The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 11-03; Encinas Creek Apartment Homes; Tentative Map (CT) (2)^ CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION P-1 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) Development Permits (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) Leaislative Permits (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) n Administrative Permit 1 1 General Plan Amendment i 1 Coastal Development Permit (*) dl Minor 1 1 Local Coastal Program Amendment (*) r~l Conditional Use Permit (*) 1 1 Master Plan dl Amendment 1 1 Minor [H Extension 1 1 Master Plan dl Amendment 1 1 Environmental Impact Assessment 1 1 Specific Plan dl Amendment 1 1 Habitat Management Permit dj Minor 1 1 Zone Change (*) n Hillside Development Permit (*) 1 1 Zone Code Amendment 0 Planned Development Permit Residential dl Non-Residential 1 1 Planned Industrial Permit List other aoolications not soecified 1 1 Planning Commission Determination • 0^Site Development Plan • 1 1 Special Use Permit • 0 Tentative Tract IVlap (*) = eligible for 25% discount 1 1 Variance dl Administrative NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: PROJECT NAME: \6i><j?"OOo •OD.gi'T (^g?" O^O" ^pO " CO BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: --^^stVcnH^ HV^^ ^A^fe^^OgQ ^^tt^ t3fcH:a<^Mfct--<t RAt-^ , BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ff^^OSX.^ C -Pp <3^P^-^\':>^ ^ cZcr-^fU/yS^^^ <;=feCJDpP0::> LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE: (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) BETWEEN 6Ar(MQ^ pg/<? SIDE OF AND STREETADDRESS (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) P-1 Page 1 of 5 Revised 07/10 OWNER NAME (Print): Holly Springs LTD. MAILING ADDRESS: p.p. Box 24R4 CITY, STATE, ZIP: Carlsbad, CA 92018 TELEPHONE: (760^ 809-7612 EMAIL ADDRESS: skellv(gcox.net APPLICANT NAME (Print): Holly Springs LTD. MAILING ADDRESS: p^p, gox 2484 CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: Carlsbad, CA 92018 (7f,n) 8nQ-761? skellv(3cox.net I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWI^GE. ^^^^ "^ZYA 1 CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST>OF MY KNOWLEDGE,,, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Print) MAILING ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAILADDRESS: Ken Cablay 701 Palmnar Airpnrf. Rd. . Suite -^On Carlsbad, CA 92011 (760) 931-5616 kcablayPseahntirnecorp • com THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE L THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRU^ AND OWLEDGE. \T10N IS TRUE AN D/VTE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. NOTICE OF RESTRICTION: PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND CONSENTS TO A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION BEING RECORDED ON THE TITLE TO HIS PROPERTY IF CONDITIONED FOR THE APPLICANT. NOTICE OF RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THE LAND AND BIND ANY SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. FOR CITY USE ONLY RECblVbD Ji;:^ 2 % 2011 CITYOFCARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: p-1 Page 2 of 5 Revised 07/10 ..-•^ Development Services STATEMENT planning Division ^ CITY OF p «I/A\ 1635 FaradayAvenue TAR! ^RAD (760)602-4610 Vrf/i I!-'/*«-• www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part Holly Springs LTD. Title Title Address Address P-O- Box 2484 , Carlsbad, CA 92018 OWNER (Not the owner s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part Holly Springs LTD. Title Title Owner Address Address P-0- Box 2484 Carlsbad, CA 92018 P-1 (A) Page lof 2 Revised 07/10 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit oraanization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust N/A Non Profit/Trust N/A Title Title Address Address Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? • Yes X No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. -^ignature^f owner/date""^ Holly Springs LTD. Print or type name of owner Holly Springs LTD. Print or type name of applicant Signcrtfure of owner/applicant'slagent if applicable/date Ken Cablay Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent p-1 (A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 CITY OF CAR LSBAD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT P-1(C) Development Services Planning Division 1635 FaradayAvenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Consultation of Lists of Sites Related to Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): H The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 ofthe State Government Code. I I The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 ofthe State Government Code. APPLICANT Name: Holly Springs LTD. Address: P-0- Box 2484 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Phone Number: (760) 809-7612 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Holly Springs LTD. Address: P-0- Box 2484 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Phone Number: (760) 809-7612 Address of Site: Along College Blvd., between Cannon Rd. and El Camino Real Local Agency (City and Countv): City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: 168-050-58,59 Specify list(s): California Water Boards Geotracker Regulatory Identification Number: N/A Date of List: April 2010 The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. P-1(C) Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10 "'^'"^^ LIMITS ON Development Services 'A DISCRETIONARY Planning Division v' CITY OF IPPTQ 1635 FaradayAvenue CARLSBAD i™«>»o-«" •1 (E) www.carlsbadca.gov PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is needed to make this application complete. When the application is complete, the processing period will start upon the date ofthe completion letter. If you have any questions regarding application submittal requirements (i.e., clarification regarding a specific requirement or whether all requirements are necessary for your particular application) please call (760) 602-4610. Applicant Signature: Staff Signature: L-^^l/OL<3 ^,^^Cr^f<A ^-v^. Date: To be stapled with receipt to the application P-1(E) Pagelofi Revised 07/10 (fi) Chicago Title Compai^ Builders Services Division 2365 Northside Drive, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 521-3400 Title Department: Customer: Chicago Titie Company Seaboume Development Co. Attn: Tom Votel/Ken Cyr Attn: Ken Cablay Email: votcit@cU.com & ken.fyr@ctt.coin Email: kcahlay@seabournecoip.coin Phone; (619) 521-3553 & (619) 521-3555 Phone: (760)931-5616 Fax: (619)521-3608 Referency No.: Holly Springs Order No.: 930021801-U50 PRELIMINARY REPORT Property Address: APN: 168-050-58, 59 Dated as of: February 17, 2011 at 7:30 am In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Chicago Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or refened to as an E.xception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed .Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions ofsaid Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusion from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that se forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Ainount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liahility bc assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be rocinested. The p()licy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder vvill be policy(s) of Chicago Tille Insurance Company Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and tite exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of tfiis report carefully. Tlte exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of tlte title iitsurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY CLTA Pielimlnar) Report Fonn - Modified (1 l-17-0(i) Pane I Order No.: 1801 -U5() SCHEDULE A 1. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is: A Eee as to Parcel(s) I An Easement more fully described below as to Parcel(s) 2 2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Holly Springs, Ltd., a California limited partnership 3. The land referred to in this report is situated in the State of California, County of San Die-o and is described in the Legal Description, attached hereto: END OE SCHEDULE A CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 2 Order No.: 93002 I SOM 50 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL I: (APN 168-050-58 AND 59) PARCEL D OF OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED MARCH 27, 2007 AS FILE NO. 2007-0205875. OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS "E" AND "B" OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 823, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 16, 1896, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 1995-0100176 RECORDED MARCH 9, 1995 IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 7918 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON OCTOBER 10. 1974; THENCE NORTH 34°43'32" EAST 664.30 FEET (NORTH 34M3'55" EAST 664.30 EEET RECORD PER DOCUMENT NO. 1995-0100176 AND RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 7918, WHICH ARE COLLECTIVELY HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS REFERENCE NO. 1); THENCE LEAVING THE WESTERLY LINE OE REFERENCE NO. I, SOUTH 84"25'I0" EAST 394.34 EEET; THENCE SOUTH I5"47'25" EAST 320.23 FEET TO A POINT O.N A NON-TANGENT CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 630.00 FEET, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY. A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH ()5°56'44" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°28'3I" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 324.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54°34'45" WEST 101.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53^2r5l" WEST 352.46 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, 102.00 FEET WIDE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 46°35'02" WEST 265.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "E" OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 823; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH 89°26'55" EAST 0.29 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OE LOT "E" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 6: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO USE THE EXISTING. UNIMPROVED ROAD WITHIN THAT PORTION OF LOT "E" OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 823, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER 16, 1896, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT POINT 1 OF LOT "D" OF RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA PER SAID MAP NO. 823 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY MAP NO. 79.L8, FILED IN THE OFFICE OE THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. OCTOBER 10, 1974; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT "D", NORTH 89°26'32" WEST, 1,543.43 FEET TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT "E"; THENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE BOUNDARY OF SAIP LOT "E", NORTH 89°26'32" WEST 2,831.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LANI) DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2, IN DEED TO WESTERN LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. RECORDED MARCH 2, 1971 AS FILE NO. 38810 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 2 OF LAND OF WESTERN LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: CLTA Preliiiiinary Report Form - Modified (ll-l 7^06) Page Order No.: 93002 I SO LU.^0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (continued) NORTH 34°43'55" EAST, 664.30 FEET (RECORD-NORTH 34°44'()3" EAST 663.15 FEET) TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN AND NORTH I5°54'30" WEST (RECORD-NORTH I5°5425" WESTl 148.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 2 NORTH I5°54'30" WEST 482.44 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO OCEANS IDE-CARLSBAD UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, RECORDED NOVEMBER 27. 1970 AS FILE NO. 216959 OF OFEK IAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID SCHOOL DISTRICTS LAND AS EOLLOWS: NORTH 53°22'00" EAST (RECORD NORTH 53°22'17" EAST) 300.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SCHOOL DISTRICTS LAND; SOUTH 27° 10'12" EAST 610.78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75"35'00" WEST 400.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION CLTA Preliminary Report Form - .Vlodified (11-17-06) Paae 4 Order No.: 930()2180I-U50 SCHEDULE B At the date hereof, items to be considered and exceptions to coverage in addition to thc pnmed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. Property taxes, including any assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2011 - 2012 that are a lien not yet due. 2. Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2010-2011 E' In.stallment: $875.06 (Paid) 2"^ Installment: $875.06 Penalty and Cost: $97.50 (Due after April 10) Homeowners Exemption: $None Code Area: 09013 Assessors Parcel Number: 168-050-58 Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected vvith taxes, for the fiscal year 2010- 201 1 V Installment: $337.85 (Paid) 2"'' Installment: $337.85 Penalty and Cost: $43.78 (Due after April 10) Homeowners Exemption: $None Code Area: 09162 Assessors Parcel Number: 168-050-59-00 3. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any. made puisuant to ihc provisions of Part 0.5, Chapter 3.5 or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4 respectively (connnenciiig with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result ol the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A; or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to date of policy. 4. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. Granted To: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Pui pose: ingress and egress Recorded: .lanuary 4. 1963 as Instrument .No. 1851 ofOl ticial Rv'coixls Affects: The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record 5. An easement for the purpo.se shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. Granted To: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Purpose: pipeline or pipelines CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Pa"e Order No.: 93002 1801-l.L^O SCHEDULE B (continued) Recorded: January 4, 1963 as Instrument No. 1852 of Official Recortls Affects: The route thereof affects a portion of said land and is more fully described in said document. 6. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. Granted To: San Diego Gas and Electric Company Purpose: public utilities, ingress, egress Recorded: October 7, 1971 as Instrument .No. 23101 I of Olficial Records Affects: The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record 7. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Agreement between Developer-Owner and the City of Carlsbad for the Payment of a public facilities fee for inside the boundaries of Community Facilities District No. I Rect)rded: Noveniher 3. 1993 as Instrtiment No. 1993-07381 m oi' ()t! u i:\l Recoills 8. Covenants, conditions and restrictions ("but omitting, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is controlled or permitted by any applicable federal or state law, any covenants or restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, medical condition, national origin, source of income, or ancestry" as set forth in the document Recorded: September 7. 1995 as Instrument No. 1995-0398034 of OITicial Recoals Note: Section 12956.1 of the government code provides the following: "If this document coni;iin> any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955. or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to section 12956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status." Note: If you should request a copy of the document referred to above. California Law requires that a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real Estate broker, real EsUiic ;iiicni. or association that provides a copy of a declaration, governing document, or deed to ;in\ person shall place a cover Page over, or stainp on the first Page ofthe previously recorded documcnl or documents a .statement, in at Iea.st 14-point boldface type, relating to unlawful restrictions. Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 9. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Abstract of Option Agreement CLT,\ Preliminary Repon Form - Modified (11-17-06) Paue 6 Order No.: 930021X01-1 50 SCHEDULE B (continued) Recorded: December 10. 1999 as Instrtiment No. 1999-0804077 of Olficial Recoids Reference is herehy made to said document for full particulars. 10. .'\ document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Right of Removal Agreement Recorded: 13ecember 12. 1995 as Instrument No. 1995-0563757 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. A termination of Right of Removal Agreement recorded Januarv 28. 2()()() as Instrument :No, 2000- 0045448 ofOtTicial Records. 11. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Agreement between Developer-Owner and the City of Carlsbad for the payment ofa public facilities fee Recorded: Julv 12. 1996 as Instrument No. 1996-0351885 of Olficial Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 12. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Agreement between Developer-Owner and the City of Carlsbad for the payment of a public facilities fee for inside the boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 1 Recorded: November 14. 1997 as Instniment No. 1997-0575067 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 13. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Cable Television Bulk Billing Agreement and Grant of Easement Recorded: December 12, 1997 as Instrument No. I997-0631753 of UfUcial Recoids Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 14. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Hold Harmless Agreement Drainage Recorded: Februarv 4. 1998 as _ Inst runic nt__,_Na i998-{)n559v7 ot ()ri k ial CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (I 1-17-06) Pace 7 Order No.: 93002 1801-L 50 SCHEDULE B (continued) Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 15. An easement for the purpose shown belovv and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a documcnl Granted To: The City of Carlsbad Purpose: public street and public utility Recorded: Februarv 4. 1998 as Instrument No. 1998-0055998 of Official Records Affects: The route thereof affects a portion of said land and is more fully described in .said document. Said instrument additionally contains the privilege and right to extend drainage structures and excavation and embankment slopes beyond the limits where required for the construction aiid maintenance thereof 16. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Memorandum of Tenancy-in-Common Recorded: December 21. 2000 as Instrument No. 2000-0699590 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for fuli particulars. 17. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Agreement and Grant of Easement Recorded: Mav 22. 2002 as Instrument No. 2002-0432592 of Official Records Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 18. A document subject to all the terms, provisions and conditions therein contained. Entitled: Lot Line Adjustment Agreement Recorded: Ar.rd 1 j^,Ji)06__a.sJiiyi:ui .2''Mti 1.279S-12 o( ()t!ci.11 Rcwi>i- Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 19. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. Granted To: City of Carlsbad Purpose: public street and public utility Recorded: March 27. 2007 as Instrtiment No. 2007-0205882 urOlTicial Rcc.,'|•(i^ Affects: The route thereof affects a portion of said land and is more rLillv described in said document. CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Modified (11-17-06) Page 8 Order No.: 930021801-USO SCHEDULE B (continued) 20. Matters which may be disclosed by an in.spection and/or by a correct ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of said land that is satisfactory to this Company, and/or by inquiry of the parties in possession thereof. This office must be notified at lea.st 7 business days prior to the scheduled closine in order to arrange for an inspection of the land; upon completion ofthis inspection you will be notified ofthe removal of specific coverage exceptions and/or additional exceptions to coverage. 21. Any rights of parties in possession of said land, based on any unrecorded lease, or leases. This Company will require a full copy of any unrecorded lea.se, together with all supplements, assignments, and amendments for review. END OF SCHEDULE B CLTA Preliminary Report Form - .Modified (11-17-06) Paae 9 _ Order No.: 930021801-1:50 INFORMATIONAL NOTES Note No. 1: The policy of title insurance will include an arbitration provision. The Company or the insured may demand arbitration. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the in.sured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. Please ask your escrow or title officer for a sample copy of the policy to be issued if you wish to review the arbitration provisions and any other provisions pertaining to your Title Insurance coverage. Note No. 2: The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than the amount, if any, set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Note No. 3: The requirement that a copy of the partnership agreement of the Holly Springs, Ltd., a California limited partnership be furnished to this Company, together with all supplements, amendments, etc., thereto. Note No. 4: We find no open Deeds of Trust of record. Please verify by inquiry of your cscunv personnel and or agents whether or not we have overlooked something and advise the title department accordingly prior to closing. GP t'L I A Pieliniinary Report Form - Modified (I 1-17-06) Order No.: 930021801 Lso INFORMATIONAL NOTES (continued) ATTACHMENT ONE PRIVACY ST.'\TEMENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION: For those of vou receiving this report by electronic delivery the Privacy Statement and Exclusions From Coverage are linked to this report. Please review this information by selecting the link. For those of vou who are receiving a hard copy of this report, a copy of this information has been submitted for vour review. C'l. l .A Prelimmary Report Form - Modified (I 1-17-06) Paae 11 CH^I^GO TITLE INSURANCE COMP A' Fidelity National Financial Group of Companies' Privacy Statement July 1,2001 We recognize and respect the privacy of today's consumers and the requiiements of applicable federal and state privacy laws. We believe that making you aware of how we use your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"), and to whom it is disclosed, will form the basis for a relationship of trust between us and the public that we seive. Ihis Pn\,ic\ Statement provides that explanalion. We reserve the right to change this Privacy Statement from time lo tunc coiisisicni v, nli applicable privacy laws. In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: • From applications or other forms we receive from you or your authorized representative; • From your transactions with, or from the services being performed by, us, our aftiliates or others; • From our Internet web sites; • From the publie records maintained by government entities that we wither obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates or others; and • From consumer or other reporting agencies Our Policies Regarding The Protection Of The Confidentiality And Security Of Your Personal Inforniation We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards to protect your Personal Information from iinaiitiiori/ed access nr intrusion. We limit access to the Personal Information only to those employees who need such access in ctinnection with providing products or services to you or for other legitimate business purposes. Our Policies and Practices Regarding the Sharing of Your Personal Information We may share your Personal Information with our affiliates, sueh as insurance companies, agents, and olher real estate settlement service providers. We may also disclose your Personal Information: • to agents, brokers or representatives lo provide you with services you have requested: • ro thitxi-party contractors or service providers who provide services or perform marketing DI- other functions on our behalf: and • to others vvith whom we enter into joint marketing agreements for producis or services that we believ e you inav I ind of interest. In addition, we will disclose your Personal Information when your direct or give us permission, when we are required by law to do so, or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed lo enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. One of the important responsibilities of some of our affiliated companies is to record documents in the public domain. Such documents may contain your Personal Information. Riaht To Access Your Personal Information And Ability To Correct Errors Or Request Change Or Deletion Certain states atford you the right to access your Personal Information and. under certain circumstances, to find out to u hr.iu your Personal Information has been disclosed. Also, certain slates afford you the right to rec|uest correction. ;inicii(,linent m deletion of your Personal Information. We reserve the right, where permitted by law, to charge a reasonable fce to cover the costs incurred in responding to sueh requests. All requests must be made in writing to the following addiess: Privacy Compliance Ofticer Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 601 Riverside Drive Jack.sonville, FL 32204 Vlultiple Products or Services: If vve provide you vvith mi)re than one financiai product or service, you may receive more lhat sine privacy nolice trom us. W c apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Privacy Statement (10-21-0.3) IP ATTACHMENT ONE AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLK INSURANCE POLICY (6-1-87) EXCLUSIONS In LnJclititin to thc ti.xct'ptii)ns in .Schedule B. you arc noi iiistu'eiJ aiiaiiiN! I^|'^s. cosi.s. ;ilhirncvs' l>.x'>, jjid expciisos rcsultirii; iiom ! t iu\cniiiiciii;il pohce [tower, and ilie exislence or violaiion of jnv lav\ or Lioveiruneiu reijitlaluin. This mL•lu^.le^ hiiitdinL; ant! /oiiini; uiduiaavC^ and also laws and fecniatious coiwcnna^ • land use • in^piovenviUs on (he land • kind division • enuronineiUal paueetiun I his excluMon does not apply to violations or the cnforcenk.'nt ofthese niittiers which appeal" in the public records at Pohcy Date. 1 his exclusion does not limit ihe zoning coverage described in Iteins 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks. 2 1 he right to take the land by condenining it. unless; • a nolice of exercising the riglit a[)pears in the [)iiblic rccorils on thc Pohc> Date • thc taking happened prior lo rhe Pidicy Date .ind is binding on >oti if you bought the land \\ ithoul know ing of the taking htic Risks • lhat are civaled. .ilhA^ed. or .;gi^'t:d Ui i^;. v>>!i • lhat are known to \ou. 'nn not 'o ns, ,in lOc I'uii.. > i\nc .HI!CS. they appealed m ihe public rccuidN • that icsnli in no loss \o you • that first affect your title afier the Policy Date - ihis dties not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered litle Risks I'ailure to pay value for your title. Lack ofa right: • to any land outside the area •.pecit'ically describeil and referred lo in Item of Schedule .A OR • in strccls. alleys, or v^aicrwav^ thai ttench your LUK! exclusion does iii>i limit t!ie <icccss cu\ciaLC in lieiii 5 r,\ (. nvricd I -iL- Risks In addition lo the Exclusions vou are not insured against loss, costs, aitorney.s' fees, and the expenses resulting from: I. Any l ight, interests, or claims of parlies in pos.session of the land not shown by the public records. Any ea.senients or liens not shown by the public records. This does not Umit the lien coverage iu hem 8 of Covered Tille Risks. Any facts about the land which a conect survey would disclose and which iire not shown by the public records. This does not limit the forced removal coverage in Item 12 of Covered f iile Risks. Any water rights or claims or title to water in or under the I^UKI. whether or not shown by the public records. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD C0VERA(;E POLK Y EXCLUSIONS EROM C0VERA(;E I (te fnllow tag mailers are exfuessiv v-\cliidcil lunii the L'ovei aue uf Uiis ptiliey and liie Cumpany w ill not pay U>.ss or dainage. cosis, .iitornevs' fees Ol expenses sshich arise by re;ison ol. 1. (a) .Any law, ordinance or go\erriinental regiilaiitin (including but nol limiled to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or localion of any improvemenl now or hereafter erected on the land: (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part: or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect uf any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except lo the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice ofa defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violatit>n \>r ;»Ueged \iolation affecting the land has been rccurdcd ni ihe public records ;il Dale ol' l*oIicy lbl Ain governmental police pouer not evclialcd hv (a) above. cxcc[)i to the cxient that a notice i»f the exercise- thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting Irom a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in Ihe public records al Dale of Policy. 2. Rights t)f eniineni domain unless notice of the exerci.se thereof has been recorded in the public records at Diiie of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking whieli has occurred prior to Date uf Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser tor value vvithout knowledge. ?>. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other niutiers: l.l) v\lk-ilicr or nul n.\-wolcd m IIK' ptiEli, i^\ruK .if li,,!,- ^ [' I'.ili,", but eicalc-d. sulleictf :issuincd «H aLTv-i-d lu I'v liic m^uicd claimanr. lb) not known to the Company, nol recorded in the [)iiblic records :i( Date of Policy, but knovsn to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Ctnnpany by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy: (cl resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant: (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy: or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sust;iincd ifthe insured claimant had paid value for (he insured nior!!2a;:e oi for Ihe estate or interesl insured bv ihis poliev l-nenforceahiliiy ot dK" Ucn uf die tiisiuv^! iuoiio;i'ic he, .Ui-c dir inability or failiMC- u! ilie insured ai Il;iie ul I'olicv ut ',\ic uiaEilitv u; tailure of any subsequeni uw nee ol liic nidvhiediic'ss |u ..uinplv \vnii the applicable- doing business laws ul ihe si,tie in -vlii.ii ilic l.in.l i. situaied. Invalidity or unenforceabiiity ot the lien ol the insured inortgage. or cUnm thereof, which arises out of the transaction evKlcnced bv die insured mortgage and is based uj)on usury or any consumer crevlit protection or truth in lending law. Any claim, vvhich arises out of the transaction vesting in the instued the estate of interest insured by this policy or Ihe transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, hy reason of the operation of fcdc-ral bankruptcy, slate in:iOl\cncy or similar evcdiluvs' rights laws SCHEDULE B, PARTI EXCEPTIONS FROM COV ERA(;F I his policy vloes nol uisuve iigaiiist loss ov damage (anv! the Company will not p;iy cosis. ! Taxes ur ;issessnieiiis which are not shown as exisling liens b\ ihe rccorils (if any taxing .lUthonty lhat lev ics taxes or assessiiienis on real pioperlv or hy the public records. Proceedings hy a public agency vvhieh may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of .such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of thc land or which may be asseiled by persttns in possession thereof aitornevs' fees r,v ex)XMwcsi ^shu ii anse l^v IVMSOI^ -.^i ^ liasenKMils. liens or cnciiiDbraiiccs. or clams ihciCf^f vvhich ,iic m i sliiiwn by the public lecuids. 4. Discrepancies, conllicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts vvhich ii correct survey ^^ould disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims: ib) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acls authorizing the issuance thereof: ic) water rights, clainvs or title to water, whether oi nol the matters excepted under (aK (b) or (c) are sh<}wn by the public records Attachmt'iit One (1 M7-06) Page l.^ ATTACHMENT ONE (CONTINUED) AMERICAN LAND I I I LE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10-17-92) WITH AL I A FNDOKSEMEN r-FOKM I C()\ EKAt.E KXCLl SIONS FROM C ON ERACE I lie fullow ing matters are expressly excluded from ihe coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or daiii;ige. costs, .ntornevs' fees or expenses w hich arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law. ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limiled to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i* the occupancy, use. or enjoyment of the land: (ii) the chiiracler. dimensions or location of any improventent now or hereafter erected on the land: Oii) a separation in ow nership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a pait: or (iv) environmental proieclion. or the efteci of any violation ofthese laws, ordinances or governmeuta! regiilaiions. excefH lo the extent thai a notice ofthe enforccmcni iheicuf or a nonce ofa detect, lien iir encimibrance ivsuliing from a viulation or :illegcd violation alfcctliig ilic land has been rcvoidcJ in ihe public records at D:ite vif Policy lbl ,\n> governmental [jolice power not excluded by (ai aht)ve. except to the extent lhal a nolice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public recoids at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent Jonuiin unless notice of the exercise thereof has been reeorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value \\Uhom knowledge. ;V Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: la) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (bl nol known to the Ct)inpany. not recorded in the pubhc rect)i"ds at Date of Policy, but known [o the insured claimant and not disclt>sed in vvriting t*) the Company by the insured cliiinuiiit prior to the date the insured clainumi became an insured under this policy; ici resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (dl attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent lhal this policy insures the priority ofthe lien ofthe insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labtir or material or to the extent insurance is atforded horein as lo assessiivnrs tor street improvements under conslruclion or com|dcted .it l.')aic ot Policy): or (ei resulting in loss or damage which would not have Iven sustained ifthe insured claimant had paid value for the insured niongage Unenforceability of the lien of the insured moitgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Dale of Policy, or the inabiliiv or failure of any subsequent owner of the iniiebtedness, lo cumplv v^iih applicable doing business laws of the siate in v\hich the land is sifuaied Invalielilv ur iMiciilorcc:ibilitv uf ihc lien u!'the lnui|.,',| nn-i i _•,!•.,•, ckiini thevcul', vv|ii,.i; anses uul uf die n :i:is,),'i ]• ai cvr.li.;i ••.\ insiijvi.1 muricagc- and is h,iscd iipuii iisu;\ or ,iir. . ,'i.su':,ci" ,,-.lii pioU'ction ur (null m Iciidinc law Anv siatiiiurv hen toi sc)"\ivcs. l.ibur oi matenals u;j ilie hniii uj priority of anv siatut^irv hen for services, labor i>r maiciKils ,)\ei ihc lien ot the insured mortgage) .irising from an improveinent or wurk related lo the land vvhich is contracted for and conimenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part hy proceeds oflhe indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at fXite of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated lo advance. Any claim, which arises out ofthe transaction creating the interest of the movlgagee insured by this ptdicy. by reasvin of ihe opevaUon of fctleriil bankruptcy, state insolvencv. or similar creditors' rights liiws. lhat is based on: ihe insured inunLM^ce • llMllJllleUl II'.llrsL'l'. oV •d ilU)nLa::ee i- .1 (i) the transaction creating lbc interest being deeiiK'd a fr;iuduient conveyance IH- iiil ihe subordinaiioi! ut' ihc interesl ul die resiill of the subordination, or ipplic;ilion of ihc v\!nii,.hlc liiil the transaction creating the micrcst uf tlic nisnrcd mui i:j,i2ee being deemed a prefereiiiial transfer except where the [nclcieniial transfer results hum the failure (a) to timely record the insirnmeni of iransfer, v)r (b( of such recordation to impart notice U) a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. rhe above policy form may be issued lo afford either .Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above lixclusions from Coverage, ihe Lxcepiions frcnn Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following P.xceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAtJE fhis policy does noi insure against loss or ilaniage 'and the Con)|>any will luif pav ct^sis. 1. laxcs or assessments v\hich arc not shown as existing liens b\ the ivcurds ut any taxing authority lhat levies taxes ur asscssnvius on real propei I) or bv ihe pubiic records. Proceedings b\ a public agency w inch may result in taxes or assessments, or nuiices of such proceedings, wheiher or noi shown by ihe records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any fads, rights, interests or claints which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection ofthe land or w Inch may be asserted by persons in possession thereof xpciisCsi which ai isc In icasiin ul Kasements, liens or cnctimhrances. ur clamis iheicul. whuh .ne iiui shov\n bv die public records. Discrepancies, conllicts in boundary lines, shnrtagc in ,iie:i. encruachnients, or any iMher facts wliich a correcl survev wnuld nd vvhich are not shown by the public records. (al Unpatenled mining claims: (b) reservations or exce|.>tioiis in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof: (ci waler rights, claims or title u> vvaier. whether or nut the matters excepted under la). (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. iltorneys tecs or 3 di 2(HKi ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COV ERAtiE The t'ullowing iiiatters are expi'essly excluded from the coverage of (his poiicv, :iiid ihe Compiiny vvill nol pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys fees. oi- expenses that arise bv reason of: ! Mi ,\nv law. oi di nance, permii. or gov ei nmenlitl icgulalion ' iiicludmg those relating to budtling <uid zoning j rest riding, regulating, prolnbiiing. or relating to fl) ihe occupancy, use. orenjoyuK'nt ofthe [,and: (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of .iny improvement erected on the Land: (iii) the subdivision of land; or liv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit ihe coverage prov ided under Covered Risk 5. lb) Any govemmenial police puwcr Ihis l.\clusi(in hbi dues itui modity or limil ihe coverage piov ided uniiei Cuvered Ki-k Righis of cmmciH vtomain Ihis Lxctusiuii does nui muih!', ur Mniii the coverage prov ided uiuler Covcied Risk ui s Defects, liens, encumbrances, ,idversc claims, ui uilier niadei s (a) created, suffered. assuiiK'd. ur agreed to by the Insuied Ciamianl; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the I'ublic Records at Dale of Policy, bul Known to the Insured Claimant and not disciosed in writing to ihe Company by [he insured Claimanl prior lo the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy: (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant: (di attaching or crealed suhsequent tu D:ite uf Policy ihowever. ihis tloes not modify or limit (he coveraee provided under Cuvcieil Risk I I. n. or Wv. o\ Alfachincnl One (1 1-17-00) Page 14 A l TACHMKNT ONE (CONriNLKDl ie( rcsultim: m loss or damage that would nut have been susLiined if (he Insured Claimant had paid value tbr die Insured Mortgage, liucuforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage becavisc of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply wiih applic;ible doing- business laws uf the state w here the loind is situated. hivalidity or unenforceability in wlude or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that iirises out oflhe transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or ait> consumer credit protection or iruth-in-lending law .\nv claim, hv re;isun uf liie upcranon uf tcilcial iri;ikni)Mc',. suie iiisolvency. or similar cieditois" righis laws. dial ihe iiMiisacnon creating the lien vd'the Insured Mortgage, is 'a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason iu)i stated in Covered Risk I.Vb) of this policy. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessntnts imposed by governmental authority and created or ;iitaching between Date of Ptdic) and the date of recording ofthe Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. Ihis Lxclusion diX's nol modifv or limit ihc covei.iL'c prm ided umler Covcied Risk 1 11 b i. The above policy form may bc issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Lxtended Coverage. In addition lo die above I-Aclusioiis from iL. trom Coverage in a Standard Cover;ige policy w ill also include the following Lxeeptions tiom (. uvcrage. lacc, die I • EXCEFnONS FROM COVERAiiE his policy dt>es not insure against loss or danuge (and the Company will nol pay cosis. attorneys' tees or expenses) thai arise b> reason of (a) faxes or assessnients ihat are not shown as existiim liens bv the or claims theretif not shown by records of any taxing authority that levies tuxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records: (b) Proceedings by a publie agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Publie Records. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records hut that could be asceriained by an inspectit)n ofthe Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession ofthe Land. LaseiiK'nts, liens or encumbrances, the PubUc Records. Any encroachment, encumbrance, v iolation. variaiii>n, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed b) .m accurate and ctmiplete land survey ofthe Land and nut siiown by the Public Records. (a) f'npatented mining claims: ili| reserv al ions or cxccpiiuns in patents or in Acls aiilhorizing the issuance thcreuf. ict vvaier n^jliis, claims or title to waier. whether or noi ihc m;iucrs csccpicil aiidci i.n lb), or (cI are show n bv ilie Pahlic RcvMids AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S in)LiCY (10-17-92) EXCLUSIONS FROM COV FRAC.E The tidlovs ing matters are expressly excluded from ihe coverage of ihis policy and the Company will nut pa> loss or daiiKige. costs, attorneys' fees or expenses w hich arise by reason uf: 1, (al Any law. ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limiied to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use. or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land: iiii) a separation in ownership or a change in ihe dimensions or area of the land or any parcel ot' which tlie land is or vvas a part: or (iv) environmental protection, or the elfect of any Viol.ition ofthese laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, cxcc|)i to the extcni tliat a notice ofthe enforcement ihcreof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a v iolation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded m lbc public records ai Dale of Policy. (h) Any governmental police power not excluded by (;i) al>ove. except lo the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting tiie land has been recorded in the pubiic records at Dale of Policy, 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the pubiic records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has vKCurred prior \o Dale of Policy vvhich wtjuld be binding on the righis of a purchaser for value vvifh(.Htl knowlediie Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) createti. suflered, assunieti or agreed tu by the insuretl claimant: (b) not known to the Company, nul recorded in ihe public records iit Date of Policy, bul known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior tu the dale the insured claiiiunt became an insured under this poiicy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage lo the insured ckiimaiii, id) ultaching or created suhset.]uenl to Date ut' Poiicv, ' ir le) resiiiiing in loss or ilamage which wduld not have been sMsUiincd if the msured claimant )i:id paid v;iiue lur (iic esuiie ui micK'si insured hv ilns pulicv Any claim, vvhich arises unt of die [raiisav'iiun ve'siini' in the iiMiicd the estate or inieresi insured by this pulicv. bv leasun ut IIIL- upeiMiiun ol federal tiankruptcy. smte insuhency. oi similar crcdnois righis laws, that IS based on; (i) tlie transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent iransfer: or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured b\ this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where tiie prefereiiiial transfer results from llie failure: (a) lo timely record the instfumeni of transfer: or (b) of such recordation io im|)art nuiice lo a )"'in\ h:isei lor v due ur :i iudiiincnt or lien cicdiioc Ihe .ibtnc policy form may be issued to :.ifford either Suiiidard Cuveragc ur iixiciuled Coverage In .iddiliun lu die ihove lAcltisiun, uum ( liom t'uveiage in :i Siandard f"overage Pulicv will al.so include thc following Lxeeptions I'UHII Cuver ice EXCEFI IONS FROM COVERACE 1 his policy does not insure againsl loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs. 1. faxes or assessments which are nt)t shown as exisling liens by the records of any taxing authority ihat levies taxes or assessiix^nts on real property or by ihe public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. A\ny facts, rights, interests or claims which are nol shown by thc public records bvil which could be ascertained by an inspecli»in of die land or which may be asserted bv persons in possession ilieret)f. attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason uf: .V Lasements. liens or encumbrances, or claims tlieret)f. vvhich are not shown by tlie public records, 4. Discrepancies, contlicis in boundary lines, shortage iu area, encroachments, or any olher fitcts which a correcl survey would disclose, and w hich are not show n bv the public records 5. ill) f'np;iteniei.l mining claims; ib) reservaiiuus ur e\ccptiuiis m patents or in Acts authorizing the i-sn.ince ihcu-ul. <^-] w.der r^ Jiis, claims or title (o water, w hether ur noi the ni;itU'i s ,•epicd undci ' i}. lb! or (c ) ;irc show n by the public rcC' -icK Attachnicnt One (i 1-17-06) Page l-S A I TACHXIEN1 ONE (CONTINLED) 2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVER.\GE The foliowing matters are expressly excluded from the coverage ofthis policy, and the Company vvill not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses lhat arise by reason of 1. (a) .Any law. ordinance, permit, or guvemmental regulation (Hiciuding iliose re kiting to building and zoning i resiricting. rcgidating. prohibiting, or relating (o I i) the occup:incy. use. or eiijttv menl of die I -and; 'iil die char:icier. dimeiisiuns, or lucillon uf .nu imf^roveniciit erected nn ihe Laud. (illi die subdiv ision of land, or (IV) eiivininuKMHai protectu>n: or the effect of any violation of diese laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion lia) does not modify or limit tiie coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. lb) Any gt)vernniental police power. This Hxclusion Ub) does nol modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain, fhis Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed tu bv the Insured Clainiant: (b) IHU Known lo the Company, nol recorded in Ihe Public Records :ii Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimanl and nut disclosed in writing to the Companv hy the Insmetj Cl.um.ini prior {o the date the Insuretl Claimant bec:intt.' :ni hisuicd :::iilv r ihis pulicv, ICI lesuliuig 111 nu iuss ur d.im:tgc lu ilic Insuied C'.Mhiaiii id) aiLtchlilL: ur .icaicd siihscqncul n,.lc u! I'uj:.. \ - l.uv' c. e; ''us dues no! inudil'v >;r iiniit ifc covem.c piu\;.ieil .;ii>iv\ i u..-;c'i| Risk ^) .Hid 10). ur iCi resulting in loss ui damage dial wcpuld noi have been susiaiiicd d fhe Insured Claimant iLid paid v;ilue for the "fitle. Any claim, by reason uf the viperation of federal bankruptcy, stale insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the traiisaciion vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A. is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or Ifauduleni transfer; or (b) a preferential tiansfer for any reason not staled in Covered Risk 9 uf this puiicy. Any iien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imptiscd by governmental authority and created or aOaclimg between |);iie cd' l^)iicy and thc date of recording of die deed or odier insiiiiiirciii u! iraiisler in die Public Records dial vests I mc as sliu\', D m S.-iicdule A I'he above policy form may be issued lo afford either Standard Coverage or Ivxiended Coverage In addition to the above I'xclusions tiom ( oveiacc from Coverage in a Siandard Coverage policy will aiso include the following lixceptions from t\tverage; •1 v.,er.tu' EXCEKIIONS FROM COVERACJE This policy does not insure against loss ur damage (and Ihe Company wiil not pay costs. 1. (a) faxes or assessments that are not shown as e.xisting liens by the records of any taxing autiiority tiiat levies taxes or assessments un reai property or by the Public Records: (h) |)ruceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessnvnts. or notices of such proceedings, whether ov not shown by the records of such agency vir by the Public Records. 2 Any facts, rights, inleresis. or claims that are not shown in ihe Public Records hut lhal could he ascertained by an inspection ofihe Land or lhal may be asserted by persons in possessi(jn of die Land- attorneys' fees or expenses) that arise by reason of }. Ea.semenis. liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof not shown by the Public Records. -Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation. circumstance affecting tiie rilie lhal wuiilc iiccurate and complete kind survey ofthe 1 and by the Public Records lai I aipafenled mining: ckunis. thi lesci vai patents or in .\cls ;tuihor!/ing liic issnancv' Hi' claims or lille lu water, wheiher oi- nu! ihc ni:iii lb), ur lc) arc shuvv n hv ihc Public Recuids variation, or advcr bc disi.loscd bv , ;iiid that ,ii"C nut s||i .CplK .net cpicd tin CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10-22-03) AL I A HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10-22-03) EXCLUSIONS In addition lo tiie Exceptions in Scheduie B. You are not insured againsl loss,. 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: a. building b. zoning c. Land use d. improvemenls on the Utiid e. Land division f cmironmeiital prolecdon 1 his Exclusion does not apply tt) violaliuiis or the enforcement of ihese matters if notice ofthe violation or enforcement appears in thc Public Records al the Poiicv Date. I his l;xclusion does nol limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14. I'i. 16, 17 or 24. 2. 'fhe failure uf Your existing structures, or any part of them, to fie constructed in accordance with ;ipplicabie building codes. This Exclusion dt)es not appiy to violations of building codes if nolice of the violation appears in the Public Records at the Policy Dale, 3. Tbe right to take the Land by condemning it. unless: :osts. attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from; a, a notice of exeicising die riglit appears in the I'ublic Records at the Policy Date: ur Ihe laking happened before the Policy Date and is biiidniLi on \ ou if You hoimhl ihe Land vt. ithuul Know iijo of (he Liking b. Risk: --d io b\ vhclbct . L^ a. thai are crealed. allowed, ur :igri they appear in ihe Public Records, b. lhat are Known lo You ai ihc Poiicv Dale, hui nui lu they appear in ihe i'lihlic Rccutds :ii ilic I'ulicv I ':iti', c. lhal result in no loss lu You, or d. lhal tirst occur afler die Policy l^.ite - this does ihU limit the coverage descnbed in CvAcred Risk 7, 8 d. 22. 23, 24 or 25. 5. failure lo pay value for Your "l ille. 6. Lack of a right: a- to any Land oulside the area specifically described and refeired lo in paragraph 3 of Schedule .A: and b. in streets, allevs. or waterways that loiich ihc l and This Exclusion does not limit the coverage descnbed in Cuvcied Risk I I ur Aliachniem One (1 l-17-{J6) Page 16 ATTACHMENT ONE (CONTINUED) I.IMl I A riONS ON COVKRKl) RISKS Your insurance for itie foiiow ing Ci.>vcred Risks is liniiicd on the ()vv ner's Ci.>vcraee Sutlemeni as follow s \-or Covered Risk 14. 15. 16 and 18. Vour Deductible Aniount and Our .Maximum Dollar 1 miii uf I ; deduclible amounts and maximum dollar liniiis shown un Schedule A are as follows' C overed Risk 14; Vour Deductible AnivHinl l.gyi of Policy Amounl or s 2.5(K).()0 iwlnchevcr is less) i.ihiliiv shuw n ill Sv hci-lidc \ Dur Maximum Dollar i imil of 1.lability S 10,(XXf(X) Covered Risk ]5: I m^.i of Puiicy AiiH>uni or S MKHfOO (vvhichever is less) Covered Risk 16; 1.0(y:ir of Poiicy Amount or S 5.(HK)0() (whichever is less) S :,S,t)tK).()0 Covered Risk 18: 1 (K)''; of Polic) Amounl or S '. (whicliever is less) ALTA EXPANDED COVKRACiE RESIDENTIAU LOAN POLICY (10/13/01) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERA<:;E 1 he following mailers are expressly excluded from Ihe coverage ofthis policy and the Company vvill not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys fees or expenses which arise by reast>n of; 1. (a) Any law. ordinance or governnKMital regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use. or enjoyment uf the I^md; (ii) the character, dimensi(uis or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land: (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or areas ofihe Land or any parcel of which the Laiul is or was a part: or (iv i environmental protection, ur the effect of LUIV Violalion of these laws, ordinances or guveriiiiicntal rcgukitions, except to ihc extent thai s notice ut ihe enforcement thereof or .i nolice of a defect, lien tir eneumbrance resulting from a viulaiion or alleged vinlaiioii aftecting the Land has been lecortlcd in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This cxclusttHi does not limil the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12. 13. 14. and 16 vd this policy. (b) Any g(»vernmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to tlie extent that a notice uf the exercise [hereof or a nonce of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violaliitn or alleged violation affecting tlie Land iias been recorded in ihe Public Records at Date of Puiicy. This exclusion does mn limit [he coverage provided underCovered Risks 12, 13, 14, and I6uf this policy. 2. Rights of cmtneiil domain unless lUJtice oi ttie exercise thereof has been vecvinted in the Public kcct*rds at Dale of Pt>licy. hui nol excluding liuni v'uveiage anv laking which Iias ucciined priur lu Dale vll Pvihcy wtucli wv>ulvt he binding un die nghis uf A purdviser !or v:ilue w ilhiuit Know ledge. .S Delects, liens, encumbrances. :idversc claims or uiher matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to h\ the Insuied Claimant. (b) nol Known lo die Company, nol recorded in the Public Records at L^ate of Policy, bul Known to the Insured Claimanl and not disclosed in writing to the Ciunpany b\ the Insured Claimanl prior lo the dale the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resultini: In no loss or damage to the Insuied Claimant: id) atlaching or crealed subsequent lu I>ale of Policy (ihis paragraph does nol limit llie coverage provided under Covered Risks S. 16. IS. 10. 20. 21. 22. 23, 24. 25 and 26); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been susiaiiied if tile Insured Claimant had paid value for die Insured Mortgage Unenforceability of the lien of the insured Moiig:ige because ot' ihc inability ur faiiure uf the Insured at Dale uf Poiicy. or thc inabiliiv ui failure uf any subsetjueni owner of die iiidehtedncss, lo complv w uh applicable doing business kivvs ul' die siate in wliuli die land is situated. •d Mu •d Invalidity ur unenforceability uf die lien ui ilic liis claim ihcreof. which .irises um ul (he Hainauiuii Insured Moiigage .nid is based upon usim., esc^'pi as pruviOcd in Covered Risk 27. ur ;uiy consumei crcdii jnuieciion ur iniih in leiidinu law. Real property taxes or assessnvnts of any governnKMital aulhorily which become a lien on the Uind subsequent lo Date of Policy 1 his exclusion di>es not limit the coverage provided tinder Covered Risks 7. H(e)and 26, Any claim uf invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priorily uf Ihe lien uf the Insured Mortgage as to advances or modifications matie ;i(icr the Insured has Knowledge lhat the vestee s|i(>w n in Schedule A is nu longer the ow ner of the csUitc or inlerest covcreLl bv this poltcv I his excliisitni does not limil the ei>vcrage jirov ided in ( uvv-ictl Risk "< Lack of prioritv of the lien of die Insined Mu every ;KK.mce ni;H!c .iHcr D;ilc u( V lliereun. uver liciis. eiicu lubi ,IIK es .nnl ..liici •^i.iiiei . .ili.-'..ii.i • ii.v- lulc. die existence ut 1.VInch arc Kuuwtuodic UcM/cvi a I a) rhe time of (he ailvauv'c. or lb) I'he time a inodificanon is ni:i(ie lu ihc terms of die Insured Mortgage which changes the rale of interest ch.irged. if the rale of Interest is gteater as a rcsuit of the iinitlitlc;uion than it wuuld have been before tiie modification. 'I his exclusion docs nol limil Ihe coverage prov ided in Cuvercd Risk S riie failure of the residential structure, or any portion thereof lo liave been cunsiruclcd before, on or after Date of Pcdicy in accoidance w nh applicable buiiding codes, "fins exclusion does noi apply lo \iulau\>ns of building codes if nolice of die viulation appears in ihc i'nblk' Records al Dale ot PVIIKV .