Pine Valley > CA 91962 (619) 709-4207 Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Danny Tucker, Chairperson 5459 Sycuan Road E) Cajon , CA 92021 ssliva@sycuan-nsn.gov 619 445-2613 Ineja Band of Misston Indians Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson Diegueno/Kumeyaay 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Diegueno Escondido > CA 92025 (760) 737-7628 Thto liat la eun«nt only aa of tha data of thia doeumant OatfibuUon ot tttU Uat does not r«Mv« any peraon of otatutory responaitMtty as (Mhntd In S«ctk>n 7050.$ of ttw HMKh arxf aotoiy Cod^ Saetlon 80S7.94 ot the PuMie RcaoufMa Coda and Baotton 5097.96 of tha Publte ThM list Ift appiicabt* only for conaultatlon with Nsttv« AineHcan tubes unoor Oovanmant Cods Section „.„^ 121003/003 12/09/2010 12:32 FAI 916 657 5390 NAHC ^ f^ive American Tribal Consuttation Li Ck A. ^_ San Diego County i;)ecember8, 2010 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Co-Chair 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista > CA 92081 (760) 724-2172-FAX cniojado@8irmi8$ionindians. org La Jolla Band of Mission Indians ATTN: Rob Roy,Environmental Director 22000 i-iighway 76 Luiseno Pauma Valley » CA 92061 lajoila-sherry@aoi.com and (760) 742.3790 i\/lel Vernon, Chairperson San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1044 North Ivy Street Escondklo • CA 92026 melvem@aoLcom Luiseno (760) 746-8692 (760) 703-1614-ceil Thia Nat la eurrent only aa of Itia dM of tMa doeufflMit Dtstribvtton or tItIa llat does not raitav* any paraon ot statutory responsibUity oa deflncci in Section 7050.5 at ttio Haonn and Safety coda, saeOon S0S7J94 of tha PuMte Roaeureea coda and Section 8097.98 of the Public Racouraaa eoda^ This Kst ie appllcatiie oMy wr oanauitatkxi with lilMva Anierlean trlbaa undor Qov^^ U.S. ru .. n~ @ m a-r^ m ru a a C3 a ru ru m 0-a m o Postal Service™Deliveiy^oii^ate"i{eceipt Postage and Delivery Confimiatlon fees must be pald^||^ mailing. Article Sent To: (to Iw completed liy niallep To 6^-^?^ ^ POSTAL CUSTOMER: Keep this receipt Fbr Inquiries: Access internet web site at wwvKosps.com* or call 1-800-222-1811 CHECK ONE (POSTAL USE ONLY) [Qpngfi^Mairsenflce nn First-Class MalPparoel n Package Services parcel (See Reverse) PSForm152, May 2002 City of Carlsbad SHIPPING REQUEST DATE: 12/9/10 STAFF CONTACT: JASON GOFF LOCATION OF ITEM TO BE SHIPPED: MAILROGM (Mailroom, IT area, etc.) SHIPPING PREFERENCE: TRACK-ABLE/PROOF OF DELIVERY (Fed Ex, UPS, Eagle Freight, etc) TYPE OF SERVICE: ANY (Priority Ovemight, Overnight, 2 day, 3 day, etc) PACKAGING: NO PREFERENCE (Envelope, Letter Pak, our packaging, etc.) IF OTHER THAN ENVELOPE OR LETTER PAK PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: WEIGHT: DIMENSIONS: H L W SHIP TO: CONTACT NAME: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION COMPANY NAME: SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADDRESS: PO BOX 82776. SAN DIEGO. CA 92138-2776 PHONE: PAYMENT INFORMATION: El CED/PLANNING • VENDOR (Department & Account No.) ACCOUNT #: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06- 01/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO httpV/cityweb/uploadedFiles/Purchasing/StiippingRequestFomi.doc Rev. 12/09/2010 1635 FAIRADAY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 With Tracking Numbers Witli Address Includes All Carriers Date/Time Operator Account Audit - Account 15 CITY OF CARLSBAD Mactiine# Class a Account*: 15 Name: Planning Department 12/09/2010 4:27:05 PM Marie Koo 210171 1 st Class Letter PkgID: 201 Trk#: 70093410000182254349 12/09/2010 4:29:04 PM Marie Koo 210171 Priority Mail PkgID: 204 Trk#: 03093220000237439209 From: 12/09/2010 To: 12/09/2010 MCM G2 Licensed to: CITY OF CARLSBAD Page: 1 ZIP/Zone Lb/Oz Pes Base Rt Total Soc Svc Total Oth Ctias Total Total PerPc Base Rt PerPc Soc Svc PerPc Ott) Ctia Qt!3s 921/ 1 0/ 1.4 21 8.4 .61 1 5.70 .61 5.70 5.10 .70 .00 .00 .00 5.71 .00 6.40 Account Subtotals: Pieces Carrier Chas other Chas Total Chas Grand Totals 12.11 .00 12.11 U /WCMG2 Version 8.34.03 12/09/2010 4:29:44PI\/I c Q FILE COPY CITY OF VXARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov December 9, 2010 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Airport Land Use Commission PO Box 82776 San Diego, CA 92138-2776 SUBJECT: DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY - GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06- 04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO - CITY OF CARLSBAD Dear Airport Land Use Commission: Please find enclosed an "Application for Determination of Consistency" regarding the Rancho Milagro residential development project being proposed within the City of Carlsbad north of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. The project site is a 43.58-acre (1,898.344 sq. ft.) parcel (APN 209- 060-61 and portion of 209-060-23) located approximately one half-miles northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP) for the pi-oposed development of a subdivision consisting of 19 single-family residential lots with minimum lot areas of Yi-acre and six (6) open space lots. Project Density is 1.14 dwelling units per acre. While no homes (structures) are proposed at this time, zoning will allow for a maximum building height of 35 ft. The development proposal requires the following discretionary permits: (1) General Plan Amendment 06-03 changes the existing land use designations of the property from RLM, OS, RH, C, and O to RLM and OS in order to 1) correct a mapping error, 2) to adjust the General Plan Land Use boundaries to coincide with the Sunny Creek Specific Plan land use type and density pattern, and 3) to preserve Open Space land in a configuration that coincides with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP); (2) Zone Change 06-02 rezones the existing zoning classifications of the property from R-1- 20,000, OS, and L-C to R-1-0.5-Q and OS in order to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designations and Sunny Creek Specific Plan; (3) Tentative Tract Map 06-04 subdivides the 43.58-acre parcel into 19 single-family residential lots, four (4) open space conservation lots, and two (2) homeowner's association maintained open space lots in conformance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Titie 20 ofthe C.M.C); (4) Floodplain Special Use Permit 06-05 is required to regulate development (i.e., installation of a new sewer and storm drain line) within an area of special flood hazard 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 750-602-4500 F 750-502-8559 @ •f ^^^^ GPA'<)«i-03/ZC 06-02/CT OTP64/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-Ot^RANCHO MILAGRO December 9, 2010 Paqe 2 (i.e., Agua Hedionda Creek) in accordance with the City's Flood Plain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 ofthe C.M.C); (5) Hillside Development Permit 06-01 is required to regulate hillside grading in accordance with the City's Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.90 ofthe C.M.C); and (6) Habitat Management Plan Permit 09-01 is required to regulate development in accordance with the City's Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the C.M.C). Review of the project against the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adopted January 25, 2010, Amended March 4, 2010) revealed the following: Project site is located outside of the 60-65 dbCNEL noise contour per Exhibit III-l - Compatibility Policy Map: Noise; • Project site is within the Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone per Exhibit III-2 - Compatibility Policy Map: Safety. Please note, this residential project has a density of 1.14 dwelling units per acre; • Project site is within the 481' MSL horizontal surface elevation contour of Exhibit III-3 - Compatibility Policy Map: Part 77 Airspace Protection. Please note the highest pad elevation for the proposed project is 215' above MSL (Lot 1). While no residential homes or structures are proposed at this time, the zoning per the Sunny Creek Specific Plan will allow for a maximum building height of 35 ft. With a 35 ft. maximum building height, a future home on Lot 1 could conceivably reach an elevation of 250' above MSL at the highest point on the project site, which is 81 ft. below,the surface elevation of the airport runway (331' MSL) and 231 ft. below the horizontal surface elevation contour (481' MSL) ofthe airport plan; • Project site is within the Overflight Notification Area per Exhibit 111-4 - Compatibility Policy Map: Overflight; • Project site is within Review Area #1 of the Airport Influence Area per Exhibit 111-5 - Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area, and • Project is located outside of the Avigation Easement Area, but is within the Overflight Notification Area per Exhibit III-6 - Compatibility Policy Map: Avigation Easement Area and Overflight Notification Areas. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 602-4643. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:sm FILE COPY City of Carlsbad DATE: 12/9/10 SHIPPING REQUEST STAFF CONTACT: JASON GOFF LOCATION OF ITEM TO BE SHIPPED: MAILROOM (Mailroom, IT area, etc.) SHIPPING PREFERENCE: TRACK-ABLE/PROOF OF DELIVERY (Fed Ex, UPS, Eagle Freight, etc) TYPE OF SERVICE: ANY (Priority Ovemight, Overnight, 2 day, 3 day, etc) PACKAGING: NO PREFERENCE (Envelope, Letter Pak, our packaging, etc.) IF OTHER THAN ENVELOPE OR LETTER PAK PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: WEIGHT: SHIP TO: DIMENSIONS: H W CONTACT NAME: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION COMPANY NAME: SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADDRESS: PO BOX 82776. SAN DIEGO. CA 92138-2776 PHONE: PAYMENT INFORMATION: ^ CED/PLANNING (Department & Account No.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 01/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO • VENDOR ACCOUNT #: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06- http://cityweb/uploadedFiles/Purchasing/ShippingRequestForm.doc Rev. 12/09/2010 c o FILECOPY ViCARLSBAD CITY OF Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov December 3, 2010 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Attn: Carmen Mojado 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92081 SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 18 CONSULTATION RE: RANCHO MILAGRO - GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01/HMP 09-01, CITY OF CARLSBAD,, CALiFORNIA ' ' Dear Ms. Mojado: In accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 18, the purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians regarding the proposed Rancho Milagro project located in the City of Carlsbad, California. Project Description The project site is a 43.58-acre parcel located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, approximately one half-miles northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The property is currently accessed by a private dirt road extending east from Sunny Creek Road. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP) for the proposed development of a subdivision consisting of 19 single-family residential lots with minimum lot areas of a Yz-acre and six (6) open space lots. The residential development is clustered near the northern central portion of the 43.58-acre parcel, with the southern portion of the site (16.32 acres), which is encumbered by an existing open space easement, remaining in open space. The deveiopment proposal will require the foliowing discretionary permits: (1) General Plan Amendment 06-03 changes the existing land use designations of the property from RLM, OS, RH, C, and O to RLM and OS in order to 1) correct a mapping error, 2) to adjust the General Plan Land Use boundaries to coincide with the Sunny Creek Specific Plan land use type and density pattern, and 3) to preserve Open Space land in a configuration that coincides with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP); (2) Zone Change 06-02 rezones the existing zoning classifications of the property from R-1- 20,000, OS, and L-C to R-1-0.5-Q and OS in order to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designations and Sunny Creek Specific Plan; (3) Tentative Tract Map 06-04 subdivides the 43.58-acre parcel into 19 single-family residential lots, four (4) open space conservation lots, and two (2) homeowner's association maintained open space lots in conformance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 ofthe C.M.C); 1535 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-502-4600 F 760-502-8559 ® .iRAilCHO MILAGRO - GPM)6-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05«6p 06-01/HMP 09-01 December 2, 2010 PAGE 2 (4) Floodplain Special Use Permit 06-05 is required to regulate development (i.e., installation of a new sewer and storm drain line) within an area of special flood hazard (i.e., Agua Hedionda Creek) in accordance with the City's Flood Plain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 ofthe C.M.C); (5) Hillside Development Permit 06-01 is required to regulate hillside grading in accordance with the City's Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.90 ofthe C.M.C); and (6) Habitat Management Plan Permit 09-01 is required to regulate development in accordance with the City's Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the C.M.C). I r' Cultural Resources Survey A cultural resources survey has been conducted for the proposed project by RECON in a report dated October 27, 2010 (RECON Number 3889.1 A). The results of the survey indicate that within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site there are five previously recorded sites (CA-SDI-9092, CA-SDI-9698, CA-SDI-9699, CA-SDI-9701 (SDM-W-601), and CA-SDI-14339H). A pedestrian survey of the area was conducted on August 2, 2010 by RECON archeologists, whereby three of those previously recorded sites (CA-SDI-9698, CA-SDI-9699, and CA-SDI-9701 (SDM-W- 601) were relocated on the Rancho Milagro project site. CA-SDI-9698 and CA-SDI-9699 are described as shell middens, and CA-SDI-9701 is described as a possible village site. As currently designed, the proposed project will impact all of CA-SDI-9698 and CA-SDI-9699, and part of CA-SDI-9701, thereby significantly impacting historical resources as defined within Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, the preferred mitigation for impacts is to redesign the project to avoid the three sites. However, because of other project constraints, avoidance is not possible. Therefore, in order to reduce impacts to a level below that of significance, RECON is recommending as mitigation, a data recovery program for CA- SDI-9698 and CA-SDI-9699, and for the part of CA-SDI-9701 thaf is within the project impact areas, all of which is to be completed under the direction of a qualified archeologist. A copy of the RECON Cultural Resources Survey is enclosed for review. Notice of Completion The City of Carlsbad is currently in the process of reviewing the proposed Rancho Milagro project. When the environmental review for the project is complete, the City will issue a Notice of Completion in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Requested Deadline Pursuant to Government Code §65352.3(a)(2), please respond within 90 days (or sooner if possible) of receipt of this notice in the event your tribe wishes to consult with the City regarding this matter, please contact Jason Goff, Associate Planner, City of Carisbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (760) 602-4643. .Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:sm Enclosures: 1. Location Map - Rancho Milagro Project Boundary 2. RECON Cultural Resources Survey Report (RECON Number 3889.1 A) dated October 27, 2010. tmiUOi-^ijjO FILE COPY LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRIBAL CONSULTATION LIST REOUEST NATFS^ AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-4082 (916) 657-5390-Fax DATE: December 3. 2010 PROJECTTITLE: Ranclio Milagro LEADAGENCY: Citv ofCarlsbad CONTACT PERSON; Jason Goff PHONE: (760) 602-4643 STREET ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue CITY: Carlsbad Specific Area Subject To Proposed Action Carlsbad, CA, San Diego County APN: 209-060-61 FAX: (760) 602-8559 ZIP: 92008 Q General Plan Element O Specific Plan • Specific Plan Amendment • Master Plan Local Action Type: O General Plan 13 General Plan Amendment CU Pre-plarming Outreach Activity Project Description: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (CT), Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP), Hillside Development Permit (HDP), and Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP) for the development of a proposed subdivision consisting of 19 residential lots with a minimum lot area of V2 acre and six (6) open space lots. The residential development is clustered near the northem central portion of the 43.58-acre parcel. The southem portion of the site (16.32 acres) is encumbered by an existing open space easement. The open space lots will have new Zoning and General Plan Land Use designations of OS (Open Space). The residential lots will retain the existing RLM (Residential Low-Medium) General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning designations will be changed fi-om R-1-20,000 to R-l-O.5-Q single-family residential (Vi acre minimum lot size). Location Map - Attached NAHC Use Onfy Date Received: Date Completed_ Native American Tribal Consultation lists are only applicable for consulting with Califomia Native American Tribes per Govemment Code Section 65352.3. F^k Henthorn & Associa^ RO. Box 237 Carlsbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 Page 1 of 5 November 23, 2010 Mr. Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 NOV 3 0 2010 CITYOFCARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT Re: GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HIVIP 09-01 - Rancho IVIilagro Revisions to Biological Technical Report Dear Mr. Goff: The information below is to inform you ofthe changes that have been made to the Revised Biological Technical Report dated November 11, 2010. If not otherwise noted, the underlined information below is language that has been added and the strikethrough language has been deleted. Revisions to Revised Biological Technical Report Summarv of Finding Section. 5^*^ paragraph. The following language has been revised as noted by underline and strikethrough. "Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are 2.56 acres, which represent a preservation of 5.95 acres (70%) of the total all coastal sage scrub present on site within the total project ownership." Summarv of Finding Section. Sth paragraph. The following language has been added. "In addition, the proposed active conversion of agricultural lands to coastal sage scrub (and associated mitigation credit) was removed from within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Additional active restoration of agricultural fields and non-native grassland on the slopes south of development footprint was added to ensure the correct mitigation ratio is achieved on-site." Section 1.0. 3>^^ paragraph. The following language has been revised as noted by underline and strikethrough. "The southern 16.3 acres have been designated as open space for the purposes of providing wetland mitigation credit a portion of which makes up a mitigation and restoration aroa established in conjunction with wetland habitat impacts associated with the adjacent Terraces at Sunny Creek development (see Figure 3)." Section 1.0. last paragraph. The following language has been added. "In addition, the proposed active conversion of agricultural lands to coastal sage scrub (and associated mitigation credit) was removed from within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Additional active restoration of agricultural fields and non-native grassland on the slopes south of development footprint was added to ensure the correct mitigation ratio is achieved on-site." 1902 Wright Place, Ste 200, Carisbad, CA 92008 Page 2 of5 Section 4.3.1. 3'^'' paragraph. The following language has been revised as noted by underline and strikethrough. "Impacts to 2.56 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub ore 2.56 acres, which represent a preservation of 5.95 acres (70%) of the total all coastal sage scrub present OB- sitewithin the total ownership. This is in compliance with the goals for overall preservation of 67 percent of coastal sage scrub within the standards area, as identified in the HMP (City of Carlsbad 2004a)." Section 5.0. The following language has been added. "In response to discussion with the City and wildlife agencies, the previously proposed active conversion of agricultural lands to coastal sage scrub (and associated mitigation credit) was removed from within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Additional active restoration of agricultural fields and non-native grassland on the slopes south of development footprint was added to ensure the correct mitigation ratio is achieved on-site. This is described in further detail below." Section 5.1.1.3rd paragraph. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "A conceptual restoration plan has been prepared and is provided in Attachment 3. A total of 0.21 acre of riparian habitat is proposed for restoration in the northern portion of the site. This will be accomplished through the conversion of 0T49 0.21 acre of agricultural fields and 0.02 acre of non native grassland." Section 5.1.2. first paragraph. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "Impacts to 2.56 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub that is not occupied by California coastal gnatcatcher would be mitigated by the preservation of 5.95 acres (70%) of the total aH coastal sage scrub present onsito within the total proiect ownership. This Is in compliance with the goals for overall preservation of 67 percent of coastal sage scrub within the standards area, as identified in the HMP (City of Carisbad 2004a). In addition, the project is required to meet the HMP standards area goal of no-net-loss for coastal sage scrub. A total of 2.56 acres of coastal sage scrub will be created within the open space on-site through conversion of 4T440J53 acres of agricultural lands, 0.11 acre of developed land, and irl91.82 acres of non-native grassland." Section 5.1.4. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "Impacts to non-native grassland will be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio. Non-native grassland will either be impacted by development or converted through restoration of coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat for a total impact of 2,^0-2.92 acres. This Impact will be mitigated at 0.5:1 mitigation ratio through on-site preservation of 4T4©-L46 acre of non-native grassland in the study area." Section 5.1.5. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "Impacts to agricultural land will be mitigated through the payment of a fee to the City of Carisbad. The final parameters ofthis fee program will be determined by the City of Carisbad. A total of 11.7710.96 acres of agricultural field will be converted to either residential development and ancillary facilities or native restored habitat." Page 3 of5 Section 5.5. 5*^ paragraph. The following language has been added as the last paragraph. "Lastly, the proposed active conversion of agricultural lands to coastal sage scrub (and associated mitigation credit) was removed from within the 100-foot wetland buffer. Additional active restoration of agricultural fields and non-native grassland on the slopes south of development footprint was added to ensure the correct mitigation ratio is achieved on-site." Attachment 3. paragraph 2. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "The impacts to coastal sage scrub will be mitigated through the preservation of 70 percent of the coastal sage scrub habitat on-site and through creation of 2.56 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub within the 100 foot wotiand buffer open space lots on-site to ensure a no-net-loss ofthis sensitive habitat." Attachment 3. paragraph 3. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "The remaining 0.14 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) will be conducted within the buffer and will serve to connect the restoration outside of the buffer to the existing drainage. and-Restoration of 2.56 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub can bo restored would consist of bv converting agricultural fields, developed lands, and non-native grasslands into native habitat." Attachment 4. Section 1. paragraph 3. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. "This northern area will be maintained as open space, including 1.21 acres of existing coastal sage scrub, and will be restored to include an additional 2SS-1.87 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.21 acre of riparian habitat, which further connects the Linkage Area C through hardline open space to Cantarini Ranch to the north." Attachment 4. Section 2. paragraph 2. The following language has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. 'The project site is not within Linkage Area C and thus impacts to coastal sage scrub are mitigated on-site as to meet the no-net-loss standard. Impacts to 2.56 acres of coastal sage scrub will be mitigated through the preservation of 5.95 acres of coastal sage scrub over the whole site within the total proiect ownership and the conversion of 2.56 acres of agricultural fields, developed land, and non-native grassland to coastal sage scrub within the northern and southern open space lots to coastal sago scrub." Attachment 4. Section 2. paragraph 3. The following language has been revised as noted by underline and strikethrough. "In addition, the southern open space lots (Lot #21 and Lot #20 and a portion of Lot #23) includes several patches of coastal sage scrub to be preserved and several patches of agricultural fields and non-native grassland to be restored for a total of 4:93 5.61 acres of coastal sage scrub in preserved open space." Table 9. See attached Table 9, which has been revised as noted by underiine and strikethrough. Page 4 of 5 TABLE 9 MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Total Available Project Required Mitigation Impact Mitigation Mitigatio Area On- Vegetation Community s Ratio n site' Proposed Mitigation Freshwater marsh 3:1 0.21 Wetland community impacts will be mitigated as described l^elow in the Jurisdictional Areas secticm. Southem willow scrub Mule fat scrub 0.05 3:1 3:1 0.15 0.85 0.04 Wetland community impacts will be mitigated as described l^elow in the Jurisdictional Areas secticm. Sycamore/oak woodland 0.02 3:1 0.06 0.09 Wetland community impacts will be mitigated as described l^elow in the Jurisdictional Areas secticm. 67% On-Site: Preservation of 70% of CSS on- preservatio n/ site. Conversion of h4€0.63 acres of Diegan and disturbed coastal 2.56 preservatio n/ 5.70^ 5.95^ agricultural lands, 0.11 of developed land. sage scrub^ 2.56 1:1 (no-net- loss) 5.70^ 5.95^ and ^74^1.82 acre of non-native grasslands sage scrub^ 1:1 (no-net- loss) to achieve no-net-loss of coastal sage 1:1 (no-net- loss) scrub within Zone 15. Coast live oak woodland 0.02 3:1 0.06 1.03 On-Site: Preservation of 0.06 acre. Non-native grassland 4r4«1.4 6 On-Slte: Preservation of 4r401.46 acre (includingr impacts from 0.5:1 4r4«1.4 6 2r201.48 for dired project impacts and proposed restoration) 4r4«1.4 6 conversion related to restoration. Eucalyptus woodland ~ Fee Fee 0.06 Payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee for Agricultural fields (incl. impacts Fee Fee 0:391.10 an amount as determined by the City from proposed restoration) 0.96 Fee Fee 0:391.10 of Carlsbad City Council. TOTAL (includes impacts from proposed restoration) 4^:621 6.53 7.43/Fee 10.7281 Jurisdictional Areas USACE Jurisdiction All jurisdictional water impacts are Wetland 0.05 3:1 0.15 regulated by a no-net-loss policy. Mitigation should include on-site Non-Wetland Waters of 0.001 creation of habitat at a 1:1 ratio. The U.S. 1:1 0.001 remaining mitigation should be TOTAL USACE 0.051 0.151 accomplished through on-site creation or enhancement of degraded habitat. CDFG Jurisdiction The conceptual plan includes creation Riparian' 0.07 3:1 0.21 of suitable riparian habitat on-site through conversion of QAQ 0.21 acre Streambed 0.001 1:1 0.001 of agricultural fields and 0.02 acre of non-native grassland. Mitigation of the TOTAL CDFG 0.071 0.211 CDFG impacts will encompass TOTAL CDFG 0.071 0.211 USACE and wetland community mitigation. ^Acres remaining within study area available for mitigation, after excluding the development impact area and the area dedicated as open space for wetland mitigation from development of Terraces at Sunny Creek. Acreage based on tetal all CSS present on site within the total proiect ownership. ^Acreage overiaps and includes USACE jurisdictional wetland acreage. Page 5 of 5 This letter and the Revised Biological Technical Report are being resubmitted to the City of Carisbad for review and approval. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or require additional information forthis project. Sincerely, Henthorn orn & Associ^ttes ^ cc: Lyall Enterprises, Inc. file J^k Henthom & AssociaQ; PO. Box 237 Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 Page 1 of 5 November 23, 2010 Mr. Jason Goff Associate Planner CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Re: GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HIVIP 09-01 - Rancho Milagro 7*^ Plan Check Review Comments (dated May 27, 2010) - Response Letter Dear Mr. Goff: In response to the plan check review comments for the above-referenced project, the following are our responses: COMMENT LETTER (5/27/10) Planning Comment 1: The project site is located within Safety Zone 6 of the newly adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. We are required to send the project to the San Diego Airport Authority for review and concurrence. To complete this application, we will need one (1) complete set of the revised plans, a copy of the most recent Preliminary Title Report, and a copy of the assessor's page showing the subject parcel. Response 1: One complete set of the revised plans, a copy of the Preliminary Title Report, and a copy of the assessor's page has been provided with this submittaL Comment 2: With respect to the Fire Suppression Zone, please coordinate the Tentative Map base (Sheet 1-11) and the Conceptual Landscape Plans so they are consistent. Response 2: Done. Comment 3: On Sheet 1 of the Tentative Map, please update the Land Use Summary in the upper left hand corner to show a total of 25 lots. This section should reflect the following breakdown of the total number of lots: 19 Single-family, 4 Open Space/Conservation, and 2 HOA maintained Open Space. Response 3: Land Use Summary on Sheet 1 has been revised. 1902 Wright Place, Ste 200, Carisbad, CA 92008 Page 2 of5 Comment 4: Please address the attached set of redlined plans and revise accordingly. If you have any questions or need clarification on any of the items please do not hesitate to contact me at 760-602-4643. Response 4: Revisions have been made to the Tentative Map, Hillside Development, and Preliminary Landscape Plans, to address the redlines and comments. Engineering Comments 1, 2, 3,4,5,6. Responses 1,2,3,4,5,6. All comments have been rescinded by Gty Engmeering staff at the request of Jack Henthorn & Associates, subsequent to the May 27,2010, comments being published. Thus, no action has been taken in relation to these comments. Parks Department ILiz Ketabian) Comment 1: On Sheet 5 of the Landscape Plans, please revise the references in the text of Detail G so that they relate to this sheet (Sheet 5) as opposed to details on Sheet 6. Please see the enclosed set of redlines for clarification. Response 1: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans for revisions. Landscape Consultant (PELA) REPEAT COMMENTS Comment IB: All HOA maintained aroas should uso reclaimod wator as it appears to be available Ploase revise wator use plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. 6*** Review. The applicant has now shown all landscape aroas to bo irrigatod with rocyclod wator. Typically only HOA maintained aroas are specified to be irrigated with recycled water.—Privately maintained aroas typically use potable.—Ploaso revise plans to show potable water use for all privato lots and recycled for all HOA maintained areas.—Ploaso clarify and revise reclaimed water plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. 7**^ Review: Plans have been forwarded to PWM&O for review. Any comments will be returned to the applicant. Response IB: As of this date no comments have been received. Comment ID: Please see Flre Comment No. 7 below and revise plans accordingly. 