MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1997

In the 1970s the site was approved by the City as a single family residential subdivision. That proposal known as the Reeder development would have resulted in 116 homes on 29.9 acres (3.9 du/acre). The project was ultimately denied by the Coastal Commission in 1973 on the grounds that the conversion of agricultural land would be growth inducing and that other developable and appropriately zoned areas were available within the City.

The Creekwood PUD project was originally submitted on December 20, 1994 and included a proposal to construct 244 residential units. Staff recommended that this project be denied and the applicant withdrew the project and submitted a revised 184 lot PUD on March 29, 1996. On June 17, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and Addendum thereto and approve the project subject to conditions of approval.

The Planning Commission recommendation was forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. The City Council reviewed the project and indicated that they could not support the project as proposed. Based on input received from the City Council, on February 5, 1997, the applicant withdrew the 184 lot PUD and submitted a revised PUD project having 126 lots.

On April 15, 1997, the Commission conceptually denied the project subject to staff preparing findings of fact. On May 5, 1997, the majority of the Commission voted to reconsider their denial recommendation and directed the applicant to prepare various scenarios which would create larger and more active open space/recreation areas. On June 2, 1997, the Commission recommended approval of the Creekwood with a maximum of 122 lots.

1. Conversion of agricultural land

2. Project impacts on environment and infrastructure

The proposed project involves amending the City’s Coastal Plan and General Plan land use designations from agriculture to residential, rezoning the property from agriculture (A-10) to residential PUD 3.81, adjusting the City’s urban/rural boundary, a tentative tract map/lot line adjustment, and a development plan allowing 122 single family residential lots. Overall density of the site will be 3.81 dwelling units per acre with an ultimate buildout providing homes for an estimated 400 residents. The site is located at 5800 Via Real and is developed with a wholesale nursery (Norman’s).

The applicant’s development plan proposes the following mix of single family dwelling units:

Area 1 35 4500-6940 sf 5160 sf

Area 2 51 6000-8080 sf 6450 sf

Area 3 36 7000-9560 sf 7500 sf

Project lot coverage and open space will be provided as follows:

Buildings - 6.37 acres - 19%

Paving - 7.21 acres - 23%

Common Open Space - 8.12 acres - 25% (Creek open space - 3.01 acres; Recreation open space - 2.90 acres;

Landscaping - 2.21 acres)

Private Open Space - 10.97 acres - 33%

Based on an initial study prepared by planning staff in April 1995, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determined that the proposed project might have significant environmental impacts and that an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. The Ventura based firm, Rincon Consultants, was selected by the City to prepare the EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The draft EIR was circulated for a 45 day review and public comment period which ended on October 2, 1995. The Final EIR was prepared and finalized on October 16, 1995 and includes all public comments on the draft EIR along with the consultant’s responses to those comments and minor technical revisions to the text of the final EIR based upon the comments received. To be adequate an EIR shall be prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, must be objective, accurate, and fully describe the project and its potential environmental impacts. To be adequate, an EIR need not provide an exhaustive evaluation of environmental impacts.

Because the original project was reduced to 184 lots, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The project was redesigned with a total of 126 lots. A subsequent Addendum was prepared based on a 126-unit project and supersedes the prior Addendum. The new Addendum was prepared because only minor technical changes are necessary to make the EIR adequate and because the changes do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment not previously discussed in the EIR. The EIR had identified 22 project related impacts of which only one (loss of prime agricultural land) could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The reduced project (126 lots) resulted in a corresponding reduction in the level of environmental impacts with the exception of loss of prime agricultural land.

The EIR Addendum contains proposed mitigation measures to reduce project impacts and a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program. A Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared and must be adopted by the City Council if the project were to be approved since loss of agricultural land was found to be a significant impact which cannot be fully mitigated.

The project site is subject to a number of Coastal Plan, General Plan, and Municipal Code standards. The following is a description of the codes/policies which affect the Creekwood PUD proposal.

1. Urban/Rural Boundary:

Although the site was annexed to and is located wholly within the City’s corporate limits, the City’s urban/rural boundary is located along the western edge of the site. The urban/rural boundary was established at the time the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) was adopted in 1980. The site was placed outside the urban/rural boundary because of the prime agricultural soils and the agricultural use of the site. The proposed project would require an adjustment of the urban/rural boundary line to the eastern property line.