•h ,i;vl dl Aiiaehinent One (1 i-I7-(J6) Page 17 (coniinued) You may be entitled to receive a $20.00 discount on escrovv services if you purcliascd. sold or rcfiiianccil residential property in California between May 19, 1995 and November I, 2002. Ifyou had more than one qualifying transaction, you may be entitled to multiple discounts. If your previous transaction involved the same property that is the subject of your current transaction, you do not have to do anything; the Company will provide the discount, provided you are paying for escrow or title services in this transaction. If your previous transaction involved property different from the property that is subject of \ouv curiciu transaction, you must - prior to the close of the current transaction - inform the Comp.my of ilic c;uiicr transaction, provide the address of the properly involved in the previous transaction, and thc dat approximate date lhat the escrow closed to be eligible for the discount. or Unless you inform the Company of the prior transaction on property that is not the subject of this transaction, the Company has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine if you c[ualify for a discount. If you provide the Company information concerning a prior transaction, the Company is required to determine if you qualify for a discount which is subject to other terms and condilions. Atlachmcm One (11-17-06) Paa- IH 09 ogol o<=) 5f 3 O W3 too -< < >-o a:00 a n ^Sb.SS S78 t&'5Tt 339,:6 •^-«C 234.39 20e 32 N_c-2: :;: r. i£59,73 •• S3 leiJ E 96^.38 i:^^' MAP 823 - RHO AGt.A MfUIOUD- •••-t ^7.u MM 231 - ROS 6616 "Ar-r-v^c ' iM58 ROS 20106 -bl.H/)6':.oL' City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1305501-1 02/25/2013 32 Mon, Feb 25, 2013 02:39 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: R1305501-1/0046 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 130560101 0045 0053 Trans/Rcpt#: R0093770 SET #: SDP0110A Amount: 1 @ $6.44 Item Subtotal: $6.44 Item Total: $6.44 1 ITEM(S) TGTAL: $6,44 Cash $50,00 Total Received: $50,00 CHANGE; $43.56 Have a nice day! **************C[JSTGMER COPY************* City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 9200f •iiiiiiinii Applicant: SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY/CABLAY KEN Description Amount SDPOllOA 6.44 Receipt Number: R0093770 Transaction ID: R0093770 Transaction Date: 02/25/2013 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 6.4 4 Transaction 7\mount: 6.44 City of Carlsbad Fataday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1302501-1 01/25/2013 98 Fri, Jan 25, 2013 11:08 AM Receipt Ref Nbr: Rl302501-1/0025 PERMHS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr; 130250101 0025 0027 Trans/Rcpt#: R0093322 SET #: CT110003 Amount; 1 6 $1,667.00 Item Subtotal: $1,667.00 Item Total: $1,657.00 1 ITEMiS) TOIAL: $1,667.00 Check (Cnk# 1006) $1,667.00 Total Received: $1,667.00 Have a nice day! +****+4:*^****:»:(][JST0M£R C0PY********+**-*^+ City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 9200S Applicant: SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO Description Amount CT110003 1,667.00 Receipt Number: R0093322 Transaction ID: R0093322 Transaction Date: 01/25/2013 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 1006 1,667.00 Transaction Amount: 1,667.00 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1211701-2 04/26/2012 98 Thu, Apr 26, 2012 02:26 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: R1211701-2/0035 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 121170102 0035 0036 Trans/Rcpt#: R0089388 SET #: PUD12003 Amount: 1 1 $7,845.00 Item Subtotal: $7,845,00 Item Total; $7,845.00 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL: $7,845.00 Check (Chk# 3600) $7,845.00 Total Received: $7,845.00 Have a nice day! **************CUSTGMER COPY************* City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92 008 lllllill Applicant: SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO./KEN CABLAY Description Amount PUD12003 7,845.00 Not valid unless validated by Cash Register PLEASE RETAIN RECEIPT FOR REFUNDS OR ADJUSTMENTS Receipt Number: R0089388 Transaction ID: R0089388 Transaction Date: 04/26/2012 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 3600 7,845.00 Transaction Amount: 7,845.00 City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1117901-1 06/28/2011 32 Tue, Jun 28, 2011 01:56 PM Receipt Ref Nbr: Rll17901-1/0040 PERMITS - PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 111790101 0040 0041 Trans/Rcpt#: T000105640 SET #: S000003241 Amount: 1 @ $15,065.64 Item Subtotal; $15,065.64 Item Total: $15,065.64 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL: $15,065.64 Check (Chk# 03195) $7,757.00 Check (Chk# 03194) $7,124.00 Credit Card (Auth# 05578C) $184.64 Total Received; $15,065.64 Have a nice day! *******:!:******CLIST0MER COPY************* city of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 llll Applicant: HOLLY SPRINGS LTD Set Id: S000003241 / Tmp set/Initialized Projects Description Amount CT110003 7,941.64 SDP0015A 7,124.00 Total: 15,065.64 Receipt Number: R0085242 Transaction ID: T000105640 Transaction Date: 06/28/2011 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 15,065.64 Transaction Amount: 15,065.64 ^ ^ • FILE COPY VcARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 3, 2013, to consider a request for the following: CASE NAME: CT 11-03/ PUD 12-03/ SDP Ol-IO(A) - Encinas Creek Apartment Homes PUBLISH DATE: March 22, 2013 DESCRIPTION: Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and an amendment to an approved Site Development Plan and approval of an 8-lot subdivision and Planned Unit Development to increase the number of residential apartment units from 80 to 127 on a 6.2 net acre property within the boundaries of the Cantarini/Holly Springs project, east of the future extension of College Boulevard and south of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 15. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. Copies of the staff report will be available online at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/citvhall/meetinRs/PaRes/meeting-videos.aspx on or after the Friday prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Christer Westman in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4614, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge these projects, if approved, is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. • Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION Planning Division 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © NOT TO SCALE SITEMAP Encinas Creek Apartment Homes CT 11-03 / PUD 12-03 / SDP 01-10A ^i'. #c "* f#^*'f PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: March 22"^ 2013 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Escondido, California On This 22"^ day inarch 2013 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Th PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING )T^^iS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your in-e^^B/ be affected, that the Planning Commission of tmBW' of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the CouncTT Channbers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 3, 2013, to consider the following: 1) EIR 04-02(A)/ CDP 06-04XUAV SUP 06-02xKA) - AGUA HEDIONDA & CALAVERA CREEKS - Request forapproval of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 04-02, and an amendment to Coastal Development Permit No. 06-04x1 and Special Use Permit No. 06-02x1 to: 1) install additional riprap in Agua Hedionda creek channel in place of slope stabilization us- ing V-max; 2) install riprap drop structures in place of gabion drop structures in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creek channels; 3) install 0 riprap structure in Agua Hedionda, creek channel, beneath the Cannon Road bridge and In the Coastal Zone; 4) in- — stall additional riprap along both banks of Ague Hedionda creek channel between the Cannon Road and El Camino Real bridges and in the Coastal Zone; and 5) remove apf>roximately 7,000 ad- ditional cubic yards 3f sediment within the two channels to ac-commodate the ripr ip, located on portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creek clannels at, and near, the intersection of El Camino Real and Cainon Roads, within the Rancho Carlsbad _ residential communit/, and within Local Facilities Manage-. , ment Zones 8, 14, 15 am: 24. The revised proiect is within the scope of the certified EIR and use of an addendum to document the proiect changes is appro-priate. •This proiect is located within the appeal area and the decision ' may be appealed to the California Coastal Conlmission. 2) CT ill-03/ PUD 12-03/ SDP 01-10{A) - ENCINAS CREEK APAR.TMENT HOMES - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and art amendment to on ap-f rovec) Site Development Plan and approval of an 8-lot isubdivi- sion ahd Planned Unif Development to increase the number of Pidehtial apartment urtits from '80 to 127 on a 6.2 net acre prop-y vMithin the boundaries; of the Cantarini/Holly Springs proi- , eqst of the future exteijsion of College Boulevard and south Gannon Road in Local ,Facilities'Mahagemenf Zone. IS.-:; No neW or significant adverse ie^nvirorimental impacts above What vi/as identified in the original CEQA document (EIR 02-02 fcr Cantarini/Holly Springs), therefore a Negative Declaration Has been prepared. - ? . :t , SDf* 13-OV CDP 13-03 - ROCK DOVE HOMES - Request for pprovpl of a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development lermit! to allow for the construction of 4 single family homes on Toperly generally located on the northeast corner of Humming-ard Read and Rock Dove Street within the Mello 1 Segment of me Lodal Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Manage- ment Zone 19. he prpfect is exempt from the Colifornia Environmental Quali-[•Act.T nis proiect is not located within tjie appealable area df the Cali-Brnia Qoastal Commission. (you Sghallenge these proiects in'court, you may be limited to jising cnly those issues you or someone else raised at the pub- ; heoring described in this notice or in written correspondence illven^ to the City .of Carlsbad at pr prior to the public hear- ;bf the environmental documents-I'dre'available at the inning Division at 1635 Faraday Avenue during regular busi-ss hoiSrs from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Thursday 18:(^Jam to 5:00 pm Friday. \ lose pirsons wishing to speak on these proposals ore cordially ^ ^ E D <#(2r|> CITY OF ^ rARI SRAD ''EB 0 5 2013 \/ L.AKL:^DAU y Orendain Community & Economic Development BY-. D^UTY www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Encinas Creek Apartnfient Homes CASE NO: CT 11-03/ PUD 12-03/ SDP 01-lOA PROJECT LOCATION: 1,800 feet east of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and on the northeast side ofthe intersection ofthe future extension of ColleRe Boulevard (Reach A) and future "C" Street ofthe Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs subdivision PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-lot Tentative Tract Map (CT) and Planned Development Permit (PUD), and a Site Development Plan Amendment to add 47 apartment units within two additional buildings to a previously approved 80 unit apartment project within the same 7.52 acre development footprint. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result ofsaid review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy ofthe initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Division within 20 days ofthe date ofthis notice. The proposed project and Negative Dedaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. Ifyou have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4614. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Februarv 1. 2013 - Februarv 21, 2013 PUBLISH DATE Februarv 1,2013 FEB 05 2013 .1 • FEB 0 5 2013 . . MAR 11 201: MAR 1 ] 2(111 •m-, V,Qiindain. . Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © SITEMAP tsi NOT TO SCALE Encinas Creek Apartment Homes CT 11-03 / PUD 12-03 / SDP 01-IOA This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 CCP.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: February 01^, 2013 CITYOFCARLSBAD FEB 05 2013 PW/VW/WG DEPARTMENT Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASENAME: Encinas Creek Apartment Homes CASE NO: CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP 01-lOA PROJECT LOCATION: 1,800 feet east of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and on the northeast side of the intersection of the future extension of College Boulevard (Reach A) and future "C" Street of the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs subdivisi.on PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-lot Tentative Tract Mop (CT) and Planneci Development Permit (PUD), and a Site Develop-ment plan Amendment to odd 47 apartment units within two ad- ditional buildings to a previously approved 80 Onit apartment proiect within the same 7.52 acre development footprint. PROPOSED DETERMINATION : The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proi- ect pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califor-" nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbod. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any poten- tially significant impacts on' the environment. . Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (ElA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Plan- ning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Negative Declara-tions, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the proiect wHI not have a significant effect on the environment; If persons and public agencies believe that the proiect may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be sig-nificant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Di- vision within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed proiect and Negative Declaration are subiect to review and approval/adoption by the City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Division.at (760) 602-4614. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD February1,20l3-2013 ^^^^^*^3.013 10712623 I certif/ (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Escondido, California On This 0]A day February 2013 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising • • F'LECOPY VcARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE PROJECT NAME: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES PROJECT NUMBER: CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A) This early public notice is to let you know that a development application for a 127 unit apartment project within your neighborhood has been submitted to the City of Carlsbad on June 28, 2011. The project application is undergoing its initial review by the City. LOCATION: East of the southerly extension of College Boulevard approximately 0.5 miles south from its existing intersection with Cannon Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 127 apartment unit development including five 3-story residential buildings with attached garages, one community building, and exterior passive recreation space on a 7.52 acre site. Please keep in mind that this is an early public notice and that the project design could change as a result of further staff and public review. A future public hearing notice will be mailed to you when this project is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission. CONTACT INFORMATION: If you have questions or comments regarding this proposed project please contact Christer Westman, Senior Planner at christer.westman(gcarlsbadca.gov, 760-602-4614, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® 600' Radius Map June 21, 2011 600 1200 FT NORTH SCALE: 1" = 600' APN # 168-050-58 APN #168-050-59 Carlsbad, California PLANNING SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PQUCY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONUENTAL UlTIGATION 1530 FARADAY AVENUE, SUITE 100, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 DATE; 01/23/13 1. CASENAME: 2. LEADAGENCY: 3. CONTACT PERSON: 4. PHONENUMBER: 5. PROJECT LOCATION: 6. PROJECT APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Christer Westman (760) 602-4614 North side of future College Blvd. Reach A, approximately 1200 feet south of the intersection with Cannon Road. APN 168-050-68 and 168-050-59. Holly Springs, LLC P.O. Box 2484 Carlsbad, CA 92018 RMH 8. ZONING: RD-M 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Project Description The subject project involves an amendment to an existing Site Development Plan (SDP), including "standards modifications" to an apartment project which has previously been approved by the City of Carlsbad. The project applicant also is proposing a Tentative Tract Map (CT) to place the individual buildings on separate lots (for fmancing purposes), and a Planned Development Permit (PUD), which is required due to the proposed configuration of the proposed lots. The property was previously approved for 80 apartment units. The proposed project involves the development of 127 units, which is a 47 unit increase. The increase in units necessitates a modification of the site and building layout, which is reflected in the SDP amendment. The project also results in an increase in the number of units affordable to low-income households. 63 apartment units will be rent-restricted to low income affordability rates no higher than 80% of the area median income ("AMI"). I*' Encu Encinas Creek Apartment Homes CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 The subject project is located on a 7.52 acre property located at the northeast side of the intersection of future College Boulevard (Reach A) and future "C" Street, on the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs subdivision, in Carlsbad. The project will be developed with six multi-family buildings, up to 41 feet 9 inches in vertical height. The property is accessed off of two entrance points on "C" Street. The intemal vehicular circulation system encircles the buildings and provides convenient access to the apartment units and to the surface parking spaces for residents and guests. The project will be accessed via future College Boulevard Reach A. College Boulevard Reach A is a major arterial, which has undergone CEQA review and has been permitted separately. Upon completion of this roadway, the project will possess access to both El Camino Real in the south, and Cannon Road and College Boulevard (Reach B) in the north. The rectangular-shaped buildings are generally three-story, with two story elements at the ends which help to break up the building mass. The buildings exhibit a contemporary craftsman architectural style, with hipped roofs covered with architectural-grade asphalt shingles. All sides of the buildings are designed with an equal amount of detailing including arched elements, wood knee braces, painted wood balcony railings, and window trim. Common recreation amenities will be provided for the residents. A total of 262 open, covered and enclosed parking spaces are provided in close proximity to all of the units. Abundant landscaping and enhanced paving accents the development at the main entrance and is carried on throughout the site. Dense landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site to screen parked vehicles from the surrounding public views. Walkways throughout the landscaped open space provide pedestrian connections between buildings and recreation areas and to the trail system in the adjacent open space areas. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential Medium-High (RMH) and is zoned Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M). The land use and zoning designations were established as part of the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs development review and the site was approved for 80 units at a net density of 12.9 du/ac. The Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs development also included an overall unit reduction in Local Facilities Management Zone 15 of 397 units which were deposited into the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). The present proposal is for 127 units which will require a withdrawal of 47 units from the EDUB and results in a proposed project density of 20.4 du/ac. The density increase will allow the construction of sufficient market-rate units (68 units) in order to recover the costs associated with providing 63 rent-restricted units available to low income (80% AMI) households. A density equal to or greater than 20 dwelling units per acre, allows the entire project to qualify as "affordable" per the State Housing and Community Development Guidelines. The project also proposes a standards modification to allow for increased building height. Section 21.24.030 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance states that building heights in the RDM Zone shall not exceed 35-feet. In order to achieve the number of units and density proposed, while maintaining an attractive and interesting architectural elevation, the buildings must be constructed at a maximum height of 41 feet 9 inches high, and the applicant requests this design accommodation pursuant to Section 21.53.120 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) Additionally, the project will provide one garage space, plus one uncovered parking space, per unit. Section 21.44.020(B) states that one-car garages provide a minimum interior width dimension of 12-feet, however, a ten foot width is proposed. Providing the additional 2-feet in garage width per unit would result in a lengthening of the buildings by 32-feet, which, due to the constrained size of the building pad, will result in the loss of several units per building and increase the cost per unit of the building. This loss of apartment units and increase in construction costs would make the project economically infeasible. Encu Incinas Creek Apartment Homes CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 A Tentative Subdivision Map (CT) is proposed for the project. This CT proposes eight (8) lots, and is being requested primarily for financing purposes. The lots range in size from 4,988 square feet in area (recreation building lot), to 183,730 square feet (HOA common area lot). An open space lot totaling 0.99 acres will be maintained on the north side of the project and will be the subject of a conservation easement. Earthwork proposed for the project will total 19,400 cubic yards of excavated soil, 20,070 cubic yards of fill soil, and thus will necessitate an import of 670 cubic yards of soil from offsite. No expansion of the approved development pad or footprint is proposed. No encroachment into the HMP hardline is proposed. Permits Required The project will require approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment, a Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Planned Development Permit. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The project is located in the northeastem section of the City of Carlsbad, approximately 1.5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and lying north and east of El Camino Real. The site is largely covered by native chaparral vegetation. The property is within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, as identified by the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Agua Hedionda hydrologic sub-area drains the site westerly to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The property slopes from a high point (elev. 160 ft.) at the southeastem comer of the site, to a low point (elev. 90 ft.) at the northwestem comer of the site. Surrounding land uses vary, including the Rancho Carlsbad manufactured home subdivision located west of the project, the Carlsbad Unified Sage Creek High School located north of the project, and vacant land planned for future residential and infrastructure development to the east and south. Previous Environmental Review The project site was included in a previous CEQA review for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs. That Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on December 14, 2004, (EIR 02-02, State Clearinghouse #2002010181). Through the certification ofthe EIR, the Carlsbad City Council adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The project incorporates the required Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR mitigation measures, is subject to the remaining mitigation measures, and through the analysis of the required additional plans, reports, and studies pertaining to biological resources, geotechnical, hydrology, storm water management, and noise, a determination has been made that no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated for by the EIR will result from this project. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and additional technical studies are cited as source documents of this environmental evaluation. Therefore, this environmental document assumes that the proposed project will include design and performance features as required in the mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final Program EIR. Encu Incinas Creek Apartment Homes CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I I Aesthetics I I Agriculture and Forestry Resources I I Air Quality I I Biological Resources I I Cultural Resources I I Geology/Soils I I Greenhouse Gas Emissions Q Noise • Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Population and Housing I I Hydrology/Water Quality 1^ Land Use and Planning I I Mineral Resources I I Public Services Air Quality I I Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Recreation ^ Transportation/Circulation I I Utilities & Service Systems P- Encih Ncinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 DETERMINATION. ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant efifect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date /-ZS-/~3 City Planner's Signature Date Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-I0(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. p Encin inci/ifls Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? • • Kl • b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? • • • m c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? • • X • d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • • M • a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR included a visual quality and landform analysis for the development of the project area. The subject property is located on gently rolling hills which range in elevation from approximately 90 feet to 160 feet above sea level. The development of the site was assessed in the Cantarini /Holly Springs FEIR and found to not result in a significant impact if mitigation was incorporated into the approvals. The project is located along a stretch of College Boulevard Reach A. College Boulevard Reach A is not identified as a scenic roadway by the City of Carlsbad. The site is visible from properties to the north and west. No identified specific scenic vista of the site exists. The proposed project will not result in any substantive aesthetic changes from the approved plan which was assessed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and approved by the City of Carlsbad. The grading for the project building and parking lot pads will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. During construction, 19,400 cubic yards of cut and 20,070 cubic yards of fill grading earthwork is proposed. This grading will result in temporary visual changes of the project site. However, the grading limits and quantities are within the projected limits that were reviewed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and found to be not significant or otherwise mitigated. These changes associated with grading and construction of the project will be temporary in nature. Impacts associated with views of the site will be less than significant if the mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR continue to be applicable to this proposed project. The property is not within the view shed of a scenic vista, and is not visible from a designated state scenic highway. A less than significant impact is assessed. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. No historic buildings are located in or adjacent to the area of the project. In terms of State scenic highways, only five (5) sections of highway are identified as State Scenic Highways, or candidates for designation as State Scenic Highways within San Diego County. None of these highways are located in Carlsbad. As such, none of the proposed improvements are within the view shed of an officially designated State scenic highway. As a result, no impacts would result. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest existing development to the project is the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The project, however, is not anticipated to substantially degrade the existing or developed visual character or quality 8 ^^^/ic/nas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 of the site or its surroundings. During construction, temporary changes of visual character of the project site would occur. These changes involve the storage and use of construction and trenching equipment, temporary signage and vehicles, and soil stockpiles in the construction staging areas. These changes would be apparent to nearby residents. However, inasmuch as these changes are temporary, impacts would be less than significant, subject to adherence with the mitigation measures included in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, and the impact is considered less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will introduce new light and potential sources of glare on the project site. The project will, however, be required to comply with City standards regarding building, street and recreational lighting, as well as architectural design criteria. The project will include limits on street lights, pedestrian-oriented lighting, and will limit lighting adjacent to open spaces. As a result, the project will have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. During construction of the proposed project, all construction activities will occur during daytime hours. As a result, no nighttime lighting for construction activities will be required for the project. Temporary security lighting may be required in the construction staging areas where construction equipment and materials would be stored; however security lighting would be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed downward, on the construction equipment and materials. For these reasons, and subject to adherence with the mitigation measures included in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? • • • b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act confract? • • • Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govemment Code section 51104(g))? • • • m d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? • • • m e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? • • • a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program compiles the Important Farmland map pursuant to the provision of Section 65570 of the Califomia Govemment Code. The map associated with the Carlsbad area is the "California Department of Conservation - San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. According to this document, the subject property does not contain land which is Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and/or Farmland of Local Importance. In addition, the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concludes that implementation of the approved project does not constitute a significant impact to agricultural resources and thus no mitigation was required for development of the site. No expanse or change to the development area is proposed through implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, it is concluded that no impact is assessed to Agricultural Resources. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The subject property is zoned Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M). The RD-M Zone allows multi-family land uses. The existing agricultural operations are consistent with the zoning however, because the City of Carlsbad policy does allow agriculture as an interim (non-permanent) use. No Williamson Act confracts encumber any portion of the subject property. Therefore, no impact would result from implementation ofthe project. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as deflned in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as deflned by Public Resources Code 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as deflned by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. Califomia Public Resources Code section 12220(g) defines "Forest land" as "land that can support 10-percent native free cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits," No native frees except for willow scrub exist on the subject site. The willow scrub vegetation will not be impacted by the project. Timberland is defined in Califomia Govemment Code section 51104(g) as "privately owned land, or land acquired for state forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annua! volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre." No evidence exists that the property presently or historically has contained forested lands or has been used for timber harvesting. As a result of these factors, it is determined that the project will not impact forest land or timber land as defined in the referenced State of Califomia laws. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses? No Impact. The proposed project does not impact forest land as indicated in Section 11(c) above. Therefore the project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. 10 e) Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The subject site does not contain land which is Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and/or Farmland of Local Importance, and the property is not presently being farmed. Thus, implementation of the project would not result in the conversion of the above lands to urban, non-agricultural use. No impact is assessed. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution confrol disfrict may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? • • • b) Violate any air quality standard or confribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • • • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? • • • d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • • • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? • • Kl • a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution confrols that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Sttategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Confrol Disfrict (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994. This local plan was combined with plans from all other Califomia non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) 1994, and has been updated as recently as 2009 which was the latest update incorporating minor changes to the prior 2004 update. The RAQS is largely based on population predictions by SANDAG. Projects that produce less growth than predicted by SANDAG would generally conform to the RAQS and projects that create more growth than projected by SANDAG may create a significant impact assuming the project produces unmitigated emission generation in excess of the regional standards. Also, the project would be considered a significant impact if the project produces cumulative impacts. 11 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Section 15125(d) of the State of Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable afr quality management plan. Transportation Confrol Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Califomia Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional afr quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan, which was based on the growth projections of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 15. The growth assumption for Zone 15 was greater than the project approved with the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. As such, the project, which is less intense than the assumptions of the Zone 15 LFMP will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. Thus, it is concluded that the project will result in no impact to implementation of the air quality plan for the region. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Signiflcant Impact: The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2006 through December 2010 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state eight hour standard for ozone (a total of 18 days during the 5-year period). Long-term emissions associated with fravel by residents and visitors to and from the project site have been assessed in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. Motor vehicles were determined to be the primary source of air emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that the combined pollutant emission levels from the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs projects (including the proposed 80 units) were projected in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR to exceed the thresholds established by the SDAPCD, and thus the daily mobile source emissions associated with the project at buildout would be considered significant, and mitigation measures were adopted with the Final Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. The proposed project will generate 376 additional ADT from that analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. However, the project will continue to be required to comply with the mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, and will thus resuh in a less than significant impact to adopted air quality standards. The project would result in short-term emissions associated with grading and construction of the improvements. These emissions would emanate primarily from construction operations associated with earthwork and excavation and construction of the project. Emissions from trucks hauling soil and gravel (export and import) would take place during the construction of the project. Approximately 19,400 cubic yards of cut and 20,070 cubic yards of fill soil will be graded, which is within the earthwork volume analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. As assessed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the emissions associated with this grading construction would be minimized through standard construction measures such as watering the graded areas for dust control, covering haul vehicles and trucks, replanting disturbed areas as soon as practical, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less to confrol fugitive dust, and sweeping the stteets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto the sfreets. Therefore, subject to adherence with the air quality mitigation measures included in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, impacts associated with conflict with the potential for afr quality standard violations would be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a confribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental confribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than significarit. 12 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. Sensitive receptors are defined by the San Diego Air Pollution Confrol Disfrict as schools, day-care centers, nursing homes, retirement homes, convalescent centers, health clinics, and hospitals. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that no sensifive receptors are located within or in immediate proximity to the project site. However, it noted that the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community, a majority of which is occupied by retired and/or elderly persons, is location to the west of the site. Also, the Dos Colinas Retirement Community project has been approved approximately 200 feet to the southwest of the subject site. However, development of the project was determined in the Certified FEIR for Dos Colinas to be considered to result in a less than significant impact to these neighboring residences. Further, the proposed project would not significantly increase the pollutant levels. Therefore the impact to sensitive receptors is assessed at less than significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. As indicated in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the use of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or fransient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such fransient impacts is not considered substantial. However, the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR considered this fransient impact not to be significant for the Holly Springs project. Further, the increase of 376 ADT is not considered to result in a significant increase in air quality impacts to the project. Therefore, impacts resulting from the project with regard to objecfionable odors would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either dfrectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • • KI • b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • • • c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrupfion, or other means? • • • d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established nafive resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • • Kl • 13 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a free preservation policy or ordinance? • • • X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? • • • a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modiflcations, on any species identifled as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. A biological analysis, a hardline modification and mitigation measures necessary in order to offset the impacts to sensitive biology for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project and associated entitlements were adopted through the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. The biological analysis concluded that the overall Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project would impact 26.22 acres of coastal sage scmb (CSS) vegetation. On the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project specifically, the project would impact CSS, Southem mixed chaparral (SMC) and Disturbed (Dist) habitats. The overall Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs Preserve totals 59.50 acres in size, of which 0.99 acres is contained on the Encinas Creek Apartments property. The proposed project does not modify the area of impact from that analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and approved by the City of Carlsbad. However, the idenfified impacts associated with CSS have been considered significant in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and require mitigation. As mitigation for impacts to native vegetation habitats identified in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, open space for permanent conservation is obligated to be set aside, including primarily large fracts of native and restored CSS. The limits of this set aside area are identified by a "hardline" boundary. This hardline boundary sets the outside limits of the development area, including any fire suppression thinning areas necessary for the development. This hardline boundary has been adopted as part of the CEQA analysis for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project. The proposed project does not modify this boundary in any way. The federally threatened coastal Califomia gnatcatcher {Polioptila californica californica) and the Rufous-crowned sparrow {Aimophila reflceps canescens) occurs within the overall Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project preserve area, however these sensitive species have not been detected on the Encinas Creek Apartments project site. The project property occurs within the plan area of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is the local Subarea Plan of the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). As noted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the primary mitigation for impacts to HMP species under the HMP is the conservation and management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP requires that, "...in compliance with the Endangered Species Act impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citywide on a project level basis." The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR adopted mitigation measures that, if implemented, would specifically minimize impacts (including indirect impacts) to gnatcatchers. Indfrect impacts have the potential to occur as a result of noise generated during project construction and/or during initial clearing and grubbing within or adjacent to potentially occupied habitat. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR mitigation measures include compliance with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) policies, recording of a conservation easement over conserved habitats, long-term management of the conserved areas by a conservation entity, endowment funding of long-term management, restoration of open space Lot 53 of Tentative Map CT 00-18, temporary fencing delineation of conserved areas during consfruction, biological monitoring of construction activities, monitoring of CAGN habitat during construction, and payment of the necessary in-lieu mitigation fees as determined by the Carlsbad City Council. The project does not propose any changes to the HMP hardline or habitat impacts, and thus the mitigation measures identified in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR continue to be appropriate measures which will be complied with for the proposed project. Thus, a less than significant impact is assessed. 14 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identifled in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad has adopted a Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) as a subarea plan of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) for the city. This HMP designates a natural habitat preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and designating mifigation associated with proposed development projects. The primary objecfive of the HMP is to allow development while identifying and maintaining a preserve system that allows for sustained existence of animals and plants at both the local and regional levels. The HMP was approved as a joint effort with the Califomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Any modifications to this HMP necessitate consultation and concurrence from the CDFG and USFWS. As part of the HMP process for Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs, the properties became the subject of an approved hardline, adopted by the City of Carlsbad and the agencies described above. The project does not propose any changes to the HMP hardline or habitat impacts, and thus the mitigation measures identified in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR continue to be appropriate measures which will be complied with for the proposed project. Thus, a less than significant impact is assessed. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains regulatory authority over jurisdictional wetlands, waters of the United States, and non-wetland waters under speciflcally identified conditions. The biological analysis for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project indicates an absence of federally protected wetlands or waters as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the subject property. As a result, it is concluded that the subject project will result in no significant impacts to federally protected wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. The Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project is located within an area regulated by the City of Carlsbad HMP. This HMP establishes the policy impact and mitigation standards with regard to the requirements of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts (ESA). This HMP requires the provision of hardline regulations within Core #3, which is in the vicinity of the subject project. This core area is identified as a connectivity line for wildlife pursuant to the HMP. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that consistency with the policies of the HMP, including the provision of a hardline in a shape and form as indicated in the HMP would result in a finding of consistency with the HMP. The project analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR was found to be consistent with the HMP policies as evidence by hardline documentation from the City of Carlsbad, the USFWS and CDFG, referenced in Section IV(b) above. The project does not propose any changes to the HMP hardline or habitat impacts, and thus the mitigation measures identified in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR continue to be appropriate measures which will be complied with for the proposed project. Thus, a less than significant impact is assessed. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has an adopted heritage free preservation policy. Heritage frees are identified trees located within the city limits which are identified as having notable historic interest or frees of an unusual species or size. The project does not unpact any of these identified frees. For this reason, it is concluded that no significant impact would occur to any free preservation policy or ordinance. 15 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The City of Carlsbad HMP designates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts to sensitive biological resources and assigning mitigation for any impacts that do occur. No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site affect the property. As referenced in Section IV(d) above, the project provides for a portion of Core #3. This link is identified as a connectivity line for wildlife pursuant to the HMP. The project however, will mitigate for impacts to vegetation communities protected by that HMP, as discussed in Section IV (a) above. The FEIR concluded that consistency with the policies of the HMP, including the provision of protected property within Core #3 in a shape and width as indicated in the HMP would result in a finding of non-interference with wildlife corridors. The project analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR was foimd to be consistent with the HMP. The HMP contains a number of Adjacency Standards that specifically apply to projects that are located directly adjacent to sensitive habitat. A number of these Adjacency Standards are applicable to the proposed project. 1. Fire Management Fire suppression zones are to be established where interface exists between native habitat and residences. This fu-e suppression program does not provide for any vegetation thinning or fire suppression activities within the hardline. 2. Erosion Control. The project construction activities will include appropriate temporary erosion and sediment confrol protections so that all exposed soil in the area of the construction adjacent to sensitive habitats will be protected from erosion. This will include temporary basins, silt fences, sandbags and sfraw mulch rolls being placed around excavated areas and pads during the construction period. Also, all storm drains and natural drainages situated downsfream from the construction will be protected by linear sediment barriers or similar erosion confrol devices. Weather monitoring will take place in order to avoid exposed soils during times of heavy rainfall. The sfreets within and around the construction site will be swept and maintained regularly during the construction period. The project will not dfrect any new surface drainage into Agua Hedionda Lagoon from the already existing situation. 3. Landscaping Restrictions. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR included a mitigation measure which prohibits invasive plant materials in areas adjacent to sensitive habitats. Compliance with this measure will result in protection from impacts to the sensitive habitats from landscaping provided in conjunction with the project. 4. Fencing, Signs, and Lighting. Fences, signs, and lighting can assist in the protection and understanding of biological resources. However, they can also negatively impact wildlife and plants by inviting vandalism, resfricting wildlife movement, and upsetting noctumal species. The project will include fencing (to deter open public and pet access) and signage (to provide informational signage) requirements for all areas of protected sensitive vegetation. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR included a mitigation measure which prohibits direct lighting from spillover into sensitive areas. Compliance with these measures will result in protection from impacts to the sensitive habitats from landscaping provided in conjunction with the project. 5. Predator and Exotic Species Control. Predators and exotic species will be confrolled through compliance with a mitigation measure adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR which requires the developer to eliminate noxious plant species and fence the preserve areas so as to limit the opportunity for predator access. Compliance with these measures will result in protection from impacts to the sensitive habitats from predators and exotic species. As a result of these factors, the proposed project will maintain consistency with the HMP and will thus result in a less than significant impact to consistency with the HMP. 16 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? • • • Kl b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? • • Kl • c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • • • Kl d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? • • Kl a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signiflcance ofa historical resource as deflned in §15064.5? No Impact. No historic stmctiu-es have been identified on the subject property. As a result of the fact that no historical resources have been recorded or were identified in the vicinity of the project, no impact to historical resources will result from implementation of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signiflcance ofan archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. A record search for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project indicated no recorded sites within the project area. A field survey conduct in 1999 by RECON for the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project resulted in the conclusion that no archaeological resources were noted within the project. However, a subsequent check in 2002 indicated that two prehistoric sites are located within the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project area, but not on the Encinas Creek Apartments site. No prehistoric material was found on the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs property. As a result of these surveys and investigations, it is determined that no further significant sites under CEQA are known to exist on the site. However, CEQA Section 15064.5(f) requires provisions for identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archaeological resources. Therefore mitigation measures have been added to the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR which requires the developer to enter into agreements for archaeological and Native American field monitors to observe the grading activities and to have the authority to halt grading to examine prehistoric resources if they are accidentally encountered during construction activities. As a result of the above-referenced analysis and cultural testing, and subject to implementation of the mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the project will result in a less than significant impact to archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that there is the possibility of paleontological resoiu-ces being present within the project area soils. A mitigation measure was adopted, which involves the review of the grading plans and ftill time attendance of a paleontologist during grading operations (cut excavations), with the authority to direct grading in order to salvage and curate resources, as necessary. Through the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant. No impacts to any unique geologic feature will result from the project. 17 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. A review of culttaral literature and testing of sites within the area of the project concludes that no known human remains are located in the area of impact associated with the project. The Califomia Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on the project site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Medical Examiner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to state regulations would be required, no mitigation would be necessary in the unlikely event that human remains were discovered during consfruction of the project. Thus, no impact to human remains is expected to result from implementation of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • • Kl • ii. Sfrong seismic ground shaking? • • Kl • iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • • Kl • iv. Landslides? • • • Kl b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • • Kl • c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? • • Kl • d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? • • Kl • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? • • • Kl 18 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is situated in the westem portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southem Califomia. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southem tip of Baja Califomia. The westemmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quatemary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fauh Zoning Map issued by the Califomia Geological Survey for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southem Califomia. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately 4.5 miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego mefropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north- northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. The geotechnical report referenced in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concludes that based on their review of published geologic maps and historic aerial photographs, as well as their site reconnaissance and test pit excavations, that although the project site is considered to be in a seismically active area, no active faults are known to be present across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately 4.5 miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 24 miles east of the site. The potential for mpture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fauh-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Due to the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface mpture at the site is considered low. Further, the project site is not within a fault-rapture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or stractures to potential substantial adverse effects. For these reasons, project impacts would be less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. Based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Califomia, issued by the United States Geological Survey/Califomia Geological Survey (2003), the project is located in a zone where the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.34g (34 percent of the acceleration of gravity). This is the seismic hazard most likely to impact the project site resulting from an earthquake. As a result of these factors, the requirements of the goveming jurisdictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the project design. As indicated in the response to Issue No. VI(a)(i) above, based on a review of the referenced reports and geologic maps, as well as on a geologic field reconnaissance, the project site is not underlain by known active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement during the last 11,000 years). The Rose Canyon Fault is the closest major fault to the project site, located approximately 7 miles to the west. The maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.9 could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.3 lg to0.36g (site acceleration), and a maximum probability event may be on the order of 0.17g to 0.19g. This level of risk is within the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Building minimum design requirements. Thus, the geotechnical report indicates that the project site appears generally suitable for grading and development of a muhifamily development from a geotechnical perspective. This report concludes that hazards associated with ground shaking during a seismic event would be minimal. As such, impacts from sfrong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. 