7* Review: See New Comments that address previous fire comments. Response ID: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans for revisions. Page 3 of 5 NEW COMMENTS Comment IE: Per previous Fire Department comment #1, Lot 1 is to include the standard 60' fuel treatment area per the City of Carisbad standards. Please show the 60' (i.e. 20'-A-l, 20'-A-2, and 20'-A-3) fire suppression zones. Response IE: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans and Manitou Engineering Co. plans for revisions. Plans have been revised to show the Gff Fire Protection Zones. Comment 2E: Please remove trees from fire suppression area A-l. Response 2E: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans for revisions. Trees have been removed. Comment 3E: Per previous Fire Department comment #2, Lot 4 is to have a 6' high masonry wall at the top of slope along the property boundary. The wall appears to be located at the bottom of the slope. Please verify the desired location with the Fire Department and relocate as appropriate. Response 3E: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans and Manitou Engineering Co. plans for revisions. Per the letter from the Fire Department dated June 7,2010 item # 2, the 6 foot high masonry wall at the bottom of the slope is acceptable along with a 40 foot proposed fuel treatment area. Comment 4E: Per previous Fire Department comment #2, a 50' A-l fire suppression width is required on Lot 4. Please revise as appropriate. Response 4E: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans and Manitou Engineering Co. plans for revisions. Per the letter from the Fire Department dated June 7,2010 item # 2, the 40 foot proposed fuel treatment area is acceptable. Comment 5E: Please label the fire suppression zone on Lot 7 as A-l. Response SE: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans and Manitau Engineenng Co. plans for revisions. Comment 7E: Please remove shrubs from the fire suppression zone A-l legend Response 7E: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans for revisions. Comment 8E: This area is shown to be maintained by the Rancho Milagro open space manager. It is also shown to be irrigated with recycled water. Will there be a separate recycled water meter required to separate this from the Rancho Milagro HOA maintained areas? Please address. Response BE: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans for revisions. See new note on sheet 2. Comment 9E: Please address landscaping of the bio-filtration detention area and add this area to the recycled water use map. Response 9E: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. response letter. Page 4 of 5 CMWD Comment 1: Please revise plans to irrigate parkways with potable water where there are domestic meters located in the parkway. Response 1: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. response letter. Fire Department Comment 1: Please show a 60 foot fuel treatment area for Lot 1 as requested in the last issues letter dated December 17, 2009 (see Issue Item No. 1).. Response 1: See Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans and Manitou Engineering Co. plans for revisions. The 60 foot fuel treatment area is shown for Lot 1. Comment 2: Please note that for Lot 4, the proposed six (6) foot high masonry wall is acceptable at the bottom of slope as is shown on the plans. Furthermore, with the inclusion of the wall at the bottom of slope, the 40 foot of proposed fuel treatment area will be adequate for this lot, as the wall will adjoin a 60 foot fuel treatment zone on Lot 3 and the lower portion of Lot 4. However, this lot will be noted as restricted, perthe notes included in the plans. Response 2: Comment acknowledged. Comment 3: The existing callouts on pages 3 and 4 of the preliminary landscape plans (see redlines) are inaccurate. Please revise using comments generated from the December 15, 2009 meeting with Jim Weigand as Fire Marshal. Response 3: The notes have been revised to reflect to latest date and the name of the Fire Marshal has been changed to Fire Department Representative. Additional Revisions 1. Revised Lot Area Table on Sheet 2 of Manitou Engineering Co. plan. Revised callout of pad areas on respective lot according to revisions of Lot Area Table. 2. Revised Fuel Protection Zones on Lot 5 of Manitou Engineering Co. plan to meet the standard 3 zones at 20' each. 3. Revised Fuel Protection Zones on Lot 6 of Manitou Engineering Co. plan to meet the standard 3 zones at 20' each. 4. Revised Fuel Protection Zones on Lot 7 of Manitou Engineering Co. plan to match Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. plans. Page 5 of 5 This response letter and the attached plans are being resubmitted to the City of Carisbad to address the above review comments. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or require additional information for this project. imcerely, iakk Henthorn & Henthorn cc: Lyall Enterprises, Inc. file o Cancb GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-03/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 - Ral^ho Milagro November 4, 2010 7* Plan Check Review Comments (dated May 27, 2010) - Response Letter Page 1 of 4 GMP# 04-106-00 November 4, 2010 RECEIVED Mr. Jason Goff Associate Planner CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 NOV 3 0 2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Re: GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 - Rancho Milagro 7* Plan Clieck Review Comments (dated May 27, 2010) - Response Letter GMP# 04-106-00 Dear Mr. Gofif: In response to the plan check review comments for the above-referenced project, the foUovnuig are our responses: COMMENT LETTER (5/27/10) Planning Comment 2: With respect to the Fire Suppression Zone, please coordinate the Tentative Map base (Sheet 1-11) and the Conceptual Landscape Plans so they are consistent. Response 2: Done. Parks Department fLiz Ketabian) Comment 1: On Sheet 5 ofthe Landscape Plans, please revise the references in the text of Detail G so that they relate to this sheet (Sheet 5) as opposed to details on Sheet 6. Please see the enclosed set of redlines for clarification. Response 4: References have heen revised. Landscape Consultant (PELA) REPEAT COMMENTS Conmient IB: All HOA maintained areas should use reclaimed water as it appears to be available. Please revise water use plans as impropriate. Submit one extra oopy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pom Adams in Publio Works Maintenance and Operations for review.—^ Review.—The apphcant has now shown all landscape areas to be irrigated with recycled water.—Typically only HOA maintained areas are specified to be irrigated >vith recycled water. Privately maintained areas typically uise potable. Please revise plans to show potoble water use for aU private lots and recycled for all HOA maintained areas.—Please olarifif and revise reclaimed water plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06mi HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 - RaScho Milagro November 4, 2010 7* Plan Check Review Comments (dated May 27, 2010) - Response Letter Page 2 of 4 GMP# 04-106-00 indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works Maintenance mid Operations for review. 7* Review: Plans have been forwarded to PWM&O for review. Any comments will be retumed to the applicant. Response IB: As of this date no comments have been received. Comment ID: Please see Fire Comment No. 7 below and revise plans accordingly. 7* Review: See New Comments that address previous fire comments. Response ID: Responses are under New Comments. NEW COMMENTS Comment IE: Per previous Fire Department comment #1, Lot 1 is to include the standard 60' fiiel treatment area per the City of Carlsbad standards. Please show the 60' (i.e. 20'-A-l, 20'- A-2, and 20'-A-3) fire suppression zones. Response IE: Plans have been revised to show the 60' Fire Suppression Zones. Comment 2E: Please remove trees fi'om fire suppression area A-l. Response 2E: Removed. Comment 3E: Per previous Fire Department comment #2, Lot 4 is to have a 6' high masonry wall at the top of slope along the property boundary. The wall appears to be located at the bottom of the slope. Please verify the desired location with the Fire Department and relocate as appropriate. Response 3E: Per the letter from the Fire Department dated June 7, 2010 item # 2, the 6 foot high masonry wall at the bottom of the slope is acceptable along with a 40 foot proposed fuel treatment area. Comment 4E: Per previous Fire Department comment #2, a 50' A-l fire suppression width is required on Lot 4. Please revise as appropriate. Response 4E: Per the letter from the Fire Department dated June 7, 2010 item # 2, the 40 foot proposed fuel treatment area is acceptable. Comment 5E: Please label the fire suppression zone on Lot 7 as A-l. Response 5E: Done. Comment 7E: Please remove shrubs from the fire suppression zone A-l legend Response 7E: Done. Comment 8E: This area is shown to be maintained by the Rancho Milagro open space manager. It is also shown to be irrigated with recycled water. Will there be a separate recycled water meter required to separate this from the Rancho Milagro HOA maintained areas? Please address. ' HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 - Rancho Milagro November 4, 2010 7* Plan Check Review Comments (dated May 27, 2010) - Response Letter Page 3 of 4 GMP# 04-106-00 Response 8E: Please see new note on sheet 2, the areas here will be temporarily irrigated with a connection to the Rancho Milagro HOA system. Once estabUshed, the temporary system will be disconnected from the HOA system. Comment 9E: Please address landscaping of the bio-filtration detention area and add this area to the recycled water use map. Response 9E: The area is shown as landscaped with native planting and will be irrigated temporarily only for the establishment period. CMWD Comment 1: Response 1: Please revise plans to inigate parkways with potable water where there are domestic meters located in the parkway. All parkways will be irrigated with recycled water and all domestic water meters will be located outside parkways behind the sidewalk. Fire Department Comment 1: Please show a 60 foot fiiel treatment area for Lot 1 as requested in the last issues letter dated December 17, 2009 (see Issue Item No. 1). Response 1: The 60 foot fuel treatment area is shown for Lot 1. Comment 2: Please note that for Lot 4, the proposed six (6) foot high masonry wall is acceptable at the bottom of slope as is shovra on the plans. Furthermore, with inclusion of the wall at the bottom of slope, the 40 foot of proposed fuel treatment area will be adequate for this lot, as the wall will adjoin a 60 foot fuel treatment zone on Lot 3 and the lower portion of Lot 4. However, this lot will be noted as restricted, per the notes included in the plans. Response 1: Acknowledged, no action required. Comment 3: The existing callouts on pages 3 and 4 of the preliminary landscape plans (see redlines) are inaccurate. Please revise using comments generated from the December 15, 2009 meeting with Jim Weigand as Fire Marshal. Response 3: The notes have been revised to reflect to latest date and the name of the Fire Marshal has been changed to Fire Department Representative. This response letter and the attached revised plans are being resubmitted to the City of Carlsbad to address the above review comments. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or require additional information for this project. Sincerely, Gillespie Moody Patterson, Inc. I HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 - Raifcho Milagro November 4, 2010 7* Plan Check Review Comments (dated May 27, 2010) - Response Letter Page 4 of 4 GMP# 04-106-00 Rob Streza, RLA, ASLA, LEED AP Senior Project Manager I:\Pn)ject8.O4\04-106\Lan<iArch\Admm\RespoiBe LetterMUncho Milagro 11.04-10 Response letter^iMP.doc c9; Page 1 of 2 JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES Land Use and Planning Consultants To: Of: Phone: Fax: Jason Goff City of Carisbad, Planning Dept. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 602-4600 602-8559 From: Of: Phone: Fax: Jadt tHenthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates PO Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018 (760) 438-4090 (760) 438-0981 Date: 11/30/10 RE: Rancho iVIiiagro GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 FORWARDED BY: HAND DELIVERY # Description 1 Resubmittal letter from Jack Henthorn and Associates addressing 5/27/10, comments. 1 Resubmittal letter from Gillespie, Moody, Patterson, Inc. addressing 5/27/10 comments 1 Resubmittal letter from Jack Henthorn and Associates addressing Biological Technical Report revisions. 1 Preliminary Title Report for SD Airport Authority 1 Assessor's Page showing subject parcel for SD Airport Authority 1 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program letter from RECON 1 Greenhouse Gas Screening Letter by LDN Consulting, Inc. 3 Biology Technical Report 2 Cultural Resources Report, one of which with confidential attachment 8 sets Development Plan Package; Tentative Map, Landscape Architecture, and Hillside Development plan. 1 set Concept Landscape Pian for PELA 1 set Planning Redlines of Tentative Map 1 set Planning Redlines of Concept Landscape Plan 1 set Fire Redlines of Concept Landscape Plan 1 set PELA Redlines of Concept Landscape Plan 1 set Parks Redline of Sheet 5 of Concept Landscape Plan 1 set Engineering Redline of Tentative Map RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2010 crrr OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT Q Q Page 2 of 2 CK HENTHORN & ASSOCIAT JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES Land Use and Planning Consultants COMMENTS: Please accept this package as a response to the May 27, 2010, review comments. Copies to: Warren Lyall, Lyall Enterprises, Inc y^k Henthorn & Associates RO. Box 237 W Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2010 June 16,2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT Mr. Jason Goff City ofCarisbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 RE: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO - Engineering comment response Dear Mr. Goff: This letter is provided in response to engineering comments provided in the Planning Department's letter dated May 27, 2010. Other items raised in the letter will be addressed in follow up correspondence. The proposed design of the Rancho Milagro subdivision has been refined in conjimction with comments provided by the City staff as well as staff members of the Califomia Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The design has been completed using a multidisciplinary team to insure that the design reflects the best environmental solution within the context of sound engineering practices and existing policies and regulations. In this regard, the site drainage has been designed in a manner that incorporates treatment via bio filtration before runoff enters the buffer area surroimding the main drainage course. The drainage has been dispersed to three separate outlets to avoid concentrating flows so as to avoid potential erosion issues and to provide a more natural distribution of the water to nurture the vegetation found in the drainage course. The design modifications proposed in the Planning Department letter of May 27, 2010, will divert water from the natural course of drainage and reduce the amount of water available to nurture the natural vegetation. The proposal will also cause a major redesign 1902 Wright Place, Ste 200, Carisbad, CA 92008 that is likely to not be consistent with water quality regulations, policies relating to diversion of drainage and long standing riparian laws relating to drainage In addition, the diversion proposed in the City letter would require that downstream owners affected by diverted runoff to agree to accept the increased flows. This approach is inconsistent with local govemment policy . The proposed design was completed in conjunction with the applicant's biological consultant to specifically address the issues raised in agency correspondence dated December, 2007. In January of 2008, City staff discussed the proposed changes with the Agencies. These items are listed below with summaries of how each was addressed in the currently proposed design. Agency comments are shown with solid dots while applicant comments are indicated by circles. • Generally, we don't approve of outlets that discharge directly into a drainage: o The design was modified to pull the outlets back away from the drainage to avoid direct discharge • Usually they flow into some sort of desiltation basin to protect water quality (which I am not sure would be possible in this project) o The design was modified to incorporate a series of yard drains that will accept drainage after being bio-filtered by the yard landscaping. (paraphrased) 3 to 4 lot rear yards would act as bio-swale to filter runoff before going into drainage and the amount of runoff would not change due to development. Please provide detail drawings re: area to act as bio-swale; where PVC pipes will be located; location of any riprap. o These details have been provided on the tentative map sheets. How will pipes collect water from bio-swale area, or will a pipe direct water to the bio-swale? o Pipes will collect water at the rear comer of the lots after it has been filtered through landscaping. The water will then enter a 6" drain pipe that will outlet into a rock dissipater. What is the distance from the discharge point to the stream? How much run off are we talking about? o The outlets are 20 feet, 90 feet and 80 feet. The outlet located closest to the stream is placed within 20 feet due to the lack of a natural drainage course to transport the discharged flows to the channel. This will reduce the amount of erosion between point of discharge and the stream. The runoff calculations are included in the bio technical report and the City'sHMP Consistency determination dated May 24, 2010. • (paraphrased) We would like more information on the all weather access road. Why is it needed? Why is it needed at that location? Have other locations been explored and why were they ruled out? o The road is required by the City to serve the arched culvert that spans the stream to support the roadway. It was designed to achieve the smallest grading footprint within the 100-foot wetland buffer which in tum maximizes agricultural area available for restoration. Other altematives involved switch back designs, longer road lengths and retaining walls which served to increase impacts within the wetland buffer. • (paraphrased) Lot 20 is within the 100 foot wetland buffer. Provide cross sectional drawings showing pad elevation and distance from the riparian areas. Could a retaining wall be used to move the pad back? o This lot was removed after evaluating the agencies concems, in order to achieve the full 100 foot buffer. In conclusion, the proposed redesign of the project would have more significant impact on the area's habitat than the design developed over the past 3 years while addressing the Wildlife Agencies comments of late 2007 as annotated above. In addition, the proposed design modifications would be fiindamentally inconsistent with the City's HMP consistency detennination issued on May 24, 2010. If you would like to discuss the project design further, the members of our development team who have participated in the formulation of the current design are available at your convenience. Please contact me at your convenience if you need additional information or have any questions conceming this response.. SiMQerely, JEH:wpc cc: Don, Neu, Planning Director Warren Lyall, Lyall Enterprises Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Glen Van Peski, Senior Civil Engineer Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Wendy Loeffler, RECON Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering V^CARLSBAD Planning Department FILE COPY www.carisbadca.gov May 27, 2010 Jack Henthorn & Associates Attn: Jack Henthorn PO Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO Dear Jack, This letter is considered to be supplemental to the May 27, 2010 issues letter that the Planning Department sent out following the review of the April 29, 2010 submittal of the Rancho Milagro project. In that letter it was stated that Fire Department comments would follow under separate cover. The Fire Department has since reviewed the project and has identified some remaining issues. These issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. If you should have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss your application, please contact me at (760) 602-4643, or the City's Fire Marshal at (760) 602-4661. Sincereiy, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:sm Lyall Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Warren Lyall, 15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer James Weigand, Fire Prevention Liz Ketabian, Parks & Recreation Michael Elliott, PELA File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 1(760) 602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ® GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06V4/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 ^-f^NCHO MILAGRO June 7, 2010 Paqe 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Fire Department: 1. Please show a 60 foot fuel treatment area for Lot 1 as requested in the last issues letter dated December 17, 2009 (see Issue Item No. 1). 2. Please note that for Lot 4, the proposed six (6) foot high masonry wall is acceptable at the bottom of slope as is shown on the plans. Furthermore, with the inclusion of the wall at the bottom of slope, the 40 foot of proposed fuel treatment area will be adequate for this lot, as the wall will adjoin a 60 foot fuel treatment zone on Lot 3 and the lower portion of Lot 4. However, this lot will be noted as restricted, per the notes included in the plans. 3. The existing callouts on pages 3 and 4 of the preliminary landscape plans (see redlines) are inaccurate. Please revise using comments generated from the December 15, 2009 meeting with Jim Weigand as Fire Marshal. 4. Please see the attached redlines and revise accordingly. Please return all redlines with your next submittal. V^CARLSBAD Planning Department www.carisbadca.gov May 24, 2010 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Attn: David Zoutendyk & Janet Stuckrath 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carisbad, CA 92008 California Department of Fish & Game Attn': David Mayer 4949 Viewridge Drive San Diego, CA 92123 SUBJECT: CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR RANCHO MILAGRO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 Dear Mr. Zoutendyk, Ms. Stuckrath, and Mr. Mayer, The City of Carisbad is seeking your concurrence that the Rancho Milagro project is consistent with the City of Carisbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). This letter along with the associated attachments is intended to facilitate your review of the project and its application of the standards in the City's HMP. For background, a similar request was submitted to your offices on August 8, 2007. This resulted in a joint response letter (ref. FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1) dated October 12, 2007, which identified several issues of concern. A subsequent meeting was held on December 13, 2007 to discuss these issues directly with wildlife agency staff, and on December 19, 2007 an email from Marci Koski was received acknowledging that the number of issues had been reduced to two (2) remaining (i.e., Items 1a and lb ofthe FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1 letter dated October 12, 2007). Copies of these letters and Ms. Koski's email are included as attachments to assist in the review. Since that time, several steps have been taken to the address these issues and clarify your concerns. In regards to Item No. la, the biggest revision to the project you'll find has been the elimination of two (2) residential lots on the north side of drainage area to facilitate a fully functional 100 foot wide buffer from the riparian wetland habitat area. Remaining encroachments within this area will consist of three drainage improvements extending from the toe of slope at Lots 8, 10, and 11, as well as a 16 foot wide all-weather maintenance access road located along the east side of the northern drainage. Generally, most new lots drain towards a street. However, for the Rancho Milagro project, a few of the lots (Lots 7-8 and tO-13) are designed to drain towards the natural open space as discussed in the December 2007 email. This drainage design has been considered due to the existing hillside topography and earthwork (cut and fill) volumes. Since the pad grading of these lots are terraced to follow the natural terrain as best as possible, the elevation of these lots do not result in positive drainage towards the street. Draining each lot towards the street would 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 1(760)602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ® c o RANCHO MILAGRO - GPA'06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/?UP 06-05/HMP 09-01 May 24, 2010 Paqe 2 require significant redesign, which would involve the import of additional soil and/or the use of retaining walls to raise pad elevations to accommodate positive drainage towards the street. Since these lots drain towards the open space, staff has worked with the developer to identify and select permanent treatment controi BMP's (TCBMP's) to treat runoff while targeting the pollutants-of-concern associated with this residential project. For these particular lots, permanent linear bio-swales, located in the rear yards of these particular lots, were selected as permanent TCBMP's. These permanent TCBMP's are shown on the Tentative Map (see attached), and the preliminary design and numeric sizing of the TCBMP's are identified in the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that was prepared by Manitou Engineering dated March 9, 2009. We have attached a sample numeric sizing calculation for one of the lots (see attached). Final TCBMP sizing selection, rip rap sizing and pipe inlet/outlet details will be evaluated at the final design stage when a final SWMP will be reviewed against the latest Storm Water Standards. It should be noted that the outlet points for the three drainage lines are located 20 feet, 80 feet, and 90 feet away from the edge of the riparian wetland habitat and include rip rap energy dissipaters for control of any potential erosion. The amount of runoff being discharged at these points is minimal and will only include the runoff from six (6) residential pads. The majority of the runoff generated from these pads will be absorbed into the yard and individual linear bio- swales that are being proposed with each lot. It is estimated that each pad will generate approximately 1.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff during a 100-year (large) storm event, and approximately 0.028 cfs during an 85**^ percentile (small) storm event. Two of the three drainages outlets (i.e., the two located 80 and 90 feet away) have been strategically placed to channel storm water through natural watercourses. Our preference would be to relocate the remaining drainage outlet further away than 20 feet from the edge of the riparian wetland habitat; however, there are no natural watercourses near this location to convey storm water and to pull it back further could generate potential erosion problems for the slope leading down to the habitat area. We feel these facilities have been designed and ideally located to adequately treat the minimal amount of storm water runoff and control any potential erosion concerns. The proposed 16 foot all-weather access drive along the east side of the road crossing the northern drainage is required to allow maintenance staff access just upstream of the entrance of the soft-bottom culvert crossing under the public road. Maintenance will be required at this location to ensure that vegetation/siltation does not impede the capacity of the culvert carrying storm runoff under the road. Other alignments were evaluated, but resulted in excessive grades, longer access road lengths, switchbacks, retaining walls, etc. Due to proposed road grade and the existing channel elevation, the proposed alignment of the all-weather access road is a preferred design. As correctly stated in Item No. 1b, the HMP Standards Areas within Local Facility Management Zones 14, 15, and 20 require that when agricultural areas are proposed as wetland buffers, these areas are to be restored and/or enhanced. The HMP is silent on the use of this restored/enhanced buffer as mitigation and there is no success criteria required for this buffer. The City interprets this silence as allowing project-related mitigation to occur within the revegetated buffers. By linking the restoration/enhancement efforts to project mitigation, success criteria can be applied and a more effective restoration can occur. Not allowing the project developer to use the buffer restoration as project-related mitigation represents a burden to provide preservation on-site or off-site to mitigate impacts in addition to providing a 100 foot buffer from ail riparian and wetland habitats. RANCHO MILAGRO - GFC6-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01*3^ 06-05/HMP 09-01 May 24, 2010 Paqe 3 The concern noted by FWS in Item No. 1b relates to the potential use of restored buffer areas for mitigation of impacts of other projects. The City does not intend to allow restored or enhanced wetland buffers to count for mitigation for projects other than those creating the buffer. The creation of the buffer, identification of restoration/enhancement, and mitigation credit all occur related to the specific project. To ensure that a restored buffer area is not used for subsequent upland mitigation credit, the Conservation Easement and other project-related documents can be drafted to note that no additional upland mitigation credit be allowed within the buffer. We hope you agree with our assessment and therefore are requesting that you provide written concurrence for the proposed hardline design for the Rancho Milagro project within 30 days. The project requires public review in. accordance with CEQA guidelines and the City will commence preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration upon receipt of your concurrence. Following CEQA review, the City will formally consider the consistency of the project with the HMP in its findings regarding the project. Please contact me at (760) 602-4643 if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss the project in more detail or if you have any questions or require any additional information at this time. Sincerely JASON GOFF Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Revised Biological Technical Report, Rancho Milagro Study Area, RECON, revised 5/20/10. 2. Revised Wetland Delineation Report, Rancho Milagro Study Area, RECON, revised 4/24/09. 3. Project Exhibits, date stamped May 17, 2010. 4. Lot 8 Sample Bio Swale Contact Time. 5. Consistency Findings for Rancho Milagro Residential Development Project, City of Carisbad, August 8, 2007. 6. HMP Consistency Findings for the Rancho Milagro Residential Development Project, Joint Agency Response Letter (FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1), October 12, 2007. 7. Marci Koski email, December 19, 2007. c: Jack Henthorn & Associates, Attn: Jack Henthorn, PO Box 237, Carisbad, CA 92018 File <%c,.vo. c o FILE copy V (CARLSBAD Planning Department www.carlsbadca.gov May 27, 2010 Jack Henthorn & Associates Attn: Jack Henthorn PO Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92018 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO Dear Jack, There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. At this time, we ask that you please provide six (6) complete sets of the development plan package and one (1) additionai set of the preliminary landscape pians so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact me at (760) 602-4643, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss this application. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner sm Lyall Enterprises, Inc., Attn: Warren Lyall, 15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer James Weigand, Fire Prevention Liz Ketabian, Parks & Recreation Michael Elliott, PELA File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 7(760)602-4600 F (760) 602-8559 ® 02/CT 0b«d4/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 MANCHO MILAGRO Paoe 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The project site is located within Safety Zone 6 of the newly adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. We are required to send the project to the San Diego Airport Authority for review and concurrence. To complete this application, we will need one (1) complete set of the revised plans, a copy of the most recent Preliminary Title Report, and a copy of the assessor's page showing the subject parcel. Please note that the extra set of plans being requested herein has been factored into the total requested on the first page of this letter. With your next resubmittal, please package these three (3) items together as one and as a reminder note on the cover sheet that it's to be submitted to the San Diego Airport Authority. 2. With respect to the Fire Suppression Zone, please coordinate the Tentative Map base (Sheets 1-11) and the Conceptual Landscape Plans so they are consistent. 3. On Sheet 1 of the Tentative Map, please update the Land Use Summary in the upper left hand corner to show a total of 25 lots. This section should reflect the following breakdown of the total number of lots: 19 Single-family, 4 Open Space/Conservation, and 2 HOA maintained Open Space. 