2. Local Coastal Plan Policies:

The LCP designates the site as A-1-10. This designation allows agricultural uses and a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. The applicant requests a change of the LCP land use designation from agriculture to single family residential (SFR 3.81).

In addition to the agricultural land use designation, the LCP contains numerous policies that are applicable to the proposed project. The primary objective of the LCP policies is to protect coastal resources, including agricultural, biological, and visual resources. Protection of these resources is given a higher priority than other General Plan policies. LCP policies that are applicable to this project are as follows:

In summary, the above LCP policies take precedence over General Plan policies. That is, in case of conflict between agricultural and residential uses, LCP policies that protect agricultural land and biological resources generally take precedence over the Housing Element provisions to provide new housing.

The applicant has submitted a development plan for the five parcels that comprise the site. The site is planned to be developed as a single unit and is therefore consistent with this policy.

The two policies are combined for discussion as follows:

Both the LCP and city code require that a minimum of 20% of the gross area of the site shall be common open space which is defined as "recreational areas and facilities for the use of prospective residents of the project, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community gardens, landscaped areas for common use, or other open areas of the site needed for protection of habitat, archaeological, scenic, or other resources. Common open space shall not include driveways, parking lots, private patios, and yards, or other developed areas".

The proposed project includes 8.12 acres of common open space area. This represents 25% of the total gross project site area and is comprised of creek open space, biological setback area, private recreational areas, and other landscaped area including parkways and walkways. Public open space is proposed for this site in the form of the dedication of a hiking/biking trail at the rear of the property to be maintained by the City.

The LCP and zoning ordinance also require 20% of the gross site area be devoted to public open space for coastal access and recreation and protection of public views. Public open space includes but is not limited to public parks and parking lots, beaches, access corridors such as bike paths, hiking or equestrian trails, usable natural areas, and vista points which are accessible to the general public. Public open space shall not include areas which are unusable for recreational purposes (i.e., private or public streets, private parking lots, and hazardous areas such as steep slopes or bluff faces).

Staff has reviewed the LCP public open space policies regarding coastal access and recreation and public views. The LCP specifically states in Chapter 3.4 that all new "development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas". Since the site does not provide such visual opportunities, no significant public views will be impacted. In addition, Chapter 3.7 (Coastal Access and Recreation) of the LCP defines coastal access and recreation. The Coastal Act requires maximum access and recreational opportunities from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast for all new development. The LCP further defines coastal recreation as coastal dependent (i.e., fishing, boating), coastal related (i.e., camping, jogging), and non-coastal dependent which are activities unrelated to a coastal location (i.e., golf, tennis). The project site would not fall within the standards set forth for coastal access and recreation and public views as outlined in the LCP.

It should be noted that the City Council requested an opinion from the city attorney regarding the "public" open space requirements of the LCP and PUD zone. The city attorney indicated that the subject site need not provide 20% "public" open space because the site would not provide coastal access or recreation and because the payment of Quimby (park) fees would provide public recreation funds for use in the community.

The project has been reviewed by the various special districts that would provide services to the site. All service districts have indicated that sufficient infrastructure is available to serve or services can be extended to the project site subject to the applicant paying required development impact fees.

There are no "physical" site constraints (i.e., topography, geologic or flood hazards, habitat areas, or steep slopes) that require a reduction of project density since the proposed lots are located outside flood prone areas and sensitive habitat areas. In addition, a buffer area and a minimum fifty-foot setback will be provided between the flood channel, sensitive habitat areas, and the proposed lots.

The development proposal includes provisions to direct surface runoff into a storm drain system that will discharge into Carpinteria Creek. Frontage improvements (i.e., curbs and gutters) will reduce or eliminate flooding that now occurs on Via Real during heavy rains via a Caltrans drainage culvert to Carpinteria Creek.

The proposed drainage system will be equipped with traps to contain oil/grease from entering the creek. The traps will be maintained by the homeowners association.

The proposal provides for 18 affordable units or 15% of the total project units. The units would be price restricted for a period of ten (10) years and based on City Council direction the units would target upper moderate income households (approximate selling price $225,000). No affordable units can be sold at a price higher than 150% of current Santa Barbara County median income.