19 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction^ Less Than Signiflcant Impact. Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by sfrong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicates that loose granular soils and non-plastic silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible to liquefaction. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that no areas of the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project are expected to be susceptible to liquefaction. Thus, a less than significant impact is assessed. iv. Landslides? No Impact. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concludes that no landslides have been identified on the project site and that no significant impact as a result of landslides is anticipated on the project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Some soils encountered within the project area have a high erosion hazard. However, the project will include appropriate BMPs, the incorporation of the geotechnical report findings, and the use of imported soils and gravel when appropriate. Temporary erosion and sediment confrol protections so that all exposed soil in the area of the constraction will be protected from erosion. This will include sih fences, sandbags and sfraw mulch rolls being placed around excavated french spoils during the constraction period. Also, all storm drains and natural drainages situated downsfream from the constraction will be protected by linear sediment barriers or similar erosion confrol devices. Weather monitoring will take place in order to avoid exposed soils during times of heavy rainfall. The sfreets within and around the constraction site will be swept and maintained regularly in accordance with City of Carlsbad requirements during the constraction period. The project would have a less than significant impact on soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section VI(a)(iii), the project is located in an area subject to potential earth movement as the result of a significant seismic event. This earth movement includes the potential for lateral spread of the ground surface during an earthquake. Lateral spread usually takes place along weak shear zones that have formed within a liquefiable soil layer, potentially an alluvial or colluvial layer of soil. Liquefaction and/or lateral spreading potential has been identified in the alluvial areas of the project, and will necessitate some level of remediation. As indicated in the geotechnical reports for the project, this remediation will include removal and re-compaction of alluvial soils beneath areas in which stractures and utilities will be constracted. Bio-swales and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter onsite storm water ranoff within the project to comply with code are required to clarify and filter onsite storm water during rain events and to avoid infilfration in areas which could impact foundations or utilities. The proposed project involves the modification of an approved project to increase the number of multifamily units from 80 to 127 units. All units will be located within multifamily stractures at a high density. This increase in density and size of sfructures will not affect the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR conclusion that the project is not located on an unstable geologic unit or on unstable soil. Thus it is concluded that which will mitigate this impact is less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soils, as deflned in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. A small amount of alluvial soils may be encountered during excavation of the proposed project. Such alluvial soils are considered to range between very low to high pursuant to the definitions identified in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (1997). These soils will need to be addressed through remedial grading and specific foundation design (e.g., post tension slab design). A mitigation measure requiring such design is included in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. Project compliance with the mitigation measures articulated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. 20 e) Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project does not include any proposed septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems. As a result, no impacts would occur from implementation of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either dfrectly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • • • b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? • • • X a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Signiflcanticant Impact. Global climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by temperature, wind pattems, precipitation, and storms over a long period of time. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases (referred to as greenhouse gases) such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nifrous oxide CN2O), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF^). The effect that each greenhouse gas (GHG) has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions, and its potential for confribution to global warming. Potential for contribution to global warming is defined as the role that a gas or aerosol plays in frapping heat in the atmosphere, and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily refreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed an unprecedented acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Global climate change is a documented effect. Although the degree to which the change is caused by anthropogenic (man-made) sources is still under study, the increase in warming has coincided with the global industrial revolution, which has seen the widespread reduction of forests to accommodate urban centers, agriculture, and the use of fossil fliels - primarily the buming of coal, oil, and natural gas for energy. The majority of scientists agree that anthropogenic sources are a main, if not primary, confributor to the climate warming. Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHG), in reference to the fact that greenhouses retain heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) fluorinated gases, and ozone (O3). Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 result from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Development of the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project would result in a net increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions due primarily to fransportation, energy use and solid waste disposal from the existing situation, which is vacant, or the approved situation, which allows for 80 multifamily units. The project would increase GHG emissions by facilitating residential land uses and thereby increasing vehicle miles fraveled associated with fransporting people and goods to, from and within the community. Vehicular fransportation is a major confributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is the direct result of population and employment growth, which generates vehicle trips to move goods, provide public services, and connect people with work, school, shopping, and other activities. 21 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Growth in vehicular travel is due in large part to urban development pattems. Over the last half century, homes have been built further from workplaces, schools have been located ftirther from neighborhoods they serve, and other destinations, including shopping, have been isolated from where people live and work. A significant portion of development has been planned and built in a pattem that is dependent on the use of cars as the primary mode of fravel. As a larger share of the buih environment has become automobile dependent, vehicle trips and distances have increased, and walking and public fransit use have declmed. A large share of the increase can be fraced to the effects of a changing built environment, namely to longer trips and people driving alone. The proposed development is considered an "infill" development, projected to be surrounded on two of four sides by urban uses, conveniently accessible to mass transit bus routes, and in close proximity to a large employment center (Carlsbad Research Center and other Carlsbad business parks). As such, the proposed project is consistent with the planning principle of encouraging higher intensity infill development within an existing urban area at fransit corridor locations with bus service and employment centers. The GHG emissions from any individual project, including the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project, do not individually generate GHG emissions sufficient to measurably influence global climate change.. However, the GHG emissions from individual projects confribute to cumulative GHG emissions on a global, national, and regional scale. In light of the above factors, the GHG emissions from constraction and ongoing occupancy and operation of development of the Encinas Creek Apartments represents a less than significant confribution to the impact of GHG contribution to global climate change. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing a GHG impact analysis. This is left to the lead agency's judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other credible sources. Until such a standard is established, each lead agency is required to develop their own approach to performing an analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions identified in Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines. A lead agency must make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. While the proposed project will increase the number of residential units on the site by 47 units, the project will be consistent with the adopted plans, policies or regulations regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan (subject to the proposed density modification), the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and the Carlsbad HMP. These plans are all consistent with SANDAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan (2004). The project will not violate any air quality standard or state guidelines, and as indicated above will not confribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality or greenhouse gas violation. Greenhouse gas-contributing emissions from developed-condition elecfricity consumption, solid waste disposal, and constmction related power consumption would not be in conflict with adopted plans, policies or regulations. Thus, the project will result in no impact to these adopted plans, policies or regulations. Three types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be in conflict with the State of Califomia goals, including Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) the Califomia Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, passed in 2006, for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses include reviews of three issue areas below: 1. The potential conflicts with the Califomia Air Resources Board (CARB) recommended actions for reduction of GHG emissions. The proposed project does not pose any conflict with the list of CARB recommended actions for reduction of GHG. These actions are listed on the Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California, Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, October 2007, and include measures such as energy efficiency guidelines, high speed rail, green building policies, water recycling, and similar measures intended to provide long-term reduction in GHGs. 22 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 2. The relative size of the project in comparison to the estimated GHG reduction goal of 174 MMT COzC by year 2020 and in comparison to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 mefric tons of C02e per year), and Pursuant to the proposed land use (127 units), the proposed project operational GHG emissions would not be classified as a major source of GHG emissions. Although no specific CEQA thresholds of significance have been established, however when compared to the overall state reduction goal of approximately 174,000,000 mefric tons of CO2 per year, the maximum GHG emissions for the project are very small and would not confiict with the state's ability to comply with the AB 32 or other state goals. 3. The basic parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient, will lead to wasteful energy use, or is neutral with regard to future energy use. The project is relatively efficient with regard to energy use as described in Section Vll(a), including development of an urban infill project including high density and commercial land uses adjacent to arterial roadways, local bus access and employment proximity, convenient walking access to neighborhood shopping and other public use areas within the project, material recycling programs, protecting and enhancing the natural environment, provision of energy efficient buildings, water efficient landscaping, promoting sustainable community practices and the use of renewable resources in constraction. However, the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy recommend building homes and habitable areas to achieve Energy Star compliance. Energy Star compliant homes are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to the 2004 Intemational Residential Code (IRC) and by including additional energy-saving features, a 20-30% more energy efficient home as compared to a typical standard home is plausible. These reduction methodologies could also be incorporated into commercial buildings by utilizing natural lighting, white roofs, and reducing heating and cooling requirements by providing efficient insulation in the buildings. The proposed project will be eligible to eam the Energy Star, or fiinctional equivalent, label. Additionally, the residential buildings will provide a space for recharge of batteries for both small (handheld) and large (E.g., elecfric lawnmower or car) equipment (laundry rooms and garages). As a result of these factors, it is concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from the project will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? • • • b) Create a significant hazard to the public or envfronment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? • • Kl • c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • • • K 23 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? • • Kl • e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • • f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • • g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • • • h) Expose people or stractures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? • • • a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of a 127 unit multi-family apartment residential project. The project also involves the grading operations and constraction activity to provide the building pad for parking lots, buildings and landscape areas. Upon completion of consfruction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site will occur. Other than during the constraction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. All fransport, handling, use, and disposal of cleaning substances will comply with all Federal, State and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. Operation of the project will not result in the use of any potentially hazardous materials. A nominal amount of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., fiiel, paint products, lubricants, and solvents) will be used during consttaiction activities to develop the project. The transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials during the consfruction period would also be conducted in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that the impact associated with the routine fransport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Subject to the project's compliance with the mitigation measures adopted in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the project will result in less than significant impacts with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned in the response to Section Vll(a), the fransport, use and disposal of hazardous materials during the constraction period would be conducted in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that the impact associated with the routine fransport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. As a result of these precautions and practices, the potential for release of hazardous materials onto the subject site or neighboring sites, or into the environment in general is minimal, and thus subject to implementation of the mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, this impact is considered less than significant. 24 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materiais, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The nearest existing school to the subject project is Sage Creek High School, which is under constraction at the comer of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, approximately 1,800 linear feet (0.35 mi.) north of the proposed project site. This distance is in excess of one-quarter mile. Likewise, no proposed schools are within one-quarter mile of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The subject project area is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 56962.5. This code section includes federal superfund sites (NPL), state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, and other hazardous sites. The project site is not listed on any county, State or Federal databases as a hazardous waste use or disposal site. Thus, subject to adherence with the mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, any potential for hazardous materials on the sife will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The McClellan-Palomar ranway is approximately 4,600 feet long, in which case it is classified as a "Medium General Aviation Runway" according to The Califomia Department of Transportation Bureau of Aeronautics. The exfreme southem end of the project alignment is located 2.0 miles from the southem property line of McClellan-Palomar. Therefore the project is not located within two miles of a public airport. The project also is not located within the Safety Zones of the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Further, no part of the project is located within a Noise Compatibility Zone, per Exhibit III-l of the ALUCP. It is concluded that no impact associated with potential hazards from McClellan-Palomar Airport is anticipated. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. No private airsfrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. As a result, no impacts would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has adopted an Emergencv Operations Plan, dated June 9, 2003. This plan addresses the City of Carlsbad's planned response to exfraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, human events, and technological incidents, including both peacetime and wartime nuclear defense operations. It provides an overview of operational concepts and identifies components of the City's Emergency Management Organization. The plan provides procedures to respond to a variety of emergency situations such as an earthquake, tsunami, liquefaction, landslide transportation accident, plane crash, hazardous materials incident, flood, severe weather, dam failure, wildland or urban fire, drought, energy shortage, nuclear power plant evacuation, civil unrest, workplace and school violence, or terrorism. The project would add residents on a currently vacant parcel with the development of stractures and urban infrasfructure. The project is located in proximity to ftiture College Boulevard Reach A, which is designated as a future emergency evacuation route under the City's Emergency Operations Plan. The project will not result in any obsfruction or impediments to College Boulevard. 25 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element's goals and objectives include the maintenance of close coordination between plarmed improvements to the circulation system within Carlsbad and the location of fire stations to ensure adequate levels of service and response times to all areas of the community, and to maintain an initial emergency fravel response time of five (5) minutes. The City of Carlsbad Fire Department will provide all basic fire and emergency medical services to the subject site. The project would be served by Fire Station No. 3, located at 3701 Catalina Drive and Station No. 5, located at the Public Safety Center on Faraday Avenue, east of El Camino Real. The project site is within the five-minute response time from both of these fire stations. In addition, Fire Station No. 3 is planned to be moved to the comer of Wind Trail Road and Cannon Road, at Robertson Ranch PA 12. This location is within 3/4 mile of the project. The proposed project will not result in a significant impact to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland flres, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. Natural open space will be maintained along the northem section of the proposed project. This area contains, and will continue to contain, existing native vegetation pursuant to HMP and Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR requirements. As a result of the fact that the project is adjacent to this natural area, the project would be susceptible to wildland fire. In accordance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual, and the City Fire Department requirements, fire ftiel modification zones will be implemented adjacent to the open space edges. This fuel modification zone consists of a minimum 60-foot wide stractural setback from the adjacent natural open space. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that adherence to fuel modification zones would ensure the potential fire hazard for the property remains at a less than significant level. The proposed project is in compliance with this fiiel modification relationship. Therefore, subject to provision of the ftiel modification zones, the project will result in a less than significant impact to wildland interface. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? • • • b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? • • • X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a sfream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? • • Kl • 26 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, hiciuding through the aheration of the course of a sfream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface ranoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? • • X • e) Create or confribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted ranoff? • • M • f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? • • • g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? • • • h) Place within 1 OO-year flood hazard area stractures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? • • • K i) Expose people or stractures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a resuh of the failure of a levee or dam? • • • X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • Kl • a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Consfruction, and other applicable portions of the federal Clean Water Act, including the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Confrol Act, or Section 401. Also, the City of Carlsbad has adopted a Storm Water Management and Discharge Confrol Ordinance. This ordinance requires that all new development and redevelopment activities comply whh the City's adopted storm water pollution protection requirements. The subject project is not exempt from Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) requirements and is considered a Priority Project, requiring Priority BMPs. The project applicant is also required to submh a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Confrol Board, prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement BMPs detailed in the SWPPP to reduce constraction effects and post-development effects on the downsfream water bodies. Impacts to hydrology and water quality as a result of the project were analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and more recently, in the Drainage Study for Encinas Creek Apartment Homes, by O'Day Consultants, dated April 19, 2012. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts less than significant were identified in a drainage study and storm water management plan. The project developer is required to identify and implement BMPs to reduce impacts to surface water from contaminated storm water discharges. In accordance with the NPDES, the constraction confractor will be required to comply with NPDES and SWPPP regarding the implementation of BMPs durmg constraction. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drarnage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and constraction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water ranoff. During the constraction period, the project BMPs will include, but are not limhed to; sih fencing the perimeter, fiber rolls or gravel bag berms for protecting slopes and channels, sfreet sweeping and vacuuming, covering soil piles to minimize sediment transport, storm drain inlet protection, diversion of ranoff including check dams and slope roughing, stabilized constraction entrances and exits, hydroseeding or mulching immediately after topsoil placement, and 27 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 waste (including concrete waste) management. The developer will be responsible for the regular maintenance of such constraction BMPs. The post constraction phase begms when grading has been completed, slopes have been landscaped and irrigated and the storm dram system basins have been installed. During this phase, a combination of sfreet and storm drain maintenance, waste handling and disposal, landscaping and grounds maintenance, and employee fraining BMPs will be implemented. The project is required to comply with the; (1) Carlsbad Municipal Code Stormwater Management and Discharge Confrol Ordinance, (2) Standard Specifications for Public Works Consfruction, (3) NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Constraction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Confrol Board, and (4) San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permh (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Compliance with these regulatory documents, including associated BMPs listed above, is articulated in the Preluninary Storm Water Management Plan for Encinas Creek Apartment Homes, by O'Day Consultants, dated April 19, 2012. Compliance with this SWMP will ensure that the project will result in a less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levei which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater, and rather it will be served via existing public water disfribution lines within the public right-of-way. As mdicated in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, no impacts to groundwater or groundwater recharge will occur from implementation of the project. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project will resuh in a change in the topographical conditions of the area and an increase in impervious surface area. A hydrology analysis and drainage study has been performed by O'Day Consultants, referenced above, which indicates that the post-constraction drainage pattem will be substantively the same as the pre-constraction drarnage pattem. Therefore, since no change to the overall existing drarnage flow patterns will resuh from the project, and BMPs to confrol erosion and siltation are bemg provided as part of the project, as discussed in Section Vlll(a) above, it is determined that less than significant impacts would resuh from implementation of the project. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. As discussed in Section VIII(c) above, the project will not resuh in substantive alteration to existing drainage pattems, and will not substantially increase the flow rate or volume of surface ranoff. Surface ran-off and stormwater drabiage will be collected by the proposed drainage system and will be discharged uhimately into downsfream drainage routes. Therefore, as a result of these factors, and consistent with the fmding of less than significant impact in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, a less than significant impact is assessed. e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The drainage study concludes that post-development runoff generated on the project site will be collected and conveyed by a proposed private storm drain system and conveyed to the existing downsfream drainages. As a resuh, it is concluded that the project would ensure that impacts associated with the creation of ranoff water remain less than significant. 28 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The project will require a standard NPDES permh. This NPDES permh will require preparation of a SWPPP to identify and implement BMPs to reduce impacts to surface water from contaminated storm water discharges. The BMPs to be implemented by the project are identified in Section Vlll(a) above. Compliance with these requirements will ensure that the project would result in a less than significant impact on water quality. In addition, the proposed multifamily project will incorporate BMPs and submit a water quality technical report as specified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and in the SUSMP. In addition, the proposed project will not result in any significant increase in impervious area. Further, the project minimizes land disturbance activities during constraction (e.g., clearing, grading and cut-and-fiU) and the project proposes to incorporate soil stabilization BMPs on disturbed areas as soon as feasible. Thus, subject to compliance with the mitigation measures adopted m the Final Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR and with adopted City performance and design policies for pollution confrol, a less than significant impact is assessed. g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? No Impact. The Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project does not propose any housing within the 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or any other flood delineation map. As a result, no impact to flood hazard will result from implementation of the project. h) Place within lOO-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project does not propose any sfructures within the 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map. As a result of this factor, it is determined that no impacts which would impede or redirect flood flows in the 1 OO-year flood hazard area would occur from implementation of the project, i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the inundation zone for Calavera Dam or any other flood confrol feature located upsfream of the project as indicated in the FEIR. Further, the project does not propose the placement of any permanent sfructures within the 100-year flood zone. As explained herein and in Sections IX (g) and (h), the proposed project would not result in increased exposure of people or stractures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a resuh of the failure of a levee or dam. As a result, no impacts would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The project alignment is not situated near or immediately adjacent to an embanked water body such as a reservofr, dam or aboveground storage tank. Topographically, the lowest point on the project she is approximately 90 feet elevation, and the site is located in excess of 3 miles from the coastline. No significant potential for mudfiow on the project site is anticipated. Therefore, the project has a less than significant potential impact due to seiche, tsunami or mudfiow. 29 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? • • • Kl b) Confiict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? • • Kl • c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? n • • a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project is situated within an urbanized area, of which the surrounding uses are a large residential mobile home subdivision located to the west, residential subdivisions to the south, and a high school and the Robertson Ranch Master Plan community, including muhifamily residential uses, located one half mile to the north. These properties are all community neighborhoods of the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad. The proposed project will provide a multifamily residential neighborhood which will be similar to those existing in the surrounding area. Thus, the proposed project will not disrapt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, speciflc plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to mcrease the number of apartment units from 80 to 127. The addhional units will increase the scale of the project's stractures, require increased parking, and a modification to onsite amenhies. Project building height is proposed up to 42 feet, which is above the standard building height limitation of 35 feet, accommodating the less costly and more efficient benefit of roof mounted heating/cooling units versus ground mounted, screening of the roof mounted equipment, and the aesthetic benefit of maintaining a roof stracture that works proportionately with the building architecture. Ten foot interior garage widths are proposed versus the twelve foot width required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.) Section 21.44.020. The reduction in garage width reduces the overall length of the building which in tum reduces consfruction costs. Construction cost savings for both confribute to the economy of providing lower income residential units and can be allowed as standards modification pursuant to C.M.C. Section 21.53.120. No offsite changes to approved plans or programs are proposed. No other substantive changes to the approved project are proposed. The Land Use Element further requires that adequate additional public faciHties be provided to serve projected population increase. The project complies with these provisions by providing the necessary public facilities consistent with General Plan policies. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element, Housing Element, the Open Space and Conservation Element, the Circulation Element, and all other elements of the General Plan. The proposed increase of 47 apartment units is allowed in conformance with the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The project will not resuh in significant impacts to the overall objectives and provisions of these Citywide policy documents. 30 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 No change to the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance is proposed. Further, the project is not located within the Safety Zones of the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Further, no part of the project is located within a Noise Compatibility Zone, per Exhibit III-l of the ALUCP. As a result of these factors, it is determined that the proposed project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, as indicated, and no impact on land use plans, policies or regulations is assessed. It is concluded that the proposed project will resuh in less than significant environmental impacts from incompatibility issues with adjacent existing and planned land uses. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The City of Carlsbad HMP designates a nattiral preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts to sensitive biological resources and assigning mitigation for any impacts that do occur. The HMP contains sfrict policies to discourage destraction of sensitive habitat. The HMP natural preserve system provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts to senshive biological resources and assigning mitigation for any impacts that do occur. The project is situated in an urbanized area and will mitigate for impacts to sensitive habitat as indicated in Section IV(a) of this environmental analysis. The project is located within Core #3. This Core area is identified as a connectivity line for wildlife pursuant to the HMP. The project maintains this connectivity link. In addition, the project will mitigate for impacts to vegetation communities protected by that HMP. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that consistency with the policies of the HMP, including the provision of Link B in a shape and width as indicated in the HMP would result in a finding of non-interference with wildlife corridors. The project analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR was found to be consistent with the HMP. No change to the project's corridor is proposed. Therefore, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures as stated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, any potential impacts would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of ftiture value to the region and the residents of the State? • • • K b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? • • • a) Result in the loss of availability ofa known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? No Impact. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. The Certified FEIR concludes that the project site is generally underlain by the sedimentary layers of the Eocene-aged Santiago Formation and undifferentiated Jurassic to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic granitic (igneous) bedrock. Human influences, recent weathering and erosion have produced engineered fill, surficial slump deposits, colluvium and Pleistocene-age terrace deposits. These soils would be expected to have a low potential for mineral resources. Alluvial deposhs also underlay the valleys on the site. The materials generally consisted of light olive gray to dark brown, poorly consolidated, sands and silty sands. These alluvial soils would also be expected to have a low potential for mineral resources. 31 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Further, the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project site does not include any area of known mineral resources as identified in the City of Carlsbad's General Plan Update MEIR 93-01, dated March 1994, map 5.13-1. As a resuh of these factors, no impact to the potential for known mineral deposits that would be of ftiture value to the region or the residents of the State is anticipated from the project. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The subject she is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance, or in the Certified Cantarmi/Holly Springs FEIR as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject property as an important mineral resource recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is determined that implementation of the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Since no adopted regulatory land use documents, including the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance, and the regulatory documents identified above designate the subject site as a mineral resource recovery location, it is concluded that no impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? • • Kl • b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels? • • Kl • c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • m • d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • • e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • • Kl f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airsfrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • • • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 32 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Less Than Significant Impact. Presently, no significant noise generator is located within the vicmity of the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project she. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 2.0 miles to the south of the project site. No part of the project is located within a Noise Compatibility Zone, per Exhibit III-l of the ALUCP. The Noise Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan also identifies certain sound levels that are compatible with various land uses. The Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, dated 1995, which is used to implement the Noise Element requirements, indicates that sound levels up to 60 dBA CNEL are compatible with residential land uses, except for areas impacted by the McClellan-Palomar Airport, which must be mitigated to a 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level. According to City standards, interior noise levels for all residential units must be mitigated to a 45 dBA CNEL level when openings to the exterior ofthe residence are closed. If openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard, then mechanical ventilation shall be provided. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR disclosed that properties adjacent to the future extension of College Boulevard will be impacted by future fraffic noise. Mitigation includes the installation of a noise barrier with a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds at a height of 5-6 feet along the top of slope adjacent to College Boulevard. In addition, prior to issuance of a building permit, an interior acoustical analysis shall be completed to confirm that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 - dBA The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits consttTiction activity after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for constraction activities, but simply limits the hours of consfruction, except for certain very limited consfruction activities that do not create disturbing, excessive or offensive noise after sunset and before 7:00 AM. The significance of constraction noise produced during project constraction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that constraction noise shall not exceed 75 dBA for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Constraction noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the project site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doublmg of distance (70 dBA at 100 feet, etc.). The Cantarmi/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that no senshive receptors are located whhin or in immediate proximity to the project site. However, it noted that the Rancho Carlsbad community, a majority of which is occupied by retired and/or elderly persons, is located to the south of the site. However, development of the project was determined in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR to be considered to result in a less than significant impact to these neighboring residences. Further, since the certification of the FEIR, the Dos Colinas Retirement project has been approved whhin 200 feet of the project. Also, the Sage Creek High School is located approximately 700 feet northerly of the site. However, it is concluded that the proposed project will not resuh in new noise levels which will negatively affect sensitive receptors. As a result of these factors, it is determined that both operational and constraction noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Draft Noise Guidelines Manual land use noise levels, the City permitted constraction noise levels and hours, and County of San Diego Noise Policy standards. As a result, a less than significant impact is assessed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. Constraction of the project will generate temporary ground-bome vibration and noise levels typical of soil movement and hauling activities from operations of earthmoving equipment, tunneling machines and other large constraction vehicles. However, these activities will be temporary in nature. As indicated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, exposure of persons to ground-bome vibration or ground-bome noise levels associated with the project would have a less than significant impact. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with the findings of the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. The proposed increase in density is not expected to significantly increase the potential for addhional noise. Thus, as mdicated in Section Xll(a), the increase in ambient noise levels from the project is considered a less than significant impact. 33 d) Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. As indicated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, during consfruction, the project would generate temporary increases in noise levels in the immediate area of the constraction activities. Constraction equipment would generate noise levels from constraction equipment used during the rough grading, underground utility constraction, and paving activities could range from 70 dBA to 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The proposed project is located within an urbanizing area. The nearest residential units will be approximately 300-feet from the subject she, in northerly and westerly directions. The Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home neighborhood is presently constracted, and the Sage Creek High School is under constraction and is expected to be in operation prior to constraction of the subject project. However, based on standard consfruction practices, it can be assumed that use of the constraction equipment would not occur simuhaneously, and the constraction activities would adhere to the constraction schedules and regulations as required by the City Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.48. Thus, while project constraction will create temporary increases in ambient noise levels, noise would only be generated during daytime hours and any nearby residences would only be exposed to constraction noise during the temporary constiniction period nearby any given residence. Therefore, noise generated during consfruction activities is not considered significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The exfreme southem end of the proposed project is located 2.0 miles from McClellan Palomar Airport. The property is located outside of the Airport Influence Zone as outlined in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibilitv Plan (ALUCP). adopted January 25, 2010 and amended March 4, 2010, prepared by SANDAG. No section of the proposed project is situated whhin an identified Airport noise contour zone. The ALUCP also includes a Safety Policy Map. The subject project is not located in any of the identified safety hazard zones. As a result of the above factors, no resfrictions are placed upon the subject use within this contour, and the project will not result in subjecting people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise. Therefore, no impact is assessed. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. No private airsfrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. As a result, no impacts will occur from implementation of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastracture)? • • • b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constraction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • K c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constraction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • X 34 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project is located within City of Carlsbad's LFMP Zone 15, located in the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad. Development of the project will confribute to indirectly inducing growth in the area, as securing the ftinds for constraction of the College Boulevard Reach A will be a requirement of the project. No modification to the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) assumptions, analysis or special condhions is proposed. The project will require a transfer of 47 dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB), in accordance with the criteria for allocation contained in City Council Policy 43. Per this requirement, a total of 47 units would be allocated to the project from the EDUB. This transfer of units from the EDUB will be accomplished by the City in accordance with standard City protocol for the disfribution of such units and thus the project will result in a less than significant impact to growth inducement. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No residential units presently exist on the subject property. Thus, development of the project will not result in the elimination or displacement of any residential unhs. As a resuh of this factor, no impact associated with the removal of existing housing and the resulting replacement housing would occur as a result of implementation of the project. No impact is assessed. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project. No residences exist within the project acreage or near the subject project. Therefore, no impacts associated with the constraction of replacement housing would occur from the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated whh the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, a need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the constraction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? • • • ii) Police protection? • • Kl • iii) Schools? • • X • iv) Parks? • • m • v) Other public faciHties? • Kl 35 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause signiflcant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The project site is located within the Zone 15 LFMP area. The City of Carlsbad Fire Department will provide all basic fire and emergency medical services to Zone 15 and the subject site. The project would be served by Fire Station No. 3, located at 3701 Catalina Drive and Station No. 5, located at the Public Safety Center on Faraday Avenue, east of El Camino Real. The project site is whhin the five-minute response time from these fire stations. In addhion, Fire Station No. 3 is planned to be moved to the comer of Wind Trail Road and Cannon Road, at Robertson Ranch PA 12. This location is whhin 'A mile of the project. The relocation of Fire Station No. 3 to the Wind Trail Road location will improve the response time to the subject property inasmuch as this location is closer than the existing [temporary] Catalina Drive station. Thus, a less than significant impact to municipal fire facilities will result from the proposed project. ii. Police protection? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located at 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. As indicated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the combined project will result in an increase of approximately 1,436 residents, which will necesshate an mcrease in the need for police services. This resident increase is not significantly changed by the proposed project. Funding for police personnel comes to the Police Department from the City's General Fund. General Fund revenues are generated by a number of taxes, fees and levies, such as property taxes, sales taxes, fransient occupancy taxes, vehicle license fees, development fees and other revenue sources. The conversion of undeveloped land to developed land will increase the property tax base and other taxes generated by the future owners within Cantarini/Holly Springs. This increase in taxes will increase the revenues in the General Fund, and allow for City mcrease in police officers and services necessary to cover the project area. Thus, a less than significant impact to municipal police protection will resuh from the project. iii. Schools? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The project is located whhin the Carlsbad Unified School Disfrict (CUSD). The Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR projected that the project would generate a total of 43 students (K-12) at buildout, and that such students could be accommodated either through consfruction of an elementary school on the site, or the payment of developer school fees in-lieu of providing a school site. The proposed addition of 47 apartment units increases the proposed student generation by 16. The same method of mitigation through the payment of school fees reduces impacts to school facilities to a level of less than significant. iv. Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The Encinas Creek Apartments project will resuh in an increase of approximately 298 residents, which (based on the 3 acres per 1,000 population) results in a buildout demand of 0.89 acres, which will necessitate an increase in the need for parks. However, the City of Carlsbad has plans to fund and constract a park at nearby Robertson Ranch Planning Area 12, and other credited parks in the Northeast Quadrant. As indicated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the proposed payment of Park-in-Lieu fees will mitigate potential impacts to park facility services. No modification to demand or supply is proposed through implementation of the project. Thus, the impacts to park facilities are determined to be less than significant. 36 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the project description, the proposed project increases the number of residences from that analyzed m the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR by 47 apartment units. However, 47 apartment units will not result in any resfriction in the supply of any public faciHties. For these reasons, it is concluded that the project will result in less than significant impacts to the provision of or maintenance of municipal public facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? • • KI • b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the consfruction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? • • • a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project will result in an increase of 47 residences over that which has already been approved for the she. These additional units will provide a new demand for recreational faciHties. The project, however, will pay Park-in-Lieu fees which will mhigate the requirement of public recreational facilities constraction. The project also includes a common community recreation facility within the project design, which will contribute to mitigation of this requirement. As indicated in the Cantarini/Holly Sprmgs FEIR, provision of these facilities will mitigate potential impacts to park facility services. No modification to demand or supply is proposed through implementation of the project. Thus, the impacts to park facilities are determined to be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Common recreation facilities will be provided within the proposed project. For this reason, it is concluded that no impacts to recreational facilities would occur as a result of implementation of the project. As indicated in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, these features will not result in significant impacts on the physical environment. 37 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of fransportation including mass fransit and non-motorized fravel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, sfreets, highways and freeways, pedesfrian and bicycle paths, and mass fransit? • • m • b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and fravel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • • • c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in fraffic levels or a change in location that resuhs in substantial safety risks? • • • K d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? • • • K e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • • Kl f) Confiict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public fransit, bicycle, or pedesfrian faciHties, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such faciHties? • • • Kl a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project is projected to generate 1,016 ADT at buildout of the project per the Transportation Analysis for 127 Unit MDR Short Term Condhions Without College Boulevard Prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated June 13, 2011. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR estimated the fraffic generated by the project to be 640 ADT. Therefore, the overall proposed-project ADT level is 376 ADT greater than that analyzed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. This traffic will utilize primarily College Boulevard, Cannon Road and El Camino Real. A comparison of the ADT and traffic impacts are as follows: Trafflc Generation Use ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 80 Multifamily Units 640 51.2 70.4 127 Multifamily Units 1,016 81.2 111.7 Existing fraffic (plus the proposed project) at Buildout of the community (assumed Year 2030) on impacted intersections and sfreet segments are shown on the following tables. 