4. Please address the attached set of redlined plans and revise accordingly. If you have any questions or need clarification on any of the items please do not hesitate to contact me at 760-602-4643. Piease return all redlines with you next submittal. Engineering: 1. The Wildlife Agencies raised concerns about having some of the lots in this project drain towards the rear yards. Some of the lots proposed stomn drains and discharges that extend down (protected) open space slopes. From our review of the Tentative Map, it appears that most of the rear-draining lots can be redesigned with minimal effort so that they drain to the street per city standard requirements. Please see the enclosed redlines and revise the TM to address the Wildlife Agency's concerns. 2. Lots 11,12 and 13 currently drain into the open space area. Please redesign these lots so they drain to a street. For example, Lots 11, 12, and 13 could be served by a common private storm drain that discharges across Lot 16 to Street X. Please refer to the enclosed redlines. Please revise the TM to show all the covenants of easements required. 3. To avoid draining to the open space, the pads for Lots 7 and 8 could be raised slightly to create positive drainage so they drain to Street X. Please refer to the enclosed redlines and address accordingly. 4. For Lots 4, 5 and 6, instead of a common private storm drain discharging down the slope and into the open space; please consider a common private storm drain along the rear yards that connects into the storm drain for Street X. Please refer to the enclosed redlines. Please revise the TM to show the covenants of easements required. Q Q GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 0^4/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 ^ANCHO MILAGRO May 27, 2010 Page 3 5. Please revise the Drainage Study and Storm Water Management Plan to address TM changes prior to resubmitting. 6. Please note that upcoming storm water requirements (Hydromodification) will change how this project handles, treats, infiltrates and retains storm runoff. For example permanent onsite ijio-retention (or other measures) may be required on each lot so that, during a defined range of storm events, the flow volume and rates match pre-development conditions. Please note that you will be required to meet the latest storm water requirements in effect at the time the project is under design review. Piease return all redlines with your next submittal. Paries Department (Liz Ketabian): 1. On Sheet 5 of the Landscape Plans, please revise the references in the text of Detail G so that they relate to this sheet (Sheet 5) as opposed to details on Sheet 6. Please see the enclosed set of redlines for clarification. Landscape Consultant (PELA): The numbers listed below correspond with the numbers referenced on the returned set of red lined plans for ease of locating areas of comment concern. Please address the following concerns. REPEAT COMMENTS 1-11 Completed. IA. Completed. IB. All HOA maintained areas should use reclaimed water as it appears to be available. Please revise water use plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Wori<6 Maintenance and Operations for review.—6*** Review:—The applicant has now shown all landscape areas to be irrigated with recycled water.—Typically only HOA maintained areas are specified to be irrigated with recycled water. Privately maintained areas typically use potable. Is it the intent to supply both a potable and recycled water meter to all lots?—Please clarify and revise reclaimed water plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. 7'" Review: Plans have been fonwarded to PWM& O for review. Any comments will be returned to the applicant IC. Completed. ID. Please see Fire Comment No. 7 and revise the plans accordingly. 7"" Review: See New Comments that address previous fire comments. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT o8=64/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 >I^NCHO MILAGRO May 27, 2010 Page 4 NEW COMMENTS IE. Per previous Fire Department comment #1, Lot 1 is to include the standard 60' fuel treatment area per the City of Carisbad standards. Please show the 60' (i.e. 20'-A-1, 20'-A-2, and 20'-A-3) fire suppression zones. 2E. Please remove trees from fire suppression area A-1. 3E. Per previous Fire Department comment #2, Lot 4 is to have a 6' high masonry wall at the top of slope along the property boundary. The wall appears to be located at the bottom of the slope. Please verify the desired location with the Fire Department and relocate as appropriate. 4E. Per previous Fire Department comment #2, a 50' A-1 fire suppression width is required on Lot 4. Please revise as appropriate. 5E. Please label the fire suppression zone on Lot 7 as A-1. §& Please label the fire suppression zone on Lot 19 as A-1. (Disregard comment) 7E. Please remove shrubs from the fire suppression zone A-1 legend. 8E. This area is shown to be maintained by the Rancho Milagro open space manager. It is also shown to be irrigated with recycled water. Will there be a separate recycled water meter required to separate this from the Rancho Milagro HOA maintained areas? Please address. 9E. Please address landscaping of the bio-filtration detention area and add this area to the recycled water use map. Piease return aii redlines with your next submittal. CMWD: 1. Please revise plans to irrigate parkways with potable water where there are domestic meter located in the parkway. Fire Department: Fire Department comments will follow under separate cover. Ji*^k Henthorn & Associates W RO. Box 237 W Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 April 29, 2010 Mr. Jason Goff CityofCarlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 HSOEIVED APR a ti m CfT¥ OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT Subject: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO Dear Mr. Goff: Enclosed please find plans and related documents that have been modified to address issues raised in your letter of December 2009, including the specific issues raised during meetings with the Carlsbad Fire Department. The biological technical report has been updated to insure consistency with the plan package being submitted. The report also contains a full set of HMP consistency findings as attachment 4 at the back of the report. Parks and landscape comments have been addressed on the tentative map and landscape plans as appropriate. Modifications necessary to address Fire Department issues have been fully evaluated in conjunction with the update of the biological technical report. The findings and recommendations in the report include modification made to accommodate the requested changes. Please contact me at (760) 438-4090 if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss the resubmittal. JEH:wpc 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112* Carisbad, CA 92008 Citv of Carlsbad FILE COPY Planning Department December 17, 2009 Jack Henthorn Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO Dear Jack, There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. At this time, we ask that you provide five (5) sets of the complete development plan package and two (2) additionai sets of the preliminary landscape pians so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact me at (760) 602-4643, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:lt c: Warren Lyall, Lyall Enterprises, Inc., 15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle Dominic Fieri Liz Ketabian Michael Elliott (PELA) File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT C^AI HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-O- RANCHO MILAGRO December 17, 2009 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: NOTE: Priorto redesigning the project to address any ofthe issues listed below, the Planning Department would like to host a meeting that would include yourself and all commenting parties, in order to address and clarify any of the following outstanding issues. Please contact me as soon as possible to set up the meeting. 1. Please revise the retaining wall proposed at the intersection of "K" Street and "X" Street to be of a plantable type wall, similar to the ones located south of "X" Street. Revise all sheets where necessary. 2. On Sheet 5 of the Preliminary Landscape Plan, please add a detail(s) for all other retaining walls that are proposed within the project that are not the plantable type. Sheet 5-Detail F calls for a minimum "earthtone split-faced block." We would expect all walls to be consistent throughout. Please revise plans and details to demonstrate this. 3. Please revise Sheet 5 of Preliminary Landscape Plans to include a detail of the Fire walls that are being required by the Fire Department (see Fire issues below). Wall design should consider the Sunny Creek Specific Plan's desire for a rustic rural/estate appearance. Given these requirements, you should consider changing the maintenance requirements ofthe slope areas from the individual homeowners to the HOA. 4. On Sheet 2 of the Civil Plans, within the "Lot Area Table", please revise the "Fuel Modification Zone" column to include the area of each lot being encumbered by these zones. 5. Please update the BTR to include the correct corresponding exhibits as discussed with Wendy Loefler of RECON on 12/2/09 and via email with you on 12/3/09. 6. Please see the enclosed set of redlines and address any additional comments that may not have been mentioned above. Please return all redlines with next submittal. Engineering: The Engineering Department has no further issues with the project. However, please note that due to the length of time in processing these permits, new and upcoming storm water standards will require modifications to the TM and SWMP prior to submittal of the final map, grading, and improvement plans. Some of the treatment BMP's shown on the TM will not meet the new BMP selection criteria per the City's SUSMP. Parks Department (Liz Ketabian): 1. The improvement plans do not identify the specialty concrete sidewalk that is proposed in front of Lots 1-6 on the concept landscape plans and further detailed on Sheet 5, Detail C. Please revise the Improvement Plans to cleariy identify the specialty concrete sidewalk for this specific area. GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT ^0^41 HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-O- RANCHO MILAGRO December 17, 2009 Paqe 3 2. Please revise the Legend on Sheet 1 of the Tentative Map to include a symbol for the specialty concrete sidewalk that is proposed in front of Lots 1-6 meandering along the east side of "X" Street. Please see the enclosed redlines for additional direction and clarification. 3. Please revise Sheets 4 and 6 of the Tentative Map to specifically identify the proposed specialty concrete sidewalk meandering in front of Lots 1-6. Please see the enclosed redlines for additional direction and clarification. 4. Concept Landscape Plans, Sheet 3: A note on the plan for the "PROPOSED 5'.. EXPOSED AGG. CONCRETE TRAIL SYSTEM" refers to a detail for trail construction on Sheet 6, when in fact this detail is shown on Sheet 5. Please revise the note to reference the correct Sheet No. Please see the enclosed redlines for additional direction and clarification. 5. Please see the enclosed set of redlines and address any additional comments that may not have been mentioned above. Please return all redlines with next submittal. Landscape Consultant (PELA): The numbers listed below correspond with the numbers referenced on the returned set of red lined plans for ease of locating areas of comment concern. Please address the following concerns. REPEAT COMMENTS 1-11 Completed. IA. Completed. IB. All HOA maintained areas should use reclaimed water as it appears to be available. Please revise water use plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. 6^" Review: The applicant has now shown all landscape areas to be irrigated with recycled water Typically only HOA maintained areas are specified to be irrigated with recycled water Privately maintained areas typically use potable. Please revise plans to show potable water use for all private lots and recycled for all HOA maintained areas. Please clarify and revise reclaimed water plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works IVIaintenance and Operations for review. NEW COMMENTS IC. Please correct for title block and note overiap. ID. Please see Fire Comment No. 7 below and revise plans accordingly. GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 98^04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-(Tf- RANCHO MILAGRO December 17, 2009 Page 4 Fire Department: Please note that the following comments have been revised to refiect our December 15, 2009 meeting regarding the proposed development fuel treatment measures. Please revise the project and plans accordingly. 1. Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 17, which border on a Wildland Interface (Open- Space), must be revised to include the standard 60 ft. fuel treatment area per the City of Carlsbad standards. Please note that Item 7 may be applicable depending on the final structure envelope configuration. 2. For Lot 4 (pan-handle lot), please construct a six (6) foot high masonry wall at the top of slope along the property boundary. The masonry wall assembly may have a two (2) foot section of rated glass at the top. • Change the 50 ft. of fuel treatment to a Zone A-1 standard. Fuel Treatment will be inside wall. 3. The driveway for Lot 4 (pan-handle lot) must be designed and installed to support a 70,000 Ib. fire apparatus. Please revise all plans where necessary to comply with this standard. 4. For Lot 7, we can accept the proposed fuel treatment measures. For those areas with less than 60 ft., the A-1 standards must apply. 5. For Lot 19, please construct a six (6) foot high masonry wall at the top of slope along property boundary. The masonry wall assembly may have a two (2) foot section of rated glass at the top. • The entire area inside of wall must be changed to Zone A-1 standards. 6. All structure enhancements for Very High Fire Hazard areas, found in the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 7a, January 2009 Supplement will be applicable. These standards will apply to all 19 lots. The standards shall be applied to the entire structure not Just the portions facing the Wildland Interface. In addition, the entire development must have NFPA 13D Residential Sprinkler Systems installed. Please revise plans to comply. 7. Restriction may apply on type(s) of landscaping and the use of backyard space. • The following restriction must be included in the project CC&Rs. Where a Fire Protection Zone intrudes to within 10 ft. of the structure envelope, the lot shall have no exterior flame producing device(s), outdoor fire place(s), outdoor fire pit(s), and open flame torch(es). Patio covers will be constructed of ignition resistant material, of the same rating as the structure wall it is being attached to. Piease revise the Preliminary Landscape Pians to aiso inciude this note. ^IH^i Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. SOlifm FOaNDATION ENGINEEiUNG • GROUNOWAe • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 21 October 2009 Lyall Enterprises, Inc. Job No. 04-8849 c/o Jack Henthorn &. Associates P.O. Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Response to Citv of Carlsbad Review Memorandum Rancho Milagro Residential Development A.P.N. 209-060-61 and a Portion of 209-070-01 North of Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Henthorn: As requested, we herein respond to the City of Carlsbad Review Memorandum dated June 22, 2009, and the pertinent part (item 2) corresponding to the geotechnical consultant. The review memorandum was prepared by tiie Planning Department and included issues of concern from various departments at the City of Carlsbad. In response to your request, we conducted a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to meet the City of Carlsbad development requirements (Job No. 04-8849, dated April 27, 2009) and to provide supporting documentation for Mandatory Finding No. 1 of tfie "REPLACEMENT WORDING FOR SUNNY CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN SLOPE RESTRICTIONS", which reads as follows: 1. "A SO//S investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least 75 years or life of structure." 7420 TRADE STREET* SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: geotech@gel-sd.com Rancho Milagro Residential Development Job No. 04-8849 Carlsbad, California Page 2 The referenced geotechnical report presents a slope stability analysis of the planned slopes with a factor of safety of at least 1.5, which is the current industry standard of practice. We can expect the slopes to retain this factor of safety for at least 75 years or the useful life of the proposed structures, subsequent to our observation and soil testing services during the grading operation. The proposed slopes should rennain stable and within current industry standards for safety during the required period if: 1. Constructed in accordance with our recommendations. 2. Grading is performed under our observations and soil testing. 3. Runoff water from building pads or streets is not allowed to flow over the top of slopes following construction, 4. Significant water infiltration does not occur from heavy rains, broken utility lines, excessive irrigation or failed drainage devices following construction. Proper surface drainage should be implemented and maintained on the project. The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with current geotechnical engineering principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in the City of Carlsbad. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. c Rancho Milagro Residential Development Carlsbad, California Job No. 04-8849 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 04-8849 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jay K. Heiser Senior Project Geologist. Jgirner'ArCerros, P.E. 'R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer ]Q:k Henthom & AssociaO RO. Box 237 Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 OCT 2 2 2009 CITYOFCARLSBAD PUNNING DE^ October 16, 2009 Mr. Jason Goff City of Carlsbad Plaiming Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Subject: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO ISSUES RESPONSE PACKAGE Enclosed in response to your letter outlining issues of concem, please find six (6) complete sets of development plans and related documents for your use in further review of the proposed project. Planning issues 1, 3 and 4 have been addressed in the enclosed biological technical reports. Two (2) additional copies of the biological technical report have been included for distribution to the USF&WS and CDFG. Item 2 requests a detailed response to each of the mandatory findings required to address Sunny Creek Specific Plan Exhibit A - REPLACEMENT WORDING FOR SUNNY CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN SLOPE RESTRICTIONS. These responses are included as attachment 1 to this transmittal letter. Item 5 requests a separate response letter addressing past concems raised by the wildlife agencies. The requested letter is included as attachment 2 to this transmittal letter. Plaiming items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Parks Department (Liz Ketabian) items 3, 4 and redline comments and Landscape Consultant (PELA) comment 6 have been addressed in the landscape plan revisions prepared by GMP that reflect revisions developed through meetings and discussions with Fire Department personnel. Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 along with Parks Department items 1, 2 and redline 1016resubltr.doc 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112 • Carisbad, CA 92008 comments have been addressed in the Civil Engineer's plans. Please contact me at (760) 438-4090 if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss the resubmittal. ncerely, Jack E. Henthom JEH:wpc Attachment - Findings Enclosure - Transmittal package 1016resubltr.doc ATTACHMENT 1 f^k Henthom & AssociaO RO. Box 237 Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 OCT 2 2 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT October 20, 2009 TO: Jason Goff, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad FROM: JackHenthor SUBJ: SPECIFIC PLAN 191 SLOPE IMPACT ANALYSIS A full slope impact analysis has been conducted to supplement the required submittal items for the Rancho Milagro development application package. The analysis presented in tabular form below was conducted utilizing the Hillside Development Permit Constraints map topographic base and overlaying it with the grading plan as exhibited in the proposed Tentative Map design. The Circulation system was evaluated to establish the extent of grading necessary to complete the circulation cormection and infrastructure extensions to serve adjacent properties in the absence of lot grading. These impacts were calculated. The lotting was then imposed over the circulation and infrastmcture grading to establish direct impacts attributable to the proposed subdivision. As can be seen from the table below, the impact to slopes in excess of 25% associated with circulation and infrastructure extension is 8.2% while the impact directly attributable to the creation of residential lots is 7.6%. Specific Plan 191 Rancho Milagro Slope Impact Analysis Total Area Slopes Slopes Slopes Slopes Slopes Slopes Slopes Gross 0-15% 15-25% 25-40% >40% >25% >25% >25% impacted road,trails, %impacted by lots & public By lots easements 43.58+ACS 22.49+ACS 09.30±ACS 06.56+ACS 05.22+ACS 0.90-HACS 0.97+ACS 07.6% The supporting statements for making the mandatory findings required by the "REPLACEMENT WORDING FOR SUNNY CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN SLOPE RESTRICTIONS - EXHIBIT A" are attached. 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112 • Carisbad, CA 92008 SUNNY CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN 191 MANDATORY SLOPE RESTRICTION EXCEPTION FINDINGS RANCHO MILAGRO 1. A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least 75 years, or life of structure. Supporting statement: Geotechnical Explorations Inc., a licensed geotechnical firm, conducted a preliminary geotechnical report and update, dated April 27,2009. The report included slope stability analyses and concluded that the on site soils would support the proposed slopes with a stability factor of at least 1.5, which is the industry common standard. GEI provided a letter (attached) stating that, subject to certain conditions being maintained on site during and after constmction, the slopes should remain stable for at least 75 years or the life of the stmcture as required by mandatory finding number 1 of Specific Plan 191. 2. Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design. Supporting statement: The intent of the proposed project is to develop a residential development project in setting exhibiting a rural character. This is being accomplished by limiting the development envelop primarily to those areas of the site which have been historically used for agricultural purposes. In this manner the natural setting can be maximized. The ingress point for the main access road was established by the previously approved Cantarini Ranch project entry point, while the egress point to the adjacent property was established pursuant to exhibits shown in the City's adopted HMP. The intervening alignment was set to meet engineering design standards and minimize disturbance of natural areas while providing an opportimity for residents to enjoy the natural, mral surrounding from the proposed decomposed granite trails/berm areas that form the perimeter of the development envelop. In order maintain gravity flow, the elevation of the site dictates that the project sewer connection must be made at the Sunny Creek sewer main. This necessitates disturbance of a limited amount of 25% slope area. However, this disturbance allows for the placement of a of a portion of the City wide trail system without the need for additional disturbance. In order to accomplish the stated desires ofthe SP to create a rural character and preserve slope areas, care has been taken to place lots in areas that would otherwise be disturbed by grading for access or utilities. This approach has been used to reduce grading quantities and contribute to rural design character in accord with design guidelines of SPI 91. The design is based on a desire to preserve the environmental features and maintain a rural character. The project design preserves critical habitat areas and linkages in accordance with the HMP. Slope area and habitat impacts are minimized by designing residential lot layout to overlap grading impacts necessary to accommodate area wide circulation and infrastmcture extension. 3. Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas Supporting Statement The Revised Biological Technical Report for the Ranch Milagro Study Area, Carlsbad Califomia prepared by RECON and dated July 22, 2009, demonstrates that the proposed development will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation. Specifically exhibit 2 of attachment 4 "HMP Consistency Findings For Rancho Milago" demonstrates that the proposed project, while not within a core area will enhance core or linkage areas and contributes to the implementation of the City HMP through the preservation of over 67% of on site Coastal Sage while minimizing impacts to other habitat types. 4. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is in excess of 10 acres, no more than one third of the total steep slope area shall be subject to major grade changes. Supporting Statement The area to be graded is 14.24 acres, or 32.7% of the total site acreage. The total graded area is not predominated by steep slopes as can be seen on the Hillside Development Constraints Map. This is further evidenced in that only a total of 1.87 acres of slope area (13.1%) is within the graded area. 5. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is not in excess of 10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no interruption of significant wildlife corridors occurs. Supporting Statement Please see responses to items 3.and 4., above. 6. Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and in many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding circumstances are not considered adequate mitigation. Supporting Statement Please refer to Figure 8 the "Revised Biological Technical Report for the Ranch Milagro Study Area, Carlsbad Califomia" prepared by RECON and dated July 22, 2009, and sheet 4 of the Hillside Development Permit Constraints map to confirm that no grading or removal of vegetation will occur on north-facing slopes. ATTACHMENT 2 RECEIVED JQk Henthom & AssociatQ RO. Box 237 Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 OCT 2 2 2009 CITY OF CARLSBAD October 16, 2009 PLANNING DEPT Mr. Jason Goff CityofCarlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Subject: Response to request for Agency issues update - Rancho Milagro Dear Mr. Goff: The issues raised by the agencies in the letter dated October 12, 2007 were the subject of a meeting with the agencies (CDFG and USFWS), Barbara Kennedy, Greg Moorad and me at 3:30PM on December 13, 2007. A response Hst was distributed and discussed at that meeting. The agency response to the meeting (Marci Koski) is in an e-mail dated December 19, 2007 and forwarded to me on December 31, 2007. It documents the outcome of the meeting and the fact that the issues remaining unresolved at that point were items 1 .a and l.b of the Agencies' October, 2007 letter. In the intervening period of time, the project has been substantially revised in response to the items cited as remaining unresolved and city comments provided on subsequent resubmittals. In response to item 1 .a., encroachments into the 100 foot buffer on the northem drainage have been removed (See submittal of November 19,2008 and May 13,2009). Two residential lots were removed and adjustments to lot lines, grading and bmsh management zones have been made and addressed in the revisions to the biological technical report. Detailed drawings demonstrating the chain of treatment for drainage discharge into the natural drainage chaimel have been incorporated into the plans including detailed locations of proposed rock energy dissipaters. In response to item 1 .b., we have been able to accomplish full, no net-loss mitigation by creating wetland habitat area in a cultivated area adjacent to the buffer on the northem side of the northem drainage area as depicted in the enclosed biological technical report. A conceptual mitigation plan is included in the biological technical report outlining how compliance with agency requirements is met. 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112 • Carisbad, CA 92008 If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at your convenience. Si«cerely, Jack E. Henthom JEH:wpc Jason Goff c From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jason Goff Ttiursday, August 27, 2009 4:25 PM 'Jack Henttiorn' Dominic Fieri Rancho Milagro - May 14, 2009 submittal (Fire Department Comments) Fire.pdf Jack, In my June l*f 2009 issues letter for the Rancho Milagro project, I indicated that the Fire Department comments would follow under separate cover. Attached is a copy of those comments as submitted to me today. I've CC'd Dominic Fieri in the Fire Department on this email, so please accept these as formal comments. Thank you. ^ cnr Of CARLSBAD Jason Goff Associate Planner City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 P: 760.602.4643 F: 760.602.8559 Jason.Goff@carisbadca.gov CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Project Name; Rancho Milagro Date: 8-27-29 Project Number: CT 06-04 Staff Planner: Jason Goff • This project is currently in a very high wild land hazard zone therefore the street widths will have to be 28 feet clear and unobstructed. • Please revise the name ofthe Fire Marshal on sheet-4 to James Weigand. • Fire Access grades not to exceed 10%. • Please indicate on the plans that ali residences shall have fire sprinklers. c o FILE CO Citv of Carlsbad 1 Planning Department June 22, 2009 Bryan Bennett Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO ISSUES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Dear Bryan, There are issues of concern with the project that remain to be resolved. The issues are listed on the attached page(s). All issues will need to be resolved prior to scheduling the project for a public hearing. At this time, we ask that you provide six (6) complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. Please contact me at (760) 602-4643, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, JASON GOFF Associate Planner JG:lt Warren Lyall, Lyall Enterprises, Inc.,15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle Greg Ryan Liz Ketabian Michael Elliott (PELA) File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT^-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-M- RANCHO MILAGRO June 22, 2009 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. There is a drainage outlet proposed within the biofiltration detention basin (Lot 22), which includes a drainage pipe leading to Aqua Hedionda Creek by way of the general utility easement. Please revise the Biotechnical Report to address the impact of constructing this improvement where it outfalls at the creek. Like the sewer pipe that is being constructed across the creek, will this drainage improvement be constructed using the jack-and-bore process in order to avoid sensitive habitat? Please revise. 2. Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, and 15 are all impacting slope areas in excess of 25%. Enclosed is a copy of Page 2 from the Sunny Creek Specific Plan (SP 191) where it discusses development of slopes in excess of 25% along with Exhibit A from the SP entitles "REPLACEMENT WORDING FOR SUNNY CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN SLOPE RESTRICTIONS." Please provide a detailed response to each of the mandatory findings which are needed to support the development of these slopes. Please provide as a separate response item. Also, please note that the most recent version of the project's Geotechnical Report dated April 27, 2009 by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. does not appear to include language to support Mandatory Finding No. 1. Please revise this document accordingly. 3. Biotechnical Report: Where the project is proposing the use of "Jack and Bore" to construct the sewer line under Agua Hedionda Creek, the Biotechnical Report needs to be revised to include mitigation in the form of contingencies in the event of a "frac-out." Please see joint USFWS and CDFG letter dated October 12, 2007. 4. Biotechnical Report: Please revise the report to include mitigation measures for impacts to California adolphia. 5. With the resubmission of a revised Biotechnical Report, please submit a separate response letter, which specifically addresses the concerns raised in the joint agency (USFWS and CDFG) response letter dated October 12, 2007 and any further comments raised in the email from Marci Koski dated December 19, 2007. 6. Please submit extra copies of the Biotechnical Report and Wetland Delineation Study, which will be routed to the agencies as part of our request for an HMP Consistency Determination. 