Presently, an improved trail is located along Carpinteria creek between Carpinteria Avenue and Via Real. The LCP designates a hiking/biking trail from Carpinteria Avenue along the creek to the beach. The General Plan, but not the LCP, designates a bike trail from Carpinteria Avenue along the creek to Casitas Pass Road. To date the City has been unable to secure continuous trail easements to the east of Via Real along to creek nor provide the funding necessary to develop a trail system. The conditions of approval require that the applicant make an irrevocable offer of dedication for a hiking/biking trail at the rear of the property consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The project site is outside the City’s urban/rural boundary and is therefore subject to the agricultural preservation policies of the LCP. However, the site is adjacent to a residential development on the west and Highway 101 to the south. Urban services are also available to the site. The site would be a demarcation line between city and county uses as lands to the east of the site would require annexation. The site would also provide a transition from a higher density residential area to a lower density residential area more common to the City’s urban fringe.

It should also be noted that under CEQA, conversion of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or projects that impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land is considered to be a significant environmental effect. CEQA requires that projects avoid or minimize environmental impact when it is feasible to do so.

The applicant has requested that the following LCP Agricultural Policy be added to clarify the standards for conversion of agricultural land within city limits. If implemented, any land designated and zoned as agriculture could be more easily converted to urban uses while agricultural lands outside the City would be held to a higher standard for conversion and annexation in order to discourage leap-frog development.

The proposed project includes setbacks from Carpinteria Creek and trees along the top of the creek bank in excess of the LCP requirement of 20 feet. The nearest property line is located and has been conditioned to be no less than 50 feet from the riparian dripline and no residential lots are located within the 100 year flood plain boundary. The applicant will provide an enhancement plan to establish a native landscape barrier planting to discourage access to the creek. Temporary irrigation would be installed to help establish the plantings. The EIR also contains mitigation measures to protect the habitat area and those mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval.

Of paramount concern to the City is the ability of the water district to provide adequate water to the project. The water district has indicated that they can and will serve the subject site. Current water supply for the water district is 7,011 acre feet with an additional 2,000 acre feet coming on line from the State water pipeline. Annual total usage within the district service area is 4,218 acre feet creating a surplus of 2,793 acre feet without the State allotment. If included, the surplus would be 4,793 acre feet per year.

In addition, it should be noted that the historic water use of the site has been 87.5 acre feet per year prior to the drought of the late eighties and early nineties and 64 acre feet per year since the end of the drought. The proposed residential use would require approximately 40 acre feet per year or a reduction of 24 acre feet per year. Therefore, the residential use will have less impact on the water supplies of the Carpinteria Valley than the existing agricultural use which tended to be water intensive.

In 1993 the City adopted the Water Resources Management Program which recognized that the groundwater basin has a total storage capacity at 50,000 acre feet of water and that the Carpinteria water basin in not in overdraft. The Carpinteria County Water District is the public water purveyor for the City and has indicated that adequate water is available to serve the project. Additional water supplies, including State water, is available to serve this project. No change to the City/County water allocation is required by this project. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the Water Resources Management Plan and the Local Coastal Plan.

3. General Plan:

The City’s General Plan land use map designates the western half of the site as medium density residential (MDR) while the eastern half of the property is designated as agriculture. The applicant is requesting that the land use designation for the eastern half of the site be changed to medium density residential. The density range of the MDR designation is 4.7 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Because the applicant is proposing a project density of 3.81dwelling units per acre, staff is recommending that the General Plan land use designation for the entire site be changed to Low Density Residential (LDR).

4. Housing Element:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines the housing demand for Santa Barbara County, a portion of which must be recognized by and accommodated by the City of Carpinteria. The Association of Governments then publishes a "Regional Housing Needs Plan" which divides the State’s estimated countywide housing demand between all the cities in the county. The intent of this regional approach is to ensure that all cities within any given housing market area share equitably in responding to the housing needs of the region and in achieving the State’s housing goals. Based on this forecast, 644 new housing units need to be constructed in Carpinteria by 1999.