38 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Year 2030 Impacted Intersections Intersection Existing Proposed Intersection AM PM AM PM Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS ECR/Tamarack 53.7 D 51.2 D 52.2 D 52.0 D ECR/Cannon Road 52.9 D 53.1 D 53.1 D 53.3 D ECR College Boulevard 50.5 D 51.0 D 50.6 D 51.0 D College Boulevard/Cannon Road 37.0 D 36.3 D 37.1 D 36.5 D Year 2030 Impacted Street Segments Street Segment Existing Proposed Street Segment Direct. Hour Volume LOS Direct. Hour Volume LOS ECR - Cannon Road to College EB AM 3,600 A EB AM 3,600 A ECR - Cannon Road to College WB PM 3,600 A WB PM 3,600 A Cannon Road - ECR to College EB AM 5,400 A EB AM 5,400 A Cannon Road - ECR to College WB PM 5,400 A WB PM 5,400 A College Blvd. - ECR to Cannon NB AM 5,400 A NB AM 5,400 A College Blvd. - ECR to Cannon SB PM 5,400 A SB PM 5,400 A Thus, it is concluded in the Transportation Analvsis for 127 Unit MDR Short Term Conditions Without College Boulevard Prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated June 13, 2011, that while the increase in fraffic from the proposed Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project may be slightly noticeable, the sfreet systems has been designed and sized to accommodate fraffic from the project and cumulative development within this area of the City of Carlsbad. As a resuh of the above projected levels of service, the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR adopted mitigation measures which mitigated the impacts to fraffic congestion at these intersections to a level of less than significant. Therefore, assuming adherence with the fraffic mitigation measures included in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, impacts associated with conflict with the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan or any other adopted policies, would be less than significant. Therefore, development of the proposed apartment project, will not significantly interfere with vehicular fraffic, or with mass fransh and non-motorized fravel and will thus be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. A Congestion Management Program (CMP) evaluation was conducted for the Cantarini /Holly Springs FEIR, including development of 80 units on the subject site. This analysis concluded that intersections and sfreet segments which are affected by projected fraffic from the project are expected to comply with CMP level of service requirements. Also, the project's addition of traffic to the freeway system was evaluated according to Regional CMP Guidelines. Development of the original project was concluded to have less than significant direct impacts to freeway main lines and interchange intersections. The San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG), acting as the County Congestion Management Agency, has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Road, El Cammo Real and Palomar Airport Road) and one highway segment (SR-78) in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily fraffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad are: Regional Circulation Roadways in Carlsbad Roadway LOS Rancho Santa Fe Road A-D El Camino Real A-D Palomar Airport Road A-D SR 78 F 39 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Achievement of the CMP acceptable LOS "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP sttategies. Based on the design capachies of the designated roads and highway and implementation of the CMP sfrategies, they will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at buildout of Carlsbad and surrounding communhies. The buildout ADT projections above are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project will not resuh in an increase of fraffic generation based on the analysis provided in Section XVI(a). Thus the project will not confiict with an applicable congestion management program, includmg level of service standards and fravel demand measures, or other fraffic standards. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. As a resuh, no impacts to air fraffic would occur from the project. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. The proposed project will not include hazardous design features or incompatible uses. The project circulation improvements will be designed and constracted per City standards, and thus will not result in design hazards. Thus, no potential for safety hazards would be expected to occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. Two full routes of access into and out of the site are provided in the proposed design. The City of Carlsbad Traffic Confrol and Detoiu- Plan identifies all existing roadway improvements, shows the location and dimensions of the constraction work zone, delineates staging areas in and around the work zone as appropriate, and indicates locations of constraction signs, barricades and delineators (including cones) and detours. As required by the City, this plan also indicates the duration of the constraction work and fraffic confrol, and must be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to beginning of constraction within the roadway right-of-ways. Required compliance with this City policy is sufficient to determine that this impact is less than significant. 0 Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. The project complies with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. While the project is requesting a Standards Modification to allow single car garages with a width of 10' rather than 12', the project modification can be supported and the project otherwise complies with parking standards including the requfred number of spaces for the use. Further, the project will provide frail and pedesfrian routes as adopted in the Citywide Trails Plan. The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. 40 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater freatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Confrol Board? • • • b) Require or result in the consfruction of new water or wastewater freatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the consfruction of which would cause significant environmental effects? • • • c) Require or result in the constraction of new storm water drainage facihties or expansion of existing facihties, the constraction of which could cause significant envfronmental effects? • • • d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing enthlements and resources, or are new or expanded enthlements needed? • • Kl • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater freatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • • • f) Be served by a landflll with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • • • g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • KI • a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. Under Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) the Regional Water Quality Confrol Board (RWQCB) issues NPDES permits to regulate discharges to "waters of the U.S." which include rivers, lakes, and their fributary drainages. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and constraction project discharges. A constraction project resulting in the disturbance in excess of one acre requires an NPDES permit. Constraction project developers are also required to prepare a SWPPP plan. As a result of the fact that the project would be required to comply with the waste discharge prohibhions and water quality objectives established by the RWQCB and the City of Carlsbad (as a co-permittee), the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that impacts related to this issue would be less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that overall impacts to public facihties and service systems were not significant provided that the appropriate agency condhions for development are met, including the payment of sewer impact fees and public facihties fees. The same conclusion and method of mhigation applies to the project as proposed with an additional 47 apartment units. Further, the City of Carlsbad has analyzed the sewer 41 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 requirements of the proposed project which identified the projected sewages flows resulting from proposed urbanization of the site. This analysis concludes that sufficient sewer service is available for the 127 apartment unh project. This sewer hydraulic analysis also identified onsite sewer lines required for implementation of the proposed project. As a result of these factors, no impact is assessed. c) Require or result in tbe construcfion of new storm water drainage facilifies or expansion of exisfing facilities, the construction of which could cause signiflcant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed 127 apartment unit project will be in compliance with the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, as indicated in the Drainage Study for the project, no significant impacts will resuh with regard to the constraction of new storm water drainage facilities. During constraction, BMPs will be implemented to prevent constraction-tainted runoff (containing sediments, oil, grease, etc.) into the storm drain system. The BMPs will include a variety of measures to confrol these pollutants, such as the use of sandbags and sfraw bales to block drain inlets to prevent discharge from entering the storm drain system, and other temporary protections. Once completed, the project will not increase storm water flows in the area of the project. As a result, the project will not result m the need for modiflcation or addition of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and therefore, no impacts would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The Carlsbad Municipal Water Disfrict (CMWD) evaluates the water systems within their disfrict and formulates long range plans that will provide for future improvements. The Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that overall impacts to water supplies and service systems were in compliance with the CMWD Master Plan. Project impacts to water supplies are not significant provided that the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including the payment of sewer impact fees and public faciHties fees. The 127 apartment unit project proposes installation of these facilities including the payment of sewer impact and public facilities fees in conjunction with development. As a resuh, a less than significant impact is assessed. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Once connected to the existing downsfream sewer Vmrk line, the tmnk sewer system from the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project site to the Encina Water Pollution Confrol Facility (EWPCF) will be complete and functional. Major on-site trank lines and facilities will be constracted as development occurs to ensure that conformance with the Growth Management performance standard is maintained throughout the buildout of the project. Additionally, pursuant to adopted City policy, all development is required to pay appropriate sewer connection fees. A determination has not been made by CMWD that there is insufficient capacity at the EWPCF. Therefor the 127 apartment unit project will have a less than significant impact on wastewater freatment. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR concluded that the Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs project, including the 80 apartment unit project, would be adequately served by existing landfills, which have adequate capacity. The proposed 127 apartment unit project is also anticipated to resuh in a less than significant confribution to the waste fiow, and would be service by a landflll with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. As a result of the fact that the proposed project does not result in a significant intensification of the project reviewed m the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, a less than significant impact related to this issue is anticipated. 42 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Signiflcant Impact. The project will be required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (Califomia Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other applicable local, state and federal solid waste disposal standards; therefore impacts associated with this issue are less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or resfrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • • • b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limhed, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in coimection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) • • • c) Does the project have envfronmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • • • a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Signiflcant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The following discussion demonsfrates how, with mitigation, the proposed project would resuh in less than significant impacts with respect to the potential for substantially degrading the quality of the environment; substantially reducing the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threatening to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or resfrict the range of an endangered, or rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of major period of Califomia history or prehistory. Potential to degrade the qualitv of the environment. The project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated in the foregoing environmental analysis; No Impact, a Less Than Significant Impact, or a Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated is assessed to occur for each and every environmental issue addressed as a result of implementation of the project. In cases where the impact is assessed at Potentially Signiflcant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated, mitigation measures are included in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR MMRP, which will minimize impacts to a level of insignificance. 43 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. Cause a fish or wildlife populafion to drop below self- sustainmg levels. Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communitv. or reduce the number or resfrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Natural habitat resources on the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project include primarily Coastal sage scrab (CSS), Southem mixed chaparral (SMC) and Disturbed (Dist) habitats. CSS and SMC are considered sensitive habitats. The project does not propose any increase in impacts to these senshive habitats from those approved in the 80-unit project. The project property occurs within the plan area of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is the local Subarea Plan of the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). The HMP plan is, by definition, a regional plan. As noted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, the primary mhigation for impacts to HMP species under the HMP is the conservation and management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. The HMP requires that, "...in compliance with the Endangered Species Act requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mhigated to the maximum extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citywide on a project level basis." The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR adopted mhigation measures would, if implemented, specifically minimize impacts (including indirect impacts) to gnatcatchers. Indirect impacts have the potential to occur as a result of noise generated during project constraction and/or during inhial clearing and grubbmg whhin or adjacent to potentially occupied habitat. The Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR mitigation measures include compliance with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) policies, restoration of a separate lot in the Holly Springs subdivision, the recording of a conservation easement over conserved habitats, long-term management of the conserved areas by a conservation entity, endowment fundmg of long-term management, temporary fencing delineation of conserved areas durmg consfruction, and biological monitormg of constraction activities. In light of the proposed project's mitigated impact on sensitive habitats, and subject to adherence with the biological mitigation measure included m the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, impacts associated with senshive wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species or to any sensitive habitats, or wildlife in the area are determined to be less than significant as long as the mitigation measure articulated in Section IV(a) and IV(b) is adopted as part of this CEQA document and project approvals. Have the potential to substantially eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory. The site has been entirely surveyed for cultural resources. Correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission and the local Native American has taken place. No historic buildings or resources have been identified as a result of these efforts. As a result of the fact that no historical resources have been recorded or were identified in the vicinity of the project, no impact to historical resources will result from implementation ofthe project. As a result of these surveys and subsequent test investigations, h is determined that no ftirther significant shes under CEQA are known to exist on the site. However, CEQA Section 15064.5(f) requfres provisions for identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archaeological resources. Mitigation measures are included in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR which require the developer to enter into agreements for archaeological and Native American field monitors to observe the grading activities and to have the authority to halt grading to examine prehistoric resources if they are accidentally encountered during constraction activhies. As a result of the above-referenced analysis and cultural testing, and subject to implementation of the mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Sprmgs FEIR, the project will result in a less than significant impact to archaeological resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase the severity of other environmental impacts, even when the environmental impacts may be individually limited. The cumulative impact from several projects can be quantified as the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable ftiture developments. Cumulative impacts can resuh from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a particular window of time. 44 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 CEQA Guidelines, Secfion 15130(a) and (b) states: (a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Cumulative Effects - Surrounding Development Projects: The San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area and local General Plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon these projections, region-wide standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, and development standards, have all been adopted in an effort to ensure that future urbanizing and development occurring within the City will not result in a cumulatively significant impact. This cumulative impact analysis utilizes the regional growth projections method, which assumes buildout of both local and regional general plans as well as population forecasts for San Diego County and region as a whole. In addition, a number of specific cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project are included in this cumulative analysis. These cumulative projects are described below. 1. Holly Springs (Remainder) - The Holly Springs project involves the consfruction of 42 single-family homes on approximately 119 acres. Approximately 59 acres will be open space with an addhional 20-acre open space remainder parcel. The property is located adjacent and east of the proposed Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project, east of College Boulevard Reach A, approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. 2. Cantarini Ranch - Cantarini Ranch is a residential development consisting of 105 single-family homes and 80 multifamily homes on 156 acres. The site is located east of College Boulevard Reach A, one-half mile south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, east of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and south of the Holly Springs property. 3. Carlsbad High School Project - The Carlsbad High School Project involves the constraction of a 2,400 student high school in two phases. The project is located on the northeast comer of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. The first phase of the project is presently under consfruction. 4. Dos Colinas - The Dos Colinas project is a Continuing Care Retirement Community of 309 units including detached cottages, as well as independent and assisted living units, on 55.7 acres located approximately 1 mile southeast of the proposed project, on the west side of ftiture College Boulevard Reach A. College Boulevard Reach A has not yet been constracted. 5. Robertson Ranch - The Robertson Ranch project involves the constraction of a 1,154 unh mixed use development, in two separate villages, plus 175,000 square feet of commercial uses, a public park, fu-e station, office uses, and community facihties. The Robertson Ranch is located on 389 acres on the north side of Carmon Road, between El Camino Real and College Boulevard. 6. Carlsbad Oaks North - Carlsbad Oaks North is a 219 acre indusfrial park designed to include 23 mdusfrial use lots and 3 open space lots. The project is located in eastem Carlsbad, four miles south of the Robertson Ranch project, just north of Palomar Airport Road. The Carlsbad Oaks North project site is bordered by the City of Vista on the north and east. 7. Quarry Creek - The proposed Quarry Creek project involves a total of 656 high and medium-high density residential units on 156 acres located west of the intersection of College Boulevard and Marron Road m Carlsbad. 45 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 8. Legoland Hotel - Legoland Hotel Califomia proposes to constract a 250-room resort hotel in cenfral Carlsbad. The project is located on the north side of Palomar Airport Road between Legoland Drive and Hidden Valley Drive. 9. Westfield Mall Expansion - The Westfield Mall Expansion involves the redevelopment of an existing Regional Shopping Center. It is located on approximately 97 acres at the City's northem boundary along the west side of El Camino Real. The project currently has 1,151,092 square feet (sf) of gross leasable area (GLA). The Project involves the demolition, reconfiguration, and/or reconstraction of approximately 179,631 GLA sf of existing square footage, and the development of up to approximately net 35,417 GLA sf, for a total of approximately 1,186,509 GLA sf of developed regional mail. 10. Palomar Commons (Lowe's Center) - Palomar Commons (Lowe's Center) proposes a big box regional retail building area of 185,244 square feet, located in the cenfral area of Carlsbad. A Lowe's home improvement store will account for 153.974 square feet, while the remaining area is proposed as general retail stores and restaurant land uses. The project is located within LFMP Zone 5 in the indusfrial corridor surrounding McClellan-Palomar Airport on the southwest intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Cumulative Effects - Aesthetics All of the projects identified in the cumulative list, taken together, would confribute to aesthetic changes in the environment of the scenic area in and around the proposed project. These projects, when taken cumulatively, will modify the appearance of the area. Cumulative development will result in the continued alteration of the visual setting and topography of the area. Local planning policies and development standards, including specific policies related to visual resources and grading, will reduce potential aesthetic impacts of individual developments. Cumulatively, since individual development proposals will conform to the goals, policies, and recommendations of the General Plan, the cumulative impact is considered less than significant. Individual development proposals will be assessed by the City to determine consistency with the applicable development regulations and design guidelines. No significant cumulative impact to aesthetics of the area will occur as a result ofthe impacts from the cumulative projects. Cumulative Effects - Air Quality As a result of their long-term nature, any emissions from plant and project operations for pollutants for which the San Diego air basin is not in attainment with state and federal standards are considered to be cumulatively significant. The San Diego Air Basin is in franshional-attainment status of federal standards for O3. The Basin is either in attainment or unclassifled for federal standards of CO, SO2, NO2, PMio, and lead. The SDAB is also in attaiiunent of state air quality standards for all pollutants with the exception of O3 and PMio. Development forecasted for the region will generate increased emission levels from fransportation and stationary sources. Potential cumulative air quality impacts will be partially reduced through implementation and achievement of emission levels identified in the Regional Air Quality Sfrategies (RAQS) and General Plan air quality elements of local jurisdictions. Based on the expected reductions in emissions due to implementation of these plans, vehicle emissions are anticipated to gradually decrease dependent on the type of pollutant. However, combined emissions from the project she and other developed areas in the basin are expected to continue to generate emissions associated with these developments, which have the potential to exceed threshold levels. Nonetheless, as with the proposed project, each of the cumulative projects would be required to mitigate impacts. As such, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures as described in the CEQA documents for the projects, the proposed project will not confribute significant cumulative air quality impacts beyond those which would result from the projects individually. Cumulative Effects - Biological Resources The increase in urbanization of currently vacant land will impact existing natural habitats and biological resources. The City's HMP anticipates ftiture development within the City, and addresses biological impacts on a cumulative level by implementing a habitat plan that will ensure preservation of important biological resources and maintenance of habitat coimectivity. The various cumulative projects mclude substantial open space in conformance with the City's General Plan and HMP which will ensure biological preservation within the City. Wildlife corridors will be established in accordance with HMP hardline preserve areas that will connect open space on the respective properties in order to preserve a maximum 46 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 amount of confluent habitat for local biological resources. This corridor will ultimately adjoin with the large open space areas of the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank, Calavera Heights Mitigation Site, and Lake Calavera City Mitigation Bank to the north, and with the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve to the east of the project sites. The project would confribute to the long-term cumulative enhancement of the HMP through extension of Core Area 3 though open space easements and biological conservation areas. A sliver (0.99 acres) of the northem portion of the subject project site is proposed as a biological open space conservation easement, creating a substantive confribution to the HMP. This HMP section will contmue immediately north and east of the subject site to proposed open space and biological conservation areas located on the southem parcel of the Dos Colinas site and beyond. The cumulative impact to biological resources will be mitigated to a level less than significant through implementation of the HMP. The City of Carlsbad is a participant in the MHCP Program and has adopted a Habhat Management Plan (HMP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal ESA. The MHCP considers biological resource conservation on a sub-regional scale and therefore serves as an appropriate format for analysis of cumulative impacts. The City's HMP provides the local implementation guidelines for compliance with the MHCP policies. As such, the HMP provides the mitigation policy guidelines which address the effects of both individual and cumulative development. Therefore, if a project is determined to be consistent with the HMP, or in conjunction with the adoption of mhigation measures is found to be consistent with the HMP, then, by definition, hs cumulative effects are not significant. The project's compliance with the mhigation measures identified in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR will ensure that the impacts to biological resources are mitigated to a level less than significant. Fiuther, the HMP provides regional mifigation for cumulafive biological resource impacts. If a project is determined to be consistent with the MHCP (and the City of Carlsbad's associated subarea plan - the HMP) and h provides appropriate mhigation to ensure less than significant impacts, then hs cumulative effects would by definhion, be in compliance with the "take" authorizations of the HMP. Thus, as long as all cumulative projects are found to be consistent with the MHCP and the HMP, no significant cumulative effects on biological resources would resuh from implementation of these projects. Cumulative Effects - Cultural Resources Cumulative development is expected to impact existing cultural resources in the region. The project's compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR will ensure that the project-specific impact to significant cultural resources is mhigated to a level less than significant. On a broader scope, archaeological and cultural resom-ces are protected through Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, other federal and state laws, and local ordinances, including the City's Cultural Resource Guidelines. Future cumulative development within the region would be subject to review under CEQA and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations protecting cultural resources. Impacts to cultural resources as a resuh of development in the region would be reduced to a level less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis. Geologic formations within the project she have the potential to contain paleontological resources. Any earthwork involving these formations has the potential to impact paleontological resources. Mitigation will reduce the impact to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Implementation of paleontological studies, monitoring during constraction, and recovery of important fossils would reduce the cumulative impact to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Cumulative Effects - Geology and Soils Constraction of the cumulative projects identified in the cumulative projects list identified in this document will all take place in a relatively seismically active area. However, the area including the cumulative projects is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. Generally acknowledged geological information indicates that the potential for rapture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. Constraction of the proposed cumulative projects would not exacerbate any of these geotechnical hazards. Tectonic movement, which is independent of human influence, solely affects these conditions. Due to the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. For these reasons, project impacts would be less than significant. The potential for stractural or infrastractural damage from seismic ground shaking or liquefaction will be mitigated by ensuring the projects are constracted to the 2010 Califomia Building Code (CBC) standards for the southem Califomia area. All projects in the cumulative projects list are subject to these standards. Constraction to this standard will minimize 47 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 impacts to the project from design-basis earthquakes and be protective of life and property. More specifically, the sfructures and facilities associated with the cumulative projects will be designed and consfructed to withstand sfrong earthquake- shaking as specified in the 2007 Uniform Buildmg Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. Constraction to this standard will minimize impacts to the projects from ground shaking from earthquake and fremors, and will thus be protective of life and properties. Cumulative development of the properties would result in an increase in population and development that would be exposed to hazardous geological conditions. Geologic arid soils condhions are typically site specific and can be addressed through appropriate engineering practices. Cumulative impacts to geologic resources would be considered significant if the proposed project would be impacted by geologic hazards(s) and if the impact could combine whh offsite geologic hazards to be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project's incremental effects are not cumulatively considerable. Geologic conditions in the Southem Califomia region will essentially be the same regardless of the amount of development and the cumulative geologic impact is considered less than significant. No significant cumulative impact to geology/soils will occur. Cumulative Effects - Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA lead agencies must assess whether the emissions from the proposed project are "cumulatively considerable" even though the project's GHG emissions may be individually limited. Individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by- project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice. Even a very large individual project cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to measurably influence climate change. It is a project's incremental confribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHG that together form anthropogenic climate change impacts. However, the theory that an increase of one molecule of an air pollutant constitutes a significant increase cannot be the basis of a de-facto significance threshold. An individual project confributes to cumulative GHG emissions through constraction, increased vehicular fravel, and increased energy consumption. Each project can reduce its own GHG emissions through project-level review and mhigation, including energy efficiency features, green building programs, water recycling, and similar measures. However, the cumulative impact of GHG emissions, and therefore climate change, cannot be mitigated on a piecemeal, case-by-case basis. It is the regional development pattem, land use, and fransportation policies that determine the cumulative impact in which a project participates. The proposed project would incrementally increase greenhouse gas emissions. However, the proposed project would minimize energy consumption, including fransportation energy, water conservation and solid-waste reduction through the siting, orientation, and design of the residential units, including compliance with Energy Star requirements. The proposed 127 apartment unit project would not significantly increase density on the project site as compared to the project assessed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR. As such, the proposed project would not significantly increase the emissions from the project, and thus would be consistent with the goals of AB 32, which requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limh equivalent so 1990 emissions. In addhion, as with all projects in Califomia, the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the requirements of AB 32. As a resuh, the proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Cumulative Effects - Hazards and Hazardous Materials The development of the projects within the cumulative projects list has the potential to result in impacts related to hazards/hazardous materials. However, these impacts, in conjunction with the mitigation measures identified in the Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, would be reduced to a level of less than significant. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to confribute to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. No significant cumulative impact to hazardous materials or hazards will occur. Further, existing federal, state and local laws address the handling of hazardous materials and the fransportation and use of hazardous materials. Any risk of a fue and/or explosion would be reduced through compliance with these applicable codes, regulations, and industry design/constraction standards. Compliance with these laws and regulations will ensure that hazardous materials at the cumulative projects are safely managed. As a resuh, assuming compliance with worker safety and hazardous materials regulations, no significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials will result from the cumulative development of these projects. 48 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Cumulative Effects - Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Constraction, and other applicable portions of the federal Clean Water Act, including the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Confrol Act, or Section 401. Also, the City of Carlsbad has adopted a Storm Water Management and Discharge Confrol Ordinance. This ordinance requires that all new development and redevelopment activhies comply with the City's adopted storm water pollution protection requirements. Development of cumulative projects within the cumulative projects list has the potential to increase the amount of erosion due to the alteration of drainage pattems and increased amounts of impervious surfaces. However, proposed project drainage confrol and hydromodification feattires identified in this document will ensure that the impact is less than significant. Cumulative projects will be subject to the same local, state, and federal regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality, and appropriate best management practices will be implemented to ensure no significant impact occurs. Also, improvements identified in the City's Master Drainage Plan would adequately confrol hydrology within the watershed. Regional pollution confrol facilities, including the proposed onsite water quality facilities will ensure that there are no significant cumulative impacts associated with water quality/hydrology. The project's compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR, and the other cumulative project's compliance with mitigation measures associated with those projects, will ensure that the project-specific impact to significant cultural resources is mitigated to a level less than significant. Cumulative Effects - Land Use and Planning Cumulative impacts analysis to land use are defined as impacts that result from incremental changes m land use that would cumulatively result in substantial disraption within an established community, or cumulatively result in conflicts with adopted land use or zoning plans and policies. The project site is surrounded by a range of existing land uses (i.e., Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, Rancho Carlsbad golf course, as well as planned urban uses (i.e., Holly Springs, Cantarini Ranch, Carlsbad High School located at the northeast comer of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, Robertson Ranch, and the extension of College Boulevard Reach "A".) Land uses in the City will significantiy change during buildout of the area. Achievement of orderly growth will be dependent upon development in the ftiture occurring in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan, Growth Management Plan, and development regulations. Because the City has adopted these plans, and will continue to implement these plans, which will, in tum, avoid significant land use impacts, no cumulative impact will occur. The proposed development has been determined to be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses as well as approved and anticipated land uses. The previous Certified Cantarini/Holly Springs FEIR determined that no significant project impact would occur to existing land use plans and policies, including the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, and specific regulatory and environmental documents adopted by the City. The project-level land use impact is considered less than significant. Therefore, the project will not confribute to a significant cumulative impact to land use. No significant cumulative impact to land use will occur, Cumulative land use impacts could occur if the development of the proposed project and other related planned future cumulative projects which are presently inconsistent with applicable plans and policies were to develop together. However, it is anticipated that the appropriate amendments to the land use and planning policy documents will be processed and completed prior to development of the projects. The project will not result in a significant population/housing impact. The population growth associated with the proposed project is within' projected population levels as contemplated in the City's Grovrth Management Plan, Cumulative projects would not displace people as a result of removing residential units nor will the projects add people beyond the levels contemplated in existmg plans as a result of the development of new residential units. No cumulative population/housing impact is anticipated. Cumulative Effects - Noise In general, noise impacts associated with the majority of the cumulative projects identified in the cumulative impacts list are long-term effects related to fraffic generated by the several planned developments. These cumulative fraffic impacts generally increase over time, as buildout of the City of Carlsbad and the surrounding region nears completion. Therefore it is anticipated that as cumulative projects develop, mitigation to address their noise impacts will be employed for each project, in order to protect senshive receptors and to comply with City policy. 49 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Consttniction noise ofthe cumulative projects is also a source of noise. Were the projects to develop cumulatively, it is not anticipated that those cumulative impacts would reach a level of significance. The time frame for constraction of the proposed mdividual projects is generally relatively short, and h is therefore not anticipated that ambient noise levels will increase substantially beyond current levels before completion of project constraction. Although specific environmental analyses for many of these cumulative projects have not been completed at the time of the ND, standard mitigation measures exist to ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad allowable noise levels and thus to reduce noise impacts to a less-than significant level. In consideration of these requirements, it is not anticipated that the project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, would result in significant noise impacts. Cumulative Effects - Traffic and Circulafion The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan (CMC 21.90) disallows approval of any development which is projected to result in any road segment or mtersection in the zone nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in the zone to be projected to exceed a service level C during off- peak hours, or service level D during peak hours. Impacted means where twenty percent or more of the fraffic generated by the Local Facility Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection. The determination of compliance with these Growth Management Standards is to evaluate impacted road segments and intersections that are impacted by at least 20% of the fraffic projected to be generated by the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone in which the project(s) is located, based on the assumed phasing of development and roadway/fraffic improvements. Computer fravel forecasts used for the analysis of existing, short-term and long-term (assumed buildout) have been evaluated using surrounding fraffic volume estimates using the SANDAG Regional Transportation Model for the City of Carlsbad, Traffic impact analyses are inherently cumulative. The cumulative impacts analysis for fraffic and circulation considers the intersections and road segments to which proposed projects could confribute to a cumulative impact. Since the time frame for constraction of these projects is relatively short and may or may not occur simuhaneously, it is not anticipated that a substantial increase in current fraffic levels resulting from cumulative development will occur prior to completion of constraction of these projects. Therefore, temporary fraffic impacts associated with these projects will cease prior to any substantial cumulative fraffic impacts being realized on local roadways and intersections. Therefore constraction-related impacts to roadways and hitersections are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project fraffic impacts and cumulative fraffic impacts are evaluated in the North County SANDAG Series 11 Model for Years 2020 and 2030. These fraffic models contain planned and existing developments land use information throughout San Diego County. In particular, the City of the Carlsbad requested that the cumulative projects listed above be included in the model rans. The following is a brief description of each cumulative project included in the model rans. In the year 2010 SANDAG ran, all intersections will operate at a LOS D or better without the project in Year 2020 and would continue to operate at the same LOS with the addhion of project fraffic. Based on the established significance criteria no significant fraffic impact is identified in Year 2020 at these intersections. Additionally, under the Year 2020 without project conditions, all street segments are expected to operate at LOS A, with the exception of southbound College Boulevard to Faraday Avenue during the AM peak hour, which is expected to operate at LOS B. With the addition of the project fraffic, all sfreet segments would continue to operate at a LOS B or better and no significant fraffic impact is identified hi Year 2020 at these sfreet segments. In the year 2030 SANDAG run, all intersections included in the fraffic study area are calculated to operate at LOS D or better, whhout the project in Year 2O30 and would continue to operate at the same LOS whh the addition of the project fraffic. Based on the established significance criteria, no significant project related impacts would occur. Additionally, under Year 2030 without project conditions, all of the study area sfreet segments are expected to operate at LOS C or better. These street segments would continue to operate at LOS C or better under the Year 2030 with project conditions: therefore, no significant impacts would occur. As a result of these factors, the proposed project will not confribute to a significant cumulative impact to fraffic/circulation. 50 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 Cumulative Effects - Public Utilities and Service Systems Cumulative development will increase the population of the City, resulting in an increased demand on public services and utilities. However, the City of Carlsbad has established the requirements for preparation of, and amendments to, the LFMP as part of the City's Growth Management Program in order to anticipate and prepare for this ftiture growth and any potential stram on services. Conformance with and periodic review of the LFMP for each respective zone will ensure The adequate provision of public services and utilities, Therefore, no significant cumulative impact to public services and UtiHties will occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. The incorporation of design measures identified in the project description, applicable City of Carlsbad policies and standards, and applicable state and federal guidelines, will ensure that no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, will resuh from the project. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. 51 Encinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 XVIH. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mhigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mhigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 52 P- Enciti Tncinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Cartsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Fmal Environmental Impact Report for the Cantarini/Holly Springs Developments. EIR 02-02. October 2004. 3. Capital Improvement Program. City of Carlsbad, Finance Department, 2008-2013. 4. State of Califomia CEQA Guidelines. State of Califomia Natural Resources Agency. July 27, 2007. 5. Tentative Map and Site Development Plan Amendment for Encinas Creek Apartment Homes. O'Day Consultants, December, 2010. 6. Sewer Master Plan. City of Carlsbad, March, 2003. 7. Scenic Corridor Guidelines. Citv of Carlsbad. Julv 1. 1988. 8. Regulatorv Guidance Letter. US Army Corps of Engineers, RGL 08-02. June 26, 2008. 9. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. Fmal Approval November, 2004. 10. Califomia Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment. Unhed States Geological Survey. October. 2003. 11. Uniform Building Code - Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 12. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Califomia. Califomia Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, October 2007. 13. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Encinas Creek Apartment Homes. O'Dav Consultants. April 19, 2012. 14. Drainage Study for Encinas Creek Apartment Homes. O'Day Consultants, April 19, 2012. 15. Citv of Carlsbad Emergency Operations Plan. June 9. 2003. 16. McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibilitv Plan -. Carlsbad, Califomia. (March 4, 2010.) Approved by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 17. Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21; Zoning Ordinance. City of Carlsbad. Updated through November, 2009. 18. Draft Noise Guidelines Manual. City of Carlsbad. 1998 19. San Diego County Regulatory Ordinances, San Diego Countv Noise Ordinance. Section 36.409-410, County of San Diego. Amended November 19, 2008. 20. Transportation Analvsis for 127 Unh MDR Short Term Conditions Without College Boulevard Prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated June 13, 2011 21. LFMP Zone 15 ADT Traffic Update. Urban Systems, April 18, 2012. 22. Zone 15 Local Facilites Management Plan. City of Carlsbad, October 19,2011. 23. Carlsbad General Plan - Circulation Element, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March, 1994. 53 P- Encu i.ncinas Creek Apartment Homes SDP 01-10(A)/CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) The project site was the subject of a previous CEQA review in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on November 14, 2006. According to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions in connection with issuance of rales, regulations or plans. Thus, the FEIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within the Cantarini/Holly Springs project area. The project is in compliance with the mitigation measures adopted in the FEIR, and through the analysis of additional plans, reports, and studies pertaining to biological resources, geotechnical, hydrology, storm water management, and noise. A determination has been made that with the implementation of the FEIR mitigation measures, no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mhigated for by the FEIR will result from this project. The FEIR mitigation measures are considered part of the project and thus it is not necessary to consider them to be mhigation measures of this Negative Declaration. 54 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed: fa'^S^"' /1 (To be completed by City) Application Number(s):SOP 00—// CiT t ( - General Information 1. Name of project: Encinas Creek Apartment Homes 2. Name of developer or project sponsor: Holly Springs LTD Address: P-O- Box 2484 City, State, Zip Code: Carlsbad. CA 92011 Phone Number: (760) 809-7612 Name of person to be contacted concerning this project: Ken Cablay/Seabourne Dev. Co. Address- Palomar Airport Rd., Suite 300 City, State, Zip Code: Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone Number: (760) 931-5616 4. Address of Project: College Blvd., between Cannon Rd. and El Camino Real Assessor's Parcel Number: 168-050-58, 59 5. List and describe any other related permits and other pubiic approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Tentative Map and Amended Site Development Plan with standards modification 6. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: RMH 7. Existing zoning district: ^ 8. Existing land use(s): Vacant 9. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form Is filed): 127 multi-family apartment units• Project Description 10. Site size: 7.52 acs. 11. Proposed Building square footage: 5 apartment buildings - 191,700 sf; clubhouse 2,969 sf 12: Numberof floors of construction: ^ 13. Amount of off-street parking provided: 262 14. Associated projects: CT 00-21, HDP 00-12, CT 00-18 j P-1(D) Page 2 of 4 i Revised 07/10 15. If residential, include the number of units and schedule of unit sizes: 1 bdrm - 760 sf and 834 sf. 49 units; 2 bdrm - 1100 sf and 1174 sf, 60 units; 3 bdrm - 1374 sf, 18 units. 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning applications, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A P-1(D) Page 3 of 4 Revised 07/10 >Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial • S alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or • 1^1 roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of projecL Q El 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. • ^ 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. • 0 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or • S alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. • [xl 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. • [3 28. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, O tH flammables or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, O |3 etc.). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). • [2 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. • [3 Environmental Setting Attach sheets that include a response to the following questions: 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the projecf including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 33. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and In the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: >f ^itiAja^ fan P-1(D) Page 4 of 4 Revised 07/10 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Environmental Setting 32. The Encinas Creek Apartment Home parcel is part of the Cantarini (CT 00-18) and Holly Springs (CT 00-21) subdivisions. Both projects were approved as part of EIR 02-02. The project site lies within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of Southern California. The general location is north of El Camino Real, east of College Boulevard, west of the City of Oceanside, and south of undeveloped land belonging to the State of California and various private landowners. The project site is located with the City's LFMP Zone 15. Much ofthe Encinas Creek Apartment Homes site has been disturbed and has been used for agriculture. Agriculture lands make up a majority ofthe project site, with native vegetation areas on the northern portion of the site, comprising of Diegan coastal sage scrub and Southern mixed chapparal. 33. Land uses surrounding the proposed Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project include predominately residential and vacant land characterized by agriculture and native vegetation. Residential uses in the vicinity include single-family, multi-family and mobile homes. The new Carlsbad Unified School District high school is under construction to the north, the master planned community of Robertson Ranch lies to the northwest, the proposed Dos Colinas senior living project is immediately west, and the approved Cantarini Ranch project is adjacent to the south. Vacant lands owned by the State of California and other private entities nearby will remain as permanent open space. Non-residential land uses are located in the project vicinity. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile to the north of El Camino Real. Uses adjacent to El Camino Real include residential as well as office/industrial parks. The McClellan- Palomar Airport is located approximately 1.1 miles southwest ofthe project site. CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: NOVEMBER 30. 2012 PROJEa NO{S): CT 11-03/SDP 01-10{A)/PUD 12-03 REVIEW NO: 4 PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: O'DAY CONSULTANTS/SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Administration I I Police Department - J. Sasway 1X1 Fire Department-Greg Ryan 1X1 Building Department-Will Foss 1 1 Recreation - Mark Steyaert I 1 Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque 1^ CMWD-Bill Plummer Xl Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA 1 1 School District I I North County Transit District - Planning Department I 1 Sempra Energy - Land Management 1 1 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 1^ Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •^ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 12/20/12. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. COMMENTS: / jg ^O^^j.^^-k /^v^^/a'^j^Cwt^ S»g^->4Ag^^ signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Discretionary Review Checklist PROJECT NUMBER: CT 11-03 / SDP01-10(A) / PUD12-03 BUILDING ADDRESS: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 127 D.U. APARTMENT COMPLEX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 168-050-58, 168-050-59 FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans. Information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these Items after this date. Including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to Insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result In suspension of permit to build. By: G. Ryan Date: 03.05.2013 DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with S. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: By: By: Date: Date: De'e: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 (7t>0) 602-4665 COMMENTS Christer Westman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jeremy Riddle Wednesday, January 02, 2013 9:51 AM Christer Westman Glen Van Peski; Bridget Desmarais; Sabrina Michelson Encinas creek apartments CT 11-03/SDP 01-10A/OPUD 12-03 Christer- Other than the applicant signing sheet 1 of the site plan, LDE has no further issues with this application. Please route a request for conditions when appropriate. Thanks. Glen- FYI. Bridget/Sabrina- Please log out from LDE as of today. ^ CITT Of CARLSBAD (,C)r'ifTUjn>lv ti fciHiuriiK 5)rve!opr~it;n Jeremy Riddle, CPESC, QSD Associate Engineer Land Development Engineering City of Carlsbad www.carlsbadca.gov P; 760-602-2737 F; 760-602-1052 jeremy.riddle@carlsbadca.gov CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: NOVEMBER 30. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): a 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES REVIEW NO: APPLICANT: O'DAY CONSULTANTS/SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Administration 1 1 Police Department - J. Sasway Xl Fire Department-Greg Ryan Xl Building Department - Will Foss I 1 Recreation - Mark Steyaert I 1 Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque 1^ CMWD-Bill Plummer XI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA I I School District I 1 North County Transit District - Planning Department I 1 Sempra Energy - Land Management I 1 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) XI Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 12/20/12. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review 8i Comment 03/10 Housing Policy Team December 17, 2012 RevLenn Proposal • Rezoning Tchang Property (Carlsbad Oaks Lot 1) - Industrial to Residential; approximately 150 units • ReyLenn Proposal: 5% Low (80% AMI) and 15% Moderate (110%) • Staff Preliminary Review Response: at least 15% low income (23 at 70% AMI); additional may be required depending on final number of units approved and other modifications requested. • What amount of affordable does Policy Team want to apply to project? Team action: Decision from team was that any residential project on the site will be required to provide a minimum of 15% of the total units affordable to low income households with rents set at 70% of the San Diego County AMI. No moderate income units to be required. The property owner also needs to hold any formal application for a residential project on property until such time as the rezoning of property by the City is complete. Holly Springs MDR Property (Susan Kelly) Policy Team supported 127 units (additional 47 units from original approval) Developer proposed 63 (50%) low income; Team accepted at 70% AMI Combined project supported, with conversion of remaining market rate to affordable. Developer proposal: allowed to sell 63 housing credits to other developers Staff consideration; at least 40 must meet holly springs and Cantarini requirements; 23 "extra" credits can be sold to other developers. Team action: Decision by team to allow the property owner/project developer to sell 21 credits out of the 63 required to be income and rent restricted; other market rate units could also be converted to income and rent restricted units to sell more credits if desired. La Costa Towne Center (Excel Trust) • Request for developer to incorporate 60 residential apartments into redevelopment of commercial center (originally known at Plaza de la Costa Real) at La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. • Developer proposal is for 20% of units to be affordable to low and moderate income • Staff consideration; 15% of units affordable to low income at 70% of AMI and 20% and moderate income (100% AMI) Team action: Decision by team to accept proposal by developer for 15% of the units to be income and rent restricted to low income households at 70% of AMI and 5% at moderate income at 100% of AMI. IV. Coastal Living LLC (O'Day consuhants) • Developer requesting to purchase 2 credits on Cassia Heights in order to build a 10 unit condominium project on Navarra Drive (APN; 216-170-19) • Staff consideration; supporting the purchase of credits for off-site solution to inclusionary requirement Team action: Decision by team to support the purchase of 2 credits in Cassia Heights V. Taylor Morrison - CT 12-05 - La Costa Towne Square • Request from Developer to purchase credits in Villa Loma; Rancho Santa Fe at Paseo Lupino • 32 single family detached condominium units proposed; 6 credits required if go off-site; 5 units required on-site • Staff consideration; support the purchase of credits for off-site solution to inclusionary requirement Team action: Decision by team to support the purchase of 6 credits by Taylor Morrison in the Cassia Heights project to meet the inclusionary requirements for the subject project. CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: NOVEMBER 30. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): a 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES REVIEW NO: APPLICANT: O'DAY CONSULTANTS/SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. TO; ^ Land Development Engineering-Administration 1 I Police Department - J. Sasway XI Fire Department - Greg Ryan XI Building Department - Will Foss 1 I Recreation - Mark Steyaert 1 1 Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque 13 CMWD-Bill Plummer XI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA 1 1 School District 1 1 North County Transit District - Planning Department 1 1 Sempra Energy - Land Management 1 1 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 13 Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 12/20/12. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you " COMMENTS: f^^h Hi 9pA^^ C^l^ i^iuT) 'd /dduJ^ ^( U J Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 CU) CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: NOVEMBER 30. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): a 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 REVIEW NO: PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: O'DAY CONSULTANTS/SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. TO: ^ Land Development Engineering-Administration 1 I Police Department-J. Sasway XI Fire Department - Greg Ryan XI Building Department - Will Foss I 1 Recreation - Mark Steyaert 1 1 Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque 13 CMWD-Bill Plummer XI Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA 1 I School District 1 1 North County Transit District - Planning Department 1 1 Sempra Energy - Land Management 1 1 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) [3 Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 12/20/12. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: APRIL 26. 2012 PROJEa NO(S): a 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 REVIEW NO: 3 (1^^ REVIEW FOR PUD 12-03) PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: SEABORNE DEVELOPMENT TO: 13 Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley 1 1 Police Department - J. Sasway 13 Fire Department - Greg Ryan 3 Building Department - Will Foss \ I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I 1 Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque 1 1 Water/Sewer District 3 Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA 1 1 School District 1 I North County Transit District - Planning Department I 1 Sempra Energy - Land Management 1 1 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 1 1 Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv 05/17/2012. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS Signature Date PL^NS ATTACHED Review 8i Comment 05/11 Q.VJ Christer Westman From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:45 PM To: Christer Westman; Gary Barberio; Don Neu Cc: Chris DeCerbo; David de Cordova; Jennifer Jesser Subject: RE: Meta housing The Housing Policy Staff Team has indicated support for 127 units on the MDR/Kelly site, with conditions that 50% be affordable to low income households. But, the project hasn't yet moved forward for approval (amendment to original permit for 80 units). From: Christer Westman Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:38 PM To: Debbie Fountain; Gary Barberio; Don Neu Cc: Chris DeCerbo; David de Cordova; Jennifer Jesser Subject: RE: Meta housing With these three separate examples of property owners that are vying for northeast units, will it end up being first- come-first-served or are the areas targeted by Envision first priority? What are the chances of being able to gain additional units for the quadrant by shifting from the northwest for example? Debbie, have any promises been made to Susan Kelly on the Encinas Creek Apartments project? From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:28 PM To: Christer Westman; Gary Barberio; Don Neu Cc: Chris DeCerbo; David de Cordova; Jennifer Jesser Subject: RE: Meta housing Hi all. Just to add some additional information. Chelsea is also talking to Rancho Carlsbad about purchasing the 4 acre northern piece of the BJ Retention Basin property they own. Chelsea would like to build 80 -100 units of affordable housing on the site. We also still have Susan Kelly pushing for some additional density on the MDR site at Holly Springs. Just something to think about as related to additional residential units in the NE quadrant. © Debbie From: Christer Westman Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:20 PM To: Gary Barberio; Don Neu; Debbie Fountain Cc: Chris DeCerbo; David de Cordova; Jennifer Jesser Subject: RE: Meta housing Hello All. I spoke with Dave D. today and as an outcome I will contact Meta with a brief summary of what is happening with regard to the northeast quad and direct them to Jennifer for a more in depth discussion regarding envision as well as strategy if they should want to move forward to the next step. From: Gary Barberio Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:29 PM To: Christer Westman; Don Neu; DebbieTountain Cc: Chris DeCerbo; David de Cordova; Jennifer Jesser Subject: RE: Meta housing Christer - the northwest quadrant EDUB capacity is quite limited. That number is a key piece of info they will need to understand. Also, Envision Carlsbad is well underway and that is also something they need to fully understand. The Planning Div will need to have this discussion with them prior to them getting too much further down the road. Who is going to take the lead? GTB From: Christer Westman Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:08 PM To: Gary Barberio; Don Neu; Debbie Fountain Cc: Chris DeCerbo Subject: Meta housing Just as an FYI Steve Bobbett, Greg Ryan, and I met with Meta Housing today. They have an interest in Robertson Ranch PA 22 for senior housing. Three story attached apartments. Mixed market and affordable. We went over the land use issues and processes for changing the property from Office to residential. That Rancho Carlsbad had issues with housing at this location. That all proposed units would have to come out ofthe excess dwelling unit bank. Brookfield was also at the meeting and was ofthe opinion that senior restricted housing would not be an issue with Rancho Carlsbad. They will consider and potentially meet with Rancho Carlsbad to gage support/opposition. Christer CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: DECEMBER 22. 2011 PROJEa NO(S): a 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) REVIEW NO: 2 PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO./KEN CABLAY TO; 3 Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley I I Police Department-J. Sasway 1 1 Fire Department - Greg Ryan XI Building Department - Will Foss 1 I Recreation - Mark Steyaert I I Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque I 1 Water/Sewer District 3 Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA 1 I School District 1 I North County Transit District - Planning Department 1 I Sempra Energy-Land Management 1 1 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) 1 1 Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 1/12/12. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you . COMMENTS: r*^ C&mmmTS\ ^ C^yftyi PL^JW f^lf/LD//V &- 0)P^ /" Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 Januarys, 2012 TO: Pam Adams, CMWD FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect RE: Landscape /Architectural Review - Conceptual Review - 2"** Review Encinas Creek Apartment Homes, CT 11-03, SDP 00-15(A) College Boulevard PELA file: 431 - Encinas Creek Apartment Homes - memol Landscape Architect: The Lightfoot Planning Group, Phone: (760) 692-1924 Pam, Please review the attached plans for the use of recycled water. Let me know if you have any issues. Thanks, Mike CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO ^1 il DATE: JUNE 28. 2011 PROJEa NO(S): Ml«O3/SOP00-15(A) REVIEW NO: % PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: HOLLY SPRINGS, LTD. TO: 3 • • • 3 • • • • • Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley Police Department-J. Sasway Fire Department - Greg Ryan Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy - Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the MiMinilfiiGTRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 FaradayAvenue, bv ^l||^/'jl^A. Ifyou have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS: Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 "''""'"^'YRevie* Checklist -ROJEa NUMBER: CT 11-03 / SOP 00-15 REVIEW: 1 PROJEailTLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HC ^/ ES APPUCANT: HOLLY SPRINGS, LTD. FIRE COMMENTS: Please note on the site plan that an automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the residential structure and the Rec. / Leasing area. All fire department connections shall be located within 90 feet of a fire hydrant. Provide a maintenance standard for the "transitional slope to native vegetation" and indicated on sheet L-l. The required flre flow Is 3000 GPM at 20psi for 4 hour duration. (Please note on site plan) Fire Access road surface shall be of an impervious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load a 75,000 pounds axel weight. (Please note on site plan) Dominic Fieri 7-18-11 Discretionary Review Checklist PROJEa NUMBER: CT 11-03 / SDP 00-15 REVIEW: 1 PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: HOLLY SPRINGS, LTD. FIRE COMMENTS: Please note on the site plan that an automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the residential structure and the Rec. / Leasing area. All fire department connections shall be located within 90 feet of a fire hydrant. Provide a maintenance standard for the "transitional slope to native vegetation" and indicated on sheet L-l. The required fire flow is 3000 GPM at 20psi for 4 hour duration. (Please note on site plan) Fire Access road surface shall be of an impervious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load a 75,000 pounds axel weight. (Please note on site plan) CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO DATE: JUNE 28. 2011 PROJEa NO(S): cr 11-03/SDP 00-15(A) REVIEW NO: 1 PROJEa TITLE: ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES APPLICANT: HOLLY SPRINGS, LTD. TO; 3 3 3 • • • 3 • • • • • Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley Police Department - J. Sasway Fire Department - Greg Ryan Building Department - Will Foss Recreation - Mark Steyaert Public Works Department (Streets) - Nick Roque Water/Sewer District Landscape Plancheck Consultant - PELA School District North County Transit District - Planning Department Sempra Energy - Land Management Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) Parks/Trails - Liz Ketabian •ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 7/19/11. If you have "No Comments," please so state. If vou determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediatelv contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you . COMMENTS: hW^^^yTUrS nffHl^^fMB^ ftr (^/"^(^ 10 Signature Date PLANS ATTACHED Review & Comment 03/10 •'0)J ^ CiTY OF ^ CARLSBAD Housing & Neighborhood Services WVN/W.carlsbadca.gov June 2, 2011 Mr. Ken Cablay SeaBourne Development Co. 701 Palomar Airport Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ken: Thank you for your letter dated May 9, 2011 regarding the Holly Springs MDR Property; SDP 01- 10. Based on your correspondence, there are two remaining concerns that the Kelly family has regarding the negotiations related to staff support for the increased density on the Holly Springs MDR site. I believe we have had discussions on these matters in previous meetings and had agreement, but it appears that there remains a misunderstanding as to staff's reasoning for its negotiated position on the affordability and availability of credits within the noted project. It is my hope that I can address those concerns and assist you to better understand the city's position and reasoning for that negotiated position. Inclusionary Reauirement Per the Inclusionary Ordinance, Chapter 21.85, the required number of lower-income inclusionary units shall be fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential units approved by the final decision-making authority. Please note that "total residential units" does not distinguish between market-rate and affordable units; the inclusionary requirement is calculated on total units. In addition, Cantarini Ranch has already been approved to participate in an off-site combined project for inclusionary housing purposes, which is identified as the Holly Springs MDR site. The Cantarini Ranch inclusionary requirement was calculated (below) according to the fact that it is being met in an off-site combined project. The inclusionary requirements are summarized below: Project Total Units Inclusionary (off-site) Inclusionary (on-site) Cantarini 105 19 0 Holly Springs 43 0 6 MDR 127 0 19 Total 275 19 25 In total, ifthe additional density is approved forthe Holly Springs MDR site as proposed, the total inclusionary requirement for Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs/MDR will be 44 units total. Housing & Neighborhood Services 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B 1 Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2810 I 760-720-2037 fax Mr. Ken Cablay June 2, 2011 Page 2 To meet the requirements ofthe Inclusionary Ordinance, these units must have rents set at thirty percent (30%) of seventy percent (70%) ofthe San Diego County Area Median Income (AMI). Low income households may qualify at eighty percent (80%) of the AMI. However, the rents must be set at 70% of AMI. Therefore, at a minimum, there will be a requirement that 44 units total must have rents set at 70% of AMI to meet the inclusionary ordinance. Per my correspondence, the additional units (19 total) that we are requiring have rents set at 70% of AMI is a negotiated position in order to gain city support for the additional density, as I discussed in my correspondence to you dated July 16, 2010 and again on March 31, 2011. Site Development Plan - Density Increase It is unfortunate that the 70% of AMI rental rate is being viewed as a "deal breaker" at this point in time. My correspondence of July 16, 2010 indicated that this is the affordability level that would be acceptable to the City. We asked that the developer either 1) make the units provided for inclusionary more affordable (reduced rent levels); or, 2) increase the number of units affordable at 70% of AMI to 50% of the total (63 total). It is not our intent to "penalize" the Kelly family in any way for offering up additional affordable units in exchange for added density on the MDR site. However, in approving additional residential density through the site development plan process, Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows the City to impose special conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards and/or requirements set forth elsewhere. This is to ensure that there is adequate public benefit to the action being supported by the City. Affordability levels at 70% of AMI offer a greater public benefit than rents set at 80% of AMI, which in some cases have been the same or higher than market rents. At this point, staff intends to continue with the recommendation set forth in my correspondence of March 31, 2011 unless an alternate proposal is set forth which provides for a similar public benefit. An alternative might be for the Kelly family to agree to a condition for the 19 additional restricted units that indicates that the monthly rents would be set not to exceed 30% of 80% of AMI, and would not exceed 90% of market rate rents under any circumstance. In this case, we could obtain assurances that the rents for the affordable units would be affordable and remain less than market rate rents for the term ofthe agreement (55 years). The required inclusionary units (44 total) would, however, need to remain at the affordable monthly rate of 30% of 70% of AMI to satisfy the inclusionary requirements. Housing Credits As noted above, through the Housing Policy Team, the City is negotiating an increase in the number of inclusionary affordable units within the MDR site (from 15% to 50%) in exchange for support for the developer's requested increase in residential density (80 to 127 unit total) for the property. In effect, these additional units at 70% of AMI are considered the same as inclusionary units for regulatory purposes, and are not considered excess units that are available for sale to other developers. Although the project does meet other city housing goals. Mr. Ken Cablay June 2, 2011 Page 3 I was under the impression that we all understood that this was a negotiated increase in the inclusionary requirement in order to obtain City support for the increased residential on the site. Based on the City's current position, the only method for providing excess units to sell to other developers (as housing credits) would be to convert remaining market rate units (64 total) to affordable units. I am sorry for any confusion created on this matter. At a minimum, the 44 required inclusionary units would not be considered excess and could not be sold to other developers. For the remaining 19 units, staff believes that these units are also "required units" as a result ofthe higher density that is being considered through the site development plan amendment. Staff was initially not supportive of increased density on this site for a number of reasons. Staff is now supporting higher density with the understanding that there is additional public benefit, which we believe is directly related to the additional units with monthly rents set at 30% of 70% of AMI. If these units are sold as credits to other developers, they do not create "additional affordable units". They simply replace another developer's requirement. We are negotiating for "additional restricted units" with increased density, which the proposed project will not provide if those units are sold to satisfy another developer's inclusionary requirement. I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, give me a call and I will try to explain in a better way. Ultimately, the Kelly family may wish to partner with an affordable housing developer in order to obtain more preferred financing for the project to enhance its financial feasibility. If the Kelly family wishes to pursue this partnership, I would be happy to provide some referrals for consideration. Thank you for your correspondence. I hope my correspondence is helpful in better explaining the staff position. The Housing Policy Team continues to be supportive of the higher density project. At this time, however, we are not proposing any change in our conditions for support. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2935 if further clarification or discussion is desired by you orthe Kelly family. /^iTTcerfly ^ DTBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Cc: Housing Policy Team Shelly Glennon, Project Planner San Diego County: 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Tel: 760.931.56l6 Fax: 760.931.4850 Sea^urne Development^o. VIA HAND DELIVERY May 9, 2011 Ms. Debbie Fountain Housing and Neighborhood Services Director CITY OF CARLSBAD 2965 Roosevelt St. Suite B Carlsbad CA 92008-2397 RE: HOLLY SPRINGS MDR PROPERTY; SDP 01-10 Dear Ms. Fountain: Orange County: 895 Dove Street 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949.851.6424 Fax: 949.955.4990 Thank you for your letter dated March 31, 2011 responding to our request for site development standards modifications to the HoUy Springs MDR project. On behalf of Holly Springs Ltd, we -were pleased to hear that the Housing Policy Team has indicated its support for the proposed density increase on the project. Our proposed increase to 20.4 du/ac will allow all of the units to meet many more of the policies and programs adopted in the 2005-2010 Housing Element than the existing approved project does. The increase wdi also contribute to Carlsbad's share of the RHNA for low-income housing units, and will exceed the obligations for inclusionary units pursuant to Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Further, the proposed units can result in the replacement of RH density property recendy lost to the City on another site. As we have mentioned, it is also the applicant's intent that the project also be developed with "green" design objectives and materials, including compHance with LEED building standards, reduced water and energy' use, resource-efficient construction materials, and constructing a generally healthy and conservation-oriented project. We do have a few comments to make regarding certain aspects of your letter however. Our request was to restrict 63 of the apartments to low-income affordability at rates no higher than 80% of AMI. Pursuant to the Carlsbad Housing Element (p. 2-24), this level qualifies as providing housing for "low income households". Your letter advises that the Housing Policy Team indicates that the rent rates would need to be set at 70% AMI. We believe that this requirement is arbitrary and will risk the financing feasibility of the project. We request that the Housing PoHcy Team re-consider this matter, and aUow the MDR project to set rent rates at no higher than 80% of AMI, consistent with the Housing Element guidelines. A second issue is the concept that only HoUy Springs and Cantarini projects wHl be aUowed to satisfy- their affordable housing requirements through the Ms. Debbie Fountain May 9, 2011 Page two MDR project, and that no other developers would be aUowed to purchase inclusionary housing credits from the pool of restricted units. The HoUy Springs and Cantarini inclusionary housing requirements are 19 (assuming the proposed MDR revised project) units and 19 units, respectively. This results in a total obHgation for HoUy Springs and Cantarini of 38 affordable units. But the project proposes 63 rent-restricted units. So a total of 25 rent- restricted units wUl arbitrarUy be made unavaUable for sale of credits to other developers. We beHeve that this is an unreasonable penalty to assess on a project that wUI so thoroughly meet the City's updated housing goals. Please be aware that the appHcant of the MDR project is not a wealthy developer, but rather a conscientious, long-time pioneering Carlsbad resident and landowner. Subjective penalties against this development, in our opinion do not serve the appHcant or the City weU, and could jeopardize the financial feasibUity of the project. We request that the Housing PoHcy Team re- consider this matter also, and aUow the MDR project to seU avaUable credits to requesting developers up to the total 63 inclusionary units, subject to City concurrence on any credit sale. In addition, we are pleased that the Planning Staff is supportive of the reduced interior dimension for the garages. And we are hopeful that we will be able to achieve Staff support from the Fire and Engineering Departments for the single-entry design, and the increased buUding height. These issues, and the matters discussed above, are the final subjects that we must reach some preliminary agreement on. We look forward to resolving these matters and to submitting a formal apphcation for the revised project. Thank you again for your assistance with this project. We are hopeful that the Housing PoHcy Team wiU again consider the matters discussed in this letter, and provide us with answers that wUl aUow us to move forward with submittal of the SDP amendment for City site design review and processing of the project. Very truly yours, SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. a Califomia corporation A cc: Susan KeUy Paul Klukas CITY OF nFILE ARLSBAD L-irii-t. Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION April 4, 2013 Planning Systems Attn; Paul Klukas 1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92011 SUBJECT: CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES At the April 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of your request. The decision of the Planning Commission as to SDP Ol-IO(A) is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The Planning Commission determination on CT 11-03/PUD 12-03 was final at Planning Commission unless a written appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the Planning Commission adoption of the decision(s) in accordance with the provisions of Carisbad Municipal Code section 21.54.150. Ifyou have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please contact your project planner Christer Westman at (760) 602-4614 or christer.westman(a)carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:CW:sm c: Data Entry File Susan Kelly, PO Box 2484, Carlsbad, CA 92018 SeaBourne Development Co., Attn: Ken Cablay, 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carlsbad, CA 92011 enc: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6955, 6956 and 6957 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 A. T V O F ^ CARLSBAD Housing & Neighborhood .Services www.carlsbadca.gov April 2, 2013 Mr, Ken Cablay SeaBourne Developmenl Co. 701 Palomar Airport Rd. Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ken: Thank you for your memorandum to Senior Planner, Christer Westman, dated March 25, 2013 regarding the Holly Springs MDR Property; SDP Ol-lOfa). now known as the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes. Based on your correspondence, the applicant continues to have concerns and questions regarding the affordability requtrements for the proposed project. Although we have had several discussions and written correspondence regarding the affordable housing requirements, it appears that there is still a misunderstanding on the negotiated agreement between the City and the applicant. I hope to clarify the City's position within this written correspondence. It should be understood, however, that the negotiations are complete on this matter and there will be no additional staff revisions to the affordability requirements for the project. I apologize that this correspondence was not forwarded to your sooner. I was not aware that your project was moving forward for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at this time. Inclusionary Requirement Per the Inclusionary Ordinance, Chapter 21.85, the required number of lower-income inclusionary units shalt be fifteen percent {15%) of the total residential units approved by the final decision-making authority. The requirement forthe originally approved Cantarini/Hoily Springs project was 40 units (or 50%) ofthe total 80 units within the approved apartment project (MDR site). The applicant subsequentiy requested that the apartment site be approved for 127 units; an increase of 47 units on the apartment site with some standard modifications for this larger apartment project. !n exchange for the additionat density and use of 47 excess dwelling units from the bank as well as support for requested standards modifications, City staff indicated it would only support the proposed project under the following conditions: 1. That Ihe restricted affordable units remain at 50% of the totai number of units within the apartment project, or 63 total; and, 2. That the restricted affordable unils be affordable at 70% of the Area Median Income for 55 years; and, Housing & Neighborhood Services 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite S Carlsbad. CA 92008 760-43.4-2810 ' 760-720-2037 fax Mr. Ken Cablay - April 2, 2013 Page 2 3. That none ofthe restricted units be available for purchase by other developers, but that additionat units in the project could be sold as credits to other developers if subsequently rent restricted by agreement at 70% ofthe Area Median Income. As a point of clarification, the restricted units must have rents set at thirty percent (30%) of seventy percent (70%) ofthe San Diego County Area Median Income (AMI), However, income qualifications for the Low income households may be set at a maximum of eighty percent (80%) ofthe AMI. Therefore, at a minimum, there is a requirement that 63 units total must have rents set at 70% of AMI to meet the negotiated agreement for additional density on the apartment site and use ofthe excess dwelling units from the bank. Per my correspondence, the additional units (23 total above the original approval) that we are requiring have rents set at 70% of AMI is a negotiated position in order to gain city support for the additional density and use of the excess dwelling units from the bank, which is an incentive. These matters were explained in my correspondence to you dated July 16, 2010, March 31, 2011 and June 2, 2011. The Housing Policy Team did, on December 17, 2012, consider your request on behalf of the applicant to allow some of the restricted units to be sold as credits. The Team did agree to revise its recommendation on that matter only and support the sate of 21 of the 63 restricted units as housing credits to other developers within the northeast quadrant. Again, other market rate units within the project could also be converted to income and rent restricted units to sell more housing credits, if so desired by the applicant. No other conditions have changed, or are being considered, as related to the staff recommendation noted above. Densitv Increase & Use of Excess Dwelling Units from the Sank It is unfortunate that the 70% of AMI rental rate for the restricted affordable units continues to be contested. The Housing Policy Staff Team has been consistent in its requirement that the restricted units have rents set at 30% of 70% of the Area Median Income, and is not willing to support an alternate condition. In approving additional residential density through the site development plan process. Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows the City to impose special conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards and/or requirements set forth elsewhere. This is to ensure that there is adequate public benefit to the action being supported by the City. Affordability levels at 70% of AMI offer a greater public benefit than rents set at 80% of AMI, which in some cases have been the same or higher than market rents. At this point, .staff intends to continue with the recommendation set forth in prevtous correspondence and require rents to be set at 30% of 70% of the Area Median Income for San Diego County, adjusted for household size. Housing Credits As noted above, through the Housing Poiicy Team, the City negotiated an increase in the number of restricted affordable units in exchange for support for the developer's requested increase in residential density and use of excess dwelling units from the bank for the property, 1 I Mr. Ken CaWav-April 2, 2013 Page 3 In effect, these additiona! units with rents set at 70% of AMI are considered the same as inclusionary units for regulatory purposes, and are not considered excess units (housing credits) that are available for sale to other developers. However, per your request, at its December 17, 2012 meeting, the Housing Policy Team reconsidered the number of restricted units and the number that could be sold as excess (housing credits) to other developers in the Northwest Quadrant. The Housing Policy Team agreed to recommend that 21 of the 63 restricted affordable units couid be considered excess and sold as housing credits to other developers in the Northeast Quadrant, with approval of the Oty Council. Although the project does meet other city housing goals,! was under the impression that we all understood that this was a negotiated increase in the inclusionary requirement in order to obtain City support for the increased residential density on the site. Based on the City's current position, the only method for providing housing credits (above the 21 noted above) to sell to other developers (as housing credits) would be to convert remaining market rate units (64 total) to affordable units. At this time, the Housing Policy Team is not willing to consider any other revisions to this negotiated agreement. To obtain a recommendation of approval for the proposed project from staff, the applicani wilt need to provide the following within the proposed project: 1. 63 low income rent restricted affordable housing units within the 127 unit apartment project, known as Encinas Creek Apartment Homes (SDP 01-10{a)); and 2. Alt restricted affordable housing units within the proposed apartment project shal! have rents set at a rate not to exceed 30% of 70% of the Area Median Income for San Diego County, adjusted for household size, for 55 years; and 3. No more than 21 of the 63 low income rent restricted affordable housing units may be sold as "housing credits" to other developers within the Northeast Quadrant, with prior approval from the City Council. The developer, however, may convert additional market rate units within the development to low income and rent restricted affordable units in order to make additional housing credits available for purchase by other developers. Thank you for your correspondence. I hope my correspondence is helpful in better explaining the staff position. The Housing Policy Team continues to be supportive of the higher density project. At this time, however, we are not proposing any change in our conditions for support ofthe project. Please contact my office at |760) 434-2935 if further clarification or discussion is desired by you or the applicant, Kelly family. Sincerely rf"' \ » DEfrtrfTFOUNTAIN Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Cc: Housing Policy Team Christer Westman, Project Planner SeaBourne Development Co 9) Memorandum StiU fMeff^ Count): "01 Pakimar.Virpf^rt Rnad lO; 1W).\1 Cmrhb-JLil. l.\ 42011 D.MT. Ttl: ~60 'Ml Stjl6 Ttl: ~60 'Ml Stjl6 RF-.. Fax "<>fi-9.^1 (.'hnsicr W estinan. Cm i->t <, nrlsbad Ken (,',ihl,i\- -March 25. 2013 CT 11-03/PlJD 12-03/SDP Ol-iO(A) ENCINAS CREEK AP.\RTMENT HOMES Omnge County. 895 Dijvc Stnrct ?n] Floor .Newport Beat!), CA 9i(^6<J Tel 949 8Sl,tH24 (.^hrisrcr .\s !i follow up to our D("C" iTicctiiig this mo.nurig, oudined below are our arj:>;utnenr^/p<>ttus of concern regarding the housing aftarciihiHr)- issue of our project. As vou know, thc most iinponanE li^j^ue vve ha\ e to consider for diis t\'pe of proiect IS the financing :ind die overall fiscal viiibiltri- and lending actracdon to U'ntiers. It is therefore iniportmr rh.ir die condirions l>c dear and smtighttorward on what will be expected m rhe ,\ttnruahk Hou.^^ing .^grecnit-a:. Lex-^ei of Affordabilit\ • ( Jondiuirm No. 2 rtf Re-^olunnn No. 6956 urates rh.it rhe 6.^ rent-resmcted unu* must be confined m lower income rare5 no higher rfian "i f" i. of AMI. You ntiy recall that wr had sigrecd to restrict the units ro low income at'lurdabilin' rates no higher dian 80''r, of AML llie 80*'o le\el qualifles as providing housing for low-mcomc households, llus difference is rental rates results in a sigiiifioint impact to the financing profomia of thc prf ))ccf and in<3v render rhe projecf financijiUv infeasible. • I-liilit)' percent :'8U'of .WM i> consr-ircrir with recentlv approved Roljenson Ranch Master Plu- and currenth [>roposed Qtwm Creek. • CHir request is eonsi-renf wjth Seer. 21 .S5.UH) of CMC. i e. " . tiie means Cor the cm' to consider making ott^ets as ailahic to developers when necessan* ro enable roideiiiid protects lo prcide preferable produce t\ pc or affordatniir) in excess of the requirements of dus chapter." • Page 1 We iiis(» note that the CEQA document for dte project (Isegaaxx- Dedaration) indicates on page 2 that the kn-ci will be rhe standard 80" «. Market of E.xcess Affordable Uni nits • llie staff report ipage 8} indicates that 15" » inchisionan- requirement be assessed against the !'ncin.is Creek Aparmienr Homes proiect Since dus project is a rental ptoject. tlus requirenictii is, contrsm to thc Pa/mfr r. Osy of Los .-In.p'cs Appellate Court decision and subsequent Cky policy. It further reduces the oppeirtuiiiiies for die proieti. to sell affordable housing units. • ihe abdin* to sell excess arTordariie housing units is a critical funding eorrsponent for die o\erail ttnanciai \i;u>ihty <.>f the project. Subsid,ies,.'tax credirs are \nmLillv non existent tor this npe nt ptojfirr. • Our requesr is consistent wirli Sect. 21.8.5.090 of ( AK!, i.e. "'Inclusionan ufiifs created wh;ch e.\ceed the t'lnal requirement for a proiect. mav, subject tf> CVS counai approval tn ihe allordabk- housing agreenient bc utilized by the iiwclopcT to satish othet mclusionan requirements for which it is obligated Of market tlie imits to other developers as a combined project.. Thc conrer distnbudon tor C^iuuanni Ranch, HoUv Springs, and tncinas Creek Aparuiient Homes should be as tolicnvs: Project Total l.'nirs !nctusicmar> Requirement \ Cantarini i Ho IK Sprinijs 43 I Fncinas Cre«li Apartments 327 0 I TOTAL i 23 * Iherefore we beLcs e thai rhere is a bai.ince of 40 {6.^ minus 2,i; low-income units a\ adable to market :n order ro buv down debt <jf the overall cost of die pr<-)ject. Tnjs is cons:sTent with the Cif.'s jjtjal ot encouraging and prov idaig incenaves lu die cons'xucuon ol attordable housing. '10 date, we have been ^eaetally laiabic to achieve a meeting widi cif. authontics and coninurrces on rhe .ibo^'c matters and we were expecnng an amenable closure. But upon review of the IXX' packet, it ss dear diat we have not yet reached an agreement on diese .-natters, W'c believe that the above-noted issues must be resolved betore ihc pro-ect :^ taken to public heruang. I...et me know what we can do to assist an staff m niakmtj a dcten:iuiauoii on these mattcts. • Page 2 Christer Westman From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:45 AM To: Christer Westman Subject: RE: notes from December 17th Housing Policy Team Hey Christer. I made a few suggestions for the conditions below. Thanks, Debbie From: Christer Westman Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:17 AM To: Debbie Fountain Subject: RE: notes from December 17th Housing Policy Team Debbie, Here are the conditions as I have them written for the Encinas Creek (MDR) project. 1. Prior to the approval of the final map (FM 11-03) for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict 63 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households at 80% or lower of the Area Median Income for San Diego County, adjusted for household size, and with rents restricted to a maximum of 30% of 70% of the Area Median Income for San Diego County, adjusted for assumed household size, for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carisbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be submitted to the City Planner no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. 2. At least 10% ofthe units (6 units) designated for lower-income households shall have three bedrooms. 3. The project will satisfy the original inclusionary housing requirements (40 units total) for Itself (Encinas Creek Apartment Homes), the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs developments, and also provide for additional (23 units total) low income and rent restricted affordable housing units in exchange for approved incentives of a) additional density on the site, b) use of 47 excess dwelling units from the excess dwelling unit bank, and 3) development standards modifications for said project. 4. Developer will be permitted, with final approval of the City Council, to sell a total of 21 low income and rent restricted housing credits within the proposed development to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements for other developments within the northeast quadrant, subject to a City Council approved Affordable Housing Agreement for the alternate developer. 5. Developer shall construct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project's market rate units, unless both the final decision-making authority of the City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. From: Debbie Fountain Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:56 AM To: Christer Westman Subject: notes from December 17th Housing Policy Team Hi Christer. Here is the position the H^^ng Policy Team took in December, 2012 ^^he MDR/Holly Springs site and related affordable. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Debbie Please note that Housing and Neighborhood Services has moved its offices to 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (City Mall) effective September 1, 2012. Please come see us at our new offices. All other contact information remains the same. See contact information below. •A CARLSBAD Housing & NeiqhborhocxI Servkes Debbie Fountain Housing and Neighborhood Services Director 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carisbad, Ca. 92008 Website: www.carisbadca.gov P:(760) 434-2935 - Direct P:(760) 434-2811 - Office F:(760) 720-2037 - Fax E; debbie.fountain@carisbadca.gov Christer Westman From: Jeremy Riddle Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:31 PM To: Glen Van Peski; Christer Westman Subject: FW: Encinas Creek Apartments Diane's response. Seems OK now. From: diane nygaard [mailto:dandd2@)peoplepc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:13 PM To: Jeremy Riddle Cc: 'Karen Merrill' Subject: RE: Encinas Creek Apartments Thanks Jeremy This verifies that even though the Encinas Apt project traffic study did not include the new higher numbers for Quarry Creek, the Quarry Creek traffic study included the new numbers for the Encinas Apts - so if there were failures they would have shown in the QC traffic study. Kind of a backwards way of doing it- but bottom tine is there is a traffic study that includes both both projects at the current higher numbers and it does not show any failures in the areas of impact for Encinas Creek. Diane From: Jeremy Riddle [mailto:Jeremy.Riddle(g)carlsbadca.qov1 Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:36 AM To: diane nygaard Cc: Karen Merrill Subject: Encinas Creek Apartments Diane- Yesterday, you raised good points regarding traffic as it relates to the proposed increase in units for the Encinas Creek Apartments. I wanted to share some information that may shed light on the issue. After we talked, we reviewed the traffic study for the Quarry Creek project (see attached). The original approved Holly Springs and Cantarini project (which includes multifamily site) is as follows: 1, Cantarini 105 units @ 10 ADT/unit = 1050 ADT 2, Holly Springs 43 units x 10 ADT/unit = 430 ADT 3, Multi-family 80 units @ 8 ADT/unit = 640 ADT Total 2120 ADT (original) With the proposed increase from 80 multi-family units to 127 here is the combined ADT: 1. Cantarini 105 units @ 10 ADT/unit = 1050 ADT 2. Holly Springs 43 units x 10 ADT/unit = 430 ADT 3. Multi-family 127 units @ 6 ADT/unit = 762 ADT Total = 2242 ADT (proposed) niTTfr You may note the decrease in ADT/uninfrom 8 to 6) and that is due to the SANDA^ates and density for the Encinas Creek Apartment project (now more than 20 DU/acre). I have attached the SANDAG rates table that is used for trip generation so you can see why the ADT rate changed. Since the Quarry Creek traffic study assumed an ADT for the Holly Springs/Cantarini project at 2250 ADT, this accounts for the potential increase in units as proposed by the Encinas Creek Apartment project. Hopefully this helps address your concerns. If you have any other questions, please free to contact me. Thanks. -A cir* Of CARLSBAD Clor^rimtjnity & Economic DeveSoptnt^fi', Jeremy Riddle, CPESC, QSD Associate Engineer Land Development Engineering CityofCarlsbad www.carlsbadca.gov P: 760-602-2737 F; 760-602-1052 ieremv.riddle@carisbadca.gov Christer Westman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Paul Klukas <pklukas@planningsystems.net> Friday, March 29, 2013 8:52 AM Christer Westman Ken Cablay; Susan Kelly Encinas Creek Apartment Homes Christer: The applicant for the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project has analyzed the financing projections for the project and is agreeable to the 70% AMI affordability level. It is important however, that the entitlement documents reflect the correct inclusionary obligation unit counts. These are: Project Total Unit Count 15% Inclusionary Encinas Creek Apts 127 19 Holly Springs SFD 42 42 7 Cantarini 105 16 TOTAL 274 42 Thus, this table concludes that 42 inclusionary units are allocated to be credited to Encinas Creek, Holly Springs and [marketed for inclusionary credits to] Cantarini. Ofthe 63 proposed inclusionary units in Encinas Creek Apartments, this leaves the remaining 21 inclusionary units available to be marketed to other developers. Please correct the Staff Report (p. 8) and conditions #18 and #19 of PC Reso. 6957 to reflect these numbers. With these changes, the applicant is agreeable to proceed with the project on the April 3 PC agenda. Thank you. PaulJ. Klukas PLANNING SYSTEMS 1530 Faraday Ave. #100 Carisbad,CA 92008 (760) 931-0780 ph pklukas@planningsvstems.net lUlCuJkl 3/2^113 <^c,.vo, FILE COPY VXARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov March 28, 2013 Preserve Calavera 5020 Nighthawk Way Oceanside CA 92056 RE: SDP 01-10(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES This letter is in response to your letter dated February 21, 2013 (copy enclosed). The project site was the subject of a previous CEQA review in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Development Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on December 14, 2004, (EIR 02-02, SCH #2002010181). Through the certification of the EIR, the Carlsbad City Council adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. According to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR Is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions In connection with issuance of rules, regulations or plans. Thus, a Program EIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within the area covered by the EIR. The scope being reviewed Is a modification to a project which was reviewed under the Cantarini/Holly Springs Development Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved In December 2004. The modification includes the addition of one apartment building, increasing the total number of apartment units onsite by 47, and site plan changes necessary to accommodate those two modifications. However a preponderance of evidence exists that the project revisions will not have a • significant effect on the environment. As a result of the fact that the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project is a part ofthe Cantarini/Holly Springs project assessed in the Program EIR, the subject Negative Declaration document concludes that the proposed revised project includes and will comply with the several mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Program EIR that are directly and indirectly applicable to the project, does not contribute to new impacts not already analyzed, and as such will not result in significant impacts. More speciftcally, through the analysis of the required follow- up plans, reports, and studies required as Program EIR mitigation measures pertaining to biological resources, geotechnical, hydrology, storm water management and noise, a determination has been made that with the Implementation of the Program EIR mitigation measures, no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated for by the EIR will result from the project as revised. Impacts to wildlife movement associated with the future extension of College Boulevard are not deemed to be significant. Hardline preserve areas exist and are proposed north and east of the road extension that provide connections to natural vegetation. Existing and future development dominates the property south and west ofthe future College Boulevard extension. Wildlife movement around and adjacent to College Blvd. Reach A was assessed in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, BTD No. 4 and Planning Division 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES March 28,2013 Page 2 Detention Basins EIR (EIR No. 98-02 SCH #99111082). It was further assessed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Project EIR and in the Dos Colinas Final EIR (EIR No. 09-01 SCH 2009111085). Further re- assessment of wildlife movements for Reach A are beyond the scope ofthe CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Further, they are unrelated to the project because the proposed project is being developed wholly within the development footprint of the previously-reviewed and approved project, and thus the project creates no additional impact on wildlife movement from that previously assessed. In addition, no substantive wildlife movement corridor exists in an east-west direction at Reach A because the existing land use west of the entire length of Reach A Is urbanized (Rancho Carisbad Mobile Home Park). The subject site is appropriate for multifamily affordable housing because the project is consistent with Sect. 21.85.040(f) and (g) of the Carisbad Municipal Code, in that the inclusionary units are located on "...sites that are in proximity to or will provide access to employment opportunities, urban services, or major roads or other transportation and commuter rail facilities and that are compatible with adjacent land uses." And '7he design and of the inclusionary units [is] reasonably consistent or compatible with the design ofthe total project development in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality." The close proximity of the Sage Creek High School, the commercial retail land use proposed at the corner of College Blvd. and El Camino Real, the employment center of Carlsbad Research Center and surrounding business park employment center, the proposed Robertson Ranch Ballfields community park, and the adjacency of College Blvd. a major north-south arterial in the city, meets or exceeds these standards for identifying locations for multifamily affordable development. The project does not affect natural resources surrounding the project site since it is entirely limited to the area approved for disturbance in December 2004. It Is correct that the project site includes hardline open space as indicated in the Carisbad HMP and the Cantarini/Holly Springs EIR. As such, a PAR must be prepared, a conservancy manager identified, a restrictive covenant recorded, and an endowment provided to manage this hardline open space. The concern identified that management is more difficult on a small, isolated parcel is not a substantive environmental Issue, Inasmuch as the management may be more difficult (and more costly per acre preserved). Professional habitat managers frequently manage smaller properties. A trail is shown on the site plan as it was approved in December 2004. The terminus of the project trail intersects with an existing dirt road and the trail is not proposed for expansion or relocation. It Is acknowledged that, if the adjacent landowner (CDFG) prohibits public trail extension onto their property, it may be worthwhile to provide signage which Informs trail users to not go beyond the limits of the authorized trail. Although all of College Boulevard is not shown on the Site Plan, it is not proposed as a stub road. College Boulevard will be extended as part ofthe Cantarini project (CT 00-18) prior to development of this project. A note is included on sheet 2 of the Tentative Map to this effect and Condition 41 of PC Resolution 6957 addresses this issue as well. Due to a clerical error there is an incorrectlyreferenced document used in preparation of the Negative Declaration. The document used in the project traffic analysis is in fact the April IS, 2012 traffic study prepared by Urban Systems. A correction to that effect is noted. t\ACa.W 3/2<^jl3 Ac.vo. FILE COPY ViCARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov March 28, 2013 Preserve Calavera 5020 Nighthawk Way Oceanside CA 92056 RE: SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES This letter is in response to your letter dated February 21, 2013 (copy enclosed). The project site was the subject of a previous CEQA review in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Development Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on December 14, 2004, (EIR 02-02, SCH #2002010181). Through the certification of the EIR, the Carisbad City Council adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. According to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions in connection with issuance of rules, regulations or plans. Thus, a Program EIR is intended to be used in the review of subsequent projects within the area covered by the EIR. The scope being reviewed is a modification to a project which was reviewed under the Cantarini/Holly Springs Development Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved in December 2004. The modification includes the addition of one apartment building, increasing the total number of apartment units onsite by 47, and site plan changes necessary to accommodate those two modifications. However a preponderance of evidence exists that the project revisions will not have a significant effect on the environment. As a result of the fact that the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project is a part ofthe Cantarini/Holly Springs project assessed in the Program EIR, the subject Negative Declaration document concludes that the proposed revised project includes and will comply with the several mitigation measures adopted in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Program EIR that are directly and indirectly applicable to the project, does not contribute to new impacts not already analyzed, and as such will not result in significant impacts. More specifically, through the analysis ofthe required follow- up plans, reports, and studies required as Program EIR mitigation measures pertaining to biological resources, geotechnical, hydrology, storm water management and noise, a determination has been made that with the implementation of the Program EIR mitigation measures, no additional significant impacts beyond those identified and mitigated for by the EIR will result from the project as revised. Impacts to wildlife movement associated with the future extension of College Boulevard are not deemed to be significant. Hardline preserve areas exist and are proposed north and east of the road extension that provide connections to natural vegetation. Existing and future development dominates the property south and west ofthe future College Boulevard extension. Wildlife movement around and adjacent to College Blvd. Reach A was assessed in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, BTD No. 4 and Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CRE^PARTMENT HOMES March 28, 2013 Page 2 Detention Basins EIR (EIR No. 98-02 SCH #99111082). It was further assessed in the Cantarini/Holly Springs Project EIR and in the Dos Colinas Final EIR (EIR No. 09-01 SCH 2009111085). Further re- assessment of wildlife movements for Reach A are beyond the scope of the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Further, they are unrelated to the project because the proposed project is being developed wholly within the development footprint of the previously-reviewed and approved project, and thus the project creates no additional impact on wildlife movement from that previously assessed. In addition, no substantive wildlife movement corridor exists in an east-west direction at Reach A because the existing land use west ofthe entire length of Reach A is urbanized (Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park). The subject site is appropriate for multifamily affordable housing because the project is consistent with Sect. 21.85.040(f) and (g) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the inclusionary units are located on "...sites that are in proximity to or will provide access to employment opportunities, urban services, or major roads or other transportation and commuter rail facilities and that are compatible with adjacent land uses." And "The design and ofthe inclusionary units [is] reasonably consistent or compatible with the design ofthe total project development in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality." The close proximity ofthe Sage Creek High School, the commercial retail land use proposed at the corner of College Blvd. and El Camino Real, the employment center of Carisbad Research Center and surrounding business park employment center, the proposed Robertson Ranch Ballfields community park, and the adjacency of College Blvd. a major north-south arterial in the city, meets or exceeds these standards for identifying locations for multifamily affordable development.. The project does not affect natural resources surrounding the project site since it is entirely limited to the area approved for disturbance in December 2004. It is correct that the project site includes hardline open space as indicated in the Carisbad HMP and the Cantarini/Holly Springs EIR. As such, a PAR must be prepared, a conservancy manager identified, a restrictive covenant recorded, and an endowment provided to manage this hardline open space. The concern identified that management is more difficult on a small, isolated parcel is not a substantive environmental issue, inasmuch as the management may be more difficult (and more costly per acre preserved). Professional habitat managers frequently manage smaller properties. A trail is shown on the site plan as it was approved In December 2004. The terminus of the project trail intersects with an existing dirt road and the trail is not proposed for expansion or relocation. It is acknowledged that, if the adjacent landowner (CDFG) prohibits public trail extension onto their property, it may be worthwhile to provide signage which informs trail users to not go beyond the limits ofthe authorized trail. Although all of College Boulevard is not shown on the Site Plan, it is not proposed as a stub road. College Boulevard will be extended as part of the Cantarini project (CT 00-18) prior to development of this project. A note is included on sheet 2 of the Tentative Map to this effect and Condition 41 of PC Resolution 6957 addresses this issue as well. Due to a clerical error there is an incorrectly referenced document used in preparation of the Negative Declaration. The document used in the project traffic analysis is in fact the April 18, 2012 traffic study prepared by Urban Systems. A correction to that effect is noted. SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES March 28, 2013 Page 3 The April 18, 2012 traffic study demonstrates the additional traffic trips generated by the proposed project do not exceed the assumed Zone 15 traffic compared to recently approved traffic analysis (Robertson Ranch EIR). therefore, there is no need for further computations for intersection capacity. The traffic study for the Quarry Creek project accounts for background traffic associated for Zone 15 development. Since the 2012 traffic study for the Encinas Creek Apartment demonstrates that assumed Zone 15 traffic trips are not exceeded, no further analysis is required. Any road segment or intersection failures impacted by traffic from the Quarry Creek project would be the responsibility of the Quarry Creek project. College Boulevard will be financed and constructed with Zone 15 development. Condition No. 41 of PC Resolution 6957 addresses the need to construct College Boulevard (similar to conditions placed on Cantarini, Dos Colinas, Rancho Milagro, and Holly Springs). This project depends on the road and utility improvements (associated with College Boulevard and Street 'C') that will be constructed by the Cantarini project (CT 00-18). As Zone 15 develops, the need for secondary access with each phase of development will be coordinated with the Fire Marshal. NCTD has been coordinated with as it relates to development along College Boulevard. For example, a bus stop (pull-out) and shelter will be provided along the project frontage with College Boulevard. This bus stop is shown on the project Tentative Map. NCTD will also be coordinated with during the final design phase to ensure their needs are met. If NCTD adopts a requirement for landowners to pay for bus stops, this agreement and process will take place outside of the CEQA process, and does not constitute an environmental issue that should be addressed in the CEQA document. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN, AlCP Senior Planner c: Janet Stuckrath, USFWS Stephanie Ponce, CDFG enclosure SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES March 28, 2013 Paee 3 The April 18, 2012 traffic study demonstrates the additional traffic trips generated by the proposed project do not exceed the assumed Zone 15 traffic compared to recently approved trafflc analysis (Robertson Ranch EIR). therefore, there is no need for further computations for intersection capacity. The trafflc study for the Quarry Creek project accounts for background traffic associated for Zone 15 development. Since the 2012 trafflc study for the Encinas Creek Apartment demonstrates that assumed Zone 15 trafflc trips are not exceeded, no further analysis is required. Any road segment or intersection failures impacted by traffic from the Quarry Creek project would be the responsibility of the Quarry Creek project. College Boulevard will be financed and constructed with Zone 15 development. Condition No. 41 of PC Resolution 6957 addresses the need to construct College Boutevard (similar to conditions placed on Cantarini, Dos Colinas, Rancho Milagro, and Holly Springs). This project depends on the road and utility Improvements (associated with College Boulevard and Street 'C') that will be constructed by the Cantarini project (CT 00-18). As Zone 15 develops, the need for secondary access with each phase of development will be coordinated with the Fire Marshal. NCTD has been coordinated with as it relates to development along College Boulevard. For example, a bus stop (pull-out) and shelter will be provided along the project frontage with College Boulevard. This bus stop Is shown on the project Tentative Map. NCTD will also be coordinated with during the final design phase to ensure their needs are met. If NCTD adopts a requirement for landowners to pay for bus stops, this agreement and process will take place outside of the CEQA process, and does not constitute an environmental Issue that should be addressed in the CEQA document. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN, AlCP Senior Planner c: Janet Stuckrath, USFWS Stephanie Ponce, CDFG enclosure " aFILE ^ CARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov March 14, 2013 North County Advocates 7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-258 Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES Dear Ms. Bleha: This letter is in response to your letter dated February 16, 2013 (enclosed). The project is the addition of 47 apartment units to an existing approved 80 unit apartment project. The effect on traffic generation is 282 ADT. The surrounding street system that will be constructed concurrent with the development will have more than satisfactory capacity to accommodate all of the projected daily traffic trips at buildout. Transit service is the responsibility of NCTD. The project is conditioned to satisfy any transit requirements of NCTD concurrent with development ofthe site. Sincerely, A. CHRISTER WESTMAN, AlCP Senior Planner CW:sm Enclosure c: File 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® orth County Advocate 7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-258, Carlsbacl CA 92009 Christer Westman CityofCarlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Westman Subject: Comments on Neg Dec Encinas Creek Apartments February 16,2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 0 2013 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISfON These comments on the Draft Negative Declaration for the Encinas Creek Apartments project are made on behalf of North County Advocates which is a nonprofit 501c3 community organization whose goal is to preserve and protect the quality of life, environment and character of coastal North San Diego County. We feel the project as proposed would create traffic problems, particularly from Quarry Creek. It is incredible that currently there is no plan to have College Ave. go through to El Camino Real. Consider how a stub road to the driveway entering the project (Street C), a single road in and out of the project, is going to make it a livable well plarmed community? There would be no easy access to shopping and no bus stop to a dead end road, certainly important issues for dense low cost housing which you also have to provide. In addition, mitigation for trafBc is not adequate as planned at this point. We are also reminding you that every project in planning should have transit service and actually contribute toward that transit service per policy #22 of NCTD. Sincerely, Patricia C. Bleha, president North Coimty Advocates North County Advocates is a non-profit 501© 3 public benefit corporation. TIN 27-3158348. www.northcountvadvocates.com <C^ciTYOF LJrii-c- ViCARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov March 12, 2013 Planning Systems Attn: Paul Klukas 1530 FaradayAvenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92011 SUBJECT: CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 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 March 25, 2013. 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; and 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, vour 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, Christer Westman at (760) 602-4614. 0cerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:CW:sm c: Susan Kelly, PO Box 2484, Carisbad, CA 92018 SeaBourne Development Co., Attn: Ken Cablay, 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300, Carisbad, CA 92011 File Copy Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 1889 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081 760-724-8505 • FAX 760-724-2172 www.slrmissionindians.org March 8, 2013 Christer Westman Planning Division VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL City of Carlsbad christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov 1635 Faraday Ave. Carisbad, CA 92008 RE: COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES PROJECT Dear Mr. Westman: We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"), have received and reviewed the City of Carisbad's ("City's") Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration ("ND") for the constmction of the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes Project ("Project"). It is the Tribe's understanding that this Project's environmental impact review was conducted under the Holly Springs/Catarini Ranch EIR in 2004 and that the only changes in the Project reflected in the ND is the addition of one building and the increase of 47 residential units within the original footprint. It is the Tribe's further understanding that this Project will be located on the north side of the future College Blvd. and will reach approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection with Cannon Road. As the City is aware, this area of the City is of great concem to the Tribe and the Tribe is resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within this City's jurisdiction. This is most evident in the Holly Springs/Catarini Ranch EIR in which this Project is based. In the Holly Springs/Catarini Ranch EIR (2004) 02-02, specific mitigation measures were required prior the issuance of any grading permit. In ARCH-C/HS-l the Project Applicant must enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In addition, Luiseno Native American monitors must be present to observe the Project's grading and/or earth disturbing activities and shall have the authority to temporarily halt and re-direct equipment if investigation of a resource is necessary. Tribal Comments Regarding Encinas Creek Apartment Homes Project ND Page 1 r - If our understandings regarding the protections in mitigation for this Project are incorrect, please contact us directly so that we may discuss the mitigation measures more thoroughly. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our invaluable Luiseiio 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 Tribal Comments Regarding Encinas Creek Apartment Homes Project ND Page 2 Febmary 21, 2013 Christer Westman City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Comments on Neg Dec Encinas Creek Apartments Letter delivered via Email Mr. Westman : These comments on the Draft Negative Declaration for the Encinas Creek Apartments 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. There are two noteworthy positive things about this project: the name is respectful of a sense of place, local history and our natural resources- in contrast lo many places that are named for what is being destroyed, or is a made up name that ignores the key features of the project's location. In addition, this project will add to the supply of affordable housing without increasing the footprint of development. This reduces the conflict between providing increasing numbers of housing units while still preserving our priceless natural lands. We are supportive of the general concept of this project. However there are several key issues that we believe need to be addressed before it moves forward. The following are our specific comments on this proposed project: - The appropriate CEQA review should be a Mitigated Negative Declaration A Negative Declaration requires that there are no potential impacts from the project that require mitigation. There are numerous mitigation measures from the certified EIR for the Cantarini-Holly Springs(C/H-S) project of which this is a part that are being incorporated by reference. However the original EIR failed to distinguish this parcel from the larger project in terms of both impacts and mitigation. The biological resources figures from the C/H-S EIR show both upland and wetland habitat impacts on this parcel- which will require mitigation. However the project description fails to identify that there are any such impacts, the size of these impacts, and the resultant mitigation that will be required. Furthermore, since it does not appear that there is sufficient habitat of the required type remaining on this parcel, on- site mitigation does not appear possible. In the absence of the rest of the project moving forward it is unclear where such mitigation would occur and it is therefor impossible to evaluate whether it will provide equivalent function and value. 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056 wvt'w.preservecalavera.org In addition to mitigation measures from the certified EIR that are not clearly addressed, there are new impacts associated with the proposed project that have not been properly identified or mitigated. These are discussed in the following comments: Project Description/Land Use The Certified EIR identified this parcel as the location for the multi-family affordable housing units. This was a good location for such affordable housing. However the current proposal has modified the original conditions such that this site is no longer consistent with guidelines for such housing, particularly considering the increase in the number of units. The key changes from the certified EIR include: - College Blvd does not extend to El Camino Real but is proposed as just a stub road to the driveway entering the project (Street C). This now limits this project to a single road in and out. - The College extension would have provided convenient access to the neighborhood shopping area planned at College/El Camino Real. The failure to extend the road eliminates convenient access to nearby shopping and makes it less likely such shopping would even be built in the near term. - The bus stop in front of this project will likely no longer have a bus serving it. Deadend roads that serve a single small project rarely would meet the standards necessary to justify such an extension of a public transit route- if such a route were even in place along Cannon/College. All of these changes impact the suitability of this site for dense affordable housing- without assurances that College is extended concurrently with the project. These are all conflicts with the adopted EIR, and with guidelines for siting affordable housing that should have been identified and discussed in the Neg Dec. Also SDP -01-10 for Cantarini-Ranch provided for an average 40' landscaped buffer along College. It is unclear if this condition has been met with the proposed project. If required, failure to include this is an additional potential impact. Biological Resources Part of this project site includes hardline open space (Lot 15) per the certified EIR. This requires management of the open space lands which is often more difficult and costly when it is a small isolated parcel. Furthermore this open space is contiguous with a much larger area of natural lands. The project is proposing to build the dg trail approved in the certified EIR. But this trail will now end at the boundary for this parcel, potentially leading people to walk in to the adjacent natural lands where there is no continuing trail and increasing the risk of both direct and indirect impacts on these adjacent natural lands. The Neg Dec failed to identify this as a potential impact. Either the full trails planned for C/H-S need to be built and maintained or there needs to be a barrier, signage and enforcement to make sure people do not go beyond the limits of the authorized trail. Furthermore the impacts to wildlife movement through this area were further evaluated for the high school project. These are documented in "College and Cannon Carlsbad High School Site Wildlife Movement Study," Dudek,, April 2010, which is incorporated by reference. This study was distributed to city staff shortly after its completion and was the focus of a meeting with the consultant and several city staff members. While this study identified barriers and recommendations nearby, it did not assess the impacts of extending College Blvd which would cause further disruption of the documented wildlife movement corridors. The details of this wildlife movement were not known at the time of the C/H-S EIR, but are now. This more recent information should have been evaluated as part ofthis proposed project. The Neg Dec failed to properly identify or mitigate potential impacts to wildlife movement associated with the extension of College Blvd to access this project. The NEG Dec also failed to incorporate the revised Conceptual Mhigation and Monitoring Plan.(CMMP) This plan was reviewed by Mark Elvin in his letter of July 14, 2005 which is also incorporated by reference. This letter has also previously been distributed to the city and C/H-S developer. This letter identified several areas where the original CMM? failed to comply with CEQA. Failure to address these issues is an addhional potential impact that has not been identified or mitigated in the Neg Dec. - Transportation The Neg Dec fails to reference the most recent traffic study for this project. The April 18, 2012 traffic study by Urban Systems should have been referenced as it included the additional traffic from the Dos Colinas project. It also assessed the number of trips that would be added to J Street, consistent with the requirements of our settlement agreement with the City and developer over the C/H-S project. While the Dos Colinas traffic was added, the updated study did not appear to include the detailed computations about the impact of these additional trips. The June 13, 2011 traffic study that was cited in the Neg Dec indicated that the project would result in an intersection delay from 48.7 to 52.9 seconds in the PM peak at El Camino Real/Cannon. This delay is close to the 55.1 seconds that would reduce this to LOS F and result in traffic failure. Given how close this intersection is to failure it is essential that the full computations be provided with the additional Dos Colinas traffic- and not just a conclusion that the "impacts are not significant." Furthermore both the original 2011 and the revised 2012 traffic studies fail to include the additional trips associated with the Quarry Creek project. Presumably the buildout trip assessment included trips from this project per the adopted plans or 293 units. The current proposal for 656 units will of course greatly increase the traffic generated by this project. Figure 5-1 of Appendix P of the Quarry Creek EIR shows that 14% of the ADT from that project will travel to the south on Colleg as far as Cannon. Figure 5-2 shows an additional 759 ADT at that intersection from the Quarry Creek project. The traffic studies have failed to account for this additional traffic which could result in significant impacts. In addition, Condition # 64 of the original C/H-S resolution specified that "No more than 20 units may be constructed without two points of access." Without the extension of College Blvd there is only one point of access which violates the original project approvals. Two points of access are also a requirement of the Zone 15 LFMP. Staff have indicated the current project will be conditioned to include a financing plan for the extension of College Blvd. Providing a financing plan and actually building a road are two different things. If College is not extended concurrent with the project this is a further violation of project conditions which needs to be addressed in the CEQA documents. Lastly, per Policy 22 of NCTD, adding bus stops for service extensions requires entering into an agreement regarding paying for such service. There is no mention of any such agreement in the Neg Dec. Without bus service to this project there will be a further increase in traffic associated with this project that has not been accounted for. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to address these issues so that this project can move forward. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera Cc: Janet Stuckrath USFWS, Stephanie Ponce DFG ^orth County Advocated 7668 El Camino Real, Suite 104-258, Carisbad CA 92009 February 16,2013 Christer Westman RECEIVED City of Carlsbad g o Q onio 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Comments on Neg Dec Encinas Creek Apartments Mr. Westman: These comments on the Draft Negative Declaration for the Encinas Creek Apartments project are made on behalf of North Coimty Advocates which is a nonprofit 501c3 commimity organization whose goal is to preserve and protect the quality of life, environment and character of coastal North San Diego Coimty. We feel the project as proposed would create traffic problems, particularly from Quarry Creek. It is incredible that currently there is no plan to have College Ave. go through to El Camino Real. Consider how a stub road to the driveway entering the project (Street C), a single road in and out of the project, is going to make it a livable well planned community? There would be no easy access to shopping and no bus stop to a dead end road, certainly important issues for dense low cost housing which you also have to provide. In addition, mitigation for traffic is not adequate as planned at this point. We are also reminding you that every project in planning should have transit service and actually contribute toward that transit service per policy #22 of NCTD. Sincerely, 1 Patricia C. Bleha, president North County Advocates North County Advocates is a non-profit 501© 3 public benefit corporation. TIN 27-3158348. www.northcountvadvocates.com BENTEQ BENTLEY EQUITY, INC. www.dmbentley.com February 15,2013 Ms. Diane Nygaard, President Preserve Calavera 5020 Nighthawk Way Oceanside, CA 92056 Dear Ms. Nygaard: CITY OF CARLSBAD FEB 19 2013 PUNNING DEPARTMENT 760.476.9572 - Ofc 760.809.5216-cell 7449 Magellan Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 benteq @ roarirunner. com Thank you for your letter dated February 14, 2013 in connection with your objections to the Encinas Creek Apartments project, pursuant to the Cantarini-Holly Springs Settlement Agreement. Please note that the Bentley-Monarch Joint Venture sold the Cantarini Ranch property in April 2007. Accordingly, the Cantarini Ranch is owned by Bent-West, LLC, of which West Partners is the Manager-Member (Dennis O'Brien, 760-444-2921) and Bentley-Wing Prop- erty W, LLC (David M. Bentley) is a Member. The property you reference as the Encinas Creek Apartments, SDP 01-10 of Cantarini Ranch CT 00-18, is currently subject to litigation regarding option rights and ownership. The refer- enced development application was submitted and processed without my knowledge or ap- proval by Holly Springs (Marvin Sippel, Susan Kelly). If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Yery truly yours. ( V David M. Bentley cc: Dennis O'Brien, West Partners Jane Mobaldi, Carisbad City Attomey Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad Planning Marvin Sippel, Holly Springs Christer Westman From: diane nygaard <dandd2@peoplepc.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:51 PM To: Kimberiy Hayford Cc: Christer Westman Subject: Encinas Creek Apartments Comment Letter Hi Kim Christer Westman with the city of Carlsbad indicated NCTD would be submitting a comment letter about the Encinas Creek Apartment project- Neg Dec comment period closes Feb 20'^. I want to make sure you are aware of this as perhaps a Neg Dec would not even be considered of concern. This was part of the Cantarini-Holly Springs project approved in 2004. At that time the affordable housing apts at the corner of College/Cannon (across the street from the new high school) were planned for 80 units. The proposed change will increase this to 127 units. There was supposed to be a bus stop in front of the apts. But at this time they are proposing to build the apts without extending College through to El Camino Real as was originally planned- there will just be a dead end road up to their entrance driveway. The original approvals included the requirement to build the bus stop. My question is will you actually be providing new service to this stop if it is located on a deadend road with no other access? Would this service fall under the provisions of Policy 22? I know you are in discussions with CBUSD about service to the new high school, but presumably that service would use the existing bus stops on College and Cannon. I hope that NCTD will be submitting a comment letter to clarify any issues regarding service to this project. Diane Nygaard CITY OF M'^^ ^/H/I3 P=| FILF VcARLSBAD •riLC. Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov February 11, 2013 SeaBourne Development Co. 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 SUBJECT: CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP 01-10(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2013. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by March 8, 2013, 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 your (site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 9" x 12" size. B) One 872" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans. 2, 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. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP 01-10(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES February 11, 2013 Paae 2 B) Mailing Labels - if the number of owners within the 600 foot radius is 1,000 or greater, a display advertisement in hvo 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 C) 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 ifthe required scale is impractical. D) 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, CHRISTER WESTMAN Senior Planner CW: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: Christer Westman From: diane nygaard <dandd2@peoplepc.com> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:35 AM To: Christer Westman Subject: FW: Encinas Apartments Hi Christer Since we have had trouble reaching each other by phone and I will be out most of tomorrow- here are my immediate concerns re this project: The file noted that traffic study of June 13, 2011 was being returned without review. Later it referenced an updated traffic study of 4/23/12 but what is cited in the Neg Dec is the 6/13/11 study. I could not find the 2012 study in the file. Which study was used and if not the most recent one why is that the case? I would like to review the 2012 study Please provide the MMRP for the certified Cantarini-Holly springs EIR .The Neg Dec mentions the Cantarini-Holly Springs EIR and says it would comply with all mitigation measures but it is unclear what that means. For example there is fencing required to protect hardline open space- but is any being done with this project? There is a required endowment for hardline open space- is any being provided with this project? There is a memo in the file from Ken Cabala asking for an amendment to the LFMZ language . I asked at the counter if that occurred and was told they do not have LFMZ amendments. I would like to see a conformed copy of the LFMZ that includes all amendments. The NeG Dec says the project is in compliance with the LFMZ which implies this amendment was approved. Has any noise study been done? If so, I would like to review that. The Neg Dec concludes there are no impacts- including to all ofthe sensitive receptors added since this project was approved in 2004 but it does not look like there has been any study done. Cantarini-HS included a bus stop right by the multi-family parcel. With the increase in units there is an even greater need for easy transit access. But it would be extremely rare for a public transit system to extend service to a dead end road as is not proposed. Furthermore NCTD policy is that ifyou request busstops/service you enter into agreements about paying for that service. Has the bus stop and service been discussed with NCTD given this change in road configuration? I cannot find a detailed site plan for the approved project in order to compare the two. Can you pull the two site plans so I could come in and review with you. The Neg dec says there is no change in the footprint of development, but there are additional buildings and about 90 more parking spaces so it would certainly seem like something would change. Thank you Diane Nygaard CITY OF V^CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov January 17,2013 Ken Cablay SeaBourne Development Co 701 Palomar Airport Rd, Ste 300 Carisbad CA 92011 SUBJECT: 4th REVIEW FOR a 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES Dear Mr. Cablay, CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)/PUD 12-03 have all been deemed complete as of May 30, 2012 which is the technical acceptance date of the project. 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. 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. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact me, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN, AlCP Senior Planner CW:bd Holly Springs LTD. P.O.Box 2484 Carlsbad CA 92018 Paul Klukas Planning Systems 1530 FaradayAvenue Suite 100 Carisbad CA 92008 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © 1^) CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP 01-10|A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES January 17, 2013 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. None Engineering: 1. None Fire Prevention: To be provided under separate cover Building: 1. Parking space calculation should include disabled accessible spaces provided. Review C.B.C. Section 1102A.3 for required dwelling unit accessibility. Landscape: 1. Please refer to the comments enclosed dated December 4,2012. Christer Westman From: Ken Cablay <kcablay@seaboumecorp.com> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:52 PM To: Christer Westman Subject: Re: Encinas Creek Apartments Hi Christer- One of the main catalysts in seeking the additional 47 units relates to the project density of 20 du's/ac. As part of my involvement with Robertson Ranch (specifically the densities of PA 7 and PA8) and the city's RHNA requirements, we separately approached Debbie Fountain and Barbara Kennedy regarding the concept of 20 du's/ac for Encinas Creek/MDR. We did our research regarding the EIR traffic studies/ADT and demonstrated that the additional 47 units would not exceed or jeopardize growth management thresholds or Zone 15 LFMP traffic projections. We displayed a concept plan (which evolved into our site development plan) that respected the currently approved 80-unit development footprint and determined that the only project request to accommodate the 20 du's/ac would be building height. Both Debbie and Barbara (I believe Don Neu was also involved in those eariy discussions) concurred that a standards modification was the preferred entitlement route, considering the benefits to the city in reaching their RHNA goals for projects with 20 du's/ac in addition to providing 50% of the units as affordable. Lastly, the additional 47 units would help offset the Zone 15 Core Improvement pro rata costs to the Kelly family. Any additional units to allocate the regional infrastructure costs while not taxing the Zone 15 growth management thresholds would be beneficial in getting College Blvd. Reach A a reality. So, in summary, we embarked on this application with a corroborative effort and understanding with city staff that the additional 47 units would be beneficial to everyone. Let me know if you want any additional information to formulate your staff report. Have a great weekend. Ken Cablay President SeaBourne Development Co. 701 Palomar Airport Rd. Ste. 300 Carisbad, CA 92011 TEL: (760) 931-5616 FAX; (760) 931-4850 Email: kcablav@seabournecorp.com On Fri Jan 11 22:35, Christer Westman <Christer.Westman@carlsbadca.gov> sent: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hey guys, >l am going through the EIA PT II and formulating staffs recommendation for approval of the project in my head. > >l do have a question. Other than just getting more units, what is prompting the request to add 47 units to the site? >Christer Westman AlCP >Senior Planner > > >1635 Faraday Ave >Carisbad CA 92008 > >Phone: 760-602-4614 > > > > > Se^ourne Developmen^o. San Diego County: 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300 Carlsbacl, CA 92011 Tel: 760.931.5616 Fax: 760.931.4850 Orange County: 895 Dove Street 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949.851.6424 Fax: 949955.4990 November 16, 2012 Mr. Christer Westman CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carisbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2012 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION SUBJECT; APPLICANT RESPONSE TO 3rd CITY REVIEW CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) ENCINAS CREEEK APARTMENT HOMES Dear Mr. Westman: Per your letter dated May 30, 2012, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the above-referenced application package and plans, Holly Springs LTD has commissioned modifications to the documents and plans as requested. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find the following: Ten (10) sets of the revised Site Development Plan Ten (10) sets of the revised Tentative Map Ten (10) sets of revised Concept Architecture Plans Ten (10) sets of revised Concept Landscape Plans Ts»u (2) tuplLj uf diL iL'Vltjed Pielliiiiiiai) Diuinago Study (t^Vl/ttO Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary SWMP Redlined Plans (return) Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments listed in the May 30 letter. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: /. Staff can support a standards modiflcation to garage widths from 12 foot required to 10 feet provided since it stands to reason that reducing the garage width could contribute to a lower cost of construction. However, the necessity of a standards modiflcation to building height (41'9" versus 35') in order to make the project "affordable" has not been justified and therefore cannot be supported by staff. Please revise the building architecture to meet the maximum 35 foot limitation. Response: It is our belief that the Carlsbad Zoning Code allows for the proposed maximum height in this case. CMC Secdon 21.46.020 allows for roof protrusions above the 35' height limit. The referenced provisions include roof structures, such as air conditioning units and fan coils. The additional height on the roof of the proposed apartment buildings is necessary to appropriately screen this equipment. This roof location for air conditioning equipment is necessary because the density ofthe project does not allow for a sea of ground-mounted mechanical apparatus. Section 21.46.020 also allows protrusions above the height limit for architectural features. The Agragrian architectural style (reminiscent of the agricultural roots of the historical property owners) of the project dictates steeper roof pitches and gable roof forms. The architectural design involves an aesthetically pleasing and contextual project for the community and the 6:12 roof pitch is both dictated by the selected architectural style and, in our opinion, necessary to offset the three-story massing of the buildings. Consistent with the requirements of Section 21.46.020, no additional floor space above the code- required maximum of 35 feet is proposed. The protrusion above 35 feet is solely for the purpose of: (1) appropriately screening the mechanical equipment, (2) providing high quality, top-of- market units to the end user, and (3) maintaining the architectural integrity and creating a dynamic agragrian visual experience for the community at large. 2. Please refer to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.095 Table B for project signage limitations. Apartment projects are allowed one monument sign per project entry with a maximum monument sign area of 35 square feet each. Response: The applicant acknowledges the signage limitations of the Sign Ordinance Section 21.41.095 and will provide signage within these limits. 3. If there is a future advantage to reconfigure the PUD lot lines according maintenance or some other defmition. Examples are lots 3, 4, and 5 cross over into the drive aisles. Response: The lot line alignments have been modified to remove them from the drive aisles. 4. Clearly define a path of travel from the buildings on lots 4 and 5 to the recreation building. Response: The path of travel from the buildings on Lots 4 and 5 to the Recreation Area follows the north side of the buildings and sidewalks have been added to avoid conflicts with parking back-out, curbs, etc. This alignment is called out on the Landscape Plan. 5. There is not an administrative amendment option for Local Facilities Management Plans. The requested text changes require the standard process for a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment. The application fee is $10,000.00. Response: In light of the high cost and Staffs position in opposition, the applicant has made a decision to forego the LFMP Amendment and rather accept the requirement for securitizing the improvements of the entire College Blvd Reach A length. Thus, it will be necessary for the proposed project to await the necessary funding, security guarantees and progress by other neighbors in the area who have the financial ability to proceed. Engineering: 1. On previous reviews, the applicant has indicated their desire to obtain building permits for this apartment project (all 127 units) before College Blvd Reach A is fully completed. Consistent with previous correspondence and meetings, staff does not support modifying the financing and construction requirements of College Blvd Reach A for this project. The current Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) already allows construction phasing for College Blvd from one direction up to a maximum of 24 dwelling units. Beyond 24 units. College Blvd must be fully completed. With this last submittal, the applicant provided a letter requesting an administrative modification to the LFMP Zone 15, dated April 23, 2012. The applicant requests this project be exempt from fulfilling Zone 15 financing and construction requirements for College Blvd. The improvement and financing obligations for College Blvd are borne by all Zone 15 property owners and exempting this condition is not an acceptable approach to fulfill the College Blvd improvements. To maintain the equitable distribution offinancing for College Blvd, staff does not support allowing building permits to be issued in advance of a financing program for this road segment. In addition to satisfying LFMP Zone 15 requirements, this project is also part of the Cantarini subdivision (CT 00-48) and responsible to design, finance, secure and construct College Blvd, Reach A. Although the applicant has indicated the costs to construct College Blvd Reach A are 'prohibitive', staff does not concur as (a financing program will show) the improvement costs will be shared among the other developing properties within Zone 15 (i.e.: Cantarini, Holly Springs, Dos Colinas, Mandana, etc.). Based on our review, staff does not support the proposed LFMP changes. Also, changing the conditions for College Blvd is a significant matter that cannot be done administratively without an amendment to both LFMP Zone 15 and to CT 00-18. Public input and Council approval would be needed on this subject. Although staff will likely not support this requested change, ifthe applicant wishes to pursue this matter, please make the application for an LFMP modification to Zone 15 amendment and to CT 00-18 together with the necessary submittal requirements. Response: In light of Staffs opposition to the requested security phasing and construction, the applicant will proceed with acceptance of the full security and funding obligation and await the schedule of others in the area that have the necessary ability to proceed with College Blvd funding. 2. (Repeat comment] The transportation analysis prepared by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, is being returned without review. This study considers constructing College Blvd from the north to the intersection of 'C Street and is irrelevant to this project. Construction phasing will be based on several services required to serve this project (road, potable water, sewer, storm drain, recycled water, dry utilities, etc.), not just traffic. Because of the various Zone 15 development outcomes, it is premature to make construction phasing decisions for this project. Response: The applicant has modified their proposal and will not request the ability to securitize, guarantee and construct the north leg alone, and will rather await neighbors who have the financial ability to move forward with the entire Reach A length. 3. (Repeat comment] On the concept landscape plans, revise the exhibits to remove the offsite permanent landscaping along the easterly slope of College Blvd. It is anticipated that this project site will be rough graded and College Blvd. will be both graded and constructed by Cantarini and/or Dos Colinas project and obligations (including offsite permanent landscaping) will be included on those construction plans. Response: The Landscape Plans have been revised as requested. 4. The revised Storm Water Management Plan includes new BMP calculations that show how Vl and Vj are modified from the results of the Countywide BMP calculator. Without supporting results from a continuous simulation model, staff does not support shifting volume from Vj (treatment volume) to V2 (storage volume) as we do not believe this would result in a BMP that would satisfy both treatment control and hydromodification requirements. Having a smaller treatment area could allow more runoff to bypass the device. Ifyou propose making changes to surface area for Vi staff will consider making the treatment area thicker (more than 18 ") so that the volume of Vj is maintained. Please address this discrepancy prior to resubmittal. Response: The SWMP has been revised as requested. Tentative Map 5. On sheet 4, provide a minimum 6-inch of freeboard to the linear bioretention swale located at the top of a slope. Although a 2-inch freeboard is listed in the SUSMP for bioretention, this standard applies to small storm events. Ifthe basin is subject to larger storm events then the 1 OO-year design parameters apply (see County Drainage Design Manual for grass-lined channels). Response: The Drainage Report has been revised as requested. 6. On sheet 5, explain why a pressure reducing station has been added as this has not been identified on any previous water study for a 00-18. If this was added to support the request to exempt the requirements to finance/build all of College Blvd Reach, please remove this pressure reducing station from the exhibits. A facility like this is an unnecessary asset for the city to maintain and will not be needed if all of College Blvd, including the utilities, are constructed in accordance with the LFMP and a conditions. Response: The proposed pressure reducing station has been eliminated on this revised plan set. 7. On sheet 4, provide safety railing above the perimeter retaining walls that are adjacent to the parking lot to provide pedestrian protection in these areas where there is a drop- off Response: A pedestrian safety railing has been added above the referenced retaining walls. This is shown on Sheets L-l and L-2 of the Landscape Plan. 8. For additional comments, refer to the redlines. Response: Comments on the redlines have been addressed in the present resubmittal package. Fire Prevention: To be provided under separate cover. Response: To our knowledge we were not provided a set of Fire Prevention comments. Landscape 1. It is understood that detailing has been provided to enhance the building elevations; however this does not address Landscape Manual requirements for softening. Landscaping to include tall trees is needed to soften and further enhance (not conceal) some elevations. Previously shown landscaping along the east side of Lot 5 building and north sides of Lots 3, 4 and 5 buildings have been deleted. Please see the enclosed comments and address softening of all of these elevations as shown on the red line plans. Response: We had originally designed this high-density project with trees in the locations identified. However, it was pointed out by the Fire Department that these trees conflicted with the 60-foot fire suppression zone restrictions. Thus, we removed those trees that conflicted with the fire suppression zone and as an alternative, articulated the building architecture, colors and architectural enhancements, in order to achieve the softening of the buildings. No change has been made to this redesign as a result of this comment. Very truly yours, SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. Ken L. Cablay President cc: Susan Kelly Paul Klukas Enc. A>c,Tvo. FILECOFI V ICARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov Ken Cablay SeaBourne Development Co. 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad CA 92011 SUBJECT: CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES - 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: The project is subject to the provisions of CEQA. Based on the City's analysis of the proposed project, the following CEQA documentation/process is required for the project (fees effective January 1, 2012): 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 $2151.50 ($892 single family lot) forthe continued processing ofthe CEQA documentation. A Notice of Determination will be filed after approval of the project amendment with the San Diego County Clerk's Office which involves a filing fee. Please submit a check to the project planner in the amount of $50.00 made out to the San Diego County Clerk. The check should be submitted approximately one week priorto the Planning Commission hearing date. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the project planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614 or christer.westman@carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:CW:bd c: Holly Springs LTD, P.O.Box 2484, Carlsbad CA 92018 Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100, Carlsbad CA 92008 Team Leader Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® <A>c..o. ' " FILE COPY VXARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov May 30, 2012 Ken Cablay SeaBourne Development Co 701 Palomar Airport Rd, Ste 300 Carisbad CA 92011 SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR CT 11-03/PUD 12-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES Dear Mr. Cablay, CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) were deemed complete on February 6, 2012. The application for PUD 12-03 is now complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application has already begun, the technical acceptance date of the project as a whole is now 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. 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. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact me, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually asfollows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRISTER WESTMAN, AlCP Senior Planner CW:bd Holly Springs LTD. P.O.Box 2484 Carlsbad CA 92018 Paul Klukas Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92008 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © 9K CT 11-03/ PUD 12-03/SDP Ol-iOlA) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES May 30, 2012 Page 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Staff can support a standards modification to garage widths from 12 foot required to 10 feet provided since it stands to reason that reducing the garage width could contribute to a lower cost of construction. However, the necessity of a standards modification to building height (41'9" versus 35') in order to make the project "affordable" has not been justified and therefore cannot be supported by staff. Please revise the building architecture to meet the maximum 35 foot limitation. 2. Please refer to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.41.095 Table B for project signage limitations. Apartment projects are allowed one monument sign per project entry with a maximum monument sign area of 35 square feet each. 3. If there is a future advantage to reconfigure the PUD lot lines according maintenance or some other definition. Examples are lots 3,4, and 5 cross over into the drive aisles. 4. Clearly define a path of travel from the buildings on lots 4 and 5 to the recreation building. 5. There is not an administrative amendment option for Local Facilities Management Plans. The requested text changes require the standard process for a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment. The application fee is $10,000.00. Engineering: 1. On previous reviews, the applicant has indicated their desire to obtain building permits for this apartment project (all 127 units) before College Blvd Reach A is fully completed. Consistent with previous correspondence and meetings, staff does not support modifying the financing and construction requirements of College Blvd Reach A for this project. The current Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) already allows construction phasing for College Blvd from one direction up to a maximum of 24 dwelling units. Beyond 24 units. College Blvd must be fully completed. With this last submittal, the applicant provided a letter requesting an administrative modification to the LFMP Zone 15, dated April 23, 2012. The applicant requests this project be exempt from fulfilling Zone 15 financing and construction requirements for College Blvd. The improvement and financing obligations for College Blvd are borne by all Zone 15 property owners and exempting this condition is not an acceptable approach to fulfill the College Blvd improvements. To maintain the equitable distribution of financing for College Blvd, staff does not support allowing building permits to be issued in advance of a financing program for this road segment. In addition to satisfying LFMP Zone 15 requirements, this project is also part of the Cantarini subdivision (CT 00-18) and responsible to design, finance, secure and construct College Blvd, Reach A. Although the applicant has indicated the costs to construct College Blvd Reach A are 'prohibitive', staff does not concur as (a financing program will show) the improvement costs will be shared among the other developing properties within Zone 15 (i.e.: Cantarini, Holly Springs, Dos Colinas, Mandana, etc.). Based on our review, staff does not support the proposed LFMP changes. Also, changing the conditions for College Blvd is a significant matter that cannot be done administratively without an amendment to both LFMP Zone 15 and to CT 00-18. Public input and Council approval would be needed on this subject. Although staff will likely not support this requested change, if the applicant wishes to pursue CT 11-03/ PUD 12-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES May 30, 2012 Page 3 this matter, please make the application for an LFMP modification to Zone 15 amendment and to CT 00-18 together with the necessary submittal requirements. 2. [Repeat comment] The transportation analysis prepared by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, is being returned without review. This study considers constructing College Blvd from the north to the intersection of 'C Street and is irrelevant to this project. Construction phasing will be based on several services required to serve this project (road, potable water, sewer, storm drain, recycled water, dry utilities, etc.), not just traffic. Because of the various Zone 15 development outcomes, it is premature to make construction phasing decisions forthis project. 3. [Repeat comment] On the concept landscape plans, revise the exhibits to remove the offsite permanent landscaping along the easterly slope of College Blvd. It is anticipated that this project site will be rough graded and College Blvd. will be both graded and constructed by Cantarini and/or Dos Colinas project and construction obligations (including offsite permanent landscaping) will be included on those construction plans. 4. The revised Storm Water Management Plan includes new BMP calculations that show how Vi and V2 are modified from the results of the Countywide BMP calculator. Without supporting results from a continuous simulation model, staff does not support shifting volume from Vi (treatment volume) to V2 (storage volume) as we do not believe this would result in a BMP that would satisfy both treatment control and hydromodification requirements. Having a smaller treatment area could allow more runoff to bypass the device. Ifyou propose making changes to surface area for Vi, staff will consider making the treatment area thicker (more than 18") so that the volume of Vi is maintained. Please address this discrepancy prior to resubmittal. Tentative Map 5. On sheet 4, provide a minimum 6-inch of freeboard to the linear bioretention swale located at the top of a slope. Although a 2-inch freeboard is listed in the SUSMP for bioretention, this standard applies to small storm events. If the basin is subject to larger storm events then the lOO-year design parameters apply (see County Drainage Design Manual for grass-lined channels). 6. On sheet 5, explain why a pressure reducing station has been added as this has not been identified on any previous water study for CT 00-18. If this was added to support the request to exempt the requirements to finance/build all of College Blvd Reach, please remove this pressure reducing station from the exhibits. A facility like this is an unnecessary asset for the city to maintain and will not be needed if all of College Blvd, including the utilities, are constructed in accordance with the LFMP and CT conditions. 7. On sheet 4, provide safety railing above the perimeter retaining walls that are adjacent to the parking lot to provide pedestrian protection in these areas where there is a drop-off. 8. For additional comments, refer to the redlines. •^) CT 11-03/ PUD 12-03/SDP 01-lOlA) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES May 30, 2012 Page 4 Fire Prevention: To be provided under separate cover Landscape: 1. It is understood that detailing has been provided to enhance the building elevations; however this does not address Landscape Manual requirements for softening. Landscaping to include tall trees is needed to soften and further enhance (not conceal) some elevations. Previously shown landscaping along the east side of Lot 5 building and north sides of Lots 3, 4 and 5 buildings has been deleted. Please see the enclosed comments and address softening of all of these elevations as shown on the red line plans. SeaBourne DevelopmenTCo. April 23,2012 San Diego County: 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Tel: 760.931.5616 Fax: 760.931.4850 Orange County: 895 Dove Street 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949.851.6424 Fax: 949955.4990 Mr. Christer Westman Planning Department CITV OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, CA 92008 RE: CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) -ENCINAS CREEK APARTIMENT HOIMES - LFIMP MODIFICATION We are the applicant and developers of the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project. We are requesting a modification to the wording of Special Condition No. D(l)(a)(l) on page 11 of the Zone 15 LFMP, dated October 19, 2011. The proposed modified wording is as follows: REQUESTED CONDITION IMODIFICATION (underlined wording added): /. DEVELOPMENT AREA I A. College Boidevard 1. Prior to the approval ofthe first final map within the Development Area I of Zone 15, the participating owners' must develop and agree to the formation of a comprehensive fmancing program that guarantees the construction offull width improvements of College Boulevard between Canon Road and El Camino Real. Said financing mechanism can include such programs as Bridge and Thoroughfare District, Assessment District, or private reimbursement agreements. The uhimate financing program must receive City Council approval prior to the recordation of the first fmal map. Proiects that complv with Carlsbad traffic engineering and fire code access regulations, and which do not fall into the category of single entry developments, may be exempted from this requirement subiect to financial guarantee of the minimal improvements needed to complv with such access regulations. 2. Prior to the approval of the first building permit (see phasing exception in paragraph 3 below) within Development Area I, the following public improvements must be completed and operational: Complete the connection of College Boulevardfrom Cannon Road and El Camino Real. This would include the following elements: • Full width grading to major arterial standards. • Two center travel lanes including a raised median and left turn pockets. • Con.struction of full width bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek. • Full intersection improvements to Cannon Road and College Boulevard including appropriate lane transitions to the southern leg of College Boulevard. Proiects that complv with Carlsbad traffic engineering and fire code access regulations, and which do not fall into the categor\> of single entrv developments, may be exempted from the above requirement, subiect to construction of improvements necessary to provide adequate traffic and fire access to their proiect. prior to issuance of the first building permit in such development. 