7. Landscape Plans - Sheets 2 & 3: There is a note referencing certain buildings being fire sprinkled, which have walls facing the Fire Protection Zones (FPZ). The specific lot numbers that are identified in this note do not correspond with the proposed FPZ. Shouldn't Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17 be included in this note? Also, Lots 20 & 21 no longer exist as residential lots. Please revise. 8. Landscape Plans - Sheets 2 & 3: What about fencing for the individual lots (design/location)? For lots that include manmade slopes, will fencing be allowed to run down or across the face of the slope? For lots with downhill perimeter slopes, shouldn't GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ ClW-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 0^- RANCHO MILAGRO June 22, 2009 Page 3 a fencing plan be devised that restricts fencing to the top of the slope edge to preclude development out and beyond? 9. Landscape Plans - Sheet 5/Detail E/Note 4: This note references "3 Rail Fence (Detail X/XX)." Please revise this reference to identify the correct detail number and sheet number. 10. Landscape Plans - Sheet 10/Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit: Lots 4-8 and 10-12 show the maintenance responsibility of the 2:1 "downhill perimeter" slope areas adjacent to the natural habitat (proposed open space Lots 21 and 24) as being maintained by the private homeowners. According to the landscape plans, this area is being planted and irrigated by the developer. What is to preclude the private homeowner from developing these slopes? Shouldn't this be maintained by the Rancho Milagro H.O.A. with some form of easement to preclude development? Before your next submittal, please meet with staff to discuss this issue. 11. Civil Plans - Sheet 1/General Notes/Proposed Density: This note indicates a project density of 0.84 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). However, based on 16.62 net developable acres (as indicated in the constraints map) and 19 proposed dwelling units, the project density should be identified as 1.14 du/ac. Please revise. 12. Civil Plans - Sheet 2: The "X" Street Storm Drain Culvert Detail calls for a vinyl coated chain link fence on top, whereas the Landscape Plans (Detail F, Sheet 5) are identifying a 42 inch 3 rail composite ranch style fence with vinyl coated chain link. Can you please revise this detail to reference the landscape plans for the typical fence design. 13. Civil Plans - Sheet 4/Lot 2: Please provide dimension for front yard setback. Please revise this sheet any others so that they are consistent. 14. Civil Plans - Sheet 4/Lot 4: Carisbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) Section 21.10.100(D)(1) requires that pan handle lots have a minimum buildable area of 10,000 square feet. This lots identifies a Pad Area = 14,890 sq. ft., a Net Lot Area = 27,490 sq. ft., a Net Pad Area = 9,070 sq. ft., and a Gross Lot Area of 32,022 sq. ft. Can you please clarify? 15. Civil Plans - Sheet 4/Lot 14: The street side yard setback along "Y" Street needs to be revised to show 25 feet. Please revise this sheet and any others so that they are consistent. 16. Civil Plans - Sheet 7: The Sheet Index doesn't correspond with the following Sheet Nos. 8 and 9. Please revise. 17. Civil Plans - Sheet 7: Please spell out the abbreviated descriptions of the various habitat types listed in the bottom left hand corner of the sheet, and also insure that these descriptions are consistent with the RECON Biological Technical Report (BTR). It doesn't appear that the Non-Native Grassland habitat type is identified in the legend or on the plans. Also, the cross hatch for the abbreviated habitat type "DIST" (which we assume to be "Disturbed") is not shown on the following plans, and in the BTR the same area is listed as Developed. Please coordinate these items so that they are consistent. GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT 06-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09-^^ - RANCHO MILAGRO June 22, 2009 Page 4 Engineering: The Engineering Department has no further issues with the project. Parks Department (Liz Ketabian): 1. Civil Plans - Sheet 1 of 11 (Trail Detail): The grade shown on the trail detail indicates a 24% slope following the series of stairs. This is too steep. A minimum 15% is acceptable. Another series of stairs or other alternative is required. Please revise. 2. Civil Plans - Sheet 2 of 11: The note below the Local Public Street Section, regarding where the decomposed granite path ends and the sidewalk begins, is unclear. Please revise and indicate the lot numbers where the sidewalk is to be located (i.e., adjacent Lots 1-6?) and also please label the plans on Sheets 3 and 4 in order to differentiate more cleariy where the decomposed granite path ends and the sidewalk begins. See also redline comments on Sheet 4 pertaining to this same item. 3. Landscape Plans - Sheet 3: There is a note on the plan referencing Sheet 6 as the location to find a detail for trail construction. However, this trail detail is shown on Sheet 5. Please revise this inconsistency to reference the correct sheet number. 4. Landscape Plans - Sheet 1-10 (Decomposed Granite Trail and Sidewalk): The proposed decomposed granite trail should not be constructed in front of residential Lots 1-6 as it is currently shown on the plans. Instead, this area should be indicated as a sidewalk so as to be consistent with the improvement plans and also because the decomposed granite is not a suitable material to have in conjunction with the concrete drives that would cross the trail. Please revise the plans to indicate the extent of the concrete sidewalks and decomposed granite trails. 5. Please see the attached redlines for additional comments. Return all redlines with next submittal. Landscape Consultant (PELA): The numbers listed below correspond with the numbers referenced on the returned set of red lined plans for ease of locating areas of comment concern. Please address the following concerns. REPEAT COMMENTS 1-5 Completed. 6. Show Fire Protection Zones, per the Manual on all slopes that abut natural areas. This applies to manmade and natural slopes. Adjust the "old" Fire Protection Zone lines to be reflective ofthe proposed building footprints shown on the plans. In discussions with Greg Morrad, Henthorn & Associates and Greg Ryan (6/7/07), there appears to be no reason why the Fire Protection Zones should not be shown as required by the Landscape Manual. Graphically show trees in Zone A-3 spaced at 20' O.C.—Reduce GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CTWO4/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09%if - RANCHO MILAGRO June 22, 2009 Page 5 the size of brow ditches to a realistic dimension. They are currently shown as 10' wide and impact the area that could be planted. See Attachments "B" & "C" for how zones are defined. There are no sizes or spacings provided in the Fire Protection Zone legend.—Slopes in Zone A 3 must meet all slope planting requirements. Zones A 1 & A-2 must meet all slope planting requirements with tho exception of trees. The legend must demonstrate conformance with the Manual requirements. 4^ Review: Please address comment above. Please provide trees or large shrubs in zone 3 per slopo revegetation requiromonts at 1 per 200 square foot (in fire zones minimum 20' apart). Please indicate proposed plantings in tho HOA maintained drainage easement Please also add the following notes to tho plans: Slopes 6:1 or steeper requiring erosion control measures as specified heroin shall be treated with one or more of the following planting standards: a. Standard 1 - Cover Crop/Reinforced Straw Matting: Cover crop shall be a seed mix typically made up of quick germinating and fast covering grasses, clovers, and/or wild flowers. Submit the specific seed mix for City approval prior to application. The cover crop shall be applied at a rate and manner sufficient to provido 90% coverage within thirty (30) days. Type of reinforced straw matting shall be as approved by the city and staked to tho slope as recommended by the manufacturer. Reinforced straw matting shall be required when planting occurs between August 15 and April 15. The cover crop and/or reinforced straw mat shall be used the remainder of the year b-.—Standard #2—Ground Cover One hundred (100%) percent ofthe area shall be planted with a ground cover known to havo excellent soil binding characteristics (planted from a minimum size of flatted material and spaced to provide full coverage within one year). G-.—Standard 113 - Low Shrubs Low spreading woody shrubs (planted from a minimum of 2-3/4 inch liners) shall cover a minimum of seventy (70%) percent ofthe slope face (at mature sizo). d.—Standard ll'l—Trees and/or Large Shrubs Trees and/or large shrubs shall be (planted from a minimum of 1 gallon containers) at a minimum rate of one (1) per two hundred (200) square feet Slopes - 6:1 or stoepor and: a. 3' or less in vertical height and are adjacent to public walks or streets require at minimum Standard HI. b. —3' to 8' in vertical height require Standards HI, #2 and #3. e-.—In excess of 8' in vertical height require Standards HI, #2, #3, and f'l. Areas graded flatter than 6:1 require Standard HI (cover crop) with temporary irrigation when they have one or more of the following conditions: a-.—Sheet graded pads not scheduled for improvements within 6 months of completion of rough grading, b. A potential erosion problem as determined by the City. GPA 06-03/ ZC 06-02/ CT ^-04/ HDP 06-01/ SUP 06-05/ HMP 09^ - RANCHO MILAGRO June 22, 2009 Page 6 &—Identified by the City as highly visible aroas to the public or have special conditions that warrant immediate treatment. 7-11. Completed. IA. Completed. NEW COMMENTS IB. All HOA maintained areas should use reclaimed water as it appears to be available. Please revise water use plans as appropriate. Submit one extra copy of plans with the next submittal and indicate in your transmittal to route this copy to Pam Adams in Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. Fire Department: Fire Department comments will follow under separate cover. f^k Henthom & AssociaQs ^ RO. Box 237 Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 May 13, 2009 Jason Goff City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECBVED Subject: Rancho Milagro (CT 06'04/HDP 06-01/ZC 06-02/GPA 06-03/SUP 06-05/HMP 09-01) - Resubmittal Package Dear Mr. Goff: Enclosed please find the resubmittal for the Rancho Milagro project. The project has been revised to reflect the issues of concern identified in the City's letter dated January 20, 2009. Each of the items contained in the letters are addressed below: PLANNING; INCOMPLETE ITEMS 1. A major Habitat Management Plan Permit was submitted to the City on January 16, 2009. The application number is HMP 09-01. 2. The early public notice package was submitted on January 16, 2009. PLANNING; ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. The Biological Technical Report has been revised to address as follows: a. Lots 8,11 and 19 were revised to remove the residential lot areas and grading outside of the 100-foot wetland buffer. As shown on the enclosed tentative map and biological report the only encroachment into the wetland buffer is Street "K", the associated grading with Street "K", drainage outlets and the drainage maintenance road. b. The line delineating the 100-foot wetland buffer has been clearly defined and labeled on the enclosed tentative map and the exhibits of the revised biological technical report, as requested. c. The enclosed landscape plans were revised to include a typical detail for the bio- swales along with a typical planting legend. Please refer to the enclosed landscape plans for details. 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112 • Carisbad, CA 92008 d. After reviewing the mitigation program in detail with the project biologist, the project is no longer requesting mitigation credit for the 1:1 creation component of the required wetland mitigation. The 2:1 restoration component of the required wetland mitigation will be located within the restoration area of the wetland buffer. This concept was supported by City staff last summer during multiple meetings regarding the project and the proposed mitigation. 2. The enclosed tentative map was revised to include two additional sheets that specifically identify the setbacks for each lot and designate those lots that are subject to the hillside slope setback. 3. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change exhibits have been modified to include the existing and the proposed land use designations and zoning classifications as requested. Please refer to the enclosed exhibits for details. 4. The riparian overlook area has been placed into a separate lot and is designated as Lot 25 on the enclosed tentative map as requested. 5. The Conceptual Landscape Plans have been revised to include all of the application numbers in the upper right hand comer. ENGINEERING; ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. The trail symbol has been added to the legend on Sheet 1 as requested. 2. The slope of the proposed trail has been included on the detail on Sheet 1 of the enclosed tentative map. 3. As suggested, approximately 270 feet of sewer line in Street "K" has been removed that previously serviced the deleted lots. The remainder of the sewer Une is required to serve Lot 19. 4. The tentative map has been revised to eliminate the double line previously shown at the top of slope. No retaining is required in this location. Please refer to the enclosed tentative map for details. 5. A note has been added to Sheet 3 of the enclosed tentative map that states the improvements for Street "K" will join the grading and improvements constructed by CT 00-18. The grading for the connection shall be within the slope easements that CT 00-18 will grant to the City as part of their final map and improvement plans. 6. The tentative map has been revised to remove the water and sewer laterals in Street "K" that previously served the deleted lots. 7. The inundation lines shown on the tentative map have been revised to match the line type within the legend on Sheet 1. 8. The new line has been labeled on the enclosed tentative map as requested. 9. The adjacent 'Remainder Lots' from CT 00-18 have been labeled as requested. 10. The lot areas for Lots 23 and 24 have been included on the enclosed tentative map consistent with the other lot callouts. 11. The hatching for the proposed fuel modification zones has been included on the tentative map as requested. Please refer to the conceptual landscape plans for specific details associated with the fire modification zones. 12. Enclosed with the resubmittal package is an updated title report that shows Lyall Enterprises, Inc. as the owner of the property. This is the same report that was submitted to the Planning Department along with the updated land use application when the ownership of the property was transferred last year. 13. The soils and hydrology reports have been updated to reflect the revised project. Please refer to the enclosed reports for details. 14. Pursuant to subsequent conversations between Frank Fitzpatrick and Jeremy Riddle, the extension of the drainage access road is not necessary. 15. A standpipe/outlet has been added to the proposed detention basin as requested. Please refer to the enclosed tentative map for details. 16. The tentative map has been revised to illustrate the locations of the proposed bio- swales on Lots 4, 5 and 6 as requested. 17. Enclosed with the resubmittal package are the project redlines that were provided. PARKS DEPARTMENT; ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. The word "STABILIZED" has been added to Sheet 2 as requested. 2. Detail 'B' on Sheet 5 has been revised as requested. Please refer to the enclosed Conceptual Landscape Plans for details. LANDSCAPE; ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. Additional trees have been provided on the landscape plans as requested. 6. Additional trees have been added in Zone 3 of the fire suppression zones as requested. In addition, the notes for the erosion control measures have been added to the plans. Please refer to the enclosed Conceptual Landscape Plans for details. 1 A. All calculations have been revised to reflect the current proposed plan. -3- If you have any questions or need any additional infonnation, please feel free to call me at (760) 438-4090 extension 104 or e-mail me at bennett(2)jhenthorn.com. Sincerely, BryahrD. Bennett Principal Planner end. Resubmittal Package cc: Warren Lyall file \IHA\Rancho Milagro - 8* Resubmittal Letter Citv of Carlsbad <P6 • 07 Planning Departnnent January 20, 2009 Bryan Bennett Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05 - FIANCHO MILAGRO Dear Bryan, The items requested from you eariier to make your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit applications no. GPA 06-03, ZC 06-02, CT 06-04, HDP 06-01 and SUP 06-05, complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) applications are complete as submitted. The remaining development applications consisting of Tentative Subdivision Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Special Use Permit are deemed to be incomplete. Since the legislative actions (GPA and ZC) are being processed concurrently with the quasi-judicial actions, the other development permit applications must remain incomplete until the legislative actions are approved by the City Council. Staff will continue to concurrently process and take the development applications to the decision-making bodies together and in an order by which the applications can be decided upon. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your applications as of the date of this communication. At this time, the City asks that you provide seven (7) complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. ^ , Please contact your staff planner, Jason Goff, at (760) 602-4643, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, -^ARY T. BARBERIO Assistant Planning Director GTB:JG:lt c: Warren Lyall, Lyall Enterprises, Inc.,15529 Highway 76, Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Chris DeCerbo Jeremy Riddle Greg Ryan Liz Ketabian Michael Elliott (PELA) File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 03/ZC 06-02/CT 06r04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05 - RANCHO MIWGRO January 20, 2009 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. In accordance with Carisbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) Section 21.210.070, please submit an application for a (Major) Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Permit. 2. Please submit an Early Public Notice Package. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please revise the Biological Technical Report to address the following items before staff can send the project to the Wildlife Agencies for an HMP Consistency determination. a. Areas within Lots 8, 11, and 19 encroach within the 100 ft. wetland buffer. Please revise the plans to observe a 100 ft. buffer from wetland habitat, or provide the biological justification for the buffer reduction. b. The line delineating the 100 ft. wetland buffer needs to be cleariy identified and labeled on the plans. Please label the plans accordingly. c. In your email response to agency comments dated December 30, 2008, you respond to agency comment 1-a that all storm water runoff from the residential pads will be treated via water quality bio-swales prior to being discharged from these outlets. Review of the Landscape Plans does not support this statement. The Grading Plans identify water quality bio-swales, however the landscape plans need to be revised to show the respective plantings necessary to achieve water quality standards. d. In your email response to agency comments dated December 30, 2008, you respond to agency comment 1-b that "the project is no longer requesting mitigation credit for restoring habitat within the buffer area of the northern drainage." This cannot be verified within Biological Technical Report (BTR) dated October 22, 2008. Please update the report by providing an additional exhibit which cleariy shows where all mitigation credit is being accounted for within the study area. Each area needs to be quantified and must equate to the required mitigation that is associated with each respective species that is being impacted. The exhibit should cleariy show the extent of the 100 ft. buffer, and that none of the proposed mitigation lands are located within. 2. Please provide an additional and separate exhibit specifically identifying the setbacks for each lot in accordance with the Sunny Creek Specific Plan and identify all hillside lots and top-of-slope-setbacks for each lot pursuant to C.M.C. Section 21.95.120(1). 3. Please provide separate exhibits that correspond with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. These exhibits should cleariy identify the subject property(ies), the existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Designations for each, and the existing and proposed Zoning classifications for each. 4. The proposed riparian overiook area located along the south side of Street 'X' and across from Lot 18 will need to be placed within a separate Open Space lot, which will need to be maintained by the H.O.A. The Conceptual Planting and Fencing Plan will need to be C w . . GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 0^4/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05 - RANCHO MILAGRO January 20,2009 = ' Page 3 updated to include a fence to discourage any trespass into the riparian habitat area. Please update and revise all plans to address this change. 5. Please include all of the project application numbers in the upper right-hand corner of the Conceptual Landscape Plans. Engineering: 1. Add the trail symbol to the legend on sheet 1. See redlines. 2. Add the slope of the proposed trail to the detail on sheet 1. Refer to redlines for additional information. 3. Consider deleting the 480-ft +/- of 8-inch sewer line in Street 'K' that was serving the now deleted lots. 4. Clarify whether a new offsite retaining wall and grading is proposed near Street 'K' and the subdivision boundary with CT 00-18. If so, add top-of-wall/bottom-of-wall elevations and the retaining wall symbols. Refer to redlines. 5. If offsite grading is proposed near the Street 'K' connection, revise the TM to annotate the offsite grading and note that a letter of permission will be required prior to grading permit issuance. 6. Delete what appear to be water/sewer laterals in Street 'K' serving the deleted lots. 7. Revise the inundation lines on sheet 3 so they match the legend symbol. 8. Label the new line added near the inundation line upstream of the culvert crossing on Street 'K'. This was not shown on previous sets. 9. On sheet 3, label the adjacent 'Remainder Lots' from CT 00-18. 10. On sheet 3, add the lot areas for Lots 23 and 24 in the same manner of labeling as on the other lots. 11. The previous TM used to show fuel modification zones on sheets 3 & 4 per the legend. This version does not show it any more. Please revise exhibits to address this. 12. Provide an updated title report showing the new owner and any new encumbrances to the property. Revise the exhibits to show any new easements. 13. Please amend the soils report and hydrology report to refiect the updated project, excluding the two lots. The technical documents for this project should match the current proposal. 14. On sheet 3, extend the drainage access road, just north of Lot 19, so it provides access to the headwall for City crews. Refer to redlines. 15. On sheet 3, clarify how the detention basin will discharge after it is full of water. Provide an improved overflow with concrete and/or rip-rap to address erosion. Also address how the detention basin will drain after rainfall events. Clarify if a standpipe/outlet is needed to drain the basin to address potential vector issues. 16. On sheet 4, show the limits of bio-swales on Lots 4, 5 & 6 as these lots drain to the rear yard. o liLAG GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05 - RANCHO MiCAGRO January 20, 2009 Paqe 4 Refer to redline comments. 17. Please return all redlines with next submittal. Parks Department: 1. Conceptual Planting & Fencing Plan - Sheet 2: Please add the word "STABILIZED" when referencing D.G. materials (see redlines). 2. Conceptual Planting & Fencing Plan - Sheet 5: Please see the attached redlines for Detail 'B' revisions. Revise accordingly. 3. Please return all redlines with next submittal. Landscape Consultant (PELA): REPEAT COMMENTS 1. Provide street trees as shown on the redline plans. 2-5 Completed. 6. Show Fire Protection zones, per the Manual on all slopes that abut natural areas. This applies to manmade and natural slopes. Adjust the "old" Fire Protection zone lines to be reflective of the proposed building footprints shown on the plans. In discussions with Greg Morrad, Henthorn & Associates and Greg Ryan (6/7/07), there appears to be no reason why the Fire Protection zones should not be shown as required by the Landscape Manual. Graphically show trees in Zone A-3 spaced at 20' O.C. Reduce the size of brow ditchos to a realistic dimension. They are currently shown as 10' wide and impact the area that could be planted. See Attachments "B" & "C" for how zones are defined. There are no sizes or spacings provided in the Fire Protection Zone legend. Slopes in Zone A-3 must meet all slope planting requirements. Zones A-1 & A-2 must meet all slope planting requirements with the exception of trees. The legend must demonstrate conformance with the Manual requirements. 4"' Review: Please address comment above. Ptease provide trees or large shrubs in zone 3 per slope re-vegetation requirements at 1 per 200 square feet (in fire zones minimum 20' apart). Please indicate proposed plantings in the HOA maintained drainage easement Please also add the following notes to the plans: Slopes 6:1 or steeper requiring emsion control measures as specified herein shall be treated with one or more of the following planting standards: a. Standard 1 - Cover Crop/Reinforced Straw Matting: Cover crop shall be a seed mix typically made up of quick germinating and fast covering grasses, clovers, and/or wild flowers. Submit the specific seed mix for City approval prior to application. The cover crop shall he applied at a rate and manner sufficient to provide 90% coverage within thirty (30) days. Type of reinforced straw matting shall be as approved by the city and staked to the slope as recommended by the manufacturer GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06^/HDP 06-01/SUP 06-05 - RANCHO MILAGRO January 20, 2009 Page 5 )CT54; Reinforced straw matting shall be required when planting occurs between August 15 and April 15. The cover crop and/or reinforced straw mat shall be used the remainder of the year b. Standard #2 - Ground Cover One hundred (100%) percent ofthe area shall be planted with a ground cover known to have excellent soil binding characteristics (planted from a minimum size of flatted material and spaced to provide full coverage within one year). c. Standard #3 - Low Shrubs Low spreading woody shrubs (planted from a minimum of 2-3/4 inch liners) shall cover a minimum of seventy (70%) percent ofthe slope face (at mature size). d. Standard #4 - Trees and/or Large Shrubs Trees and/or large shmbs shall be (planted from a minimum of 1 gallon containers) at a minimum rate of one (1) per two hundred (200) square feet Slopes-6:1 or steeper and: a. 3'or less in vertical height and are adjacent to public walks or streets require at minimum Standanj #1. b. 3' to 8' in vertical height require Standards #1, #2 and #3. c. In excess of 8' in vertical height require Standards #1, #2, #3, and #4. Areas graded flatter than 6:1 require Standanj #1 (cover crop) with temporary irrigation when they have one or more ofthe following conditions: a. Sheet graded pads not scheduled for improvements within 6 months of completion of rough grading. b. A potential erosion problem as determined by the City. c. Identified by the City as highly visible areas to the public or have special conditions that warrant immediate treatment 7-11 Completed. NEW COMMENTS IA. The landscape area has been revised. Please modify all calculations to reflect current proposed conditions. Fire Department: The Fire Department has reviewed the project and has no new comments or issues. Henthom & Associat^ RO. Box 237 Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 November 5, 2008 Chris DeCerbo City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Subject; Rancho Milagro (CT 06-04/HDP 06-01/ZC 06-02/GPA 06-03/SUP 06-05) - Resubmittal Package Dear Mr. DeCerbo: Enclosed please find the resubmittal for the Rancho Milagro project. The project has been revised to address the concerns identified in the meeting with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department Fish and Game. In addition, other minor concerns raised by the Ciry staff have also been incorporated with the enclosed submittal. The most significant modification to the project has been the elimination of two residential lots. Lots 20 and 21 firom the previous proposal. These lots were located along the northem property line and were apart of the parcel merger with the remainder parcel from the Cantirini Ranch project. Due to the concerns over adequate wetland buffering and negotiations with the adjacent property owner, it was determined that the best solution for the proposed project was to eliminate those to two parcels. All enclosed plan sets, as well as the biological report which was prepared by RECON, have been updated to reflect the elimination of the two lots. In addition to the lots being eliminated, minor modifications have been made to some of the proposed lot lines adjacent to the northern wetland. Specifically the rear lot line for Lot 7 was shifted to the south in order to reduce the impacts to CSS habitat and maintain the 67% preservation standard pursuant to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The enclosed tentative map, conceptual landscape plans and hillside development plan have all been revised to reflect this modification. The Fire Department was also contacted to gain their approval of the shift and resultant reduction to the fire suppression zone for Lot 7. The enclosed biological report has also been revised to reflect the reduction in impact to the CSS habitat and the associated increase in the preservation area for compliance with the HMP standard. Carisbad • 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112 •_f_arisbad, CA 92008 San Diego • 9707 Waples Street, Ste 211 • San Diego, CA92121 1^ Other minor adjustments to the plans include modifications to the lot data table, density calculation table and other notations to reflect the above stated changes in addition to those made for consistency between the plan sets and biological report. Once you return to the office please feel free to give us a call to set up a meeting to discuss the history and details of the project with the new planner assignment. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call me at (760) 438-4090 extension 104 or e-mail me at bennett@jhenthom.com. Sincerely, BryawD. Bennett Principal Planner end. Resubmittal Package cc: Warren Lyall file \lHA\Rancho Milagro - Resubmittal Letter -2- J k Henthorn &^Associat:> Ufd^^^Ji^'/>Lj. Carisbad, California 92018-0237 (760) 438-4090 , - Fax (760) 438-0981 RECEIVED CITYOFCARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT April 11, 2008 : . . Barbara Kennedy City of Carisbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad CA 92008 Subject- Rancho Milagro- CT 06-04- New Property Owner Dear Barbara, . ' The Rancho Milagro property recently sold to Lyall Enterprises Inc. The new owner intends to proceed with the Rancho Milagro planning application, CT 06-04, as proposed. The new owner/applicant contact information is: Lyall Enterprises Inc. 15529 Highway 76 - . Pauma Valley CA 92061 ; , Attention: Warren Lyall Phone: 760.742.3256 : , ' • " Fax: 760.742.4478 Email: wjlyall(gyahoo.com " ' ' Our office will continue to process the planning application on behalf of the new owner. Attached are the application forms for the new owner, and the new owner's title insurance policy for the property, issued at the time of ownership transfer. Regards, Gregory Moorad Senior Planner Carisbad • 5927 Balfour Court, Ste. 112 • Carisbad, CA 92008 San Diego • 9707 Waples Street, Ste 211 • San Diego, CA92121 U. S. Fish and \vildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 (760) 431-9440 FAX (760) 431-5901 California Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92123 (858) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 OCT 1 2 2007 ^5' Subject: HMP Consistency Findings for the Rancho Milagro Residential Development Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Ms. Kennedy: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (Department), collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed your August 8, 2007, request for our concurrence that the proposed Rancho Milagro Residential Development Project (Project) is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's (City) Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Our review of the proposed Project is based upon: the information provided in the above-mentioned request, including the revised Biological Technical Report (BTR) dated July 17, 2007, from Recon; the Wildlife Agencies' previous history and experience with these Projects; and the HMP. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The HMP is a Habitat Conservation Plan approved by the Service pursuant to Section 10 of the Act. The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). The City is currently participating in the NCCP program by implementing its HMP. The Project is located in northwestern San Diego County in the northeast quadrant of the City. The HMP designates the Project as a Standards Area within Zone 15 on the HMP map. The Project proposes the development of 21 single-family houses, a biofiltration detention area, and a TAiKE F*RIDE* Ms. Barbara Kennedy (FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1) 2 sewer line. A total of 16.6 acres of land would be impacted by grading activities associated with the proposed development, both on and off site. These activities would impact 0.05 acre southem willow scrub, 0.01 acre sycamore/oak woodland, 0.04 acre streambed, 2.55 acres disturbed and undisturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub (CSS), 0.05 acre coast live oak woodland, 11.3 acres of agricultural fields, 1.7 acres disturbed habitat, and 1.0 acre of developed land. Proposed mitigation for these impacts include on-site preservation of 2.55 acres of CSS (mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for CSS not occupied by coastal Califomia gnatcatcher, Polioptila califomica califomica), on-site preservation of 0.15 acre of coast live oak woodland (mitigated at a 3:1 ratio), and pajmaent of an in-lieu mitigation fee for impacts to agricultural and disturbed habitat. Mitigation for impacts to southem willow scrub and sycamore/oak woodland would occur at a 3:1 ratio, which must include a minimum of 1:1 (0.06 acre) creation component; the remaining 2:1 mitigation requirement would be fulfilled by off-site acquisition or payment into a mitigation bank if suitable on-site creation or restoration areas are not available. Mitigation for impacts to 0.04 acre of streambed would include a 1:1 on-site riparian habitat creation component. While no federally or state endangered or threatened species were observed on site, several sensitive plants and animals were detected during biological surveys. Three sensitive plants were observed, including: Califomia adolphia (Adolphia califomica), a Califomia Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 2 species; spiny rush (Juncus acutus spp. Leopoldii), a CNPS List 4 species; and Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), a CNPS List IB species, which is also covered by the Carlsbad HMP. Five sensitive bird species were observed in the study area, including: white- tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a Califomia fully protected species; and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northem harrier (Circus cyaneus hudsonius), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), which are all Califomia Department of Fish and Game species of special concem. While protocol surveys for gnatcatcher and least BeU's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) were conducted in 2005, neither of these species were observed. The Wildlife Agencies offer the following recommendations and comments to assist the City in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating project impacts to biological resources, and assure that the project is entirely consistent with the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) and HMP. 1. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the revisions previously made to this project in an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources. We recognize that one lot was removed in the northem portion of the site and that the biofiltration detention area in the southem portion of the site was reconfigured to reduce impacts to drainages and wetland within the project vicinity. The planning standards for Zone 15 include the following requirements: "when conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and require habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas". However, it appears that the proposed Project is inconsistent with these requirements as follows: a) According to Figure 8 in the BTR, it appears that grading impacts will extend within 100 feet of the northem drainage in at least three places. First, the eastem- most home in the northem part of the development (containing only two lots) Ms. Barbara Kennedy (FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1) 3 appears to come within approximately 50 feet of the southem willow scrub. This lot should be reconfigured such that grading is not required within 100 feet of riparian habitat. The other two occurrences are a proposed 16-foot all weather access road and 20 foot public access easement, and what appear to be at least two storm drains extending both south and north to the northem drainage. Please clarify how these impacts are compatible with the HMP buffer requirements. b) While part of the mitigation proposed for impacts to streambed and riparian habitats includes a wetland revegetation area (Exhibit 1 in the BTR) in the vicinity of the northem drainage, the planning standard already requires habitat restoration or enhancement in riparian and buffer areas regardless of mitigation obligations. Within the 100-foot buffer of the northem drainage on site, any habitat that is not native or is degraded should be restored to native habitat suitable for the location. Therefore, the project's mitigation obligations are separate from this standard and should occur outside of the 100-foot buffer. 2. According to the BTR, all fuel fire management activities will occur completely within the development boundaries. However, according to the figures in the BTR, it appears that there is less than 100 feet between development and the open space preserve areas. Please indicate where the fuel modification zone is for all buildings on-site, including any off-site habitat that may be impacted by vegetation clearing. If bmsh management is necessary, it should be included in project-related impacts and mitigated accordingly. For any areas with less than a 100-foot fuel modification zone, please include documentation of approval from the fire marshal. 3. The project proposes to mitigate impacts to streambed and riparian habitat with at least a 1:1 creation component on site. Exhibit 1 in the BTR illustrates a conceptual wetland revegetation area, but does not indicate the size of this area or if this is proposed to fulfill all or part of the mitigation obligation. Furthermore, we are not sure that the proposed revegetation area is appropriate for riparian habitat, as it appears to be higher in elevation than the adjoining drainage and contains several patches of CSS. Conversion of this area to riparian habitat may impact CSS, coast live oak, Califomia adolphia, and spiny rush, as indicated by Figure 5 (sensitive plants) in the BTR. We would not concur with conversion of native habitat for riparian mitigation. Also, according to section 5.1.1 ofthe BTR, mitigation lands for impacts to riparian and wetland habitats should be in the City or MHCP plan area. However, we recommend that all mitigation occur within the City of Carlsbad, preferably within the Agua Hedionda Creek watershed. Additionally, Table 9 in the BTR shows no impacts to sycamore/oak woodland while the text on page 69 (and elsewhere in the document) shows 0.01 acre of impact. This discrepancy should be clarified in the MND. The required mitigation for impacts to sycamore/oak woodland should be 0.03 acre and mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional areas should total 0.22 acre in Table 9. Ms. Barbara Kennedy (FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1) 4. The planning standards for Zone 15 state that "areas of upland habitat outside of the designated Linkage Area C may be taken in exchange for restoration and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is no net loss of coastal sage scrub and the associated gnatcatcher population within the southem portion of the zone." The consistency findings in Attachment 3 of the BTR state that this standard is not applicable to the project since the project site is not within Linkage Area C. However, this standard specifically applies to upland habitat outside of Linkage Area C. Because no net loss of CSS is permitted within the southem portion of Zone 15, preserving 2.55 acres of CSS on site still results in a net loss of CSS. In order to comply with this standard, the project will need to restore 2.55 acres of CSS either on site or in Linkage Area C. We recommend restoring 2.55 acres of the 4.7 acres of disturbed habitat on-site to CSS to ensure no net loss of CSS as a result of project impacts. 5. Although sewer impacts for the proposed development have been evaluated in an April 4, 2000, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the grading permit for the sewer installation will be issued under the HMP. As a result, the sewer installation project must be consistent with the HMP. The CEQA document for the Rancho Milagro project should include findings demonstrating that the sewer project is consistent with the HMP. Additionally, while the installation of the sewer line undemeath the creek will entail jack and bore construction methods, we would like to ensure that appropriate mitigation has been established in the event of a "frac-out" or other unplanned impacts that may result. We recommend contingency measures be established prior to impacts in the event that they are needed. 6. Based on the description of the disturbed habitat and photograph 5 in the BTR, these areas should be designated as non-native grassland. Appendix A of the HMP characterizes non-native grassland habitat as containing not only non-native grasses, but several other species including invasive species such as black mustard, tocolote, and Russian thistle, all of which are listed as being the dominant species of the project's "disturbed" habitat type. In addition, non-native grasses, including Avena sp. and Bromus spp., were observed on site. Impacts to non-native grassland may be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio, or through payment of an in lieu fee. 7. While the BTR recommends that all undeveloped areas within the project property be dedicated as open space, the applicant should also designate an appropriate conservation entity to manage these lands to preserve their biological value. The conservation entity should prepare a management plan, outlining biological resources on the site, monitoring of biological resources, potential impacts to biological resources, and actions to be taken to eliminate or minimize those impacts. Long-term management should be funded in perpetuity with an appropriate non-wasting endowment, as determined by a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or similar program. Additionally, it should be noted that restoration or creation of upland and wetland habitats Ms. Barbara Kennedy (FWS/CDFG-SDG-5497.1) that will be installed to meet mitigation obligations must also be guided by a mitigation and monitoring plan. We recommend a perfonaance bond or letter of credit for grading, planting, irrigation, and 5 years of maintenance and monitoring for mitigation (including a 20% contingency to be added to the total costs) to guarantee the successfiil implementation ofthe mitigation construction, maintenance and monitoring. 8. The proposed project would impact approximately 15 individual Califomia adolphia along the eastem boimdary of fhe property. While the Wildlife Agencies recognize and appreciate that approximately 100 individuals would be preserved within the on-site open space, we recommend that the 15 individuals that would potentially be impacted by the project be transplanted to an appropriate location outside of the development footprint. 9. Protocol surveys for gnatcatcher, vireo, southwestem willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and a rare plant survey were conducted during fhe spring and summer of 2005. The Wildlife Agencies generally accept survey results for one year, sensitive plant and animal surveys should be conducted again up to a year prior to the start of constmction. Therefore, additional protocol surveys maybe required. 10. The project proposes to install a five-foot high chain-Unk fence between the residential lots and the open space. This type offence is generally not effective in preventing animals from getting into or out of protected habitat. Fencing should have no gates and be designed to prevent intrusion by pets, especially cats. We also recommend that signage for the biological conservation easement area should be posted and maintained at conspicuous locations. Based on the infonnation given above, we cannot concur that the project is consistent with the HMP at this time. We would be happy to meet with the City and project applicant to discuss the above issues; please contact our offices to arrange a meeting. The Wildhfe Agencies appreciate the City's and apphcant's efforts to ensure consistency with the HMP. If you have any questions, please contact Marci Koski of the Service at (760) 431-9440 or Daniel Schrimsher of the Department at (858) 467-6926. Siacerely, Therese O'Rourke MiafetadW. MulUgan ( \ Assistant Field Supervisor Deputy Regional Managot^-^ U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service CaHfomia Department of Fish and Game c o FILE copy '5-S;07 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department August 8, 2007 Marci Koski David Meyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish & Game 6010 Hidden Valley Road 4949 Viewridge Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 San Diego, CA 92123 SUBJECT: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR RANCHO MILAGRO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Dear Ms. Koski and Mr. Meyer The City of Carlsbad (City) is seeking your concurrence that the Rancho Milagro project is consistent with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). This letter and the associated attachments are intended to facilitate youi" review of the project and its application of the standards in the City's HMP. Section E-3-B of the HMP (Plan Amendments-Consistency Findings) lists five information items needed to make the consistency finding. These five items are described below, along with a description of where further, detailed information is provided in the attached Biological Technical Report (BTR), revised July 17, 2007, by RECON. 1. The project's location in relation to existina conserved habitat within the Citv. The project site is 43.6 acres. It is located in the southern portion of Zone 15. Zone 15 contains Core Areas 3 and 5, Linkage Area C, existing hardline preserve areas, proposed hardline preserve areas and proposed standards areas. The southern portion of the project site, along Agua Hedionda Creek, is existing conserved habitat that was placed under a Conservation Easement Deed in association with the Terraces of Sunny Creek project. Adjacent to the north of the project site is the Cantarini Ranch hardline conservation area. Adjacent to the northeast of the project site is the Mandana hardline conservation area. Adjacent to the east and west of the project site are proposed Standards areas. For further information please see the attached BTR, pg. 25, Section 3.4.2.3; and BTR, Attachment 3, HMP Consistency Findings, Exhibit 2. 2. The habitat types and anv known occurrence of HMP Species and other species of concern in and adiacent to the proiect area. The project site and adjacent areas include various HMP Species and other species of concern. Please see BTR, pg. 23, Section 3.4 for a complete listing and description. 3. The expected location, tvoe. and intensity of habitat impacts in the proiect area. The project will have impacts on southern willow scrub, coastal sage scrub, coast live oak woodland, agricultural fields and disturbed land. These impacts are caused by project grading and the extension of a sewer line. For a complete listing of the project impacts by 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.cLcarlsbad.ca.us ho Milagro Residential Development >iroject August 8,2007 Page 2 of 3 habitat type, please see the BTR, pg. 52, Table 7. Section 4.0 of the BTR, pg. 51, provides a comprehensive description of the project impacts. 4. Anv open space requirement identified for the area under the General Plan. On the project site, the General Plan designates the riparian area along Agua Hedionda Creek in the southern portion of the project site as open space. The project extends this open space designation northward to include the hillside adjacent to the riparian area. Adjacent to the north of the project site, the General Plan designates Cantarini Ranch hardline conservation area as open space. 5. Specific conservation measures to ensure compliance with zone-level and soecies-soecific standards. The project design, impacts and mitigation are consistent with the HMP zone-level and species-specific standards for Zone 15. In particular, the project's open space preserve includes 4.8 acres of coastal sage scrub which will increase the amount of gnatcatcher habitat within Core Area 5. Also, the northem portion of the project site is proposed as open space preserve that includes a wetland/riparian corridor. This open space connects to the Cantarini Ranch hardline conservation area which includes an upstream portion of this wetland/riparian corridor and drainage system. Rancho Milagro's open space preserve will increase the protection for this wetland/riparian corridor and drainage system. Also, linkages created by the project utilize patches of existing habitat to the maximum extent practicable within the identified linkage alignment. The project conserves all riparian habitats and prohibits fill or development within the existing floodplain except where required for Drainage Master Plan facilities and other essential access roads and infrastructure. To minimize impacts, the access road has been shifted to the narrowest portion of the riparian habitat. The project presen/es neariy all of the riparian habitat. The project impacts on riparian habitat are minimal. In addition, the HMP Planning Standards for Zone 15 require that development impacts be set back at least 100 least from wetland habitats. On the south side of the project site, adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, the average setback from the riparian/wetland is approximately 300 feet. The exception to this is the proposed bio-filtration basin immediately adjacent to the riparian/wetland area. On the north side of the project site, adjacent to the unnamed tributary, the project has been re-designed so that project impacts are setback at least 100' from the riparian/wetland. The exception to this is lot 20. This lot is located immediately adjacent to the primary access road which crosses the northem tributary to provide the only point of access to the project. Due to the road crossing the tributary at this point, the 100' setback cannot be achieved for this lot. Project consistency with this standard is discussed in detail in the BTR, Attachment 3, HMP Consistency Findings, Item 7. For further information regarding specific conservation measures to ensure compliance with zone-level and species-specific standards, please see the BTR, pg. 66, Section 5.0, and BTR Attachment 3, HMP Consistency Findings. The City requests that the Wildlife Agencies provide written concurrence for the proposed hardline design for the Rancho Milagro project within 30 days. This project requires public review in accordance with CEQA guidelines and the City will commence preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration upon receipt of your letter. Following CEQA review, the City will 1 Consistency Findings for Rll»dho Milagro Residential Development Woject August 8, 2007 Paoe 3 of 3 formally consider the consistency of the project with the HMP in its findings regarding the project. Please contact me at (760) 602-4626 if you would like to set a meeting to discuss the project in more detail or if you have any questions or require any additional information at this time. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Revised Biological Technical Report for the Rancho Milagro Studv Area. RECON, revised July 17, 2007. 2. Revised Wetland Delineation Report for the Rancho Milaoro Studv Area. RECON, revised July 17, 2007. 3. Conservation Easement Deed for the Terraces of Sunny Creek. c: Jack Henthorn and Associates file Henthorn & Associat^ 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 July 19, 2007 RECEIVED Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carisbad Planning Department jy| | o ^onj 1635 Faraday Avenue ™ ' ^ ' Carisbad, CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD SUBJECT: Rancho Milagro, 6*" Submittal Package PLANNING DEPT GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 Dear Ms. Kennedy, Attached is the sixth submittal package for the Rancho Milagro project. The attached project plans and submittal items have been revised to address the incomplete items and issues of concern in the City letter dated April 30, 2007. Regarding Planning Incomplete Item 6 from the City letter- Pursuant to a meeting with City staff and the applicant in eariy 2006, the applicant is willing to assist the City in monitoring long-term management of The Terraces at Sunny Creek conservation easement area by including the area in the reporting program for Rancho Milagro. This would provide the City with on-going reports regarding the physical condition and status of the area and its habitats, in perpetuity. This would be funded in perpetuity by Rancho Milagro's endowment, as determined by Rancho Milagro's Property Analysis Record. Any recommended remedial maintenance activities would be the responsibility of the conservation easement holder- The Terraces at Sunny Creek Homeowner's Association. Regarding Engineering Incomplete Item 1 from the City letter- The revised SWMP was recently submitted directly to Jeremy Riddle. As follow-up, the project civil engineer- Frank Fitzpatrick met with Mr. Riddle to ensure that the SWMP was revised appropriately. Regarding Landscape Plan Check Consultant Issue of Concern 6 from the City letter- Conceptual approval of the modified design of the fire protection zones was obtained through a meeting with City Fire Marshal Greg Ryan in approximately January 2006. Through this meeting it was agreed that all buildings will have fire sprinklers, and conform with the CA Building Code for one-hour fire-resistive construction on all building walls that face the fire zones. Notes to this effect are on the landscape plan. Please call me at 760.438.4090 ext 107 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Gregory Moorad Associate Planner End. 6'^ Submittal Package - Rancho Milagro cc: Xavier Sustaeta, Rancho Milagro LLC Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering Company Joseph Dodd, GMP Inc. Wendy Loeffler, RECON O Hit COPY Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department April 30, 2007 Mr. Greg Moorad Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO All ofthe items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be sui3mitted directly to your staff planner by appointment All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this iist must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed. May 16, 2006, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal ofthe application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, DON NEU Planning Director DN:BK:aw Gary Barberio, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^ GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06'-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MLAGRO April 30, 2007 Paqe 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: Thank you for addressing staffs previous comments. The project has now been designed such that staff can support the project and initiate the Consistency Finding process required by the HMP for projects located within a Standards Area. This process requires that the City consult with the Wildlife Agencies and begin CEQA review. In order for staff to initiate the consultation, you will need to submit five copies of the following items: 1. HMP Consistency Findinqs. RECON, dated March 8, 2007. 2. A Revised Biological Technical Report and an updated Wetland Delineation Report. Please incorporate the updated information and exhibits that are included in the Wetland Verification and Updated Biological Resources Impact Analvsis, RECON, dated March 8, 2007. 3. Provide a descriptive analysis of the wetlands impacts and specifically the three steps which demonstrate that the impacts: 1) can not be avoided by a feasible alternative; 2) have been minimized to the maximum extent possible; and 3) will be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of habitat value or function. Please provide documentation and analysis of impacts and alternatives pursuant to section D-6 (HMP pgs D-90 and D-91). Include an evaluation of the value and function of the liabitat and demonstrate that the wetland impact occurs at the narrowest and/or least sensitive location and that all feasible mitigation measures have been employed. Demonstrate that the impact is essential to the feasibility of the project and that no feasible alternative would eliminate or minimize the impact. It is recommended that you include exhibits and Impact tables from the previous studies to demonstrate how the project has been redesigned to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. 4. Include a map that identifies the project's location in relationship to existing conserved habitat within the City. The map should show the site in relationship to the entire boundaries of Core Areas 3 and 5 and Link C. In addition, please show the boundaries of the open space proposed for nearby properties that have approved Hardlines (Cantarin Ranch, Holly Springs, and Mandana). 5. Please prepate a conceptual Hardline exhibit which shows the areas proposed for development and preservation. Include the fuel modification zones, trails, areas proposed for revegetation, undercossings, width of proposed Core Area 5, etc. Please dimension all wetland buffers that are less than 100-feet so that the request for the reduced buffer is clearly documented as a component of the Consistency Finding request. Please contact me if you need a graphic example for the Hardline exhibit. 6. Discuss how the project proposes to comply with the HMP requirements for an an endowment (or other financial guarantee) for monitoring and long-term management of the Terraces Open Space conservation easement area. 7. Please include 5 copies of the Terraces Conservation easement with the submittal package. I have a copy ofthis document but there are two pages missing. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 0^4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MfLAGRO April 30, 2007 Paqe 3 When these items have been received, staff will forward the information to the Wildlife Agencies and set a meeting with all interested parties to discuss the proposal. If the Wildlife Agencies concur that the measures are consistent, the project will be considered consistent with the HMP and the project can be deemed complete. Following public review under CEQA, the City will formally consider the consistency of the project with the HMP in its findings regarding the project. Engineering: 1. The resubmittal of the new Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) contains a new date on the cover sheet, but the contents were not revised to adciress any of the previous comments. I have repeated the comment below: The SWMP continues to have missing information regarding complete documentation/justification for pollution control features. The revised SWMP explains that "a portion" of the project will drain into the water quality basin and that the 85^" percentile for this "portion" is estimated to be near. 84 cfs per your calculations. The lots assumed for this estimation appear to be inconsistent Refer to redlines. Revise the SWMP to demonstrate the water quality basin can treat this flow using flow-based calculations. Refer to CASQUA handbooks for assistance. The TM and SWMP also callout a stormceptor unit, but the SWMP does not explain the purpose and value of the bmp treatment train being applied. The SWMP must include calculations to show how the unit is sized (model # to treat the cfs expected). Outline what pollutants the stormceptor removes and what pollutants the basin removes. In the SWMP, it is also demonstrating that the remainder of the subdivision (lots 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) are not treated by the stormceptor and basin. Instead, they appear to drain to the natural drainage course (untreated). Address this discrepancy. With these lots, the SWMP narrative, calculations and map in the back shoulcj show what bmp measures will be implemented to remove pollutants prior to discharge to natural areas. It is unacceptable to use natural drainage courses/habitat as bmp treatment measures. You might consider having each lot include a permanent vegetated swale before each inlet and prohibit each lot from connecting roof drains directly to the slope drains. Whatever you choose, the SWMP needs to identify (and numerically justify) the bmp treatment measures for these other lots cleariy. We would also like to point out the proposed modified "green" D-75 ditch listed in the SMWP and the TM is not a requirement for you to install as it appears to treat offsite property. For the purposes of water quality treatment requirements we only focus on your project pollutant generation, not adjacent properties. However, if you want to install it, you may. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: None at this time. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT oSb4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO^ LAG RO April 30, 2007 Page 4 Landscape Pian Check Consultant (PELA): Please make the following corrections to the plans so that they will meet the requirements of the City of Carisbad's Landscape Manual. 1. Provide street trees as shown on the redlines. 2. Provide a more permanent and dependable vine planting for the crib wall than the Morning Glory (Calystegia). 3. Revise the Maintenance Plan to show all parkway areas (including the trail) to be under the maintenance responsibility of the Rancho Milagro HOA. 4. Provide a one sheet colored Reclaimed Water Use Plan. 5. Indicate that reinforced straw mats will be installed on all slopes (3: 1 or greater). 6. Adjust the Fire Protection zones to be reflected ofthe building footprints. The Fire Protection Zones should be coordinated with Planting Concept Plan and shown on the Planting Concept Plan. The legend for the Planting Concept Plan hatches should be reflective ofthe specific plantings for each Fire Zone (Zones 1, 2, 3). Use a different hatch for each of the three zones and indicate which plantings will be used in each. Graphically show trees in Zone 3 spaced at 20'. 7. This slope should have trees since it does not abut a natural area. 8. Delete the word "most" from this note. 9. Add the type of turf to be used in the legend. Indicate sod rather than seed. 10. Indicate that all slopes are to be irrigated with a permanent automatically controlled irrigation system. 11. Return Redlines. Provide two copies of all plans in your next submittal. Engineering: 1. REPEAT COMMENT: Since the entire public drainage system (alignment and discharge location) has been redesigned, this requires the submittal of a new drainage study that addresses the design of the inlets, pipes, discharges and detention basin design. This should have been provided with this recent submittal. We found hydraulic calculations in the preliminary SWMP but are unable to review without hydrology maps and node maps. 2. Revise the TM to address all redline comments as noted on the returned plans. Enclosed is a redlined check print of the project. This check print must be returned with the revised pians to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions regarding the Engineering comments, please call Jeremy Riddle at 602-2737. )6^4 GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO April 30, 2007 Page 5 Trails Manager: TENTATIVE MAP 1. General Notes regarding Trails: a. The use of Stavlock materials will no longer be an acceptable type of stabilized decomposed granite material for trail use standards. Please remove anv reference to the use of this particular type of product on plans. b. A detail or cross section of the 10' trail should be shown on plans. 2. Sheet 1- Stair Step Detail: Please indicate with a note that a handrail on each side of the steps will be required. A smooth 1-1/4" O.D. pipe rail with a powder coat finish or similar type of hand rail would be acceptable. Handrail locations and installation shall be per the State Codes for stair hand rail installations. LANDSCAPE PLANS 1. Sheet 2 - Please add note regarding requirement for hand rail, see comment above for Sheet 1 of Tentative Map. See Plans for comments. 