The update of the Housing Element has identified the subject site as one of several areas within the city limits where additional affordable housing could potentially be developed to meet the City’s forecasted housing needs. Housing Element policy states that the City provide sufficient sites and facilitate the production of new housing to meet the City’s regional fair share housing obligations through 1999 by providing appropriate sites for the development of affordable housing. Fifty units of affordable very low, low, and moderate affordable income housing are projected for this site in the Housing Element. During informal review, the City Council has indicated that a minimum 15% of the total project units should be designated as moderately affordable units. As proposed, the project would provide 18 moderately affordable units or 15% of the total units. All affordable units would be detached single family units and located on lots throughout the front half of the project and would be constructed during all three phases of the project. All affordable units would also have a ten (10) year equity share restriction to guarantee affordability. All remaining units in the project would be sold at market rate.

County staff indicated that they have switched to a ten year shared equity program for all affordable projects.

The concept behind shared equity is that the first time sale of the unit would be to a homebuyer that would meet the affordability criteria. During the 10-year term of affordability the homeowner would be able to sell the home at the open market price to any qualified buyer, without any limitations on the income of that buyer. The homeowner (seller) would be entitled to receive any appreciation that has occurred on that unit to the extent that such appreciation does not exceed the percentage increase in the County median income since the home was purchased. Any additional appreciation (Net Added Equity) which has accrued would be shared between the homeowner (seller) and the City. The homeowner (seller) would receive 10 percent of the Net Added Equity for every year he has owned his dwelling unit after the term of the equity sharing period for his unit has begun, with the City receiving any remaining appreciation and depositing that amount in the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Once the homeowner has owned the home for the entire 10 years of the equity sharing period, he may collect 100% of the appreciation on the home. In other words, the equity-sharing program penalizes those individuals who would sell their home before the expiration of the 10-year program. In addition, this type of affordability program has a low staff cost associated with monitoring the program as compared to longer term, more complex affordable housing programs.

5. Tentative Tract Map:

The applicant is requesting that a tentative tract map be approved that would subdivide the 32 acre site into 122 residential lots, three lots for private streets and open space and one lot for right-of-way dedication on Via Real. The preparation, contents, improvements, dedications, and related conditions of the tract map are governed by the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Carpinteria Municipal Code (CMC).

The project site would be developed in three phases with the phase lines becoming lot lines when the tract map is recorded. The applicant is also proposing a lot line adjustment of the existing parcels so that the adjusted parcels will correspond with the phase lines at tract map recordation. This is intended by the developer to permit the adjusted parcels depicted on the lot line adjustment map to be sold separately or offered as security separately, prior to recordation of the tract map. However, the project description expressly provides that the parcel created by the lot line adjustment shall only be developed in accordance with the approved tract map. The tract map would have to be recorded before the residential lots would be legal to sell. Development rights on the open space lots will be transferred to the City to ensure that no development will be proposed on those lots.

To approve a tentative map the City Council must find that the proposed subdivision, its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan or any specific plan or an amendment to the General Plan or specific plan. The proposed tentative tract map would be consistent with the proposed amendment of the LCP and General Plan to medium density residential. All public/private improvements would be installed per City standards or the requirements of the responsible special districts. The map has also been prepared in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance.

As a point of comparison between the R-1 zone district and the proposed PUD development, in should be noted that Title 14 (Zoning) of the CMC, the subdivision ordinance requires that no residential lot shall have a lot area of less than 7,000 sq. ft, a lot width of less than 75 feet, and a lot depth of less than 100 feet (CMC 16.16.090). As proposed, many lots within the subdivision cannot meet these standards. The Municipal Code (16.16.230) does authorize the City Council to modify any regulation of the City’s subdivision ordinance when in their opinion a better design will result. The revised project has provided 122 lots ranging in size from 4,500 to 9,560 square feet that would provide for a variety of housing types including affordable units, tot lot area, linear park, recreation area, and buffer area to protect the creek habitat.

6. Development Plan:

The proposed project is subject to review and approval of a development plan by the Planning Commission. Prior to approving a development plan, the Planning Commission shall determine that the following criteria have been met:

a. The proposed development is in conformance with the provisions of the applicable zoning district, coastal plan and implementation programs, general plan and specific plan, if required.

If the proposed amendments of the LCP agricultural conversion policy, land use designations, and zone change are approved, the project would be consistent.

b. The proposed development is sited and designed to avoid risks to life and property due to geologic, flood, or fire hazards and that the proposed density of development is consistent with these objectives.