3. Phasing - In addition to the above fmancing mechanisms and in conjunction with specific tentative map conditions, the City Engineer may approve phasing of improvements for 1 College Boulevard to allow for approval of developer requested grading and building permits for a certain number of residential units prior to the full completion of College Boulevard, Reach A. For single entry development no more than 25 units may be constructed as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard or north of the Agua Hedionda Creek Bridge. Proiects that do not fall into the category of single entry developments are not subiect to the 25 unit limitation. 4. Relocation of Rancho Carlsbad R V and Garden site -An acceptable site for relocation of the Rancho Carlsbad RV and Garden site currently east of College Blvd. requires a conditional use permit (CUP) or equivalent permU to the satisfaction of the Planning Director for the relocation. A secured agreement with the City for the construction of the RV and Garden site is required (see Planning Commission Resolution No. 5753 ~ Condition No. 46for CT 00-18 for reference). JUSTIFICATION: The above-requested modification can be justified for the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project as follows: 1. The Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project is located at the north end of the College Boulevard link, situated only 1,200 linear feet from the existing street improvements at Cannon Road. As a result of this location on the extreme northerly end of the College Boulevard link, it is the only property within Zone 15 which could qualify as a non-single entry development, subject to its provision of adequate width of College Boulevard improvements fi'om the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project to Cannon Road. 2. The proposed Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project will be constructed at a density over 20 du/ac, and therefore the entire 127 housing units will qualify as "affordable" pursuant to the State of Califomia Housing Credit Development requirements and will thus contribute 127 units toward the City of Carlsbad's Regional Housing Needs Assessment share. 3. The costs associated with complying with the Zone 15 LFMP Special Condition referenced above without modification would be prohibitive. Approval of this LFMP amendment would be considered an "offset" or " incentive" pursuant to Sect. 21.85.100 of the CMC and which would enable the developer to provide the desired level of affordability. 4. The Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project will result in benefit to Zone 15 landowners (and will thus expedite the schedule for completion of the entire College Boulevard roadway) by providing necessary affordable housing for those development consistent with CMC Section 21.85.080 and 21.85.040(f). Please consider the above-referenced modifications to Special Condition No. D(l)(a)(l) on page 11 of the Zone 15 LFMP. We view this amendment as de minimus and respectfully request these changes to be done administratively. Such modification will allow the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project to be developed in an expedient and cost-effective manner. Sincerely, SEABOURNE DEVELOPIVIENT CO. ^lifornia cof^any L. Cablay President KLC: cea cc. Susan Kelly Paul Klukas San Diego County: 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Tel: 760.931.56l6 Fax: 760.931.4850 Orange County: 895 Dove Street 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949851.6424 Fax: 949955.4990 SeJIourne DevelopmenPco. April 23,2012 Mr. Christer Westman Planning Department CITV OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 o LU RECEIVED ^ APR 2 3 2012 O CITY OF CARLSBACE PLANNING DIVISION C3 CVI CVI oc a. < Q Z <o ^ CO CO < OO Oz ^! Oal SUBJECT: APPLICANT RESPONSE TO 2"'' CITY REVIEW CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) ENCINAS CREEEK APARTMENT HOMES Dear Mr. Westman: Per your letter dated February 6, 2012, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the above-referenced application package and plans. Holly Springs LTD has commissioned modifications to the documents and plans as requested. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find the following: Ten (10) sets of the revised Site Development Plan Ten (10) sets of the revised Tentative Map Ten (10) sets of revised Concept Architecture Plans Ten (10) sets of revised Concept Landscape Plans Two (2) copies ofthe revised Preliminary Hydrology Study Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary SWMP Two (2) copies of the revised LFMP Zone 15 ADT Traffic Update Report by Urban Systems dated April 18, 2012 Two (2) copies of Transportation Analysis for 127 unit MDR project, Short- Term Conditions Without College Blvd. by Urban Systems dated June 13, 2011 Two (2) copies of the response letter fi'om EEI dated February 27, 2012 Response memorandum from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11,2012 Signed and completed Planned Development Permit application and $7,845.00 application fee Zone 15 LFMP Modification Letter Redlined Plans (return) Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments listed in the February 6 letter. ISSUES QF CONCERN Planning: The necessity of standards modifications to building height (41'9" versus 35) and single car garage width (W versus 12) in order to make the projecl "affordable" is not clear. The response provided takes a position that the project has a high degree of affordability and should therefore be granted modifications. Regardless, it stands to reason that reducing the garage width could contribute to a lower cost of construction since the additional 2 foot width for each garage could result in an overall building width decrease of 36 to 44 1 feet, h is just not clear how increasing the height of the building will contribute to achieving unit affordability. Response: The standards modification requests are necessary to achieve the target Regional Housing Needs Assessment density of 20 du's /ac. Additionally the project will be restricted to 50% affordable housing, far in excess of the minimum 15% requirement. Without these modification requests, the project is infeasible and impractical to build. 2. A Planned Development Permit is required to be submitted with the creation of lots that do not have legal access to a public road. Lots must be drawn such that each parcel contains all of the parking stalls required for that parcel's building. In addition, lot lines must be located such that the required RD-M Zoning building setback from such property lines can he achieved. Response: A Planned Development Permit application plus fee is included with this resubmittal package. 3. Screening of the parking hays facing the public streets has not been adequately addressed. Berms, shrubs, and/or low walls must be added to the plan to guarantee that the cars will be screened from view. Response: Please review the street cross section on the site development plan, the proposed landscaping on the conceptual landscape plan, and the building architectural plans. The elevation difference between the adjoining public streets and the parking bays/garages are heavily screened and interrupted with the proposed landscaping. 4. Please lisl the typical interior dimensions of the single car attached garage spaces. Response: Please review the building architectural plans; dimensions have been indicated. 5. A more useful and accessible common area might be created for Buildings/Lots 4 and 5 if they could be re-oriented to face each other and direct the garages and drive aisles to the outside perimeter of the buildings. Response: This was discussed at our meeting of February 22, 2012 and it was mutually decided that no change to the project was needed. Engineering: /. Two traffic analyses were submitted for this project. The e-memo from Urban Systems dated November 15, 2011 explains lhat traffic from this project is considered by recent traffic studies. This peak hour comparison only considers 3 projects (Cantarini, Holly Springs, MDR). However there are other properties to the east that would contribute to these intersections (Mandana, Kato, Rancho Milagro, Bentley, etc). Revise this e-memo to consider all future projects within zone 15, east of College Blvd, which will contribute traffic to intersections #9 and 10 and demonstrate that the added trips by this project will not resuh in any roadway intersection or road segment failures. Response: Please see the LFMP Zone 15 ADT Traffic Update Report by Urban Systems dated April 18, 2012. 2. The transportation analysis prepared by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, is being returned without review. This study considers constructing College Blvd from the north to the intersection of 'C' Street and is irrelevant to this project. Construction phasing will be based on .several services required to serve this project (road, potable water, sewer, storm drain, recycled water, dry utilities, etc.), not just traffic. Because of the various Zone 15 development outcomes, it is premature to make construction phasing decisions for this project. Response: A revised traffic report is included with this resubmittal package. 3. The geotechnical report indicates that, due to percolation rates, inflitration may be used on bioretention areas, except within 10 feet of footings. Please clarify if this applies to retaining wall footings or just footings for building foundations. In general, revise the report to address recommendations for the pervious paving and/or bioretention basins located at the top of slopes adjacent to retaining walls. Based on this information, revise the storm water management plan as liners affect the basin sizing factors. Refer to redlines. Response: Please see the Geotechnical Response Letter by EEI dated February 27, 2012. 4. Revise the geotechnical report to provide recommendations regarding the use of pervious pavement in the parking areas for this project. Response: Please see the Geotechnical Response Letter by EEI dated February 27, 2012. 5. Revise the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to clarify whether infiltration will be incorporated with bioretention basins or if impermeable liners are required. The geotechnical evaluation seems to promote inflitration, while the preliminary SWMP indicates that due to poor infiltration that lining will he required for all bioretention basins. Address this discrepancy. Response: The SWMP has been revised to size all of the hydromodification treatment basins as Flow-Through Planters. Also, please see the attached response letter fi'om EEI dated February 27, 2012, which confirms that we are required to provide lining for all of the proposed hydromodification treatment basins. 6. On the concept landscape plans, revise the exhibits to remove the offsite hydroseed along the easterly slope of College Blvd. It is anticipated College Blvd. will be built by Cantarini and/or Dos Colinas and construction obligations will be included on those construction plans. The construction phasing details for College Blvd are irrelevant to this project approval. Response: The conceptual landscape plans have been revised to reflect permanent slope landscaping. 7. Revise the concept landscape plans to indicate whether guardrail, safety fencing and a contiguous sidewalk is required near the easterly driveway along 'C Street. Coordinate with the civil plans Response: The plans have been revised to include a safety fence in the location where the sidewalk is adjacent to slopes, and have added a guardrail along 'C Street. 8. Revise the concept landscape plans to reflect the improvements for College Blvd. and 'C Street as shown on substantial conformance exhibit, SCE 00-18A. Response: The conceptual landscape plans have been revised to reflect the improvements for College Blvd. and 'C" Street as shown on substantial conformance exhibit, SCE 00-ISA. Tentative Map 9. The road and utility improvements for College Blvd. and 'C Street do not reflect the current exhibits for the adjacent projects. Revise the exhibit to show the updated road and utility improvements as proposed by the Cantarini project, CT 00-18. Refer to the recently approved substantial conformance exhibit (SCE 00-18A). Show the adjacent access, utility and development plans for Dos Colinas, MS 09-04. Response: The tentative map has been revised to show road improvements per CT 00-18 (SCE 00-18A) and Dos Colinas MS 09-04. 10. The property for this project is part of CT 0048 and will be subject to satisfying the applicable conditions. Financing and constructing College Blvd. Reach A is one of those conditions that must be satisfied. Revise the exhibit to delete construction limits/phasing for College Blvd. This project is not a stand-alone project, as it depends on certain zone improvements to he constructed, mostly by the Cantarini project (CT 00-18) and/or Dos Colinas (MS 09-04). College Blvd Reach A will be approved as one project. However, construction may begin from north, the south or from both directions. Ensuring that necessary facilities (road, sewer, water, recycled water, etc.) are in place is a complex is.sue that will he determined at a later point in lime. For the purpose of this project, assume all of College Blvd Reach A will be constructed (no terminus). Similar to other developmenl projects in this area, a condition will be placed on this project that, prior to issuance ofbuilding permits, all improvements necessary to serve this project are completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer, city planner and fire marshal. Response: The tentative map has been revised have been revised to show the College Boulevard improvements continuing to an undetermined terminus. //. Per the conditions of approval for CT 00-18, revise the exhibits to show the improvement and dedication of a trail easement through the project. The trail begins at 'C Street, through the open space lot to the northerly property boundary. Coordinate the trail improvements with the city trail manager (Liz Ketabian at 760-434-2978). Refer to redlines. Response: The referenced trail and easement have been added to the tentative map on Sheet 5. 12. Revise the exhibits to indicate that the intersection of College Blvd. and Street 'C will he signalized per CT 00-18. Response: A note referencing "Signal Intersection" and trail detail has been added to the tentative map on Sheet 1. 13. Revise the exhibits or add a separate sheet showing the inside and outside turning radii at each critical turn for a trash fire truck (see Caltrans figure 4 404.5F). Response: Turning radius movements of 404.5F vehicle have been added on Sheet 6 of the tentative map. 14. Revise the exhibits to show elevation/invert information on the proposed private storm drain system. This information is required to evaluate the outlet designs/capacity for each bioretention basin as they operate during smaller to large storm events. Response: We have added elevations to the private storm drain systems on the tentative map. 15. Revise the exhibits lo provide additional information on the bioretention basins .such as bottom basin elevation, outlet rim elevation, invert elevation, etc. Show the anticipated ponded water .surface elevation on the sections and demonstrate freeboard requirements are satisfied. Response: Additional details and information has been added for the bioretention basins. Please see plan Sheet 3 for details, Sheets 4 and 5 for basin elevation, outlet rim elevation, and invert elevations. We have also revised the SWMP to provide more information regarding cross- sectional design concepts for basin sizing. 16. On sheet 1, revise the exhibits to clarify how many apartment units are assigned to each lot proposed within this subdivision. Response: The number of apartment units assigned to each proposed lot have been added to the Lot Summary on Sheet 1 of the engineering plan set. 17. On sheet I, revise the legend to clarify which improvements are private and which are public. Response: The legend has been revised to clarify private and public improvements on Sheet 1 of the engineering plan set. 18. On .sheet 2, revise the street improvements for College Blvd. (NCTD bus stop, meandering sidewalk, utility alignments, etc.) lo match those on SCE 00-18A. Response: The tentative map has been revised to match SCE 00-18A. 19. On sheet 2, add a note explaining that the road and utility improvements to College Blvd. and Street 'C are proposed per the Cantarini project, CT 00-18. Response: A note has been added to the tentative map Sheet 2 regarding the fact that road and utility improvements are per the proposed Cantarini project CT 00-18. 20. On sheet 2, review the exhibit to show the proposed entry driveway and adjacent development improvements for Dos Colinas MS 09-04. Show the realignment of Don Carlos Drive and construction basin BJ. Response: As requested, the plan Sheet 2 has been revised to include the entry drive for the Dos Colinas project, the realignment of Don Carlos Drive, and Basin "BJ" per MS 09-04. 21. On .sheet 3, revise the exhibits to indicale where the curb opening detail will be used. Response: Curb opening locations have been added and called out to the plan view Engineering set Sheets 4 and 5. 22. On sheet 3, revise the seclion to clarify whether a perimeter wall is proposed as part of the development. If so, this wall should be depicted on the section (typical). Response: No perimeter wall is proposed for the project. 23. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to clarify that right-of-way will be dedicated at the curb return of College Blvd. and 'C' Street. Response: The right-of-way to be dedicated for "C" Street and College Boulevard has been added to the Engineering plan set. 24. On sheet 4, based on our review il appears the retaining walls supporting the bioretention basins are low, allowing water to run over the top and down the slopes. Revise the exhibits to address the height of retaining walls in order to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard from the waler surface in the basins during I OO-year events. The preliminary basin designs should be evaluated in the hydrology report. Revise the exhibits to provide a secondary overflow per city standards, Response: We have revised the tentative map to depict secondary overflow at the bioretention basins. Additionally, 1.0' to top of wall heights have been added along the perimeter at the bioretention basins. 25. On sheet 4, the bioretention area between the buildings for lot 1 and lot 2 seems very elaborate. The meandering channel, slopes, sidewalk, swale and small pipes seem to present several opportunities to clog. Since this is a long term permanent best management practice, please consider a simpler linear bioretention swale that might be easier for the property owner to maintain. Response: The plan has been revised to show two 12-inch storm drains to carry runoff between the bioretention basins between the buildings for Lots 1 and 2, typical. 26. On sheet 4, add more detail lo the linear bioretention swale along the top-of- slope. Address how deep the swale must be to carry the flows during a 100-yr storm event. Address if this swale will need to be lined to prevent percolation at the top of the slope (see geotechnical report). Response: As requested, we have added basin FS elevations, rim and invert elevations, and have added Section G-G to Sheet 4 of the engineering plan set. As a secondary overflow for this basin, we have added overflow risers for every 100-feet of basin length. This basin will be fully-lined and was sized in the SWMP as a flow-through planter. 27. On sheet 4, revise the sewer alignment at the southwest corner of lot I to maintain setbacks from the easement edge and the proposed building. Refer to redlines. Response: The sewer alignment at the southwest comer of Lot 1 has been revised as requested. 28. On sheet 4, the proposed public sewer on lot 4 seems unnecessarily long. Revise the exhibit to provide a sewer lateral near the end of the building and eliminate the unneeded portion. Refer to red lines. Response: The sewer as shown will be "worst case". This sewer design will be modified at the final engineering design stage, when the location of sewer laterals exiting the buildings is known. 29. On sheet 4, label the grade ofthe driveway from 'C' Street into the project. Response: We have relocated the label showing the grade of the driveway from 'C Street into the project so it is more noticeable. This grade is 6.1%). 30. On sheet 5, revise the alignment of the waterline between lot 4 and 5 so that it does not weave within the driveway. Refer to redlines. Response: The alignment of the waterline between lots 4 and 5 has been realigned, as requested. 31. On sheet 5, add additional information to the linear bioretention swales. Based on the submitted information, some swales do not appear to drain properly around the building for lot 5, or are undersized for the 1 OO-year storm event. Refer to redlines. Please address in the hydrology study and revise the exhibit to show how these swales will drain properly. Response: We have split this DMA adjacent to the building for lot 5 into two separate DMA / IMP's. We have also added overflow risers along the back of the building to prevent overflowing 30. On sheet 5, clarify whether a splash wall or other feature should be added where the ribbon gutter connects to the bioretention swale located at the top of the slope. Response: A splash wall has been added at the locations where the ribbon gutter connects to the bioretention swales located at the top of slope. 33. On sheet 5, clarify whether the note on lot 4 for covered parking is mislabeled where pervious paving is proposed. Response: Only portions of the parking bays will be covered. However, the roof of the carport will drain so that the runoff is routed through the pervious pavement prior to entering the bioretention swale. 34. On lot 5, evaluate the need for a guardrail near the driveway where there is a 9- foot drop and 2:1 slope next to the structure. Clarify the use of pedestrian fencing on vertical drops adjacent to sidewalks. Add any new symbols to the legend. Refer to redlines. Response: The plans have been revised to depict a safety fence where there is a sidewalk adjacent to slopes greater and added guardrail along 'C Street. 55. For additional comments, refer to the attached redlined documents from Land 1 Development Engineering (LDE): Tentative Map (6 sheets), e-memo by Urban Systems, dated November 15, 2011, Transportation Analysis by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, Geotechnical Evaluation by EEI, dated October 24, 2011, Drainage Study from ODay Consultants, dated February 8, 2011, Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan by ODay Consultants, dated November 23, 2011 and conceptual landscape plan (5 sheets). When this project is resubmitted, please provide LDE all redlined items above along with a copy of the revised Tentative Map, conceptual landscape plan, and one revised copy of each technical document listed above (except transportation analysis) to facilitate continued staff review. Response: Please see further notes in green print adjacent to the City's comments on the redlines. Landscape Architect: 23. Please provide designated theme and support street trees on College boulevard per the Landscape Manual and also to match street trees proposed for CUP 09- 02 on the opposite side of College Boulevard. 2"'' Review: Please revise the Pyrus species to kawakamii and add Liriodendron tulipifera to better match those proposed on the project across the street. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. 26. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. Please address on the plans. 2'"' Review: Please show screen shrubs with height noted as 3' above the parking. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. 28. The plan will be forwarded to Public Works Maintenance and Operations for review. Any comments will be returned to the applicant. 2'"' Review: The plan has been forwarded to CMWD for review. Any comments will be returned to the applicant. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. 29. As required by the State of California, the City of Carlsbad has adopted a water efficient ordinance. All requirements of this ordinance are to be met. Concept plans shall include calculations which document the maximum allowed annual water use for the landscaped area or maximum applied waler allowance (MAWA) and esimated total water use (ETWU). A landscape proiect shall not exceed the MAWA. The MAWA for a landscape project shall be determined by the following calculation as defined in the City ordinance: MAWA = (ETo)(0.62)[(0 7 x LA) + (0.3 x SLA)]. The ETWU shall be determined by the following calculation as defined in the City ordinance. ETWU = (ETo)(0.62) PFxHA + SLA IE Please insure that all requirements of the water use ordinance are met. The ordinance may be found at the following website: http://lihrarv.niunicode. com/index.aspx? clienthh 16245&stateld=5&stateN ame ^California under Title 19. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. 31. Please provide a fire protection plan as required by the Landscape Manual and adjust plantings as appropriate to meet all requirements. 2'"' Review: Trees are not allowed in zone 2 and trees and shrubs are not allowed within zone I. Please address all fire protection requiremenis per the Landscape Manual (see below). The Fire Suppression Plan shall consist of a written and graphic plan and sections illustrating the following: .a. Fire hydrant locations b. Rear yard setbacks c. Fire control planting as outlined in Section IV.F d. Emergency/maintenance access e. Maintenance responsibility and schedule of frequency f. Any other project modification to protect the development from fire hazards g. Street widths dimensioned Section A-l - Measured horizontally 20' outward from the outlying edge of s tructure (.s). 1. Planted with ground cover or low growing shrub species (less than 3' in height) known to have fire retardent qualities 2. No trees or shrubs allowed. 3. Irrigated. Section A-2 - Measured horizontally 20' outward from the outlying edge of Section A-l. 1. Planted with low water use naturalizing plant species known to have low fuel characteristics. 2. No trees allowed. 3. Irrigated. Section A-3 - Measured outward from the outlying edge of A-2 to include the remainder of the area between Section A-2 and high risk fire areas as described under Section IIC. Horizontal distance from the structure(s) to untreated high risk areas shall not be less than 60'. 1. Planted with low waler use naturalizing plant species known to have low fuel characteristics. 2. Trees are allowed bul shall nol be planted closer than 20' apart. 3. Irrigated. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012 and the revised conceptual landscape plan, a Fire Suppression Plan has been included. 37. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. Landscaping shall be med to accentuate and enhance architecture. Additional landscaping to include trees is needed along building elevations as indicated on the redline plans to both soften and enhance the architecture. Please address. 2'"' Review: The applicant has responded: "Landscape Concept Enlargements are provided to illustrate what entry enhancements are being proposed to accent the buildings and entries and provide some greenery to the drive aisles. Please see sheet L-2 for the landscape exhibits. Exhibits from the architect have been provided for your reference to illustrate how much detail has been given to the building facades. There are 4 building elevations. Each one has a distinct palette of colors, finishes, trellises, roof planes, reveal, pop-outs, stone enhancements, and different patio rails or fences. Even the garage doors are different along the building frontages. When combined on the site, there is no cookie cutter treatment to the architectural facades or boring repetition. Great care has been taken by the client to provide architectural treatment, variety and articulation. It would appear that there is no need to "soften" the buildings where there is so much interesting detail provided already by the architect, it would seem unnecessary to conceal it with trees and vines." // is understood that detailing has been provided to enhance the building elevations; however this does not address Landscape Manual requirements for softening. Landscaping lo include tall trees is needed to soften and further enhance (not conceal) the elevations. Although architectural detailing does enhance the elevations it does not soften them. Please address the Landscape Manual requirements. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. The project applicant and consultant team met with city staff on February 22, 2012 and reviewed the street cross sections, conceptual landscape plan, and building architectural plans. Staff understood and agreed that the interrupted line of sight, degree of landscaping, and the building articulation mitigated and softened any building mass. 38. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, fire protection, and colored water use plan) for the next submittal. Response: Redlined plans are being returned with the resubmittal package. NEW COMMENTS I A. Please correct the detail numbers. Response: Please see memorandum response fi'om Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. 2A. The parking is as much as 5.5' higher than the adjacent landscape. Please explain and show how the parking will be screened. See comment number 26. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. The project applicant and consultant team met with city staff on February 22, 2012 and reviewed the street cross sections and the conceptual landscape plan. Staff reviewed and agreed that proposed landscaping mitigated and screened the adjacent parking. 3A. Please review the leader line. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. 4A. Please specify the materials to be used for the retaining walls and provide a cap with a 1" cantilever on both sides. Please also insure appropriate landscape 10 screening is provided infront of all walls. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated Apri! 11, 2012. 5A. Landscaping of off-site areas as shown on sheet L-4 shows non-irrigated plantings. Per the Landscape Manual, all areas requiring planting under Section E.3-1 shall be irrigated with a permanent automatically controlled irrigation system covering 100% of the planted area. Please provide irrigation as required. Response: Please see memorandum response from Jim Taylor, The Lightfoot Planning Group dated April 11, 2012. Lastly, as a follow up to our meeting with you on February 22. 2012 we met with Bill Plummer from the Water Dept. on March 27, 2012 and Greg Ryan from the Fire Dept. on April 3, 2012 to discuss specifically the interim infi-astructure conditions with College Boulevard only built from Cannon Road to Street C. We addressed all issues that either department raised and received concurrence that this project could be adequately served with just this portion of College Boulevard constructed. Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package. We look forward to finalizing this review and proceeding to hearings. Sincerely, SEABOURNE DEVELOPMENT CO. a California corporation L. Cablay President KLC:cea Enc. cc: Susan Kelly Paul Klukas CITY OF FILE COPY VXARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov February 6, 2012 Ken Cablay SeaBourne Development Co. 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad CA 92011 SUBJECT: 2nd REVIEW FOR CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your five lot subdivision project for 127 apartments in 5 buildings, applications no. CT 11-03/SDP 00-15(A), as to its completeness for processing The items requested from you eariier to make your Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Plan, applications no. CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Division. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required forthe application. At this time, the City asks that you provide 10 complete sets ofthe development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. The Citv will complete the review of vour resubmittal within 25 davs. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:CW:bd Holly Springs LTD. P.O.Box 2484 Carlsbad CA 92018 Paul Klukas Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100 Carlsbad CA 92008 Don Neu, City Planner Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES February 6, 2012 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: None Engineering: None ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The necessity of standards modifications to building height (41'9" versus 35') and single car garage width (10' versus 12') in order to make the project "affordable" is not clear. The response provided takes a position that the project has a high degree of affordability and should therefore be granted modifications. Regardless, it stands to reason that reducing the garage width could contribute to a lower cost of construction since the additional 2 foot width for each garage could result in an overall building width decrease of 36 to 44 feet. It is just not clear how increasing the height of the building will contribute to achieving unit affordablility. 2. A Planned Development Permit is required to be submitted with the creation of lots that do not have legal access to a public road. Lots must be drawn such that each parcel contains all of the parking stalls required for that parcel's building. In addition, lot lines must be located such that the required RD-M Zoning building setback from such property lines can be achieved. 3. Screening of the parking bays facing the public streets has not been adequately addressed. Berms, shrubs, and/or low walls must be added to the plan to guarantee that the cars will be screened from view. 4. Please list the typical interior dimensions of the single car attached garage spaces. 5. A more useful and accessible common area might be created for Buildings/Lots 4 and 5 if they could be re-oriented to face each other and direct the garages and drive aisles to the outside perimeter of the buildings. Engineering: 1. Two traffic analyses were submitted for this project. The e-memo from Urban Systems dated November 15, 2011 explains that traffic from this project is considered by recent traffic studies. This peak hour comparison only considers 3 projects (Cantarini, Holly Springs, MDR). However there are other properties to the east that would contribute to these intersections (Mandana, Kato, Rancho Milagro, Bentley, etc). Revise this e-memo to consider all future projects within zone 15, east of College Blvd, which will contribute traffic to intersections #9 and 10 and demonstrate that the added trips by this project will not result in any roadway intersection or road segment failures. CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES February 6, 2012 Page 3 2. The transportation analysis prepared by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, is being returned without review. This study considers constructing College Blvd from the north to the intersection of 'C Street and is irrelevant to this project. Construction phasing will be based on several services required to serve this project (road, potable water, sewer, storm drain, recycled water, dry utilities, etc.), not just traffic. Because of the various Zone 15 development outcomes, it is premature to make construction phasing decisions for this project. 3. The geotechnical report indicates that, due to percolation rates, infiltration may be used on bioretention areas, except within 10 feet of footings. Please clarify if this applies to retaining wall footings or just footings for building foundations. In general, revise the report to address recommendations for the pervious paving and/or bioretention basins located at the top of slopes adjacent to retaining walls. Based on this information, revise the storm water management plan as liners affect the basin sizing factors. Refer to redlines. 4. Revise the geotechnical report to provide recommendations regarding the use of pervious pavement in the parking areas for this project. 5. Revise the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to clarify whether infiltration will be incorporated with bioretention basins or if impermeable liners are required. The geotechnical evaluation seems to promote infiltration, while the preliminary SWMP indicates that due to poor infiltration that lining will be required for all bioretention basins. Address this discrepancy. 6. On the concept landscape plans, revise the exhibits to remove the offsite hydroseed along the easterly slope of College Blvd. It is anticipated College Blvd. will be built by Cantarini and/or Dos Colinas and construction obligations will be included on those construction plans. The construction phasing details for College Blvd are irrelevant to this project approval. 7. Revise the concept landscape plans to indicate whether guardrail, safety fencing and a contiguous sidewalk is required near the easterly driveway along 'C Street. Coordinate with the civil plans. 8. Revise the concept landscape plans to reflect the improvements for College Blvd. and 'C Street as shown on substantial conformance exhibit, SCE 00-18A. Tentative Map 9. The road and utility improvements for College Blvd. and 'C Street do not reflect the current exhibits for the adjacent projects. Revise the exhibit to show the updated road and utility improvements as proposed by the Cantarini project, CT 00-18. Refer to the recently approved substantial conformance exhibit (SCE 00-18A). Show the adjacent access, utility and development plans for Dos Colinas, MS 09-04. 10. The property for this project is part of CT 00-18 and will be subject to satisfying the applicable conditions. Financing and constructing College Blvd. Reach A is one of those conditions that must be satisfied. Revise the exhibit to delete construction limits/phasing for College Blvd. This project is not a stand-alone project, as it depends on certain zone improvements to be constructed, mostly by the Cantarini project (CT 00-18) and/or Dos Colinas (MS 09-04). College Blvd Reach A will be approved as one project. However, construction may begin from north, the south or from both directions. Ensuring that necessary facilities (road, sewer, water, recycled water, etc.) are in place is a complex issue that will be determined at a later point in time. For the purpose of this project, assume all of College Blvd Reach A will be constructed (no terminus). Similar to other development projects in this area, a condition will be placed on this project that, prior to issuance of building permits, all :^s CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES February 6, 2012 Page 4 improvements necessary to serve this project are completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer, city planner and fire marshal. 11. Per the conditions of approval for CT 00-18, revise the exhibits to show the improvement and dedication of a trail easement through the project. The trail begins at 'C Street, through the open space lot to the northeriy property boundary. Coordinate the trail improvements with the city trail manager (Liz Ketabian at 760-434-2978). Refer to redlines. 12. Revise the exhibits to indicate that the intersection of College Blvd. and Street 'C will be signalized per CT 00-18. 13. Revise the exhibits or add a separate sheet showing the inside and outside turning radii at each critical turn for a trash/fire truck (see Caltrans figure 404.5F). 14. Revise the exhibits to show elevation/invert information on the proposed private storm drain system. This information is required to evaluate the outlet designs/capacity for each bioretention basin as they operate during smaller to large storm events. 15. Revise the exhibits to provide additional information on the bioretention basins such as bottom basin elevation, outlet rim elevation, invert elevation, etc. Show the anticipated ponded water surface elevation on the sections and demonstrate freeboard requirements are satisfied. 16. On sheet 1, revise the exhibits to clarify how many apartment units are assigned to each lot proposed within this subdivision. 17. On sheet 1, revise the legend to clarify which improvements are private and which are public. 18. On sheet 2, revise the street improvements for College Blvd. (NCTD bus stop, meandering sidewalk, utility alignments, etc.) to match those on SCE 00-18A. 19. On sheet 2, add a note explaining that the road and utility improvements to College Blvd. and Street 'C are proposed per the Cantarini project, CT 00-18. 20. On sheet 2, review the exhibit to show the proposed entry driveway and adjacent development improvements for Dos Colinas MS 09-04. Show the realignment of Don Carlos Drive and construction basin BJ. 21. On sheet 3, revise the exhibits to indicate where the curb opening detail will be used. 22. On sheet 3, revise the section to clarify whether a perimeter wall is proposed as part of the development. If so, this wall should be depicted on the section (typical). 23. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to clarify that right-of-way will be dedicated at the curb return of College Blvd. and 'C Street. 24. On sheet 4, based on our review it appears the retaining walls supporting the bioretention basins are low, allowing water to run over the top and down the slopes. Revise the exhibits to address the height of retaining walls in order to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard from the water surface in the basins during lOO-year events. The preliminary basin designs should be evaluated in the hydrology report. Revise the exhibits to provide a secondary overflow per city standards. CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES February 6, 2012 Page 5 25. On sheet 4, the bioretention area between the buildings for lot 1 and lot 2 seems very elaborate. The meandering channel, slopes, sidewalk, swale and small pipes seem to present several opportunities to clog. Since this is a long term permanent best management practice, please consider a simpler linear bioretention swale that might be easier for the property owner to maintain. 26. On sheet 4, add more detail to the linear bioretention swale along the top-of-slope. Address how deep the swale must be to carry the flows during a 100-yr storm event. Address if this swale will need to be lined to prevent percolation at the top ofthe slope (see geotechnical report). 27. On sheet 4, revise the sewer alignment at the southwest corner of lot 1 to maintain setbacks from the easement edge and the proposed building. Refer to redlines. 28. On sheet 4, the proposed public sewer on lot 4 seems unnecessarily long. Revise the exhibit to provide a sewer lateral near the end of the building and eliminate the unneeded portion. Refer to redlines. 29. On sheet 4, label the grade of the driveway from 'C Street into the project. 30. On sheet 5, revise the alignment of the waterline between lot 4 and 5 so that it does not weave within the driveway. Refer to redlines. 31. On sheet 5, add additional information to the linear bioretention swales. Based on the submitted information, some swales do not appear to drain properly around the building for lot 5, or are undersized for the lOO-year storm event. Refer to redlines. Please address in the hydrology study and revise the exhibit to show how these swales will drain properly. 32. On sheet 5, clarify whether a splash wall or other feature should be added where the ribbon gutter connects to the bioretention swale located at the top ofthe slope. 33. On sheet 5, clarify whether the note on lot 4 for covered parking is mislabeled where pervious paving is proposed. 34. On lot 5, evaluate the need for a guardrail near the driveway where there is a 9-foot drop and 2:1 slope next to the structure. Clarify the use of pedestrian fencing on vertical drops adjacent to sidewalks. Add any new symbols to the legend. Refer to redlines. 35. For additional comments, refer to the attached redlined documents from Land Development Engineering (LDE): Tentative Map (6 sheets), e-memo by Urban Systems, dated November 15, 2011, Transportation Analysis by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, Geotechnical Evaluation by EEI, dated October 24, 2011, Drainage Study from O'Day Consultants, dated February 8, 2011, Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan by O'Day Consultants, dated November 23, 2011 and conceptual landscape plan (5 sheets). When this project is resubmitted, please provide LDE all redlined items above along with a copy ofthe revised Tentative Map, conceptual landscape plan, and one revised copy of each technical document listed above (except transportation analysis) to facilitate continued staff review. CARLSBAD ^^^^^ Memorandum January 18, 2012 To: Christer Westman, Planning From: Jeremy Riddle, Land Development Engineering SUBJECT: 1'* REVIEW OF ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENTS (CT 11-03/SDP 01-lOA) Land development engineering (LDE) has completed a review of 1^^ submittal package for this project. Based on our review, the application is deemed 'complete'. However, we have provided identified a list of engineering issues below. Prior to resubmittal, please have the applicant address the engineering issues: General Two traffic analyses were submitted for this project. The e-memo from Urban Systems dated November 15, 2011 explains that traffic from this project is considered by recent traffic studies. This peak hour comparison only considers 3 projects (Cantarini, Holly Springs, MDR). However there are other properties to the east that would contribute to these intersections (Mandana, Kato, Rancho Milagro, Bentley, etc). Revise this e- memo to consider all future projects within zone 15, east of College Blvd, which will contribute traffic to intersections #9 and 10 and demonstrate that the added trips by this project will not result in any roadway intersection or road segment failures. The transportation analysis prepared by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, is being returned without review. This study considers constructing College Blvd from the north to the intersection of 'C Street and is irrelevant to this project. Construction phasing will be based on several services required to serve this project (road, potable water, sewer, storm drain, recycled water, dry utilities, etc.), not just traffic. Because of the various Zone 15 development outcomes, it is premature to make construction phasing decisions for this project. The geotechnical report indicates that, due to percolation rates, infiltration may be used on bioretention areas, except within 10 feet of footings. Please clarify if this applies to retaining wall footings or just footings for building foundations. In general, revise the report to address recommendations for the pervious paving and/or bioretention basins located at the top of slopes adjacent to retaining walls. Based on this information, revise the storm water management plan as liners affect the basin sizing factors. Refer to redlines. Encinas Creek Apartments January 18, 2012 Page 2 of 5 4. Revise the geotechnical report to provide recommendations regarding the use of pervious pavement in the parking areas for this project. 5. Revise the preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to clarify whether infiltration will be incorporated with bioretention basins or if impermeable liners are required. The geotechnical evaluation seems to promote infiltration, while the preliminary SWMP indicates that due to poor infiltration that lining will be required for all bioretention basins. Address this discrepancy. 6. On the concept landscape plans, revise the exhibits to remove the offsite hydroseed along the easterly slope of College Blvd. It is anticipated College Blvd. will be built by Cantarini and/or Dos Colinas and construction obligations will be included on those construction plans. The construction phasing details for College Blvd are irrelevant to this project approval. 7. Revise the concept landscape plans to indicate whether guardrail, safety fencing and a contiguous sidewalk is required near the easterly driveway along 'C Street. Coordinate with the civil plans. 8. Revise the concept landscape plans to reflect the improvements for College Blvd. and 'C Street as shown on substantial conformance exhibit, SCE 00-18A. Tentative Map 9. The road and utility improvements for College Blvd. and 'C Street do not reflect the current exhibits for the adjacent projects. Revise the exhibit to show the updated road and utility improvements as proposed by the Cantarini project, CT 00-18. Refer to the recently approved substantial conformance exhibit (SCE 00-18A). Show the adjacent access, utility and development plans for Dos Colinas, MS 09-04. 10. The property for this project is part of CT 00-18 and will be subject to satisfying the applicable conditions. Financing and constructing College Blvd. Reach A is one of those conditions that must be satisfied. Revise the exhibit to delete construction limits/phasing for College Blvd. This project is not a stand-alone project, as it depends on certain zone improvements to be constructed, mostly by the Cantarini project (CT 00-18) and/or Dos Colinas (MS 09-04). College Blvd Reach A will be approved as one project. However, construction may begin from north, the south or from both directions. Ensuring that necessary facilities (road, sewer, water, recycled water, etc.) are in place is a complex issue that will be determined at a later point in time. For the purpose of this project, assume all of College Blvd Reach A will be constructed (no terminus). Similar to other development projects in this area, a condition will be placed on this project that, prior to issuance of building permits, all improvements necessary to serve this project are completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer, city planner Encinas Creek Apartments January 18,2012 Page 3 of 5 and fire marshal. 11. Per the conditions of approval for CT 00-18, revise the exhibits to show the improvement and dedication of a trail easement through the project. The trail begins at 'C Street, through the open space lot to the northerly property boundary. Coordinate the trail improvements with the city trail manager (Liz Ketabian at 760-434- 2978). Referto redlines. 12. Revise the exhibits to indicate that the intersection of College Blvd. and Street 'C will be signalized per CT 00-18. 13. Revise the exhibits or add a separate sheet showing the inside and outside turning radii at each critical turn for a trash/fire truck (see Caltrans figure 404.5F). 14. Revise the exhibits to show elevation/invert information on the proposed private storm drain system. This information is required to evaluate the outlet designs/capacity for each bioretention basin as they operate during smaller to large storm events. 15. Revise the exhibits to provide additional information on the bioretention basins such as bottom basin elevation, outlet rim elevation, invert elevation, etc. Show the anticipated ponded water surface elevation on the sections and demonstrate freeboard requirements are satisfied. 16. On sheet 1, revise the exhibits to clarify how many apartment units are assigned to each lot proposed within this subdivision. 17. On sheet 1, revise the legend to clarify which improvements are private and which are public. 18. On sheet 2, revise the street improvements for College Blvd. (NCTD bus stop, meandering sidewalk, utility alignments, etc.) to match those on SCE 00-18A. 19. On sheet 2, add a note explaining that the road and utility improvements to College Blvd. and Street 'C are proposed per the Cantarini project, CT 00-18. 20. On sheet 2, review the exhibit to show the proposed entry driveway and adjacent development improvements for Dos Colinas MS 09-04. Show the realignment of Don Carlos Drive and construction basin BJ. 21. On sheet 3, revise the exhibits to indicate where the curb opening detail will be used. 22. On sheet 3, revise the section to clarify whether a perimeter wall is proposed as part of the development. If so, this wall should be depicted on the section (typical). Encinas Creek Apartments January 18,2012 Page 4 of 5 23. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to clarify that right-of-way will be dedicated at the curb return of College Blvd. and 'C Street. 24. On sheet 4, based on our review it appears the retaining walls supporting the bioretention basins are low, allowing water to run over the top and down the slopes. Revise the exhibits to address the height of retaining walls in order to provide a minimum of 1 foot of freeboard from the water surface in the basins during lOO-year events. The preliminary basin designs should be evaluated in the hydrology report. Revise the exhibits to provide a secondary overflow per city standards. 25. On sheet 4, the bioretention area between the buildings for lot 1 and lot 2 seems very elaborate. The meandering channel, slopes, sidewalk, swale and small pipes seem to present several opportunities to clog. Since this is a long term permanent best management practice, please consider a simpler linear bioretention swale that might be easier for the property owner to maintain. 26. On sheet 4, add more detail to the linear bioretention swale along the top-of-slope. Address how deep the swale must be to carry the flows during a 100-yr storm event. Address if this swale will need to be lined to prevent percolation at the top of the slope (see geotechnical report). 27. On sheet 4, revise the sewer alignment at the southwest corner of lot 1 to maintain setbacks from the easement edge and the proposed building. Refer to redlines. 28. On sheet 4, the proposed public sewer on lot 4 seems unnecessarily long. Revise the exhibit to provide a sewer lateral near the end of the building and eliminate the unneeded portion. Referto redlines. 29. On sheet 4, label the grade of the driveway from 'C Street into the project. 30. On sheet 5, revise the alignment of the wateriine between lot 4 and 5 so that it does not weave within the driveway. Refer to redlines. 31. On sheet 5, add additional information to the linear bioretention swales. Based on the submitted information, some swales do not appear to drain properly around the building for lot 5, or are undersized for the lOO-year storm event. Refer to redlines. Please address in the hydrology study and revise the exhibit to show how these swales will drain properly. 32. On sheet 5, clarify whether a splash wall or other feature should be added where the ribbon gutter connects to the bioretention swale located at the top ofthe slope. Encinas Creek Apartments January 18,2012 Page 5 of 5 33. On sheet 5, clarify whether the note on lot 4 for covered parking is mislabeled where pervious paving is proposed. 34. On lot 5, evaluate the need for a guardrail near the driveway where there is a 9-foot drop and 2:1 slope next to the structure. Clarify the use of pedestrian fencing on vertical drops adjacent to sidewalks. Add any new symbols to the legend. Refer to redlines. 35. For additional comments, refer to the redlines. Attached are redlined documents from LDE: Tentative Map (6 sheets), e-memo by Urban Systems, dated November 15, 2011, Transportation Analysis by Urban Systems, dated June 13, 2011, Geotechnical Evaluation by EEI, dated October 24, 2011, Drainage Study from O'Day Consultants, dated February 8, 2011, Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan by O'Day Consultants, dated November 23, 2011 and conceptual landscape plan (5 sheets). When this project is resubmitted, please provide LDE all redlined items above along with a copy of the revised Tentative Map, conceptual landscape plan, and one revised copy of each technical document listed above (except transportation analysis) to facilitate continued staff review. Ifyou have any questions, please call me at 602-2737. Attachments c: Engineering Project File SeJIourne Developmen^Co. San Diego County: 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Tel: 760.931.5616 Fax: 760.931.4850 November 30, 2011 Mr. Christer Westman CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carisbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: APPLICANT RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW CT 11-03/SDP Ol-IO(A) ENCINAS CREEEK APARTIMENT HOMES RECEIVED CfTY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION Orange County: 895 Dove Street 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: 949.851.6424 Fax: 949.955.4990 Dear Mr. Westman: Per your letter dated August 8, 2011, which identified staff items and issues with the submittal package of the above-referenced application package and plans. Holly Springs LTD. has commissioned modifications to the documents and plans as requested. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find the following: • Four (4) sets of the revised Site Development Plan • Four (4)) sets of the revised Tentative Map • Four (4) sets of revised Concept Architecture Plans • Four (4) sets of revised Concept Landscape Plans • Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary Hydrology Study • Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary SWMP • Two (2) copies of the Soils Report • Two (2) copies of the Traffic Report • Redlined Plans (retum) Below are responses and methods that we employed to address the City comments, in the order listed in your August 8* letter. ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: The application includes a request for standards modifications to building height (43'7" versus 35) and single car garage width (10 feet versus 12). Standards modifications may be granted if they accommodate the provision of affordable residential units. Please provide an explanation of how the modification to standards will assist in the provision of affordable residential units. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page two Response: The proposed project has been redesigned to reduce the maximum building height to 41 '- 9". This height is justified by the fact that the project includes a significant percentage of affordable residential units. The project will be constructed at a density of over 20 du/ac, and therefore the entire 127 imits will qualify as "affordable" pursuant to the State of Califomia HCD requirements and thus will contribute 127 imits to meeting the City's RHNA share. Further, 63 of the 127 imits will be price-restricted to low income residents. The 63 inclusionary units far exceed the requirements of Sect. 21.85.030. The increase in height above the zoning limits will assist in allowing development of the project at these low affordability rates while still providing high-quality architecture with a variety of roof planes, varied window shapes, recessed windows and doors, exposed rafter tails, and a variety of attractive architectural design features. This increased height will allow the project to be both affordable and architecturally attractive. 