The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-02-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 34880 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3488 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AND THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN DEVELOPER. CASE NAME: AVIARA AFFORDABLE HOUSING CASE NO: DI 92-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of January, 1993 and the 3rd day of February, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by lav DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT lo I/ to consider said request, and 11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 12 I* and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all 13 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissior I1 as follows: 17 18 19 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following finding: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 20 to Exhibit "ND", dated November 25, 1992, and "PII", dated November 19, 1992, 21 22 Fhdin~: 23 24 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project maq 25 "* 26 .*- 27 ... 28 have a significant impact on the environment. 0 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of February? 1993, bq 3 11 the following vote, to wit: 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 I1 12 13 AYES: Chairperson Noble; Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schrm, Welshons, Savary? Erwin & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: kk -n& BAILEY NO E, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 14 15 16 PLANNING DIRECTOR MICHAEL J. HO'~MILLE~' 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 PC RES0 NO. 3488 -2- I1 0 e EXHIBIT *W' NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS~LOCATION: AW MASTER PM ' COMMUNITY IN THE Cm OF CARLSBAD PROJECT DESCNPTION: CONSIDERATION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE AvylLRA MASTER PLAN. 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 and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a sigruficant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Holder in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4430. DATED: NOVEMBER 25,1992 CASE NO: DL92-05 Planning Director APPLICANT: m OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 25,1992 MJWarb 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 (sl 9, 438-1 1 61 6 0 0 EXHlBlT "Pll ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO. DI 92-( DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 19' 1. CASE NAME: AVIARA AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD/AVIARA MASTER PLAN 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRNE. CARLSBAD, C 92009 (61 9) 438-1 161. 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 17.1992 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEME] FOR THE AWARA MASTER PLAN. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This check 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project 2 provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmer Impact Report or Negative Declaration.. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO will be checl to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of project may cause a simificant effect on. the environment. The project may qualifv for a Negal Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deer insimificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-in respectively. A discussion of potentid impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form UT DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discus: mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined sisnificant. ,a 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in aik movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? - - - - - - - - - - - -2- YES (insig) - - - - - - - - - - - NO x - X - X - X - X - X X - X - X X - - X - 0 0 BIOLOGICAL -0NMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES big) 12. Affect the, diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? - 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a banier to the: migration or movement' of animals? - - - - HUMANENVZRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned lad use of an area? YES ($is) - 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? - -3- YES (insig) - - - - - YES (insis) - - NO X X X - X X. - NO X - X - a 0 €"ANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid wasre or hazardous waste control systems? YES big) - YES NO (insig) X - 20. tncrease existing noise levels? - - X 21. Produce new light or gldre? - - X 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? - - X 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? - - " - X - 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with energuq response plans or emergency evacuation plans? X - - X - - - X X - - - - - - X - - - X - - - 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X - - - X - - - 4- 0 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 3s. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively con- siderable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in comedon with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X - - 36. Does the project htvlr envirbnmentd effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - - X - X - - - X -5- 0 DtSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION On September 1, 1992, the city COUncil approved an agreement with the developer of the Aviaa Master p1: to provide the Master Plan's share of affordable, low-income housing in compliance with the recendy-updat( Housing Element. under the approved agreement, the developer is accepting a 15% inclusionary requireme which means that the developer will be responsible for building a minimum of 160 units of lower incon housing (15% of the total number of dwelling units to be built in the entire Master Plan), The exact locatic and timing of construction of the affordable units is subject to a number of variables and alternariv contained irl the agreement approved by the City Council, One of the alternatives provides for the accelerated development of the minimum required 160 lower incor units. Under normal inclusionary housing requirements, the affordable units could be built in increments proponion to the number of.market-rate units being built. For example, if a developer is building 100 uni 15 units of lower income housing would be required. Under the proposed alternative, all of the required 1( units for the buildout of the Master Plan would be provided upfront at one time rather than incrementa: over an extended period of time. In return for utilizing this alternative, the developer can request that t City approve an affordable housing development agreement. This would protect the developer from futu changes in affordable housing requirements. The developer has now hidicated that he intends to go forward with the alternative of providing the upfror accelerated development of 160 lower income units. In return for the accelerated development, the develop is now requesting the City approve the affordable housing development agreement mentioned previously. copy of the development agreement is on file in the. Planning Department. The development agreement recognizes that by providing 1.60 lower income units upfront, all at one tim rather than incrementally over time the City receives a significant benefit towards meeting its affordah housing obligations. In return, paragraph 4 of the agreement protects the developer from application of futu changes regarding the requirements for low income housing which would affect the construction of the YE of the Master Plan. Physical Environment 1 .-4. The agreement is purely administrative and does not approve or condone any earth work. 5-8. ' Since the agreement is not project specific and does not involve development of any kind, : impacts to air quality, climatological indices, or water flows or sources will result. 9.10. The agreement will have no affects on any natural resources or energy reserves. 1 1. - 16. As the agrecmart does not &dude or allow any site-specific development, no impacts to historic: archaeological, palkontological sites will result, nor will there be any &st on flora or fauna in tl city. 17. The agreement does not propose any changes in land use of an area. 18.-19. Since no specific development at any specific location is proposed by the agreement, there will no affect on any public services including, but not limited to, utilities and sewer systems. -6- 0 e 20.-22. As no site-specific development will be sanctioned through the agreement, there will be no impacts to existing noise levels, light or glare. There will also be no release of hazardous substances or any risk of upset. 23.-24. The agreement does not approve any specific residential development and therefore will not impacr the population density or housing supply of and by itself. 25.-30. The agreement does not involve any site-specific development and, as such, will not generate an! traffic, affect any emergency response plans, nor create any traffic hazards. 31. The agreement does not approve any site-specific development and, therefore, no adverse impact: to scenic vistas or public views will result. 32. As no specific development or location is proposed with the agreement, no recreationa opportunities are being affected. 33. See 11.46. above. 34.X. There will be neither short-term nor long-term affects to the environment because of this projec since it is purely administrative Ad does not involve any project development. No cumulativ impacts will result. either. 36. AS no development is proposed, and no affect on aesthetics will result, no direct or indirect impact to human beings are expected. -7- m e ANALYSIS OF VlABLE ALTERNATlVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. a) As no development is involved, no phasing or alternative scales of development may OCCI b) Since no site-specific development is propose.d, alternative site designs, alternate uses f the site, or alternative sites are relevant to this project. c) See a) above. d) See b) above. e) See a) above. f) See b) above. g) The no project alternative would result in the incremental provision of affordable housi by the Master Plan which is less acceptable to the City. -8- e 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initid evaluation: x- I fmd the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigmficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATW DECLARATION will be prepared. - [ find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigruficant effect on the environment, because rh, environmentai effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wit] previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project couid have a significant effect on the environment, there wi not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTP IMPACT REPORT is required. e NOVEMBER 19. 1992 A* Date Signature NOVEMBER 19. 1992 Date LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICAB~ -9-