2. Sheet 6 - Stabilized Decomposed Granite Trail: The 2' mulched maintenance strip is not a requirement for the trails next to native habitat areas, only when next to a landscaped planting area. 3. Please revise the following: -Remove any reference to Staylock materials. (Item 4 in the Detail Legend) -Splices will be required a minimum of 6' O.C. -Clarification: All DG materials shall have stabilizer, however Staylock materials are not acceptable. 4. Please see attached redlines. Return redlines with your submittal. Fire: 1. All developable lots shall be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The TM should indicate that fire sprinklers are required at each lot. Currently, only the Landscape Plan makes this reference. 2. The following lots shall be required to conform with the CA Building Code for one-hour fire resistive construction on those walls that face the Fire Protection Zones: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 20, 21 and 22. Currently, only the Landscape Plan makes reference to these requirements. 3. The development of this subdivision shall be subject to the same restrictions placed upon Cantarini Ranch/ Holly Springs (PRE 02-26) in that no more than twenty (20) residences may be developed before the Carisbad Fire Code requires a second approved access street to be constructed. jQk Henthorn & AssociatO 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 March 19, 2007 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carisbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Rancho Milagro, 5'^ Submittal Package GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 Dear Ms. Kennedy, Enclosed is the fifth submittal package for the Rancho Milagro project. The project plans and submittal items have been revised to address the incomplete items and issues of concern in the City letter dated May 16, 2006. Each item in the City letter is addressed below. The City comments and comment numbers below are copied directly from the City letter. The submittal package also contains the additional information you requested as a result of your consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. This information includes updates to the wetland delineation, biological impact analysis, and HMP consistency findings. Also, the project plans have been revised to address and incorporate the City-redlined comments on the plans. Engineering incomplete Items: 1. CITY COMMENT: Provide a letter of support from Mandana Cal Co. stating they do not object to this project. This company currently has rights to an easement per item 6 of the preliminary title report, dated August 19, 2004. You response letter indicates Mandana has offered "verbal support" to quitclaim their private road easement. Please note that, in order to ensure the conceptual approval of this project staff needs documentation that land title conflicts can be resolved. As we have repeated since the first review, staff needs "written" support from the easement holder that they are willing to quitclaim their easement. We understand the private road easement may not be formally quitclaimed until the public streets within this project are dedicated by the final map (later point in time), but at this point we need written support for your project. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Per the meeting with David Hauser and Jeremy Riddle this is no longer an incomplete item and the application can move forward with processing. Resolution of the private road easement is the responsibility of the applicant. 2. CITY COMMENT: The SWMP continues to have missing information regarding complete documentation/justification for pollution control features. The revised SWMP explains that "a portion" of the project will drain into the water quality basin and that the 85'^ percentile for this "portion" is estimated to be near .84 cfs per your calculations. The lots assumed for this estimation appear to be inconsistent. Refer to redlines. Revise the SWMP to demonstrate the water quality basin can treat this flow using flow-based calculations. Refer to CASQUA handbooks for assistance. The TM and SWMP also callout a stormceptor unit, but the SWMP does not explain the purpose and value of the bmp treatment train being applied. The SWMP must include calculations to show how the unit is sized (model # to treat the cfs expected). Outline what pollutants the stormceptor removes and what pollutants the basin removes. In the SWMP, it is also demonstrating that the remainder of the subdivision (lots 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) are not treated by the stormceptor and basin. Instead, they appear to drain to the natural drainage course (untreated). Address this discrepancy. With these lots, the SWMP narrative, calculations and map in the back should show what bmp measures will be implemented to remove pollutants prior to discharge to natural areas. It is unacceptable to use natural drainage courses/habitat as bmp treatment measures. You might consider having each lot include a permanent vegetated swale before each inlet and prohibit each lot from connecting roof drains directly to the slope drains. Whatever you choose, the SWMP needs to identify (and numerically justify) the bmp treatment measures for these other lots cleariy. We would also like to point out the proposed modified "green" D-75 ditch listed in the SMWP and the TM is not a requirement for you to install as it appears to treat offsite property. For the purposes of water quality treatment requirements we only focus on your project pollutant generation, not adjacent properties. However, if you want to install it, you may. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached SWMP. Pianning Issues of Concern: 1. CITY COMMENT: Because the project has undergone significant revisions, new project numbers have been assigned to your project. Please revise the drawing numbers on the plans and use the new project numbers on your next submittal: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01. APPLICANT RESPONSE; This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: On the Disclosure Statement for Bentley-Monarch. please indicate the names, titles and address of all individuals owning more than 10% of shares (or indicate if N/A). APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached "Additional Sheet for Bentley-Monarch Joint Venture". 3. CITY COMMENT: Please submit new GPA and Zone Change maps that accurately reflect the boundaries of the proposed residential development and open space areas. Additionally, the City will process concurrent amendments on adjacent parcels to the southeast and southwest as a "clean up" item. The GPA and Zone maps need to be prepared as drawing files (*.DWG format) using California Coordinate System Zone VI, NAD83 Feet. Please coordinate with Teri c o Gerhardt in the GIS Department at 602-2777 if you have any questions regarding the formatting. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached exhibit. CITY COMMENT: Staff still has concerns with the design of Lot 20. In order to create this lot, retaining walls with heights up to 16 feet are proposed, the lot would reduce the wetland buffer to 35 feet, the lot impacts mature oak trees, and the buildable portion of the lot is greatly reduced due to the fire suppression zone extending past the building setback lines. Approval for a reduced wetland buffer has not been obtained from the wildlife agencies. Therefore, the design of Lot 20 will continue to remain an outstanding issue. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Lot 20 has been deleted. CITY COMMENT: The proposed retaining walls over 6 feet high will require approval of a modification to hillside standards. An exhibit showing how the project would be designed without walls over 6 feet high must accompany the request. Please quantify the area of the increased grading impacts. These areas can be shown on 8 V2 x 11 sheets. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: Please indicate the type of material and decorative finish proposed for all retaining walls. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached tentative map (TM) and landscape plan sheet 6. CITY COMMENT: Please revise the slope analysis exhibit so the entire site is shown on one sheet. Use colors or shading to represent the various slopes. Show the limits of the development impact area as an overiay to the slope map so that it can be determined if areas 40% slopes or greater are impacted. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached HDP plans, sheet 4. 8. CITY COMMENT: Lots 10 & 11 were not redesigned as suggested. A suggested modification to the lot configuration (attached) could result in more usable pad area for development. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Comment noted. CITY COMMENT: Lot 9 needs to be adjusted so that it contains a minimum area of Vz acre (21,780 sf). APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 10. CITY COMMENT: Please revise the street sections as follows: a. On "Y" Street, show a 6' level planting area adjacent to the 4' r.o.w. Show the fence to be located at the top of the slope. b. On the Local Public Street, show a meandering DG trail on one side of the street. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 11. CITY COMMENT: The use of the grass-lined brow ditch (shown on the Local Public Street section) is an issue for discussion with the Engineering Department. If this feature is ultimately used, it will need to be shown on the landscape plans and the maintenance responsibility will need to be identified. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The brow ditch has been deleted. 12. CITY COMMENT: Please provide a concept detail for a pedestrian railing to be located between the sidewalk (or DG trail) and the adjacent retaining walls. The railing should exhibit a rural character, such as a stone wall, peeler pole fence, or a combination of these or other rural-character elements. It is recommended that a solid barrier should be provided in the area ofthe culvert crossing. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached landscape plan sheet 6. 13. CITY COMMENT: The DG trail is not designed to the City's design standards. Please also explain why some portions of the trail are 5 foot wide and some portions are 8 foot wide. Please contact Liz Ketabian (760-434-2978) for details for the DG trail design. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. The DG Trail has been changed to 5' wide throughout the development. See attached landscape plan sheet 6. 14. CITY COMMENT: Indicate a vinyl-coating on the posts of the chain link fence or paint to match. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached landscape plan sheet 6. 15. CITY COMMENT: It is not clear where the tubular steel barrier fence and the tubular steel fence on the retaining wall is proposed. These fence types do not exhibit a rural character and should not be used along the portions of the site that are visible to the general public (ie. along trails and street sideyards). APPLICANT RESPONSE: The pedestrian railing on top of the retaining walls has been changed to 3-rail composite ranch fence to exhibit a rural character. See attached landscape plan sheet 6, details E and F. 16. CITY COMMENT: The Landscape Maintenance exhibit should be revised as follows: a. Show the front slope on Lot 18 as owner maintained. b. On Lot 14, the side slope adjacent to "Y" Street should be owner maintained and the 10' of landscape from curb to fence should be HOA maintained. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached landscape plan. 17. CITY COMMENT: Please show the edge of the sidewalk on the landscape plans. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached landscape plan. 18. CITY COMMENT: Consider adding a small turf area, dog waste station and several specimen oak trees to the overiook area. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached landscape plan, detail G. Engineering Issues of Concern: 1. CITY COMMENT: The revised TM contains a revised storm drain layout and alignment. Revise the TM to add invert and rim elevations so staff can gauge the depth of the proposed public storm drain system. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 2. CITY COMMENT: Since the entire public drainage system (alignment and discharge location) has been redesigned, this requires the submittal of a new drainage study that addresses the design of the inlets, pipes, discharges and detention basin design. This should have been provided with this recent submittal. We found hydraulic calculations in the preliminary SWMP but are unable to review without hydrology maps and node maps. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 3. CITY COMMENT: With the revised TM, lot 10 does not appear to include a rear slope drain pipe. Please clarify how this lot will drain. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 4. CITY COMMENT: Per discussion with planning, we understand the application numbers may be changed on this project. When provided, please update the numbers on the upper right hand corner. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 5. CITY COMMENT: Revise the legal description of this project to include the remainder lot for CT 00-18 (Cantarini) as it is used to develop lots 21 and 22 ofthis tract map. Include the owner name and address on the title sheet for the remainder lot of CT 00-18. Refer to redlines for clarification. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 6. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to callout pedestrian railing installed along the high retaining wall that supports K Street on both sides. With sidewalks next to these 20-ft high walls, pedestrian safety concerns arise. Refer to redlines on TM for clarification. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: It is our understanding the 18" sewer reflected on dwg 361-6E may not need to be 18" in size. Per discussion with Bill Plummer Deputy City Engineer- Design Division, the future anticipated sewer flows from the adjacent city will not occur as previously thought. Therefore the sewer your project is extending must only be sized to serve this project and the adjacent properties. Please revise the sewer study and TM exhibits to address the size of the sewer required per the revised estimated sewer flows. This is the third time this comment has been repeated. With this recent resubmittal, you did not provide a revised sewer study as requested. Your response on the TM states you have considered the sewer and believe an 18" pipe is necessary to carry the sewer flows across the low slope portion crossing the channel. Your assumptions listed do not support the need for an 18" sewer pipe. A smaller pipe will carry smaller flows more effectively and will improved velocity. A larger pipe is not better to carry less sewer flows. You also state an 18" pipe helps maintain the minimum distance from the pipe to the fiowline of the creek. Again a smaller pipe can provide a greater separation with the fiowline of the creek. We continue to ask for a revised sewer study that addresses the size of the sewer. It is usually not desirable to construct a sewer that is oversized, unless justification can support it. Per previous comments, the extension of this sewer is not considered reimbursable and you responded you will ask other "future connectees" to enter into a repayment agreement. We assume this is a private venture you are proposing to coordinate between private property owners. If a private agreement is sought, keep in mind it cannot be enforced by the City. We do not collect private money as part of private agreements. We there is no misunderstanding on this issue. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: On lots 5 and 6, at the toe of slope, the easement indicates "public". This should be changed to "private". APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 9. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to clarify how HOA will access the water pollution control basin at the bottom of the slope on lot 25 (for monitoring and maintenance). Indicate the limits of vehicular access that will allow this. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 10. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to address all redline comments as noted on the returned plans. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 11. CITY COMMENT: A redlined check print of the project is attached. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. Landscape Plan Check Consultant: 1. CITY COMMENT: Provide street trees spaced at 40' O.C. maximum, including cul de sacs. (BK: The trees may be located in informal clusters so long as an average of 1 tree per 40 feet is maintained.) APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: There are a number of large retaining walls that will be visible from off site. For all walls over 6', design the wall as a plant-able crib wall with all cells planted with a self supporting vine to provide full vegetative wall coverage at maturity. In addition, provide self supporting vines at the base of the wall spaced at 5' O.C. (BK: Vines should be selected to be compatible with the adjacent native vegetation.) APPLICANT RESPONSE; This has been completed. See landscape plan sheet 6, detail E. 3. CITY COMMENT: Turf is not allowed in areas with a width less than 6' or on slopes 4:1 or greater. Revise the parkway zone planting to reflect this. Cleariy show the edge of all parkways zone plantings and sidewalks. (BK: Please maintain areas of turt within the parkways and use turf in areas adjacent to the DG trail that are 6 feet or wider You may need to adjust the way the trail meanders to accomplish this.) APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 4. CITY COMMENT: Where parkway plantings and slope plantings are not divided by a sidewalk or trail, provide landscaping in this zone. It is unlikely that these areas will be landscaped by the future homeowner, since they are not adjacent to the home's yard and will become an area where no one will assume responsibility. This could pose a soil erosion problem and also could be unsightly. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 5. CITY COMMENT: Provide the spacing for all slope shrub plantings so the shrub planting requirements can be verified. Low spreading woody shrubs must provide a minimum of 70% cover at maturity, except in fire protection zones where other requirements apply. (See comment #6). APPLICANT RESPONSE; This has been completed. CITY COMMENT; Provide trees and/or large shrubs at a rate of 1 per 200 SF on all slopes that are 8' or greater in height, except in fire protection zones where other requirements apply. (See comment #6). APPLICANT RESPONSE; This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: Since the time of installation is not a certainty, in lieu of hydro- seeding, it is advised that jute net or reinforced straw mats be installed with Myoporum groundcover from flats at 12" O.C. to insure rapid coverage that will deter erosion. The elimination of the hydro-seed will allow maintenance crews to more efficiently weed slopes and thus improve the success of the final permanent planting. This applies to all slope areas. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. CITY COMMENT: Show the Fire Protection Zones on the Planting Concept Plan where slopes abut natural areas. Adjust plantings to provide for the appropriate plantings as delineated in the Manual Section IV.F. (BK: Show the zone lines) It is noted that zones are shown on Sheet 4, but this sheet does not indicate how specifically the Fire Protection requirements and the Planting Concept Plan integrate. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 9. CITY COMMENT: Indicate the timing for house construction. If pads will not be improved within 6 months, provide for hydo-seeding for erosion control on the pads. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 10. CITY COMMENT; The planting legend indicates Zone 1, but that hatch and Zone does not occur on the planting plan. The hatch is similar to the hatch used in the Parkway Zone. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been corrected. 11. CITY COMMENT; Is Zone 4 to remain as undisturbed native vegetation or is it to be planted? If so with what? Cleariy specify the plans for this area. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Zone 4 is to remain undisturbed native vegetation. This has been completed. 12. CITY COMMENT; All slopes are to be irrigated with a permanent automatically controlled irrigation system. APPLICANT RESPONSE: This has been completed. 13. CITY COMMENT: Provide two copies of all plans in your next submittal. APPLICANT RESPONSE; This has been completed. Responses to Trails Manager Comments: . The trail that connects Sunny Creek Road to the view overiook at the knuckle of "K" and "X" streets is a public trail. It will connect to Cantarini via "K" street. . Trail details, grades and materials have been added to the TM and landscape plan. . All of the City-redlined comments on the plans regarding trails have been addressed and incorporated into the attached plans. In sum, this submittal package contains all of the information and plan revisions requested in the City letter dated May 16, 2006, and the associated City-redlined plans. The package also contains the additional information you requested as a result of your consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. This information includes updates to the wetland delineation, biological impact analysis, and HMP consistency findings. Please call me at 760.438.4090 ext. 107 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Gregory Moorad Associate Planner End. 5"^ Submittal Package - Rancho Milagro cc: Xavier Sustaeta, Rancho Milagro LLC Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering Company Joe Dodd, GMP Inc. Wendy Loeffler, RECON 10 IPAI SAN PASQUAL RESERVATIO July 10, 2006 TRIBAL COUNCIL .„ , Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner Allen E. Lawson r.r^ , , j Ai • i-. _^ Chairman ^^^y of Carisbad Planmng Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Rudy Contreras Carlsbad, CA 92008 Vice-Chairman , ^. Re: Senate Bill 18 Consultation Re: Rancho Milagro Angela Martinez- ° McNeal Secretary-Treasurer Dear Ms. Kennedy: Jerald Cope Delegate David Toler Delegate In regards to your letter dated May 23, 2006, please be advised that the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians considers this area Kumeyaay ancestral territory. As such, we are the most northwest Kumeyaay tribe and as always we are concemed vsdth the disturbance of remaining cultural properties. At this time we do not know of any sacred or sensitive sites at the proposed project site. Should you discover any funerary items or cultural remains please inform our office, as they may include our ancestors. Sincerely, David Toler Councilman P.O. BOX 365 27458 N. LAKE WOHLFORD RD., VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082 PHONE 760-749-3200 • FAX 760-749-3876 • www.SANPASQUALiNDiANS.ORG INAJA COSMIT BAND OF MISSION INDIANS Chairwoman Rebecca Maxcy Osuna 309 S. Maple Street Escondido, CA 92025 inaja_cosmit@hotmail.com (760) 737-7628 • Fax (760) 747-8568 ^ f7June5,2006 Vice-Chairwoman Lisa Contreras Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner City ofCarisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 RE: Rancho Milagro Project, Carlsbad, Califomia, San Diego County Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Inaja-Cosmit Tribe is writing this letter per your request sent out to us on May 24, 2006 regarding a proposed project located in the Carlsbad area. The Inaja-Cosmit Tribe has no interest in the proposed project. If any questions should arise regarding this letter call the tribal office at (760) 737-7628. Sincerely, Jsa Contreras Vice-Chairwoman Inaja-Cosmit Band of Mission Indians fSack Henthorn & Associaf^ 5365 Avenida Encinas; Smte A - Carisbad, California 92008 ^ (760) 438.-4a90 Fax (760) 438-0981 June 14,2006 VIA REGISTERED MAIL : Mr. Ali Shashani ' ; _ . Mandana Cal Co P;0:Box 18197 hvine, Ca, 92623 Sulyect: Rancho Milagro Letter of Support. Dear Mr. Shashani: •.• I am sending this letter via. registered mail in follow up to niy telephone call and correspondence of June 6, 2006. ; , Since I have not received a response, I am enclosing copies of my previous correspondence m the event that it did not.reach you via fax or regular U.S. Mail. A response woiild be appreciated priof to the close of b Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. incerely, . Henthom JEH:wpc Enclosures ' cc: -Xavier Sustaeta Mr: Victor Viiaplana, Esq., Seltzer, Caplah, McMahon, Vitek Mr. Jeremy Riddle, City of Carlsbad Ji^Dd iENTHORN & ASSO(Q:L JS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL •72/, /: To: Of: Phone: Fax: Mr. Ali Shashani Mandana Cal Co PO Box 18197 Irvine, CA 92623 949-608-7505 949-724-8768 From; Jack Henthorn Of; Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carisbad, CA 92008 Phone; (760) 438-4090 Fax: (760)438-0981 Date; 6/6/06 Time; 1:32:05 PM RE: Rancho Milagro FORWARDED BY: • HAND DELIVERY • U.S. MAIL • FAX • COURIER • PRINTER • PICK-UP Pages Description 1 2 1 Transmittal Letter to you re: Rancho Milagro Letter To City re: Rancho Milagro (enclosure to letter) COMMENTS: Please Review letters. Copies to: File ^ JM Henthorn & AssocQes • 5365 Avenida Endnas; Suite A - Carlsbaid/California 92068-•• •• (760)438^4090-. • Fax (760) 438-0981 • Jizne.6,2006 Mr.TUI Shashani ••- .'. • ;.. • • — -• ' • :'^Ma£ndaniCa^'Co "•; .;• ' '•p.6::iBox 1^19:// • .• • v'.-. •,;iryine,Caj92623:' '/ V.,'-' r:' - '--.,: :' '-.r ' "\ ' ', ...' • ' •• . Subject:. Rancho Miia^ ^ . . / \ , . • , ^' . f l5ear^Mr.-'Shashani;,^^^^^^ ..,.;'y .• •• '•. •"''.[:•.:': -'^^ ;• l anivratibginfoilow-u^ - .. \ . .• Thaye been wqr^g vidth^th&p^^ foV ''' ;• • H?|igii' subdivision t(>Tl a4 J acfe pai?66r.iocated intme(iiately:we$^ 6f the Majadana..' .' •'property; ini the Stu^ "';>• , .! .}•.:• •, We have reacjxed tj^e poir^^ biilk.pf ihb..dfesigri issues^^ the. . . Gity.iS now requesting'tB:a^^^ of your ktiow^ledg^^ ; • the i^^lan. As yoii'^e aware, frbiij. pr'evioiis cbnesp^^ is .; • . . being request.ed dtie to the fact Ijiat ybu hoM an access e^einent thaf encun^ the'site. .' 'Duetto topographic^nd'eiiyirii Is hpt..\dable; . '• Adiiiitionally, it is our ilpderstahdahg tiiat your future dejyielbpiriesnt plans wqi^d require .,. '• relbcatio'n of theea^^^ ' access, to your Site at what we understanil to .be the. access, point to ybUr fiifdrie, . ' , . development. The proposed public access route.will insure thiat your property will have ' legitimate, enviroiitiientadly cie^^^ , . • „. . We are.NOT requesting^.titiaf yb easement rights it this .time; The irequest,. that is being made is sunply that you support the plaii' and. are willing to vacate your. ' , access tights at such tinie as public access to ypiir property is dedicated in conjunction \ with the fmal subdivision map. ' " • ' I am enclosing a drait letter for your consideration that wiU allow Mr. S.ustaeta to continue processing Ms. map while ackhowledgiag your support and wilUhghess to vacate yoiir access easeinenf once the public access has been dedicated. If you could forward your letter of support to the addxess noted onAe enclosed draft and forward a copy to,my attention, it would be greatiy appreciated: ' • . ' ' • ,' If ybu have questions regarding this request or need additional information, ple;ase' contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. • truly yours, JabkE.Henth( Eiicl. cc: Xavier Sustaeta DRAFT June 5, 2006 Mr. Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer City of Carlsbad Engineering Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Rancho Milagro's Tentative Map process Dear Mr. Riddle, As you are aware, Mandana Cal Co. currentiy retains private access easement rights over property located within the proposed Rancho Milagro subdivision. My understanding is that the owners of Rancho Milagro are interested in developing tiieir property, and that to that effect they are presentiy undergoing the process of obtaining a Tentative Map, and will in due time proceed to obtain a Final Map. It is also my imderstanding that in order for Rancho Milagro's Tentative Map application to be considered "complete" by the City of Carlsbad, my concurrence with their plans is needed. Please accept this letter as my conditional support of such plans as long as they provide Mandana Cal Co property with equal or better access as the one currentiy offered by the existuig easement. In the meantime, Mandana will retain its existing easement, and this will not be relinquished until fhe dedication of altemative public access is recorded via a Final Map on Rancho Milagro Sincerely, A.S. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department May 24, 2006 SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 18 CONSULTATION RE: RANCHO MILAGRO - GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01, CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA In accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 18, the purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation with the Native American tribes, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, regarding the proposed Rancho Milagro project located in the City of Carisbad, California. Project Description The proposed Rancho Milagro project is located on a 43.58-acre site in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carisbad, northeast of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road. A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, Special Use Permit (Floodplain), and Hillside Development Permit are required for the proposed subdivision consisting of 22 residential lots with a minimum lot area of Vz acre and 5 open space lots. The residential development is clustered near the northern central portion ofthe 43.58-acre parcel. A portion of Agua Hedionda Creek is located within the southern portion of the site. The southern portion of the site (16.32 acres) is encumbered by an open space easement. The open space lots will have new zone and General Plan Land Use designations of OS (Open Space). The residential lots will retain the existing RLM (Residential Low-Medium) General Plan Designation and the zone designation will be changed from Limited Control (L-C) to R-1-0.5 (1/2 acre minimum lot size) single-family residential zone designation. Cultural Resources Survey A cultural resources sun/ey has been conducted by RECON for the proposed project (May 17, 2004). The results ofthe survey indicate that no cultural resource sites, features, or isolates are present on the subject property. A prehistoric cultural resource located on adjacent parcels to the northwest is separated from the proposed project by several hundred feet and will not be impacted. The report states that no further cultural resource investigations are recommended or required. A copy of the cultural resources survey results was fonrt/arded to Mr. Mark Mojado, representative of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Notice of Completion The City of Carlsbad is currently in the process of reviewing the proposed Rancho Milagro project. When the environment review for the project is complete, the City will issue a Notice of Completion in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • vwvw.ci.carlsbad.ca.us o o GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 0W4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHOWLAGRO May 24, 2006 Page 2 Requested Deadline Pursuant to Government Code §65352.3(a)(2), please respond within 90 days of receipt of this notice in the event your tribe wishes to consult with the City regarding this matter. Please contact: Barbara Kennedy Associate Planner City of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY ^ Associate Planner BK;bd Attachments; Location Map Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez ie gabarit 5160® wvvw.