2. Please provide a detailed comparison analysis of the amendments proposed to the existing approvals for SDP 01-10, Response: The present project proposes 127 dwelling units. The original approved project allowed for 80 units. The parking counts are correspondingly increased. The proposed project is designed with five buildings; the original project included only four buildings. 3. Please provide section illustrations from the right-of-way to the parking lot for the College Boulevard and "C" Street frontages. Response: Section illustrations have been added to the plan set and are shown on Sheet 3 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CTl 1-03. 4. Please provide dimensions for parking stalls, building setbacks, building separation, and interior dimensions for living areas and garages. Response: The plan set has been revised to include dimensions for the parking stalls, setbacks, building separation dimensions and interior floor areas. 5. Please provide architectural elevations and a materials description for the carports and trash enclosures. In addition, all of the buildings have a cantilever over the garage doors. Please illustrate this cantilever on the architectural elevations, Response: The requested changes have been added to the architectural plan set. 6. Please provide a roof plan. Response: A roof plan has been added to the architectural plan set on Sheet A8. 7. Please identify where air conditioning units will be located. Response: The air conditioning units will be located on the roof as depicted on Sheet A8 of the architectural plan set. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page three 8. Please indicate the location of the specific building types (A-D) on the site plan. Response: The building types (A-D) are shown on the Site Plan. Engineering: /. On the cover sheet, show complete offsite improvements that are required to be in place to serve this development and mitigate the impacts of previous approvals that created this lot, Clarify which portions of improvements will be constructed by this project Please indicate any conditions of approval for the project that are proposed to be amended. If this project requires other improvements or mitigation to be completed prior to development, include them as well. Response: The offsite improvements to be constmcted in conjunction with the Encinas Creek Apartment Homes project are shown on Engineering Sheet 2 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. Additionally, attached to this response letter is a list of the original conditions of PC Reso. No. 5754. This list includes modifications (in a strike-out version) which we would propose to customize the conditions to the new, proposed project. 2. Provide copies of the Certificate of Compliance that supports this specific parcel or project. The legal description for this project may be: Lot of CT 00-18. Response: The Certificate of Compliance is attached to this response letter. 3. Will this amendment process a revision to CEQA documents to amend the approved EIR? Response: This proposed project is expected to involve the analysis and processing of a mitigated negative declaration (MND). 4. Show the complete downstream storm drain system (or provide reference drawing) and verify construction obligation to support this project. Response: The complete downstream storm drain system to be constmcted with the proposed project is shovra on Sheet 2 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. 5. Perpendicular parking spaces require a minimum of 24' back up (aisle). Please dimension aisles, parking spaces and travel ways. Also add missing dimensions on boundary, sheet 3. Response: The 24' back-up aisle has been dimensioned on Sheets 4 and 5 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11- 03. The missing boundary dimension is provided on Sheet 3. 6. Submit a Soils/Geotechnical report for the proposed project Response: Two (2) copies of the Soils Report for the project are included with this resubmittal package. Mr. Christer Westman November 30,2011 Page four 7. Include proposed general utility easements (fire hydrants). Response: General utility easements are shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. ISSUES OF CONCERN Plarming: 1. The banks of parking spaces along both the College Boulevard and "C" Street frontages must be properly screened. Because the parking bays are elevated above the street rights-of-way, special attention must be paid to how the screening is viewed from below. Response: Please see cross section on Sheet 3 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. 2. The retaining wall heights at the intersection of the public streets (7 feet) and along the easterly access driveway (9 feet) are too tall for single walls. Redesign the plan to incorporate two shorter walls in these areas. Response: We discussed the circumstances associated with the retaining walls at our meeting on September 22. At that meeting it was concluded that the referenced walls will not be visible fi'om the public street, and sufficient landscaping can be placed around the walls so that the single walls will not pose a visual problem. 3. It is not clear ifthe berm in between Lots 1 and 2 is sloped or retained with a short wall where it intersects with the serpentine sidewalk. Please clarify. Response: Please see Sheet4 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. 4. Separation between the recreation/leasing building and the residential buildings on Lotsl and 3 must be a minimum of 10 feet Response: A 10-foot separation between the referenced buildings has been maintained as shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. J. Because the buildings are not designed with a 'front door", it is important to draw attention to the "side" elevations where most guests/visitors will be entering the structures through the use of enhanced architectural design and materials, landscape and hardscape, and possibly signage. Furthermore, the proposal to increase the building heights above 35 feet should be justified through the incorporation of more substantial architectural design features throughout the building elevations. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page five Response: As shown on the architectural plan sheets, the elevations of the buildings include accented building entries with enhanced hardscape, landscape, and architectural treatments. In our opinion, these features and materials justify the minimal increase in building height requested. 6. The size of the project as well as the request to increase densities justifies a more substantial primary common recreation facility (e.g. pool and spa). Response: The proposed project will be rented at affordable rates. The common recreation facilities proposed include a 2,969 sf recreation/clubhouse facility with an integrated outdoor gathering space, 2 stand alone active play areas, and a thematic dry stream with 2 active play areas. These facilities have much lower maintenance costs than pools, spas or other highly-intensive active facilities, which is consistent with the affordability rates desired for the residents of the project. Also, the project location is located in close proximity to the new high school fields and facilities, and within a half-mile of the future Robertson Ranch soccer fields park. As a result of these factors, it is our opinion that the proposed common recreation facilities are appropriate for the subject project. 7. The visibility of the long banks of garage doors from "C" Street is a concern. A better building design solution, better screening along the Street "C" frontage, or a combination of both provide a resolution. Response: The building elevations have been enhanced to ensure an attractive view fi'om Street 'C. Please see the colored elevations exhibits. 8. The required guest parking spaces should be located and designated as close to the most logical building and entrance they will be serving. Response: Required guest parking spaces have been located nearby the buildings that they are to serve, as shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. Engineering: 1. Submit Report from Soils/Geotechnical Engineer supporting infiltration basins, as shown on the proposed site plan. Will these basins be lined? Will the engineered soil percolate without slope failure (sheet 3 and sheet4) or without saturation to proposed apartment buildings (Lot 5 sheet 4)? Response: A Soils Report is provided with this resubmittal package. Information regarding the infiltration basins is provided in the revised Drainage Study. 2. On sheet 2 clarify detail if bioretention facility will be lined? If bioretention facilities are lined as mentioned above, clarify location of check dams interrupting the proposed liners. Response: A Soils Report is provided with this resubmittal package. Information regarding the infiltration basins is provided in the revised Drainage Study Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page six 3. Show locations of double detector check valves. Response: The locations of the double detector check valves is shown on Sheets 4 and 5 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. 4. Add invert elevations to proposed sewer system (manholes, and building laterals). Show sewer service laterals to each building. Response: The invert elevations and laterals for the sewers is shown on the engineering plans. 5. Add water service and meter locations for each building. Show service for landscaping. Response: Water service and meter locations are shown on the engineering plans. 6. Provide a detail or plan view of entrance to this project with proposed lanes in and out, left turn pockets and dimensions for each. Left turn pocket entering the project from "C" Street is missing. Response: A plan view of the entrance lanes at Street 'C is shown on Sheet 6 of S.D.P.(A)01-10, CT 11-03. Fire: 1. Please note on the site plan that an automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the residential structure and the recreation/leasing area. Response: This statement is acknowledged by the applicant. 2. All fire department connections shall be located within 90m feet of afire hydrant. Response: This statement is acknowledged by the applicant. 3. Provide a maintenance standard for the transitional slope to native vegetation and indicated on Sheet L-l. Response: 4. The required fire flow is 3,000 GPM at 20psifor a 4 hour duration. (Please note on the site plan) Response: A note indicating the required fire flow has been provided on the Site Plan. 5. Fire access road surface shall be of an impervious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load of75,000 pounds axel weight. (Please note on the site plan) Response: A note indicating the required fu'e access surface material has been provided on the Site Plan. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page seven Building: /. No comments at this time. A complete code review will be done when construction plans are submitted to the building division. Response: No response needed. 2. Steps at the trailhead will also need ramp access. Response: The subject trails are proposed as "nature trails", which meander through the natural countryside of the back-country of Carlsbad. As such, they are not requu-ed to be constmcted with ramps. Landscape Architect: /. Please show and label all existing and proposed utility easements on the plans and insure no trees are located within the easements. Response: We held a conference call with Mr. Mike Elliot on October 7, 2011. Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 2. Please provide the project address and a vicinity map on the plans. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 3. Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained on site. Trees over 12 " in caliper diameter shall be identifled on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to be retained or removed. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 4. Please obtain review and approval for all trails from Liz Ketabian in Recreation Administration. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 5. Please include the proposed quantities for each tree. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 6. Please include the approximate proposed quantities for shrubs. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 7. Please indicate the ground cover types proposed for the foundation and ornamental landscape plantings and low foreground plantings. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page eight 8. Please indicate the proposed plant sizes (either by number or percentage of total quantity). Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. P. Please review all plant lists and insure no invasive species are used. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 10. Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. One symbol is used for all shrubs which may be very different in size and character. Please provide a separate symbol for each type of shrub (i.e. large evergreen shrub, medium size shrub, small flowering accent shrub, etc.) and ground covers, Final comments are reserved pending receipt of more complete plans. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 11. Please add all street names on each sheet. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 12. Landscaping shall be compatible and enhance the positive character of existing neighborhoods. Please coordinate plantings along College Boulevard with the Dos Colinas project (CUP 09-02) located on the southwest side of College Boulevard. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 13. Please identify this street tree in the legend. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 14. Several of the tree symbols include more than one tree in the legend. In some cases the listed trees have very different characteristics. Please provide different symbols for trees with different character. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 15. Please identify the species. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 16. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). The same height limitation applies at driveways 25 'from the edge of the apron outward along the curb then 45-degrees in toward the property. In addition to the requirement above, on collector streets and greater, CalTrans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated. Please show and label all vehicular sight lines on the plans. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page nine / 7. Insure that landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees are used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 18. Insure that landscaping is used to provide privacy where appropriate. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 19. Insure that landscaping is used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 20. 50% of the shrubs (except on slopes 3:1 or steeper) shall be a minimum 5 gallon size. Please show that this requirement is met. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 21. Plants proposed in bio-swale drainage areas will be required to provide appropriate flitering. Insure that fmal selections are appropriate. Response: Please refer to Jun Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 22. All utilities are to be screened. Landscape construction drawings will be required to show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 23. Please provide designated theme and support street trees on College Boulevard per the Landscape Manual and also to match street trees proposed for CUP 09-02 on the opposite side of College Boulevard, Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 24. Street trees are required to be located outside the right-of-way unless they are private streets or fail within livable neighborhood design guidelines. Please explain why the street trees are located within the right-of-way. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 25. Please address responsibility of median improvements on ~C' Street. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 26. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. Please address on the plans. Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page ten Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 27. At least three percent of parking areas shall he planted and maintained with trees or approved shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height The plantings shall be located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in the parking area. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 28. Please provide a colored or hatched plan showing areas proposed for recycled versus potable water use. The plan will be forwarded to Public works Maintenance and Operations for review. Any comments will be returned to the applicant Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 29. As required by the State of California, the City of Carlsbad has adopted a water efficient ordinance. All requirements of this ordinance are to be met. Concept plans shall include calculations which document the maximum allowed annual water use for the landscaped area or maximum applied water allowance (MA WA) and estimated total water use -ETWU). A landscape project shall not exceed the MA WA. The MA WA for a landscape project shall be determined by the following calculation as defined in the City ordinance: MAWA = ~ETo)(0.62)[(0.7 x LA) + (0.3 X SLA~J. The ETWTJ shall be determined by the following calculation as defmed in the City ordinance: ETWU = (ETo) (0.62) PFxHA + SLA IE In addition to the calculations, include a statement on the plans signed under penalty of perjury by the person who prepared the plan that provides: "1 am familiar with the requirements for landscape and irrigation plans contained in the City of Carlsbad's Water Efficient Landscape Regulations. 1 understand that construction drawings are to be prepared in compliance with those regulations and the Landscape Manual. I certify that the plans will be prepared implementing those regulations to provide efflcient use of water. " Please insure that all requirements of the water use ordinance are met The ordinance may be found at the following web site: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx? clientID=16245&stateId=5&stateName=California under Title 18. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 10 Mr Christer Westman November 30,2011 Page eleven 30. Please add the following notes to the erosion control planting standards: Areas gradedflatter than 6:1 require Standard #1 (cover crop) 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. c. Identifled by the City as highly visible areas to the public or have special conditions that warrant immediate treatment Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 31. Please provide a flre protection plan as required by the Landscape Manual and adjust plantings as appropriate to meet all requirements. Response: Please refer to Jun Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 32. Please correct the enlargement reference and provide a detail of the BBQ area. Response: Please refer to Jun Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 33. It is recommended that more separation be provided between the bench area and trash enclosure. Response: Please refer to Jun Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 34. Please flil in missing information. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 55. One shrub per 200 square feet is insufficient Please address. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 36. Will fencing be provided to separate the play area from the driveway? This play area seems very close to the street Is there a better location? Please address. Response: Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. 37. Landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs, and trees shall be used to screen elements of unsightliness and screen/soften new improvements. Landscaping shall be used to accentuate and enhance architecture. Additional landscaping to include trees is needed along building elevations as indicated on the red line plans to both soften and enhance the architecture. Please address. ll Mr. Christer Westman November 30, 2011 Page twelve Response: 38. Please refer to Jim Taylor's November 28, 2011 memorandum to Mike Elliot. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, flre protection, and colored water use plan) for the next submittal. Response: Redlines are being retumed with this resubmittal package. Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package. We look forward to finalizing this review and proceeding to hearings. Sincerely, 1 Cablay SEABOURNE DEVELOPMEIVT CO. KLC: cea Attachments: 1. PC Reso. No. 5754 Proposed Modifications to Conditions 2. Copy of Certificate of Compliance Document No. 2007-0205875. 3. Memorandum fi'om Jim Taylor, Lightfoot Planning Group to Mike Elliot dated November 28, 2011. 12 A • • FILE COPY, VCARLSBAD ' Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov Augusts, 2011 Ken Cablay 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Cadsbad CA 92011 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A) ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES (UPDATED WITH ENGINEERING COMMENTS) Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your five lot subdivision project for 127 apartments in 5 buildings, applications no. CT 11- 03/SDP 01-10(A), as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. The second list is project issues of concern to staff. In order to expedite the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to the project issues of concern to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. As part of your re- submittal package, please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy ofthese lists, (2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items and/or project issues have been addressed; and (3) five (5) sets of revised 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, June 28, 2011, 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. At this time, the City asks that you provide four complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering: Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2742. • Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:GW:bd c; Holly Springs LTD, P.O.Box 2484 Carlsbad CA 92018 Don Neu, Planning Director Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry enclosures 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A)- August 8, 2011 Paqe 2 -ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Planning: 1. The application includes a request for standards modifications to building height (437" versus 35') and single car garage width (10 feet versus 12). Standards modifications may be granted if they accommodate the provision of affordable residential units. Please provide an explanation of how the modification to standards will assist in the provision of affordable residential units. 2. Please provide a detailed comparison analysis of the amendments proposed to the existing approvals for SDP 01-10. 3. Please provide section illustrations from the right-of-way to the parking lot for the College Boulevard and "C" Street frontages. 4. Please provide dimensions for parking stalls, building setbacks, building separation, and interior dimensions for living areas and garages. 5. Please provide architectural elevations and a materials description for the carports and trash enclosures. In addition, all of the buildings have a cantilever over the garage doors. Please illustrate this cantilever on the architectural elevations. 6. Please provide a roof plan. 7. Please identify where air conditioning units will be located. 8. Please indicate the location of the specific building types (A-D) on the site plan. Engineering: 1. On the cover sheet, show complete offsite improvements that are required to be in place to serve this development and mitigate the impacts of previous approvals that created this lot. Clarify which portions of improvements will be constructed by this project. Please indicate any conditions of approval for the project that are proposed to be amended. If this project requires other improvements or mitigation to be completed prior to development, include them as well. 2. Provide copies of the Certificate of Compliance that supports this specific parcel or project. The legal description for this project may be: Lot of CT 00-18. 3. Will this amendment process a revision to CEQA documents to amend the approved EIR? 4. Show the complete downstream storm drain system (or provide reference Drawing) and verify construction obligation to support this project. 5. Perpendicular parking spaces require a minimum of 24' back up (aisle). Please dimension aisles, parking spaces and travel ways. Also add missing dimensions on boundary, sheet 3. CT 11-03/SDP OI-IO(A) -I^CINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOME^ August 8, 2011 Page 3 6. Submit a Soils/Geotechnical report for the proposed project. 7. Include proposed general utility easements (fire hydrants). ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The banks of parking spaces along both the College Boulevard and "C" Street frontages must be properiy screened. Because the parking bays are elevated above the street rights-of-way, special attention must be paid to how the screening is viewed from below. 2. The retaining wall heights at the intersection of the public streets (7 feet) and along the easteriy access driveway (9 feet) are too tall for single walls. Redesign the plan to incorporate two shorter walls in these areas. 3. It is not clear if the berm in behveen Lots 1 and 2 is sloped or retained with a short wall where it intersects with the serpentine sidewalk. Please clarify. 4. Separation beh/veen the recreation/leasing building and the residential buildings on Lots 1 and 3 must be a minimum of 10 feet. 5. Because the buildings are not designed with a "front door", it is important to draw attention to the "side" elevations where most guests/visitors will be entering the structures through the use of enhanced architectural design and materials, landscape and hardscape, and possibly signage. Furthermore, the proposal to increase the building heights above 35 feet should be justified through the incorporation of more substantial architectural design features throughout the building elevations. 6. The size of the project as well as the request to increase densities justifies a more substantial primary common recreation facility (e.g. pool and spa). 7. The visibility of the long banks of garage doors from "C" Street is a concern. A better building design solution, better screening along the Street "C" frontage, or a combination of both provide a resolution. 8. The required guest parking spaces should be located and designated as close to the most logical building and entrance they will be serving Engineering: 1. Submit Report from Soils/Geotechnical Engineer supporting infiltration basins, as shown on the proposed site plan. Will these basins be lined? Will the engineered soil percolate without slope failure (sheet 3 and sheet4) or without saturation to proposed apartment buildings (Lot 5 sheet 4)? 2. On sheet 2 clarify detail if bioretention facility will be lined? If bioretention facilities are lined as mentioned above, clarify location of check dams interrupting the proposed liners. 3. Show locations of double detector check valves. CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A) -ftciNAS CREEK APARTMENT HOME^^ Augusta, 2011 Page 4 4. Add invert elevations to proposed sewer system (Manholes, and building laterals). Show sewer service laterals to each building. 5. Add water service and meter locations for each building. Show service for landscaping. 6. Provide a detail or plan view of entrance to this project with proposed lanes in and out, left turn pockets and dimensions for each. Left turn pocket entering the project from "C" Street is missing. Fire: 1. Please note on the site plan that an automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the residential structure and the recreation/leasing area. 2. All fire department connections shall be located within 90m feet of a fire hydrant. 3. Provide a maintenance standard for the transitional slope to native vegetation and indicated on Sheet L-1. 4. The required fire flow is 3,000 GPM at 20psi for a 4 hour duration. (Please note on the site plan) 5. Fire access road surface shall be of an impervious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load of 75,000 pounds axel weight. (Please note on the site plan) Buiiding: 1. No comments at this time. A complete code review will be done when construction plans are submitted to the building division. 2. Steps at the trailhead will also need ramp access. Landscape and Crime Prevention: See separate comments attached 0 4%.,r.o. • ^ FILE COPY VXARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov July 28, 2011 Ken Cablay 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Cadsbad, CA 92011 SUBJECT: 1*' REVIEW FOR CT 11-03/SDP OI-IO(A) - ENCINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOMES Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your five lot subdivision project for 127 apartments in 5 buildings, applications nos. CT 11-03/SDP 00- 15(A), as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. The second list is project issues of concern to staff. In order to expedite the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to the project issues of concern to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment As part of your re-submittal package, please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of these lists, (2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items and/or project issues have been addressed; and (3) five (5) sets of revised 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, June 28, 2011, 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. At this time, the City asks that you provide four complete sets of the development plans so that the project can continue to be reviewed. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602- 2742. • Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661. Sincerely, CHRIS DeCERBO Principal Planner CD:CW:snn Holly Springs, LTD, PO Box 2484, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Don Neu, Planning Director Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry Enclosures 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A) -^CINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOM^ July 28, 2011 Page 2 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION Plannmg: 1. The application includes a request for standards modifications to building height (437" versus 35') and single car garage width (10 feet versus 12). Standards modifications may be granted if they accommodate the provision of affordable residential units. Please provide an explanation of how the modification to standards will assist in the provision of affordable residential units. 2. Please provide a detailed comparison analysis of the amendments proposed to the existing approvals for SDP 01-10. 3. Please provide section illustrations from the right-of-way to the parking lot for the College Boulevard and "C" Street frontages. 4. Please provide dimensions for parking stalls, building setbacks, building separation, and interior dimensions for living areas and garages. 5. Please provide architectural elevations and a materials description for the carports and trash enclosures. In addition, all of the buildings have a cantilever over the garage doors. Please illustrate this cantilever on the architectural elevations. 6. Please provide a roof plan. 7. Please identify where air conditioning units will be located. 8. Please iridicate the location of the specific building types (A-D) on the site plan. Engineering: Engineering comments to follow ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The banks of parking spaces along both the College Boulevard and "C" Street frontages must be properiy screened. Because the parking bays are elevated above the street rights- of-way, special attention must be paid to how the screening is viewed from below. 2. The retaining wall heights at the intersection of the public streets (7 feet) and along the easteriy access driveway (9 feet) are too tall for single walls. Redesign the plan to incorporate two shorter walls in these areas. 3. It is not clear if the berm in between Lots 1 and 2 is sloped or retained with a short wall where it intersects with the serpentine sidewalk. Please clarify. 4. Separation between the recreation/leasing building and the residential buildings on Lots 1 and 3 must be a minimum of 10 feet. 5. Because the buildings are not designed with a "front door", it is important to draw attention to the "side" elevations where most guests/visitors will be entering the structures through the CT 11-03/SDP 01-10(A) July 28, 2011 Page 3 -^CINAS CREEK APARTMENT HOM^ use of enhanced architectural design and materials, landscape and hardscape, and possibly signage. Furthermore, the proposal to increase the building heights above 35 feet should be justified through the incorporation of more substantial architectural design features throughout the building elevations. 6. The size of the project as well as the request to increase densities justifies a more substantial primary common recreation facility (e.g. pool and spa). 7. The visibility of the long banks of garage doors from "C" Street is a concern. A better building design solution, better screening along the Street "C" frontage, or a combination of both provide a resolution. 8. The required guest parking spaces should be located and designated as close to the most logical building and entrance they will be serving Engineering: Engineering comments to follow Fire: 1, Please note on the site plan that an automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the residential structure and the recreation/leasing area. 2, All fire department connections shall be located within 90m feet of a fire hydrant. 3, Provide a maintenance standard for the transitional slope to native vegetation and indicated on Sheet L-1. 4, The required fire flow is 3,000 GPM at 20psi for a 4 hour duration. (Please note on the site plan) 5, Fire access road surface shall be of an impervious "all-weather" surface material, designed to carry a minimum load of 75,000 pounds axel weight. (Please note on the site plan) Building: 1. No comments at this time. A complete code review will be done when construction plans are submitted to the building division. 2. Steps at the trailhead will also need ramp access. Landscape and Crime Prevention: See separate comments attached •'A' CiTY OF * CARLSBAD Housing & Neighborhood Services www.carlsbadca.gov June 2, 2011 Mr. Ken Cablay SeaBourne Development Co. 701 Palomar Airport Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ken: Thank you for your letter dated May 9, 2011 regarding the Holly Springs MDR Property; SDP 01- 10. Based on your correspondence, there are two remaining concerns that the Kelly family has regarding the negotiations related to staff support for the increased density on the Holly Springs MDR site. I believe we have had discussions on these matters in previous meetings and had agreement, but it appears that there remains a misunderstanding as to staff's reasoning for its negotiated position on the affordability and availability of credits within the noted project. It is my hope that I can address those concerns and assist you to better understand the city's position and reasoning for that negotiated position. Inclusionary Requirement Per the Inclusionary Ordinance, Chapter 21.85, the required number of lower-income inclusionary units shall be fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential units approved by the final decision-making authority. Please note that "total residential units" does not distinguish between market-rate and affordable units; the inclusionary requirement is calculated on total units. In addition, Cantarini Ranch has already been approved to participate in an off-site combined project for inclusionary housing purposes, which is identified as the Holly Springs MDR site. The Cantarini Ranch inclusionary requirement was calculated (below) according to the fact that it is being met in an off-site combined project. The inclusionary requirements are summarized below: Project Total Units Inclusionary (off-site) Inclusionary (on-site) Cantarini 105 19 0 Holly Springs 43 0 6 MDR 127 0 19 Total 275 19 25 In total, if the additional density is approved for the Holly Springs MDR site as proposed, the total inclusionary requirement for Cantarini Ranch/Holly Springs/MDR will be 44 units total. Housing & Neighborhood Services 2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B I Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2810 I 760-720-2037 fax Mr. Ken Cablay June 2, 2011 Page 2 To meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Ordinance, these units must have rents set at thirty percent (30%) of seventy percent (70%) ofthe San Diego County Area Median Income (AMI). Low income households may qualify at eighty percent (80%) ofthe AMI. However, the rents must be set at 70% of AMI. Therefore, at a minimum, there will be a requirement that 44 units total must have rents set at 70% of AMI to meet the inclusionary ordinance. Per my correspondence, the additional units (19 total) that we are requiring have rents set at 70% of AMI is a negotiated position in order to gain city support for the additional density, as I discussed in my correspondence to you dated July 16, 2010 and again on March 31, 2011. Site Development Plan - Densitv Increase It is unfortunate that the 70% of AMI rental rate is being viewed as a "deal breaker" at this point in time. My correspondence of July 16, 2010 indicated that this is the affordability level that would be acceptable to the City. We asked that the developer either 1) make the units provided for inclusionary more affordable (reduced rent levels); or, 2) increase the number of units affordable at 70% of AMI to 50% of the total (63 total). It is not our intent to "penalize" the Kelly family in any way for offering up additional affordable units in exchange for added density on the MDR site. However, in approving additional residential density through the site development plan process. Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows the City to impose special conditions or requirements which are more restrictive than the development standards and/or requirements set forth elsewhere. This is to ensure that there is adequate public benefit to the action being supported by the City. Affordability levels at 70% of AMI offer a greater public benefit than rents set at 80% of AMI, which in some cases have been the same or higher than market rents. At this point, staff intends to continue with the recommendation set forth in my correspondence of March 31, 2011 unless an alternate proposal is set forth which provides for a similar public benefit. An alternative might be for the Kelly family to agree to a condition for the 19 additional restricted units that indicates that the monthly rents would be set not to exceed 30% of 80% of AMI, and would not exceed 90% of market rate rents under any circumstance. In this case, we could obtain assurances that the rents for the affordable units would be affordable and remain less than market rate rents for the term ofthe agreement (55 years). The required inclusionary units (44 total) would, however, need to remain at the affordable monthly rate of 30% of 70% of AMI to satisfy the inclusionary requirements. Housing Credits As noted above, through the Housing Policy Team, the City is negotiating an increase in the number of inclusionary affordable units within the MDR site (from 15% to 50%) in exchange for support for the developer's requested increase in residential density (80 to 127 unit total) for the property. In effect, these additional units at 70% of AMI are considered the same as inclusionary units for regulatory purposes, and are not considered excess units that are available for sale to other developers. Although the project does meet other city housing goals. Mr. Ken Cablay June 2, 2011 Page 3 I was under the impression that we all understood that this was a negotiated increase in the inclusionary requirement in order to obtain City support for the increased residential on the site. Based on the City's current position, the only method for providing excess units to sell to other developers (as housing credits) would be to convert remaining market rate units (64 total) to affordable units. I am sorry for any confusion created on this matter. At a minimum, the 44 required inclusionary units would not be considered excess and could not be sold to other developers. For the remaining 19 units, staff believes that these units are also "required units" as a result ofthe higher density that is being considered through the site development plan amendment. Staff was initially not supportive of increased density on this site for a number of reasons. Staff is now supporting higher density with the understanding that there is additional public benefit, which we believe is directly related to the additional units with monthly rents set at 30% of 70% of AMI. If these units are sold as credits to other developers, they do not create "additional affordable units". They simply replace another developer's requirement. We are negotiating for "additional restricted units" with increased density, which the proposed project will not provide if those units are sold to satisfy another developer's inclusionary requirement. I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, give me a call and I will try to explain in a better way. Ultimately, the Kelly family may wish to partner with an affordable housing developer in order to obtain more preferred financing for the project to enhance its financial feasibility. Ifthe Kelly family wishes to pursue this partnership, I would be happy to provide some referrals for consideration. Thank you for your correspondence. I hope my correspondence is helpful in better explaining the staff position. The Housing Policy Team continues to be supportive ofthe higher density project. At this time, however, we are not proposing any change in our conditions for support. Please contact my office at (760) 434-2935 if further clarification or discussion is desired by you orthe Kelly family. Sincerely DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Cc: Housing Policy Team Shelly Glennon, Project Planner Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department December 23, 2009 Ken Cablay 701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 300 Carisbad, CA 92011 SUBJECT: PRE 09-12 - HOLLY SPRINGS MULTI-FAMILY APN: 168-050-51-00 Thank you for submitting a preliminary review for Holly Springs Multi-Family, a proposal to increase the density of an approved 80-unit apartment project (SDP 01-10) to a 126-unit apartment project located east of College Boulevard and north of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The project consists of one recreational building, two 24-unit buildings, two 25-unit buildings and one 28-unit building with basement parking provided for all 5 apartment buildings, as well as surrounding on-site visitor parking. The project site, an approximately 6.21 net acre lot, currently is undeveloped and vacant. In response to your application, the Planning Department has prepared this comment letter. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your projecL This preliminarv review does not represent an in-depth analvsis of vour proiect It is intended to give vou feedback on critical issues based upon the information provided in vour submittal. This review is based upon the plans, policies, and standards in effect as of the date of this review. Please be aware that at the time of a formal application submittal, new plans, policies, and standards mav be in effect and additional issues of concern mav be raised through a more specific and detailed review. Planning: General 1. General Plan and zoning designations for the property are as follows: a. General Plan: RMH, 8-15 units/ac. i. Growth Management Control Point 11.5 units/acre. b. Zoning: Multi-Family Residential (RD-M) zone. 2. The project requires the following permits: a. Site Development Plan Amendment - Required when an amendment is proposed to an approved Site Development Plan pursuant to Title 21 - Section 21.06.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC). b. Hillside Development Permit Amendment - Required if the re-designed project is not exempted per CMC Title 21 Section 21.95.040. Furthermore, if you intend to process a formal application submittal, please provide the following detailed information identified in items 4-9 listed below on the application plans. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • vwvw.ci.carlsbad.ca.us PRE 09-12 - HOLLY SPRINGS MULTI-FAMILY December 23, 2009 Paqe 2 3. The project shall comply with all development standards of the RD-M Zone (CMC Title 21 Chapter 21.24), including setbacks, maximum height dimensions, lot coverage, etc. 4. Please provide all the required general information per the application checklist on the site plan as well as the following information: a. Please provide setbacks and dimensions for all buildings. b. Please provide setbacks and dimensions for the parking lot and garages. c. Please revise the parking calculations. The calculation provided for guest parking is incorrect The correct calculation is as follows: 126 units x .25 = 31.5 (rounded up) = 32 Visitor Parking Spaces Required. Up to 45% of visitor parking spaces may be compact parking spaces -.45 x 32= 14.4 (rounded up) = 15. d. Please indicate where all compact parking spaces will be located. e. Please provide lot coverage percentage and square footage. t Please provide all amenities as previously approved (i.e. bike racks, trails, etc.) g. Please illustrate the vehicle circulation into and out of the propose garages. It is unclear on the conceptual site plan drawing as to how the vehicles shall enter and/or exit (specifically, the tandem parking stalls shown). 5. Please provide a grading plan with the following information: a. Please provide all wall/fencing locations and bottom to top of wall/fence heights. b. Please provide wall/fencing typical sections with materials called out. c. Please provide all grading, drainage, street and utility information as required per the attached application checklist. 6. Please provide a revised landscaping plan with all the required general information on the landscaping plan as required per the attached application checklist. 7. Please provide all elevations and floor plans for the proposed buildings. The Planning Department has no issues with the architectural styles proposed. However, to further complement the proposed styles, the Planning Department strongly suggests the following revisions: 3- Storv Residential Buildinq - Spanish/Earlv California Architecture a. Please include more decorative window surrounds (not just the proposed rectangular lintels). b. Please incorporate more accent materials/colors and/or revise the proposed building planes to provide a more interesting fagade (i.e. change the sizes or roof pitches of the proposed tower building planes). c. Please provide heavy decorative column bases for the proposed entry arches. d. Please provide rafter tails below all roof eaves (including first floor roof shades). 4- Storv Wood Podium Building Architecture e. Please provide "decorative" wrought iron for all proposed balconies t Please provide larger decorative white cornices g. Othef than the brown-toned window surrounds proposed, please provide a brighter, contrasting, earth-toned colored window surrounds and/or accents to provide more fagade interest i PRE 09-12 - HOLLY SPRINGS MULTI-FAMILY December 23, 2009 Paqe 3 1-Stop/ Recreational and Leasing Buildinq h. Please incorporate the brick material located on the recreational building tower in other exterior walls on visible elevations, preferably on the lower half ofthe building. i. Please incorporate rafter tails below roof eaves. 8. Please call out architectural details on the elevations. 9. Please submit justification for the proposed density and affordable housing unit increase pursuantto Residential Policy C.2 ofthe Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element Issues of Concern; 10. Due to the project's intensification on a constrained property, the Planning Department and Housing Policy Team can only support the proposed apartment buildings at the maximum height of 35 feet per the RD-M Zone. A re-design to the proposed project will be required to comply with this development standard. 11. The approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR 02-02) for the Catarini and Holly Springs Developments previously analyzed the project site for the development of 80 dwelling units with a density of 12.88 du/ac. EIR 02-02 indicated that the multi-family project site was reduced from 100 dwelling units to 80 units in order to address congestion concerns (9.0 Alternatives, pg. 9-2). Due to this previous analysis not supporting this proposed density, a subsequent environmental review and traffic report will likely be required for the proposed density increase. Fire: 12. The Fire Department has indicated major access issues that if not addressed, will not provide support. Please address these issues as follow: a. The proposed grade change causes obstruction to the Fire Department hose pulls, thereby, creating a major fire hazard within the Fire Hazard Zone. b. The development proposes only access off of C Street, however access must be provided from two separate streets. c. The access is located inside of a Fire Hazard Zone therefore the project must provide secondary access (College Boulevard cannot dead end as it current exists). d. Buildings with parking provided below the structures must comply with the following standards: i. Provide a full NFPA 13 System; ii. Provide building elevators for medical equipment access. e. Secondary vehicle drive aisle access for the proposed sub-grade parking garages must be provided for Building #4 and Building #5. t The project must provide a 28 foot inside turning radius and a 42 foot outside turning radius. Housing: 13. The proposed density increase and affordable housing unit increase is too premature to be supported by the Housing Policy Team. Only if ail Fire Department issues are resolved as well as all other applicable policies, regulations and development standards are met without proposed variances, would the Housing Policy Team provide full support PRE 09-12 - HOLLY SPRINGS MULTI-FAMILY December 23, 2009 Page 4 for the proposed density increase/affordable housing unit increase. If all issues are resolved, the number of affordable housing units that would be supported would be dependent upon the outcome and feasibility of the proposed development. Engineering: 14. Engineering staff does not object to the increase in units provided the applicant can demonstrate that the city's growth management objectives can be met for the impacted facility areas. This may require revised reports to address the increase in intensity. 15. Based on thresholds of the proposed changes, a project change of this, magnitude will likely- require an amendment to SDP 01-10 rather than the submittal of a Consistency Determination for SDP 01-10. Coordinate with Planning for further clarification on this process. 16. Prepare and submit comprehensive set of revised Site Development Plan drawings for SDP 01-10 that show all changes to the site improvements including but not limited to building footprints, drive aisle widths, parking stalls, turning radii, potable water lines, fire hydrants, grades, slopes, drainage infrastructure, sidewalks, water quality treatment features, retaining walls, sewer lines, etc. 17. Concurrent with the submittal of the SDP amendment, prepare and submit the Storm Water Standards Questionnaire to determine project status as it relates to water quality. From staff cursory review, this project is a priority development project. If so, the applicant must prepare a preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) per the latest City of Carisbad Standard Urban Storm water Management Plan (SUSMP). The preliminary SWMP . must address alt elements perthe SUSMP to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer. 18. Revise the Site Plan to incorporate all water quality measures (treatment control and Low Impact Design (LID) measures), identified in the preliminary SWMP. 19. This proposal appears to increase the impen/ious area as compared to the originally approved SDP. Please be aware of upcoming water quality regulations (e.g.: LID infiltration approach with hydromodification) as they may impact the design and layout of this project. Please consider what changes are required, if any, to address these upcoming regulations to avoid significant project changes later on. These changes should be considered and addressed in the SWMP. 20. With LID requirements, retention of onsite storm water may be necessary as to mimic the hydrologic regime of the project area as compared to the pre-project condition. These may require the use of basins, swales, infiltration trenches, or underground structures so that runoff may percolate to allow recharging of ground water that impervious paving prevents. Revise the Site Plan as necessary to address the new and upcoming LID requirements. 21. The changes appear to modify the grades and slopes as compared to the original approved SDP. Staff requires further review of proposed topography to evaluate drainage, grades and water quality aspects of the project. Additional comments may arise with further information is provided. 22. Provide dimensions for parking stalls. Please note that parking stalls that are impacted by solid walls on their side must be wider than the standard QYT-H wide stall to allow car doors to open. A parking stall with a solid wall on 1 side should be 10-ft wide and a parking stall with a wall on both sides should be 12-ft wide. Please revise the site plan to address these PRE 09-12 - HOLLY SPRINGS MULTI-FAMILY December 23, 2009 Page 5 conditions. Also corner parking stalls should include 5-ft offsets so that long cars do not block/trap the opposing stall. Parking stalls at the end of underground parking should include a 5-ft pop-out to allow the car to back out and exit the stall. Refer to engineering redlines for further clarification. 23. After discussion with Fire Prevention, current fire codes may impact the design and layout of this project. We suggest you meet with the Fire Department to identify the necessary fire protection measures required for this project (access, fire hydrants, sprinklering, etc.). All proposed fire hydrants must be served by public water mains. 24. One of the supplied exhibits shows a single access scenario for the multi-family project provided via College Blvd from Cannon Rd. However, from discussions with Fire Prevention, it appears that two points of access must be provided to serve this project. To satisfy their concems the southern portion of College Blvd (with the bridge) would also need to be constructed and open for use prior to building permit issuance. Please coordinate with Fire Prevention for clarification on this issue. 25. Please dimension all drive aisles on the exhibits. After discussion with Fire Prevention, current fire codes impact the paved width of the internal circulation of this project. It is our understanding the project may need revised so that drive aisles are 28-foot wide (minimum). Coordinate with Fire Prevention to clarify this issue. 26. With the proposed carports under the building, there are a few vehicular conflicts (around corner turns) due to lack of line-of-sight Please evaluate these scenarios and resolve conflicts. Refer to the engineering redlines for examples of conflict areas. 27. Additional traffic will result from the increase in density. An update to the traffic study for LFMP 15(C) may be required to demonstrate no impacts to proposed or existing roadway segments or intersections. 28. With the submittal of the SDP amendment, provide a preliminary hydrology study that identifies the existing and proposed development discharge flows and preliminary recommendations on the anticipated storm drain infrastructure required as part of the development 29. Certain drive aisles appear to exceed 150-ft in length. Where this occurs, revise the design to include a vehicular turn-around near the end of the drive aisle so that vehicles are not trapped atthe end. Referto redlines. 30. If you anticipate on applying for a condominium conversion in the future, and you do not provide separate utility services (e.g.: potable water) to each unit with this project, you may incur substantial additional costs to install separate services later, as they will be required to convert to condominiums. Please consider constructing the necessary infrastructure now to avoid these reconstruction costs later. 31. On the title sheet of the SDP amendment, indicate the changes in project data. Based on the changes, revise'the plan to indicate the ADT (traffic), EDU's (sewer), GPM (potable water), and GPM (reclaimed water) generated or required by the proposed development The title sheet should summarize the revised earthwork volume (cut, fill, import, export, remedial) ofthe proposed, in cubic yards. 32. This preliminary review does not constitute a complete review of the proposed project and additional items of concern may be identified upon formal project application submittal. PRE 09-12 - HOLLY SPRINGS MULTI-FAMILY December 23, 2009 Page 6 For Planning Department issues, please contact your staff planner Shelley Glennon at the phone number listed below. You may also contact each other commenting department individually as follows: • Planning Department comments: Shelley Glennon, Assistant Planner, at (760) 602-4625. • Engineering Department comments: Jeremy Riddle, City Engineer, at (760) 602-2737. • Fire Inspections comments: James Weigand, Fire Inspector, at (760) 602-4661. • Housing and Redevelopment comments: Debbie Fountain, H&R Director, at (760) 434-2935. You may also access the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance online at www.carisbadca.qov/planning: select Department Listing; select Planning Home Page. Please- review all information carefully before submitting. To view EIR Catarini/Holly Springs Development (EIR 02-02), please visit the Planning Department front counter located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Cadsbad, CA 92008. Sincerely, CHRIS DECERBO Principal Planner CD:SG:lt Attachment SDP Application Form HDP Application Form Engineering Department Red-lined exhibit c: Holly Springs Ltd. P.O. Box 2484 Carisbad, CA 92018 Don Neu, Planning Director SfnifOiCSfbo, Team Leader* Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer James Weigand, Fire Prevention Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment File Copy Data Entry