The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-01-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 3862@ 0 1 II PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3862 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC PLAN TO DESIGNATE VILLA LOMA AND LAUREL HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO SATISFY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 203 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF PASEO DEL NORTE, SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, AND NORTH OF THE AVIARA MASTER PLAN. CASE NAME: COSTA DO SOL CASE NO: SP 203(A) WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the more fully described as an amendment to a specific plan to designate Villa Lo TREE AS TWO OFF-SITE COMBINED AFFORDABLE 14 Plan 203, for certain property to wit: 16 available to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements for residential projects within ~ 15 Laurel Tree as two off-site combined affordable housing projects that are poi 17 18 19 Portions of Lots G and H of the Rancho Agua Hedionda Land Grant Map 823, and portions of Sections 21, 22, and 28, Township 12S, R4W. ** ll WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of Januar 21 Carlsbad Municipal Code, to consider said request, and 22 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and provided in Section 19.C 23 24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te 25 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st 26 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered al: 27 28 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the E Commission as follows: e 0 1 II A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the 1 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the P Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 5, 1995 a1 dated August 29,1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, basec following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project n a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein id for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending approva project. Based on the EIA Part-11 and comments thereon, the Planning Com finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant e the environment and thereby recommends approval of the Negative Declal 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration refle independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbac 14 15 16 17 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the E: Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of January, 3 the following vote, to wit: 18 19 20 21 AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Nielsen, Noble, and Welshons NOES: Commissioner Monroy ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin 22 ABSTAIN: None 23 24 25 26 ATTEST: PC RES0 NO. 3862 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESSLOCATION: Portions of Lots G and H of the Rancho Agua Hedionda Land Grant Map 823, and portions of Sections 21, 22 and 28, Township 125, R4W. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) to designate two offsite combined Affordable Housing Projects as potentially available to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of residential projects in SP 203. 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 significant 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 Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455. DATED: SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 CASE NO: SP 203(A) Planning Director CASE NAME: ZONE 20 - MINOR HOUSING AMENDMENT PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 MICHAEL J. H~ZMLLER JGkr Rev. 6/95 E~dminWerge~onnsWegDecNot 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 * 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SP 203(A) DATE: August 29. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Zone 20 - Minor Housing Amendment 2. APPLICANT: Greystone Homes Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 495 E. Rincon. Suite 115. Corona California 9 17 19 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NIA 5. PROJECT DESCRETION: Amendment of the Zone 20 Swcific Plan (SP 203) to designate tl combined Affordable Housing Proiects as mtentially available to satisfv the inclusionan reauirements of residential proiects in SP 203. SUMMARY OF ENVlRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involvir one impact that is a “Potentially Sigmfkant Impact”, or “Potentially Si@lcant Impact Unless ?Y Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning - Transprtation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 0 a DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA'I DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have 1 added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI' REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 1 potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applica legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descri on attached sheets. An ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTmTIGATED NEGATn7E DECLARATI is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL N be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequat in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) h been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIG including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Not: of Prior Compliance has been prepared. - .a. JLLiw 7- I- 75- PlanneY Qnatd Date .a. JLLiw PlanneY Qnatd 7- I- 75- Date 4 ?)I /45- Planning Director Siature u Date 2 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envi Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signrficant effect on the environment. The Envi Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies an^ biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with in to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dc 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 adequatc supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impa answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact sim] does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained wl there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as gene standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential imp; is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and polici 0 “Potentially Signrfcant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigati measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Signifk Impact.’’ The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigatj 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 significant. Based on an “EN-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on 1 environment, but 4 potentially signd3cant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstanc requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures requiT by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additior environmental document is requira (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Signifhnt Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prep2 an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pyxsuant to applical standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has be made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projc or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/S 0 c If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if the are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatil measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the approprk “Potentially Significant hpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mtigat Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limit1 to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially signifcant effect has not been discussed mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of OverridiI Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) props mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Pi 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fo: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to a mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 e a Issues (and supporting Informatim sources): Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ) - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? () - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 0 - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? () - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? () - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 - IIX. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - a) Fault rupture? 0 - - b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 - - d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 - - 5 LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/S 0 e Issues (and supportilg Information sources): e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 f> Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 g) Subsidence of the land? () h) Expansive soils? () i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of dace runoff? 0 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of Surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 0 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? () e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 Potentially Significant Zmpact - - - - - - - - - - - - - Potentially significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/s e 0 Issues (and supporting information sources): i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? () b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant impact Incaporated Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - d) Create objectionable odors? () - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? () - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? () - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? () - VlX. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28{! a e Issues (and supporting lnfcamatica sources): Potentially Significant rolpact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and buds? () - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 0 - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0 - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () - c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 - E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or eation? 0 - b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant hpact - - - - - - - - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () - - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/95 e ;. Issues (and supporting Informarim sources): Potentially significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Increase fie hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 0 - - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)' Increases in existing noise levels? 0 - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () - - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? () - - b) Police protection? () - - c) Schools? () - - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 - - e) Other governmental services? 0 - - XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? () - - b) Communications systems? () - -. c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 0 - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 - - e) Storm water drainage? () - - f) Solid waste disposal? 0 - - g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 - - 9 LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 e Issues (and supporting rllformatiorl sources): Xm. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 c) Create light or glare? () XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 10 0 Potentially significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incaporated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 Issues (and supporting Informatian sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Lesr;Than Signifhnt Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact XVI. 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 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 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 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) - - - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - XVII. 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 followini on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available .for b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were review. 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 basx on the earlier analysis. 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation 11 Rev. 3/28/95 e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Zone 20 Specific Plan (SP 203) covers the 640 acre Zone 20 Planning Area. The certified Final Prc 90-03 for Specific Plan 203 addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the future t the Zone 20 Specific Plan area and is on file in the Planning Department. Use of a Program EIR enabb general environmental analysis that serves as an information base to be consulted when ultimately subsequent development projects (i.e. .tentative maps, site development plans, grading permits, etc ...) to characterize the overdl environmental impacts of the specific plan. The F& Program ER conk specific plan area. The specifk plan includes a section on affordable housing that implements the Housing Element of tk Plan. The affordable housing section contains language stating that a residential project's affordabl requirements may be satisfied outside of the specific plan and within the Southwest Quadrant, if certai are made by the City Council. Minor Specific Plan Amendment SP 203(A) would further qualify this in the affordable housing section by designating the location of two potential offsite combined afTordabl projects (Villa Loma - SDP 93-06 & Laurel Tree - SDP 95-01) that may be available to satisfy the in4 housing requirements of residential developments in SP 203. Before either of the two offsite combined affordable housing projects would qualify to satisfy developrr 203 the project must have a Site Development Plan approved by the City and have subsequently r environmental review per CEQA and Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal. Villa Loma is an approved i apartment project which is currently under construction and Laurel Tree is an apartment project pending by the City. LAND USE AND PLANNING! POPULATION AND HOUSING SP 203(A) establishes the potential location of inclusionary housing units in SP 203 and is, therefore, in co with the Housing Element and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Section 21.85.070(6) of the Carlsbad P Code. The housing section amendment does not create any environmental impacts, and all environmenta associated with the development of the two combined affordable housing projects has been evalu considered during the Site Development Plan process for those projects. Due to the nature of this project, in that no physical development is associated with the amendment of tht section of the specific plan, Section ItI through XVI are checked "no impact" and there is no discussion of environmental impacts associated with those topics on the checklist. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 . 0 0 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES IIF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH mGA"ION MONITOFUNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A * 13 Rev. 3/28/95 t e e APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE RENEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASUI AND CONCUR Wl"H THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 14 Rev. 312819