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® BARONA GROUP OF THE CAPITAN GRANDE ATTN RHONDA WELCH SCALCO CHAIRPERSON 1095 BARONA ROAD KAJESUDE CA 82949 KWAAYMII LAGUNA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN CARMEN LUCAS PO BOX 44 JULIAN CA 92036 CAMPO KUMEYAAY NATION ATTN H PAUL CUERO JR CHAIRPERSON 36190 CHRUCH ROAD STE 1 CAMPO CA 91906 LA ROSTA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN GWENDOLYN PARADA CHAIRPERSON PO BOX 1120 BOULEVARD CA 91905 EWIIAAPAAYP TRIBAL OFFICE ATTN HARLAN PINTO SR CHAIRPERSON PO BOX 2250 ALPINE CA 91903 2250 MANZANITA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN LEROY J ELLIOTT CHAIRPERSON PO OBX1302 BOULEVARD CA 91905 /INAJA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN REBECCA OSUNA SPOKESPERSON 309 S MAPLE STREET ESCONDIDO CA 92025 MESA GRANDE BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN MIKE LINTON CHAIRPERSON PO BOX 270 SANTA YSABEL CA 92070 JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE ATTN LEON ACEVEDO CHAIRPERSON PO BOX 612 JAMUL CA ^SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN ALLEN E LAWSON CHAIRPERSON PO BOX 365 VALLEY CENTER CA 92082 SANTA YSABEL BAND OF DIEGUENO INDIANS ATTN DEVON REED LOMAYESVA ESQ TRIBAL ATTORNEY PO BOX 130 SANTA YSABEL CA 92070 SYCUAN BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN DANNY TUCKER CHAIRPERSON 5459 DEHESA ROAD EL CAJON CA 92021 VIEJAS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS ATTN ANTHONY PICO CHAIRPERSON PO BOX 908 ALPINE CA 91903 Aa3AV-OD-008-|. iuo3'^iaAe-/w/vuw Avery 5160 ®09I,S 3i\ndW3i ®>tiaAV asp 6u[iuud aaij aSpnuis pue uier c SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE RANCHO MILAGRO GPA 06-03 / ZC 06-02 / CT 06-04 / SUP 06-05 / HDP 06-01 Citv of Carlsbad ^^/Fo«^^:^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^I Planning Department May 1€, 2006 San Luis Rey Sand of Missk)n Indians Mr. Mark Mc^ado P. O. Box I Pa!a,CA 92069 SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 18 CONSULTATION RE: I^NCHO MILAGRO - GPA 06^3/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01, CITY Of CARLSBAO, CAUf ORfHA Dear Mr. Mojado: In accordanoe with the provisions of Senate Bill 16, tlie purpose of this "tetter is io initiate consultation with the San Luis fiey Band of Missk)n Indians tribe regarding ihe proposed Rancho Milagro project tocated in the Cityof Carfstjad, California. Project "Description Tt>e proposed Rancho Milagro project is located on a 43.58-acre site in the nortiieast <^uadrant of the City of Cartebad, rjorttieast of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road. A Get^ral Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Subdivision Map, Special Use Permit ^Fioodplain), and HiHskte Development Permit are required for tlie proposed subdivision consisting of 22 residential lots wKh a minimum tot area of Vi acre and 5 open space tots. T-fre feskiential development te clustered near the northem central portion of the 43.58-aore parcel. A portton of Agua Hedionda Cfeek te tocated within the southern portton of the site. The southem portton cf ttie site (1€.32 acfes) te encumbered by an open space easenrvent. The open space tots will ha'/e new zone sud general Plan Land Use de^nstions of GS <Open Space). The residential lots will retain the existing RLM (ftesklential Low-Medium) General Plan Oesignatton and fre zone deslgnatton will -be changed from Limited Control (L-C) to R-1-0.6 (1/2 acie minimum tot size) single-family feskiential zone deslgnatton. Cultural Resouroes Survey A cultural fesources survey has been conducted by I^CON for the proposed pr<^ect<May 17, 2004). The flesults of thesurvey indtoate that no cultural resource sites, feattj*es, or isolates are present on ^he subject property. A prehistorto cultural resource tocated on adjacent pafxaete 4o ttie northwest is ^^raied from ttte proposed project by several fKindced i&e\ and will not be Impaf^ed. The report states that no further cultural resource investigattons are -recommended or required. Acopy of the cuitoral resources survey resutts is enctosed. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ($^4/SUP 08-05/! 10? 06-01 - RANCHCOLAGF GPA 06-03/ZC 06 02/CT OlmCAlSlSF 08-05/MO? 06-01 - RANCHCMTLAGRO May 16, 2006 Page 2 Notice of Completion The City of Carisbad is currently in tlie process of reviewing the proposed l^ancho Milagro project. When the environment review for the project is comptete, the City will tesue a (stottoe of Completion in accordance with CEQAOuidelines. Requested Oeadline Pursuant to Government Code §65352.3(a)(2), please respond within 90 <iays of r«;eipt ofthis nottoe in the event your tribe wishes to consult with the City regarding thte -matter. Ptease contact; Barbara Kennedy Associate Planner CityofCarlsbad * 'Q3i> I aTciClsy .Avsnue Carlsbad, CA 92008 If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (760) 602-4636. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY Associate Planner Attachments; Cultural Resources Report Location Map LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRIBAL CONSULTATION LIST REOUEST NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL,«OOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA -95814 (916)653-4082 (916)657-5390-Fax OAIE: Mav 16.2006 PRO«;CT TITLE: RANCHO MILAGRO - GPA 06-fl3/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06^S/m)P-06-01 JLEAO AGENCY: Citv ofCarlsbad CONTACT P£RSON:BM-bM-a Kennedv PHONE (760)602-4626 STR^T ADDRESS: 1635 Faradav Avenue CJ i V: cartsb<id. CA ZIP: 92008 FAX: f760) 602-8559 APN: 209-060-61 Specific A-rea Subject To Proposed .Action Carisbad, CA San Diego County Local AetioD Type: Q General Plan Q Gaieral Plan El«nent Q Specific Plan ^ General Plan Amendment Q Specific Plan Amendment Q Master Plan Q Pre-planning Outreach Activity Project Description: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Si^ivision Map, ^>ecial Use Permit, and Hillside Oevelopment Permit for a proposed subdivision «oiKi«i<^ of 22 residential tots with a minimum Jot area of Vi acre and 5 open space lots. Vx i^siderMial development is clusteped near <he ncrthera cerrtral portksrof the 43.58-acre pareel. A portton of Agua HediondarCreek is located wioiin the southem portion of the ?ite. "Hie soutiiem portion of the site (16.32 acres) is -encianbered •by an open space easement. "ITie open space lots will have new zone and General Plan Land Use <lesignatk)nsofOS (Open Space). The residential lc«s will retain tfie existing "RLM (Residential Low- Medium) Ceoeral Plan Designation and #ie zone desiltation will be chained &om Limited Control (L-C) to R-1 -0.5 (1/2 acre minimum lot size) single-family residential zone designation. Location Map - Attached NAHC Vse Only Dale "Received: Oate Completed, Native American Tribal Consultation lists are only applicable for consulting with Califomia Native American TribestperOoveiTHnent Code Section 63332.3. Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department May 16, 2006 Mr. Greg Moorad Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Cartsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required matenals are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, November 12, 2004, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:BK;bd c; Gary Barberio, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • vwvw.ci.carlsbad.ca.us GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT fe^)4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHC^MILAGRO May 16, 2006 Paqe 2 ._ LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Engineering: 1. Provide a letter of support from Mandana Cal Co. stating they do not object to this project. This company currently has rights to an easement per item 6 of the preliminary title report, dated August 19, 2004. You response letter indicates Mandana has offered "verbal support" to quitclaim their private road easement. Please note tnat, in order to ensure the conceptual approval of this project staff needs documentation that land title conflicts can be resolved. As we have repeated since the first revifew, staff needs "written" support from the easement holder that they are willing to quitclaim their easement. We understand the private road easement may not be formally quitclaimed until the public streets within this project are dedicated by the final map (later point in time), but at this point we need written support for your project. 2. The SWMP continues to have missing information regarding complete documentation/justification for pollution control features. The revised SWMP explains that "a portion" of the project will drain into the water quality basin and that the SS*" percentile for this "portion" is estimated to be near .84 cfs per your calculations. The lots assumed for this estimation appear to be inconsistent. Refer to redlines. Revise the SWMP to demonstrate the water quality basin can treat this flow using flow-based calculations. Refer to CASQUA handbooks for assistance. The TM and SWMP also callout a stormceptor unit, but the SWMP does not explain the purpose and value of the bmp treatment train being applied. The SWMP must include calculations to show how the unit is sized (model # to treat the cfs expected). Outline what pollutants the stormceptor rerfioves and what pollutants the basin removes. In the SWMP, it is also demonstrating that the remainder of the subdivision (lots 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) are not treated by the stormceptor and basin. Instead, they appear to drain to the natural drainage course (untreated). Address this discrepancy. With these lots, the SWMP narrative, calculations and map in the back should show what bmp measures will be implemented to remove pollutants prior to discharge to natural areas. It is unacceptable to use natural drainage courses/habitat as bmp treatment measures. You might consider having each lot include a permanent vegetated swale before each inlet and prohibit each lot from connecting roof drains directly to the slope drains. Whatever you choose, the SWMP needs to identify (and numerically justify) the bmp treatment measures for these other lots clearly. We would also like to point out the proposed modified "green" D-75 ditch listed in the SMWP and the TM is not a requirement for you to install as it appears to treat offsite property. For the purposes of water quality treatment requirements we only focus on your project pollutant generation, not adjacent properties. However, if you want to install it, you may. , DS4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO^L GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06^4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO May 16, 2006 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Because the project has undergone significant revisions, new project numbers have been assigned to your project. Please revise the drawing numbers on the plans and use the new project numbers on your next submittal: GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06-04/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01. 2. On the Disclosure Statement for Bentley-Monarch, please indicate the names, titles and address of all individuals owning more than 10% of shares (or indicate if N/A). 3. Please submit new GPA and Zone Change maps that accurately reflect the boundaries of the proposed residential development and open space areas. Additionally, the City will process concurrent amendments on adjacent parcels to the southeast and southwest as a "clean up" item. The GPA and Zone maps need to be prepared as drawing files (*.DWG format) using California Coordinate System Zone VI, NAD83 Feet. Please coordinate with Teri Gerhardt in the GIS Department at 602-2777 if you have any questions regarding the formatting. 4. Staff still has concerns with the design of Lot 20. In order to create this lot, retaining walls with heights up to 16 feet are proposed, the lot would reduce the wetland buffer to 35 feet, the lot impacts mature oak trees, and the buildable portion of the lot is greatly reduced due to the fire suppression zone extending past the building setback lines. Approval for a reduced wetland buffer has not been obtained from the wildlife agencies. Therefore, the design of Lot 20 will continue to remain an outstanding issue. 5. The proposed retaining walls over 6 feet high will require approval of a modification to hillside standards. An exhibit showing how the project would be designed without walls over 6 feet high must accompany the request. Please quantify the area of the increased grading impacts. These areas can be shown on 8 !4 x 11 sheets. 6. Please indicate the type of material and decorative finish proposed for all retaining walls. 7. Please revise the slope analysis exhibit so the entire site is shown on one sheet. Use colors or shading to represent the various slopes. Show the limits of the development impact area as an overiay to the slope map so that it can be determined if areas 40% slopes or greater are impacted. 8. Lots 10 & 11 were not redesigned as suggested. A suggested modification to the lot configuration (attached) could result in more usable pad area for development. 9. Lot 9 needs to be adjusted so that it contains a minimum area of 14 acre (21,780 sf). 10. Please revise the street sections as follows: a. On "Y" Street, show a 6' level planting area adjacent to the 4' r.o.w. Show the fence to be located at the top of the slope. b. On the Local Public Street, show a meandering DG trail on one side of the street. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT ^4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHcQlLAGRO May 16, 2006 Page 4 11. The use of the grass-lined brow ditch (shown on the Local Public Street section) is an issue for discussion with the Engineering Department. If this feature is ultimately used, it will need to be shown on the landscape plans and the maintenance responsibility will need to be identified. 12. Please provide a concept detail for a pedestrian railing to be located between the sidewalk (or DG trail) and the adjacent retaining walls. The railing should exhibit a rural character, such as a stone wall, peeler pole fence, or a combination of these or other rural-character elements. It is recommended that a solid barrier should be provided in the area of the culvert crossing. 13. The DG trail is not designed to the City's design standards. Please also explain why some portions of the trail are 5 foot wide and some portions are 8 foot wide. Please contact Liz Ketabian (760-434-2978) for details for the DG trail design. 14. Indicate a vinyl-coating on the posts of the chain link fence or paint to match. 15. It is not clear where the tubular steel barrier fence and the tubular steel fence on the retaining wall is proposed. These fence types do not exhibit a rural character and should not be used along the portions of the site that are visible to the general public (ie. along trails and street sideyards). 16. The Landscape Maintenance exhibit should be revised as follows; a. Show the front slope on Lot 18 as owner maintained. b. On Lot 14, the side slope adjacent to "Y" Street should be owner maintained and the 10' of landscape from curb to fence should be HOA maintained. 17. Please show the edge of the sidewalk on the landscape plans. 18. Consider adding a small turf area, dog waste station and several specimen oak trees to the overiook area. Engineering: 1. The revised TM contains a revised storm drain layout and alignment. Revise the TM to add invert and rim elevations so staff cain gauge the depth of the proposed public storm drain system. 2. Since the entire public drainage system (alignment and discharge location) has been redesigned, this requires the submittal of a new drainage study that addresses the design of the inlets, pipes, discharges and detention basin design. This should have been provided with this recent submittal. We found hydraulic calculations in the preliminary SWMP but are unable to review without hydrology maps and node maps. 3. With the revised TM, lot 10 does not appear to include a rear slope drain pipe. Please clarify how this lot will drain. 4. Per discussion with planning, we understand the application numbers may be changed on this project. When provided, please update the numbers on the upper right hand corner. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06^4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO May 16, 2006 Page 5 5. Revise the legal description of this project to include the remainder lot for CT 00-18 (Cantarini) as it is used to develop lots 21 and 22 of this tract map. Include the owner name and address on the title sheet for the remainder lot of CT 00-18. Refer to redlines for clarification. 6. Revise the TM to callout pedestrian railing installed along the high retaining wall that supports K Street on both sides. With sidewalks next to these 20-ft high walls, pedestrian safety concerns arise. Refer to redlines on TM for clarification. 7. It is our understanding the 18" sewer reflected on dwg 361-6E may not need to be 18" in size. Per discussion with Bill Plummer Deputy City Engineer-Design Division, the future anticipated sewer flows from the adjacent city will not occur as previously thought. Therefore the sewer your project is extending must only be sized to serve this project and the adjacent properties. Please revise the sewer study and TM exhibits to address the size of the sewer required per the revised estimated sewer flows. This is the third time this comment has been repeated. With this recent resubmittal, you did not provide a revised sewer study as requested. Your response on the TM states you have considered the sewer and believe an 18" pipe is necessary to carry the sewer flows across the low slope portion crossing the channel. Your assumptions listed do not support the need for an 18" sewer pipe. A smaller pipe will carry smaller flows more effectively and will improved velocity. A larger pipe is not better to carry less sewer flows. You also state an 18" pipe helps maintain the minimum distance from the pipe to the fiowline of the creek. Again a smaller pipe can provide a greater separation with the fiowline of the creek. We continue to ask for a revised sewer study that addresses the size of the sewer. It is usually not desirable to construct a sewer that is oversized, unless justification can support it. Per previous comments, the extension of this sewer is not considered reimbursable and you responded you will ask other "future connectees" to enter into a repayment agreement. We assume this is a private venture you are proposing to coordinate between private property owners. If a private agreement is sought, keep in mind it cannot be enforced by the City. We do not collect private money as part of private agreements. We there is no misunderstanding on this issue. 8. On lots 5 and 6, at the toe of slope, the easement indicates "public". This should be changed to "private". 9. Revise the TM to clarify how HOA will access the water pollution control basin at the bottom of the slope on lot 25 (for monitoring and maintenance). Indicate the limits of vehicular access that will allow this. 10. Revise the TM to address all redline comments as noted on the returned plans. A redlined check print of the project is attached. This check print must be returned with the revised pians to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions regarding engineering comments, please contact Jeremy Riddle at 602-2737. GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT ^4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - f^NCHcQlLAGRO May 16, 2006 Page 6 Landscape Plan Check Consultant: The following corrections" are required so that the plans will meet the requirements of the City of Carisbad's Landscape Manual; (B.Kennedy's notes are added in italics) 1. Provide street trees spaced at 40' O.C. maximum, including cul de sacs. (BK; The trees may be located in informal clusters so long as an average of 1 tree per 40 feet is maintained.) 2. There are a number of large retaining walls that will be visible from off site. For ail walls over 6', design the wall as a plant-able crib wall with all cells planted with a self supporting vine to provide full vegetative wall coverage at maturity. In addition, provide self supporting vines at the base of the wall spaced at 5' O.C. (BK: Vines should be selected to be compatible with the adjacent native vegetation.) 3. Turt is not altowed in areas with a width less than 6' or on slopes 4:1 or greater. Revise the parkway zone planting to reflect this. Clearly show the edge of all parkways zone plantings and sidewalks. (BK; Please maintain areas of turf within the parkways and use turf in areas adjacent to the DG trail that are 6 feet or wider. You may need to adjust the way the trail meanders to accomplish this.) 4. Where parkway plantings and slope plantings are not divided by a sidewalk or trail, provide landscaping in this zone. It is unlikely that these areas will be landscaped by the future homeowner, since they are not adjacent to the home's yard and will become an area where no one will assume responsibility. This could pose a soil erosion problem and also could be unsightly. 5. Provide the spacing for all slope shrub plantings so the shrub planting requirements can be verified. Low spreading woody shrubs must provide a minimum of 70% cover at maturity, except in fire protection zones where other requirements apply. (See comment #6). 6. Provide trees and/or large shrubs at a rate of 1 per 200 SF on all slopes that are 8' or greater in height, except in fire protection zones where other requirements apply. (See comment #6). 7. Since the time of installation is not a certainty, in lieu of hydro-seeding, it is advised that jute net or reinforced straw mats be installed with Myoporum groundcover from flats at 12" O.C. to insure rapid coverage that will deter erosion. The elimination of the hydro- seed will allow maintenance crews to more efficiently weed slopes and thus improve the success of the final permanent planting. This applies to all slope areas. 8. Show the Fire Protection Zones on the Planting Concept Plan where slopes abut natural areas. Adjust plantings to provide for the appropriate plantings as delineated in the Manual Section IV.F. (BK: Show the zone lines) It is noted that zones are shown on Sheet 4, but this sheet does not indicate how specifically the Fire Protection requirements and the Planting Concept Plan integrate. 9. Indicate the timing for house construction. If pads will not be improved within 6 months, provide for hydo-seeding for erosion control on the pads. 10. The planting legend indicates Zone 1, but that hatch and Zone does not occur on the planting plan. The hatch is similar to the hatch used in the Parkway Zone. )^/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO Wu GPA 06-03/ZC 06-02/CT 06^4/SUP 06-05/HDP 06-01 - RANCHO MILAGRO May 16, 2006 Page 7 11. Is Zone 4 to remain as undisturbed native vegetation or is it to be planted? If so with what? Cleariy specify the plans for this area. 12. All slopes are to be irrigated with a permanent automatically controlled irrigation system. 13. Provide two copies of all plans in your next submittal. Fire: No Comments. Trails Manager: See attached comments and redlines. ]Q:k Henthorn & AssociatQ 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 March 23, 2006 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carisbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad CA 92008 Subject: Rancho Milagro - Fourth Submittal Package - Replacement Submittal Package (GPA 04-19/ ZC 04-14/ LFMP 15D/ CT 04-24/ HDP 04-11) Dear Ms. Kennedy, Enclosed is the fourth submittal package for the Rancho Milagro project It is our understanding that the project will be assigned new project numbers to replace those assigned with the initial submittal, dated November 12, 2004. The project plans and submittal items have been revised to address the incomplete items and issues of concern in the City letter dated September 30, 2005, and address the issues raised at recent meetings with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies. Each item in the City letter is addressed below. The City comments below are copied directly from the City letter. Planninq incomplete Items: 1. CITY COMMENT; Please submit a "Land Use Review Application" with the Cantarini Ranch property owner's signature since the development proposal now includes a merger with the Cantarini remainder parcels. RESPONSE; This has been completed and attached. 2. CITY COMMENT: Please submit a Disclosure Statement for the Cantarini Ranch property owner. RESPONSE: This has been completed and attached. 3. CITY COMMENT: Based on the development proposal of 22 units, 4 affordable housing credits would be required (round up from 3.88). The letter from David Bentley indicates that 3 credits may be available in the Cantarini multi-family project. Please indicate how the fourth affordable unit will be provided. You may want to contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department to determine if there are additional affordable housing units available within the northeast quadrant (for example at Calavera Hills II) or if a reduced affordable housing requirement could be allowed in exchange for increased affordability of the units. RESPONSE; This has been completed. We contacted Debbie Fountain and determined that a reduced affordable housing requirement will be allowed in exchange for increased affordability of the units. An agreement will be entered into with the adjacent owner prior to recordation of the final map. Engineering Incomplete Items: 1. CITY COMMENT; Provide a letter of support from Mandana Cal Co. stating they do not object to this project. This company currently has rights to an easement per item 6 of the preliminary title report, dated August 19, 2004. RESPONSE; We have contacted Mr. Ali Shashani of Mandana Cal Co. He has acknowledged that our proposed connection point is in alignment with his. To our understanding we have satisfied all of Mr. Shashani's concerns and answered all of his questions, but we have been unable to obtain a letter of support. We have asked him to put in writing any further questions or comments he may have and to copy City staff on this for the record. Mr. Shashani has verbally expressed to the applicant a willingness to abandon the present easement concurrent with the final approval of the applicant's subdivision. The easement in question is an easement between private parties and will be resolved between the parties involved. There is no public interest in the easement and the ultimate approval of the project will enhance access to and from the site. The application should not be held as incomplete for an item not in control of the applicant. 2. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to depict the construction and extension of the existing sewer over the Agua Hedionda Creek crossing. Refer to redlines for clarification. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached TM. 3. CITY COMMENT: Where cross-lot drainage conditions occur, revise private drainage easements to specify the lots they will benefit. See previous redlines for clarifications. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached TM. 4. CITY COMMENT: Revise the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to provide numeric sizing criteria to ensure that structural (treatment) bmp measures for this project are adequate to filter storm water. Use either flow-based or volume-base criteria. Revise the TM to show the location of all biofiiters. Revise the SWMP to include a reduced exhibit of the TM and identify the locations of all treatment control bmp's for the project. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached SWMP. 5. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to show conceptual grading required for the road extension measured at least 200-ft from the subdivision boundary. This is the third time this comments has been repeated. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached TM sheets 8 and 9. Planning Issues of Concern: 1. CITY COMMENT: On September 29, 2005, Planning Department staff presented your development proposal, draft HMP Consistency Findings, and Biological Technical Report to the Wildlife Agencies for their review and comment. Planning staff still has concerns since a number of the lots do not observe a 100-foot buffer from wetlands, particularly in the vicinity of Lot 20. Staff raised this as an issue of concern, since any reduced buffer width would need the Wildlife agencies approval. The Wildlife agencies indicated that they would respond within the next 30 days. Therefore, unless the project can be redesigned to fully meet the HMP standards for Zone 15, we will need to wait for the comments to determine if the project needs to be redesigned or if the proposed subdivision design can be supported. RESPONSE: A series of meetings have been held with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies over the past few months and the project has been re-designed to meet the 100' wetland setback for all development impacts, except for lots 20 and 21 where special circumstances exist. Lots 20 and 21 are immediately adjacent to the primary access road crossing of the drainage. Due to the road crossing of the drainage course to provide the only point of access to the site, the 100' setback cannot be achieved in this area. This issue was acknowledged by Wildlife Agency staff at the meeting on 1-11-06. As follow-up to our meeting with the Wildlife Agencies and pursuant to your request, I have requested a letter from David Mayer-CDFG verifying that the project meets the wetland setback HMP standard. (A copy of this request to Mr. Mayer is attached). As you are aware, there have been recent staffing changes at the Agencies and it is unclear as to when a letter would be forthcoming. The CEQA process provides an opportunity for the Agencies to comment and may be useful in elevating the priority of this request. Also, substantial revisions have been made to the biology report and HMP Consistency Findings to address the issues raised above and at meetings with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies. These revisions clarify how the project is consistent with the City's environmental regulations, the Carisbad HMP, and Wildlife Agency requirements. See attached biology report and HMP Consistency Findings letter report. 2. CITY COMMENT; One Sheet 5, please provide dimensions in several locations showing the distance from the wetlands boundary (along the northern tributary) to the limits of project impacts (grading and/or brush management). RESPONSE; This has been completed. See attached TM sheet 5. 3. CITY COMMENT: The use of retaining walls around Lots 4, 5 and 10 is not supported. In the vicinity of Lots 4 and 5, the retaining walls are used to expand the pads of the lots over a hillside, which is not permitted under the City's Hillside Ordinance. The use of retaining walls at Lot 10 would result in a situation where the downslope properties would be viewing a combination of 6-foot retaining wall with an additional 5-6 foot high fence above. Furthermore, the combination of fence and retaining wall exceeds the height limit for fences along a property line. It is recommended that you shift the retaining wall on Lot 13 to the bottom of the slope so that it occurs on Lots 16 and 17, or Lot 13 could be redesigned as a stepped pad. The retaining walls should be eliminated on Lots 4 and 5, or explore redesigning these lots with a stepped pad. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached TM. 4. CITY COMMENT: Please explore trying to design the project so that it results in a balanced grading operation. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached TM and Hillside Development plans. 5. CITY COMMENT: A Fuel Modification Zone would not be required on the north side of Lots 21 and 22 since these areas will abut future manufactured and irrigated slopes of the adjacent Cantarini Ranch development. RESPONSE: This has been completed. The fuel modification zones in these areas have been deleted. 6. CITY COMMENT: The Fuel Modification Zones (FMZ) on Lots 7 and 20 may not extend into the open space lot. The HMP section that you cited refers to properties within the coastal zone. Please either discuss obtaining approval for a reduced buffer width with the Fire Marshall or enlarge the lots to encompass the FMZ. RESPONSE; This has been completed. These lots have been re-designed to remove the FMZ from the open space preserve and increase the wetland setback distance. Approval for a reduced FMZ width has been obtained from Greg Ryan-Fire Marshal. 7. CITY COMMENT; It may be possible to extend the DG trail along the street to the Mandana property boundary, subject to the Engineering Department's approval. RESPONSE: This has been completed. See attached TM and landscape plan. 8. CITY COMMENT: Please provide a 10' r.o.w. on "B" Street adjacent to Lots 9 and 14 so that there is adequate room for street trees between the property line and curb. The reduced r.o.w. can be utilized for the remainder of the lots on the cul-de-sac. RESPONSE: This has been completed. Pursuant to a meeting with City staff on 12-21-05, the slope adjacent to the sidewalk on lot 14 has been moved away from the sidewalk, creating a 7' wide flat area adjacent to the sidewalk. A 10' wide public landscape easement has been added from the curb to the top of the slope. 9. CITY COMMENT: Lot design (2"" request); a. Lot 4 & 10: Please show the net pad area (1/2 acre minimum) and the gross lot area for the panhandle lots. Also, please designate the 35-foot front setback. The front setback should occur along the length of one of the property lines. The rear setback will be assumed to be opposite the front setback. b. Lots 10 & 11: These lots should be redesigned so that they have separate driveway approaches, rather than a shared driveway. The small slope adjacent to the east side of the panhandle should be relocated so that it occurs on Lot 11 so that the width of Lot 11 is increased. The width of the panhandle should be decreased to 20 feet. RESPONSE: a) This has been completed. See attached TM. Lot 10 has been redesigned and is no longer a panhandle lot. Lot 10 now meets the standards for a cul-de-sac lot with side lot lines that are radial to the center of the cul-de-sac, per Subdivision Ordinance section 20.16.010(5). Lot 4 is the only remaining panhandle lot Pursuant to Zoning Code section 21.10.080(c), the "buildable portion" of lot 4, for purposes of this section, is the gross lot area (32,025 sf), since no portion of the lot used for access is less than 35' in width. The 32,025 sf "buildable portion" ofthe lot exceeds the minimum requirement of 10,000 sf per section 21.10.080(d)(1). Also, the Lot 4 net lot area of 27,492 sf exceeds the minimum requirement of 10,000 sf per the code section noted above. The net lot area equates to the gross lot area minus the 4,533 sf panhandle area. (The "net pad area" is not applicable to this code section or to the V2 acre minimum lot area requirement). RESPONSE: b) This has been completed. See attached TM. Per response (a) directly above, neither of these lots is a panhandle lot. These are cul-de-sac lots with a minimum street frontage of 33'. 