No buildings are located in any flood zone. All buildings will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic construction technology.

c. The proposed development will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The EIR has identified project impacts on sensitive riparian areas. These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels based on proposed mitigation measures which are included as conditions of approval for the project.

d. The proposed development will not conflict with any recorded easements acquired by the public at large for access through the property or use of the property or any easements granted to any public agency or required as a condition of approval.

The General Plan designates a biking trail at the rear of the project site. The applicant will provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for the bike trail. All other water, sewer, and utility easements will be provided as required.

e. The proposed development will not adversely affect necessary community services and values including but not limited to traffic circulation, sewage disposal, fire protection, water supply, and police protection.

The project has been reviewed by affected community service districts. With the exception of the school district, no special district indicated that their service capabilities would be adversely affected. The school district indicated that the project should address safety issues, such as walkways, bicycle paths, flooding, traffic, and bus turnarounds. The school district has indicated that they have reached an agreement with the developer that will mitigate project-related impacts.

f. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, comfort, convenience, property values, or general welfare of the neighborhood.

The EIR has identified noise, dust, construction, and traffic impacts related to the development of the project. These impacts can be mitigated and measures to reduce the impacts have been included in the project approval.

7. Architectural Review Board (ARB):

After City Council action and prior to the recordation of the tract map, the ARB must review and approve all building elevations, building materials and colors, landscaping and irrigation plans, lighting, and onsite identification signs.

8. Flood Zone:

According to flood information contained in the Flood Insurance Study for unincorporated Santa Barbara County prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the subject site would be subject to flooding during a 100 year storm event. Such flooding would be limited to the area within the proposed open space lot at the rear of the property and no residences, roads, or other structures will be located in this area. Therefore, flooding will have no impact on any residential units or other accessory buildings that would be constructed on the site. Additionally, development impact fees paid by the developer will be used for offsite drainage improvements to reduce flooding from adjacent developments to the east of the site.

9. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat:

The ESH has been discussed previously under Codes/Policies (see page 8)

10. PUD Zone District Requirements:

The PUD zone district is intended to promote flexibility and innovative design of residential development, to preserve open space, allow for a diversity of housing types, and provide for recreational opportunities for the residents of the site and public. Development standards for the PUD zone include onsite garage parking, no minimum setback between buildings, 30% building coverage of net area of the site, and 30 foot maximum building height. The proposed PUD would comply with these standards and the applicant has further modified the project design to comply with City Council requirement to provide a 40% floor area ratio and provided a one-story/two-story mix.

11. Coastal Commission Review/Approval:

The entire site is located within the coastal zone and the project involves amendments to the LCP, thus State law requires that the Coastal Commission review the project after a decision has been made by the City. Coastal Commission staff has expressed their opposition to the proposed project based on agricultural land conversion and lack of available water supply. Those issues have been discussed in other sections of the report.

12. Park/Recreation Fee:

Chapter 16.24 of the CMC requires that everyone who subdivides land for residential purposes shall dedicate a portion of such land, pay a fee, or a combination of both at the option of the City for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities. It has been determined that the applicant will pay an in lieu park and recreation fee. The amount of the fee is $348,188.00. The fee must be paid prior to the recordation of the tract map.

13. Development Impact Fee:

In accordance with Chapter 15.80 of the CMC, a development impact fee shall be paid to the City in order to construct and improve public services and facilities necessary to serve the new development. The amount of the development fee is $619,319.58. The fee is not collected until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the City, therefore, it is likely that a portion of the total impact fee ($5076.39 per unit) will be paid for each unit prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

14. Other Fees:

The applicant is also responsible for payment of impact fees levied by the fire, water, sanitary, and school districts.

1. Deny the project

2. Modify the project

Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval – Tract Map

Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval – Development Plan

Exhibit C – Findings of Fact – LCPA/GPA/Tract Map/Rezone/Development Plan

Exhibit D – Findings of Fact – EIR Including Environmental Documents/Monitoring Program

Exhibit E – Resolution – LCPA/EIR Certification

Exhibit F – Resolution – GPA

Exhibit G – Ordinance – Rezone

Exhibit H – Water District Letters

Harry Broderick, property owner

David Tabor, project consultant

Concerned Citizens

Agenda

mailto:rays@silcom.com