10. CITY COMMENT: The responsibility for long-term maintenance and management of the mitigation land associated with the Terraces of Sunny Creek project needs to be resolved. The wildlife agencies were informed of this aspect of the project and we are awaiting their response. RESPONSE: Pursuant to a recent meeting with City staff and the applicant, the applicant is willing to assist the City in monitoring long-term management of the Terraces conservation easement area by including the area in the reporting program for Rancho Milagro. This would provide the City with on-going reports regarding the physical condition and status of the area and its habitats, in perpetuity. This would be funded in perpetuity by Rancho Milagro's endowment, as determined by Rancho Milagro's Property Analysis Record. Any recommended remedial maintenance activities would be the responsibility of the conservation easement holder. 11. CITY COMMENT: Landscape Plan; a. As a project amenity, consider adding an overiook area with a few benches and a trailhead in the graded area on the east side of the sewer easement on the south side of "A" Street. The trail could tie into this area. b. The landscape and fencing plans will be reviewed in more detail pending the outcome of the Wildlife agency comments. RESPONSE; a) This has been completed. See attached landscape plan. b) The landscaping and fencing plan has been revised to address the environmental issues raised by City staff and the Wildlife Agencies, and to make the project consistent with the requirements of the Carisbad HMP. In particular, the landscape and fencing plan has been revised to meet the Adjacency Standards of the HMP (Section F-3), as follows. Five-foot chain link fencing has been added at the lot lines adjacent to the open space preserve to avoid encroachment into the preserve by residents and pets. The fire protection zones have been re-designed to be inside the lot lines and not encroach into the preserve. Notes have been added to clarify that all landscaping and fire protection zones adjacent to the preserve shall utilize a native plant palette which is compatitjie with the native plants in the preserve. (Internal yard fencing is not shown because no units or architecture are proposed at this time. This detail will be shown at the appropriate time with the eventual Site Development Plan.) Engineering Issues of Concern: 1. CITY COMMENT: Please note that the adjacent development (Cantarini, CT 00-18) has undergone project modifications based on comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The adjacent project now contains the use of bioswales to treat run-off from public streets before discharge to the tributary areas. As a precaution, your project concept may change, if it can be shown that more efficient BMPs can be incorporated into the project. Per bmp handbooks, bio-swales are more efficient and removing the target pollutants-of- concern as compared to hydrodynamic separators. In a proactive effort, you may consider contacting the RWQCB to obtain eariy comments/feedback on the post-construction BMPs you are choosing to ensure they are adequate. If changes are required, please revise the project now to incorporate more efficient BMPs. RESPONSE: This has been completed. The storm drain system has been re-designed to include the use of bio filtration. A h\o filtration detention area has been added to the TM at lot 25. See attached TM and SWMP. The storm drain re-design concept was presented to City staff at a meeting on 12-21-05. After incorporating comments received from City staff, the re-design concept plan was delivered to City staff, including the City project engineer, on 1-6-06. Upon review of this. City Planning staff requested that the bio filtration detention area be excluded from the open space preserve. This change has been completed. No comments were received from the City project engineer. 2. CITY COMMENT: It is our understanding the wildlife agencies may have concerns with the lots adjacent to the sensitive habitat crossing the property (near the arch culvert). If any changes are required to the Tentative Map based on agency input, staff may have additional comments based on new/revised information. RESPONSE: Based on a series of meetings with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies, the lots adjacent to the northern tributary have been revised to increase the wetland setback distance to 100' pursuant to the HMP requirements; except for lots 20 and 21 which are adjacent to the project access road where special circumstances exist The revised plan was submitted to the City project engineer on 1-6-06, with a request for comments. No comments were received from the City project engineer. Also, based on the input received from City staff, the Wildlife Agencies, and the project biologist, the arched culvert is properiy sized to allow wildlife movement through the culvert. The culvert design exceeds the "openness factor" used to evaluate the suitability of such structures. 3. CITY COMMENT: It is our understanding the 18" sewer reflected on DWG 361-6E may not need to be 18" in size. Per Bill Plummer, the future anticipated sewer flows from the adjacent city will not occur. Therefore the sewer must only be sized to serve this project and those others within the scope of the submitted sewer study. Please revise the sewer study and TM exhibits to address the size of the sewer required per the revised estimated sewer flows. This is a repeat comment from the last review. RESPONSE; Based on an in-depth review of this issue by the project engineer, the sewer line needs to remain at 18" to the first manhole north of Agua Hedionda Creek, regardless of future anticipated flows from the adjacent city. The sewer line needs to flow at the minimum grade allowed by the 18" pipeline in order to create the maximum separation/distance to the flow line of the creek. This eliminates the need to revise the Sewer Study. Revisions have been made to the TM to clarify that construction of the sewer line is consistent with the City-approved improvement plans. The City-approved improvement plans are included In the sutimitted Sewer Study. Please contact the project engineer if additional details are required. 4. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to provide private storm drain easements for the lot owners to maintain private rear-yard storm drains that traverse beyond the lots. Refer to redlines for clarification. RESPONSE; This has been completed. See attached TM. 5. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to depict and callout public storm drain easements that encompass public storm drain infrastructure that traverses outside public right-of-way. The current TM shows multiple storm drains, headwalls and rip-rap down slopes that are not shown with proposed easements. RESPONSE; This has been completed. See attached TM. 6. CITY COMMENT; Revise the TM to provide/callout D-41 energy dissipaters on outlet structures where no physical maintenance access is provided for City maintenance staff (typical). RESPONSE; Based on the project engineer's review of this issue, the storm drain velocities are not high enough to require D-41 energy dissipaters. Also, the storm drain system has been re-designed to address Engineering Issue of Concern 1 above. See attached TM. 7. CITY COMMENT; The storm drain near the arch culvert appears to have two outlet locations. One drains to the habitat area, the other drains to the arch culvert. Revise the TM to clarify which outlet will be constructed. RESPONSE; This has been completed. Both outlets have been deleted. See attached TM. 8. CITY COMMENT: Revise the TM to address all redline comments as noted on the returned plans. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. RESPONSE; This has been completed. See attached TM and city-redlined TM. Fire Issues of Concern: 1. CITY COMMENT; The Fire Department has no additional comments at this time. RESPONSE; Comment noted. In sum, this re-submittal package contains all of the requested infomiation and plan revisions needed to complete the application pursuant to the City letter dated September 30, 2005. In addition, the package addresses the issues raised at recent meetings with City staff and the Wildlife Agencies. Please feel free to call me at 760.438.4090 ext. 101 or Greg Moorad at ext. 107 if you have any questions or require any additional information. End. Fourth Submittal Package - Rancho Milagro cc: Xavier Sustaeta, Rancho Milagro LLC Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering Company Brett Park, Gillespie Moody Patterson, Inc. Wendy Loeffler, RECON Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department September 30, 2005 Jack Henthorn & Associates 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 04-19/ZC 04-14/ CT 04-24/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHO IVIILAGRO All of the items requested of you eariier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, inciuding five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, November 12, 2004, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director DN:BK:bd c: Gary Barberio, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us GPA 04-19/ZC 04-14/CT 0W4/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHO llrfLAGRO September 30, 2005 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. Please submit a "Land Use Review Application" with the Cantarini Ranch property owner's signature since the development proposal now includes a merger with the Cantarini remainder parcels. 2. Please submit a Disclosure Statement for the Cantarini Ranch property owner. 3. Based on the development proposal of 22 units, 4 affordable housing credits would be required (round up from 3.88). The letter from David Bentley indicates that 3 credits may be available in the Cantarini multi-family project Please indicate how the fourth affordable unit will be provided. You may want to contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department to determine if there are additional affordable housing units available within the northeast quadrant (for example at Calavera Hills II) or if a reduced affordable housing requirement could be allowed in exchange for increased affordability of the units. Engineering: 1. Provide a letter of support from Mandana Cal Co. stating they do not object to this project. This company currently has rights to an easement per item 6 of the preliminary title report, dated August 19, 2004. 2. Revise the TM to depict the construction and extension of the existing sewer over the Agua Hedionda Creek crossing. Refer to redlines for clarification. 3. Where cross-lot drainage conditions occur, revise private drainage easements to specify the lots they will benefit. See previous redlines for clarifications. 4. Revise the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to provide numeric sizing criteria to ensure that structural (treatment) bmp measures for this project are adequate to filter storm water. Use either flow-based or volume-base criteria. Revise the TM to show the location of all biofiiters. Revise the SWMP to include a reduced exhibit of the TM and identify the locations of all treatment control bmp's for the project. 5. Revise the TM to show conceptual grading required for the road extension measured at least 200-ft from the subdivision boundary. This is the third time this comments has been repeated. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. On September 29, 2005, Planning Department staff presented your development proposal, draft HMP Consistency Findings, and Biological Technical Report to the Wildlife Agencies for their review and comment. Planning staff still has concerns since a number of the lots do not observe a 100-foot buffer from wetlands, particularly in the Q Q )454/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHO MIU GPA 04-19/ZC 04-14/CT 04-24/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHO MILAGRO September 30, 2005 Page 3 vicinity of Lot 20. Staff raised this as an issue of concern, since any reduced buffer width would need the Wildlife agencies approval. The Wildlife agencies indicated that they would respond within the next 30 days. Therefore, unless the project can be redesigned to fully meet the HMP standards for Zone 15, we will need to wait for the comments to determine if the project needs to be redesigned or ifthe proposed subdivision design can be supported. 2. One Sheet 5, please provide dimensions in several locations showing the distance from the wetlands boundary (along the northern tributary) to the limits of project impacts (grading and/or brush management). 3. The use of retaining walls around Lots 4, 5 and 10 is not supported, in the vicinity of Lots 4 and 5, the retaining walls are used to expand the pads of the lots over a hillside, which is not permitted under the City's Hillside Ordinance. The use of retaining walls at Lot 10 would result in a situation where the downslope properties would be viewing a combination of 6-foot retaining wall with an additional 5-6 foot high fence above. Furthermore, the combination of fence and retaining wall exceeds the height limit for fences along a property line. It is recommended that you shift the retaining wall on Lot 13 to the bottom of the slope so that it occurs on Lots 16 and 17, or Lot 13 could be redesigned as a stepped pad. The retaining walls should be eliminated on Lots 4 and 5, or explore redesigning these lots with a stepped pad. 4. Please explore trying to design the project so that it results in a balanced grading operation. 5. A Fuel Modification Zone would not be required on the north side of Lots 21 and 22 since these areas will abut future manufactured and irrigated slopes of the adjacent Cantarini Ranch development. 6. The Fuel Modification Zones (FMZ) on Lots 7 and 20 may not extend into the open space lot. The HMP section that you cited refers to properties within the coastal zone. Please either discuss obtaining approval for a reduced buffer width with the Fire Marshall or enlarge the lots to encompass the FMZ. 7. It may be possible to extend the DG trail along the street to the Mandana property boundary, subject to the Engineering Department's approval. 8. Please provide a 10' r.o.w. on "B" Street adjacent to Lots 9 and 14 so that there is adequate room for street trees between the property line and curb. The reduced r.o.w. can be utilized for the remainder of the lots on the cul-de-sac. 9. Lot design (2"'' request); a. Lot 4 & 10: Please show the net pad area (1/2 acre minimum) and the gross lot area for the panhandle lots. Also, please designate the 35-foot front setback. The front setback should occur along the length of one of the property lines. The rear setback will be assumed to be opposite the front setback. GPA 04-19/ZC 04-14/CT 0Q4/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHOQLAGRO September 30, 2005 Paqe 4 b. Lots 10 & 11: These lots should be redesigned so that they have separate driveway approaches, rather than a shared driveway. The small slope adjacent to the east side of the panhandle should be relocated so that it occurs on Lot 11 so that the width of Lot 11 is increased. The width of the panhandle should be decreased to 20 feet. 10. The responsibility for long-term maintenance and management of the mitigation land associated with the Terraces of Sunny Creek project needs to be resolved. The wildlife agencies were informed of this aspect of the project and we are awaiting their response. 11. Landscape Plan; a. As a project amenity, consider adding an overiook area with a few benches and a trailhead in the graded area on the east side of the sewer easement on the south side of "A" Street. The trail could tie into this area. b. The landscape and fencing plans will be reviewed in more detail pending the outcome of the Wildlife agency comments. Engineering: 1. Please note that the adjacent development (Cantarini, CT 00-18) has undergone project modifications based on comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The adjacent project now contains the use of bioswales to treat run-off from public streets before discharge to the tributary areas. As a precaution, your project concept may change, if it can be shown that more efficient BMPs can be incorporated into the project. Per bmp handbooks, bio-swales are more efficient and removing the target pollutants-of-concern as compared to hydrodynamic separators. In a proactive effort, you may consider contacting the RWQCB to obtain early comments/feedback on the post-construction BMPs you are choosing to ensure they are adequate. If changes are required, please revise the project now to incorporate more efficient BMPs. 2. It is our understanding the wildlife agencies may have concerns with the lots adjacent to the sensitive habitat crossing the property (near the arch culvert). If any changes are required to the Tentative Map based on agency input, staff may have additional comments based on new/revised information. 3. It is our understanding the 18" sewer reflected on DWG 361-6E may not need to be 18" in size. Per Bill Plummer, the future anticipated sewer flows from the adjacent city will not occur. Therefore the sewer must only be sized to serve this project and those others within the scope of the submitted sewer study. Please revise the sewer study and TM exhibits to address the size of the sewer required per the revised estimated sewer flows. This is a repeat comment from the last review. 4. Revise the TM to provide private storm drain easements for the lot owners to maintain private rear-yard storm drains that traverse beyond the lots. Refer to redlines for clarification. 5. Revise the TM to depict and callout public storm drain easements that encompass public storm drain infrastructure that traverses outside public right-of-way. The current TM shows multiple storm drains, headwalls and rip-rap down slopes that are not shown with proposed easements. )Sl/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHO GPA 04-19/ZC 04-14/CT 04-24/SUP 05-05/HDP 04-11 - RANCHO MILAGRO September 30, 2005 Page 5 . 6. Revise the TM to provide/callout D-41 energy dissipaters on outlet structures where no physical maintenance access is provided for City maintenance staff (typical). 7. The storm drain near the arch culvert appears to have two outlet locations. One drains to the habitat area, the other drains to the arch culvert. Revise the TM to clarify which outlet will be constructed. 8. Revise the TM to address all redline comments as noted on the returned plans. This check print must be returned with the revised pians to facilitate continued staff review. Fire: 1. The Fire Department has no additional comments at this time. / September 15,2005 Mr. Glenn Pruim, P.E. Ci ty Engineer CityofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA. 92008-7314 Re: Carls bad Tract 04-24, Rancho Milagro Dear Mr. Pruim, I have been requested to allow the foture public sewer that will serve Tract No. 04-24 to cross a portion of my . property. I have been provided with the attached portion of the Rancho Milagro Tentative Map showing the sewer and my property. I am willing to Grant a Public Utility and Multi - Purpose Trail Easement across my property, in the location shown on the attached exhibit, at the time of final engineering and Tract Map recording forC.T. 04-24. Please contact me at 760-438-0817 if you have any questions concerning my conceptual approval. I wiil be following the project and attending the Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. Sincerely Timothy Barlow Barlow Ranch Attachment \ " -fill I t) BENTLEY-MONARCH J.V. CANTARINI RANCH August 10, 2005 Mr. Xavier Sustaeta, Manager Member Rancho Milagro, LLC P.O. Box 9117 La Jolla, CA 92037 RE; Affordable Housing Credits Dear Xavier: In response to your inquiry regarding any available affordable housing units/credits from the Cantarini/Holly Springs combined affordable housing project, reference herein is made to item 16 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5754: "The combined project is intended to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs developments as follows: Cantarini Ranch - 19 units Holly Springs - 8 units Multi-family project - 8 units Any excess low-income housing units may be used to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for other developments within the northeast quadrant, subject to City Council approval, as provided for in the Affordable Housing Agreement." Based on this condition of approval and the fact that the proposed affordable housing project is planned to contain a total of 40 affordable housing units, there should be 5 "excess low-income housing units". Of those, 2 are already committed for my proposed Lubliner/DB Partners project, which results in 3 "excess" units for purchase by your proposed Rancho Milagro project. Of course, all of this is subject to approval by the City of a final affordable housing agreement and the successful completion of the Cantarini-Holly Springs projects. Further, an affordable housing "credit" purchase agreement would have to be negotiated among us and approved by the City of Carisbad. At this time, I don't have enough information about our affordable housing project costs to provide an estimate of what the affordable housing credits would be sold for. In any event, assuming there are "excess low-income housing units" available from our combined project after satisfying the requirements of the Cantarini, Holly Springs, Multi-family and Lubliner projects, I would be happy to offer you the excess units for purchase by your Rancho Milagro project before making them available to the open market. Very truly yours, Bentley-Monarch J.V./Cantarini Ranch David M. Bentley, Managing Partner 7449 Magellan St. * Carlsbad, CA 92009 * 760-476-9572 * bentec^ladelphia.net I ANCHO MILAGkJ RANCHO MILAGRO LLC P.O. BOX 9177 LA JOLLA. CA 92038 TEL 858 454 2002 FAX 858 454 1720 !^ August 3, 2005 *)g§5^ ^ Mr. Ali Shashani ^xJj^^'^'^ C^^^^^^ Mandana CalCo. '^^'^ P.O. Box 18197 Irvine, CA 92623 Re: CERTIFIED DELIVERY OF THIS AND ALL PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE Dear Mr. Shashani, Not having received a response to any of my previous letters, I can only conclude that you have either not received them, or have chosen, for your own reasons - unknown to me, not to respond. Regardless of the reason, the absence of your response is preventing me form moving forward with the entitlement process for Rancho Milagro, and causing me significant delays and an economic loss, which could result in a liability to you. Accordingly, I am sending you this new, and last letter by certified mail to enable me to ascertain your receipt of my correspondence. Your prompt response is requested, and if not obtained will force me to seek remedies through other venues. Specifically, if your response is not received within 5 calendar days of having received this letter, I shall assume that you are deliberately obstructing the entitlement of Rancho Milagro and shall proceed accordingly. Enclosed herewith, please find a copy of my three previous letters, all unanswered. Sincerely yours, Enclosures: Letters to you, one dated March 24, 2005; one dated May 5, 2005; one dated June 13,2005 cc. Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad Jack Henthom, Jack Henthom and Associates Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering Victor Viiaplana, Esq. Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek k.^NCHO MILAGk J RANCHO MILAGRO LLC P.O. BOX 9177 LA JOLLA. CA 92038 TEL 858 454 2002 FAX 858 454 1720 June 13,2005 Mr. Ali Shashani Mandana CalCo. P.O. Box 18197 Irvine, CA 92623 Re: Request reply to previous correspondence Dear Ali, This is to request your response to my previous correspondence to you regarding your comments / approval of our Tentative Map Application, to which you have not yet responded. Also, I have left several messages in your answering service, but have not received any retum call. Speciflcally, on March 24, 2005 1 wrote to you requesting your consent - and providing a formula - to substitute the present easement that you have on our property, which is useless in its present location as it cannot meet its purpose of providing access to your property due to land use regulations and City constraints, for a new one which would provide you with proper access and which would allow your property to be developable in the future. Subsequently, 1 wrote to you on May 5, 2005 confirming that the proposed access point to your property, as per our proposed Tentative Map, is precisely at the point where your development project (which you partially shared with me) shows it to be. In summary, our Tentative Map provides you with the necessary access that your property requires in order to be developable, and it does so at the point where you have indicated to me that you would like to have it. The only variance vs. the present easement is that the route it follows through our property is different, with the existing route being useless, and the proposed one being in accordance to City constraints and land use guidelines. I would very much appreciate if you could please address this issue at your earliest possible convenience. Resolving this issue is of primary importance to both of us, its resolution is necessary in order to obtain development rights for both properties. Best professional regards, Xavier Sustaeta Enclosures: Letters to you, one dated March 24, 2005; and one dated May 5, 2005 cc. Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad Jack Henthorn, Jack Henthom and Associates Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering 1 RANCHO MILAGRO RANCHO MILAGRO LLC P.O. BOX 9177 LA JOLLA. CA 92038 TEL 858 454 2 0 02 FAX 858 454 1720 May 5, 2005 m Mr. Ali Shashani Mandana CalCo. RO. Box 18197 Irvine, CA 92623 Re: Connection point between Rancho Milagro and Mandana Dear Ali, In response to the concern you expressed to me recently regarding the access / connection point to Mandana that Rancho Milagro is showing in its Application for Tentative Map, I am happy to report to you that your concern, although very valid and understandable, is not accurate, as our proposed road system very much is in alignment with the connection point shown in the partial copy of the map you sent me last week. 1 provided copy of such map to our Engineer, Frank Fitzpatrick (Manitou Engineering), and he has clearly identified our proposed connection point as being almost exactly where Mandana is showing such connection. Interestingly, he even commented that he could not have placed our road any closer to your connecting point even if he had had a copy of your map. Topographic constraints are pretty much identical on "both sides of the fence" so there were not too many options available. As soon as I leamed the result of Frank's analysis I tried calling you but unfortunately 1 have not been successful. Regardless, the point is that 1 wanted to give you the good news as soon as 1 obtained confirmation from Frank that your concem was not founded. My suggestion is that you verify this with you own Engineers for your peace of mind. Furthermore, if we can be of any assistance during this process, please do not hesitate to call on us. 1 will be very happy to sit down with you and with Frank to show you (and your team) our plans and how they relate to the study you had conducted for your property. It is very important that we are both in agreement on this access / connecting point, as 1 am certain we are based on the map you provided to me, not just to dispel your concems. but also so that we can address the removal of the present useless easement affecting our property, as per my letter to you on this subject dated March 24, 2005. To conclude. I would like to reiterate my interest and commitment in working together with you, as with all of our neighbors, to facilitate and resolve any potential concems that we may each have in relationship to our respective properties. Sincerely yours, Enclosure: copy of the portion of the Mandana map showing its desired access point from Rancho Milagro. CC. Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad Jack Henthom, Jack Henthom and Associates Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering NCHO MILAG RANCHO MILAGRO LLC P.O. BOX 9177 LA JOLLA. CA 92038 TEL 858 454 2002 FAX 858 454 1720 March 24, 2005 Mr. Ali Shashani Mandana CalCo, P.O. Box 18197 Irvine, CA 92623 Dear Ali, As I recently informed you in our brief phone conversation, we have continued our efforts towards obtaining a Tentative Map approved with the City of Carlsbad for our property, Rancho Milagro. These efforts include numerous geological, botanical, archeological, and engineering studies, as well as several meetings with the Land Planning Dept. and the Engineering Dept. of the City of Carlsbad. I am pleased to inform you that these efforts have brought us to the point where we are presently re-submitting our fmal Application for Tentative Map, with all previously raised issues md concems positively addressed. Thus, we are confident to believe it will be acceptable to the City of Carlsbad and oiu^ application can be officially received as completed. Being fully aware that all neighboring properties are intimately affected by what we each do, particularly ours (Mandana / Rancho Milagro - as we share a common boundary), and in an effort to keep you informed of what our progress has been, I am enclosing herewith copy of the Tentative Map document that we are presenting to the City of Carlsbad, and which incorporates all the findings, limitations, and specific information that we have found during the course of our efforts. Upon reviewing our plan, you will notice that we were able to obtain 22 individual lots, creating an "Estate" type development, while maintaining the "country / open space" environment that presently makes our properties so enviable. Access to our property will be provided via "K" Street through Holy Springs / Cantarini Ranch, and this same street will run through our developable area, serving most of our lots directly, as well as providing access to your property, Mandana. Please note that the access point to your property and the route the street follows is not in the same location as the access point and route that is presently shown in our respective plot plans in the form of an access easement to your property. This is as a result of actual topographical and environmental conditions as well as City restrictions and regulations that were not taken into consideration at the time said easement was drawn, and which in fact make it useless in its present form. Paramount being that notwithstanding the route change, and the worthlessness of the present easement, proper access to your property will be duly provided and in accordance to the City's requirements and regulations. To this effect, it will eventually be necessary to abandon this easement when proper access is provided to your property in final form. Presently, in order to preserve current rights while allowing us to un- encumber our property of the useless easement, my suggestion is that we enter into an agreement whereby you would quit claim the existing easement in exchange for the viable access along the route of the proposed public street. However, since the specific alignment would not be established until my project is approved, your quit ciaim would in the meantime be held in an escrow account for recording only upon final approval of my tentative map by the City of Carlsbad. This escrow account would be open at an escrow company of your choice. I believe that this proposal works to our mutual benefit and that it satisfies the City of Carlsbad's requirements and desires, and I therefore hope that it will meet with your approval. We will undertake the task of preparing the necessary document(s) to accomplish this objective, and will send them to you for your review within the next few weeks. In the meantime, if you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact Jack Henthom at (760) 438 4090. I will be out of town for the next 2 weeks. Sincerely yours. Xavier Sustaeta cc. Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad Jack Henthom, Jack Henthom and Associates Frank Fitzpatrick, Manitou Engineering North Side of Site, Looking Soutii North Side of Site, Looking South North End of Site, Looking North South End of Site, Looking Southwest South Side of Site, Looking West South Side of Site, Looking South Central Port of Site, Looking Northwest Central Part of Site, Looking Northwest