Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 4982, * P 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4982 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 2 1.45, TITLE 21, CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. CASENAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOP- MENT ORDINANCE CASE NO.: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 9 II WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June 2001, on the 10 11 20th day of June 2001, and on the 18th day of July 2001 hold a duly noticed public hearing as 12 13 14 15 16 prescribed.by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration and addendum. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated March 15, 2001 and “PII” dated March 6, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 24 II Findiws: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 27 28 A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration ZCA Ol- Ol/LCPA 01-01 and addendum the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. C. D. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of July 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas NOES: Chairperson Segall ABSENT: Commissioner L’Heureux ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4982 -2- City NEGATIVE DECLARATION ’ Project Address/Location: Citywide Project Description: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to-repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: (1) create a user friendly document which provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small lot single family and duplex\multiple family ownership dwelling units, (2) add\revise development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with residential lot sizes and (3) incorporate additional residential design standards which will foster the development of more livable neighborhoods (which include homes that are designed for their residents instead of their cars, pedestrian liiendly streets and community commons). 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4611. DATED: MARCH 15,200l CASE NO: ZCA Ol-OULCPA 01-01 CASE NAME: AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 15,200l Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ h ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZCA Ol-OVLCPA 01-01 DATE: March 6.2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME Amendment to Planned Unit Development Ordinance 2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4611 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to-repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: (1) create a user friendly document which provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small lot single family and duplex\multiple family ownership dwelling units, (2) add\revise development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with residential lot sizes and (3) add\revise residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods (which include homes that are designed for their residents instead of their cars, pedestrian friendly streets and community commons). SUMMARY OF 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. q Land Use and Planning cl Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services 0 Population and Housing cl Biological Resources cl Utilities & Service Systems cl Geological Problems cl Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics cl Water 0 Hazards q Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality q Noise cl Recreation Air Quality 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) (XI q 0 0 III I find that - the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 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(n) EIR 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 NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Directox Sig!rat&re Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment 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 ‘Wo 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 adversely significant, 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 significant. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 l 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 effect on the environment. 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the - developer prior to public review. ln this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the E&Part II 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 at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. 4 b) c> 4 e) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of established community (including a low-income minority community an or II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 4 b) cl Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the DroDosal result in or 4 b) 4 d) 4 f) Et) h) 9 expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 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)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? SignificarG Impact q q q q q q q q q q cl q q q q q q q q q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 q q q q q q q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q 0 q q cl q q 0 q El q q q q q q No impact El lxl lxl Ix1 lxl lxl lxl lxl E3l lxl lxl lxl El Ix1 lxl lxl lxl lxl (XI lxl lzl Ix1 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). g) h) 9 Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direci additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 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? d) Create objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the 4 b) cl d) d r) g) proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result 4 b) 4 d) e) VIII. 4 W in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Potentially Significant Impact q q q q q q q cl q q q 0 q q q q 0 q 0 q q q Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q 0 q 0 q q q q 0 u q q El q Rev. 03/28/96 cl q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q cl q q q q cl No Impact IXI lxl El lxl lxl lxl Ix) lxl lxl lxl El Ix1 lxl IXI El lxl Ix1 El El IXI El lxl 6 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) b) cl 4 4 A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health haziUdS? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect 4 b) 4 4 e) upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the 4 b) cl 4 e) 0 g) XIII. 4 b) 4 proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks?) Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? Potentially Significanl Impact q q q q q q q q q q 0 cl q q cl q q q q q cl cl q Potentiallv Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q 0 Jl III q cl q q q q q q q q q 0 0 q q 0 Cl Less Than Significant Impact q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 q q q q El No Impact lxl lxl lxl lxl lxl Ix1 tzl lxl lxl Ix] IXI lxl lxl El Ix1 Ix] El lxl Ix1 lx.l I8 lxl lxl 7 Rev. 03128196 -. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XIV. a) ‘3 cl 4 4 . CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) b) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. '3 4 XVII. 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? 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact cl lzl 0 q cl q 0 q q cl ? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q q q 0 q -cl q q q cl Less Than Significant Impact q q q cl q q q q q q 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: 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 No Impact -[XI •l Ix1 lxl Ix1 El El (XI lxl lxl 8 Rev. 03128196 effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation 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. 9 Rev. 03128196 _- . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project (ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01) entails the repeal and reenactment of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The primary objectives of this zone code amendment are to: (A) create a user friendly - document which provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small lot single family and duplex\multiple family ownership dwelling units, (B) add\revise development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with residential lot sizes and (C) add\revise residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods (which include homes that are designed for their residents instead of their cars, pedestrian friendly streets and community commons). A. The format and regulations of the existing planned Development ordinance (which was adopted in 1982 and last amended in 1994) are somewhat ambiguous, out of date, and in need of revision. A number of amendments are proposed to create a user-friendly document, which provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small lot single family and duplex\multiple family ownership dwelling units as discussed below: 1. Modify the Purpose and Intent Section to clearly state the purpose of the Planned Development Ordinance. 2. Limit permitted uses through PUD depending on the zone. In R-l zone restricts permitted uses to single family detached; R-2 zones restricts to single family and duplex. 3. Revise the Required Findings for the approval of a PUD. 4. The ordinance will be reformatted to incorporate three (4) user-tiendly tables including: . General Development Standards that are applicable to all PUD’s; n Small-lot Single Family and Duplex Development Standards; m Multi-family Development Standards; and n Procedures and Development Standards for Residential Additions and Accessory Uses. 5. Provide new administrative procedures for processing residential additions (for garages, workshops, room additions and guest houses) and minor PUD amendments. 6. A number of sign related definitions have been added to clarify the Planned Development ordinance and make it easier to understand. Definition additions include. “Access Lane”, ‘Condominium Project”, “Driveway”, “Lot Coverage”, “Net Pad Area”, “ Planned Unit Development” and “Useable Rear-yard Area”. These terms are distinguished in the proposed ordinance, and therefore require definition. B. The existing PUD ordinance allows for the development of substandard sized (minimum 3,500 SF) single-family residential lots. As the price of residential land within the City has continued to escalate, the development community has 10 Rev. 03128196 .-. aggressively pursued the development of smaller residential lots, but not comparably smaller sized dwelling units. This has resulted in the development of larger R-l- 7,500 sized houses on these small residential lots. This has become a citywide concern in that overbuilt residential lots compromise community aesthetic values and homeowner privacy. Accordingly, this PUD ordinance amendment includes a number of revisions to development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with - residential lot sizes. These revisions include the following: 1. Increase minimum single-family lot size fi-om 3,500 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. fi and 7,500 sq. fi for duplexes. 2. Establish lot coverage standards of 40 percent for 2 story single family and duplex units, 50 percent for one story single family and duplex units and 60 percent for multiple family units. 3. Increase the side-yard setback for single family and duplex structures from 5’ minimum to a combined side-yard setback of not less than 25% of the lot width with a 5’ minimum. 4. Increase minimum building separation for multi-family structures from 20 feet to 30 feet. C. This amendment includes the modification of residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more “livable neighborhoods”. “Livable neighborhoods” include the following characteristics: 0 Livable neighborhoods include neighborhoods with homes that relate to the street and are designed for the residents and not their cars. This can be accomplished through reducing front yard setbacks and including front porches in home design to bring homes closer to the street to foster contact between neighbors. To reduce the dominance of garages there should be an emphasis on side entry or recessed garages located toward the rear of the lot. This will allow the active, visually interesting features of a house to dominate the streetscape. l Residential facades should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. 0 Streets should be designed to be “pedestrian friendly”. This can be accomplished through: the design of narrow streets with sidewalks, parkways, and street trees. Local streets should have travel and parking lanes sufficiently narrow to slow traffic and allow trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street, while providing adequate access for emergency and service vehicles. Local streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be controlled through the use of traffic calming techniques. When the traffic is slower, the streets are safer and more inviting for the pedestrian to walk. l An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs where feasible when there are no topographic or 11 Rev. 03128196 environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs when possible. l Centrally-located community commons- Parks/plazas, which serve as - community “commons”, neighborhood meeting places and recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all residential projects. These parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses, and “contain recreation amenities for all age groups” l Pedestrian and bicycle routes should be located along or visible from all streets. They must provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Planned Development standards revisions that are proposed to achieve the development of livable neighborhoods include: 1. Reduce the private street curb-to-curb street width from 36 feet to 34 feet; 2. Reduce driveway width from 30 feet to 24 feet for multi-family attached products; 3. Incorporate the use of parkways and street trees into project design; 4. Require at least 25 percent of the homes to be single-story structures; 5. Require front porches or front balconies on 25 percent of homes; 6. Require the incorporation of recessed and side-loaded garages into product design; 7. Reduce the permitted number of three-in-a-row garages to 10% of project units; 8. Increase required front-yard setback for multi-family units from 5’ to 8’; 9. Increase recreation space from a total of 200 sq. ft. per unit to 400 sq. ft. of common recreation space per unit plus a 400 square foot (20’ x 20’) private rear- yard for single family and duplex units or a 6’ x 10’ balcony or a 10’ x 10’ patio for multi-family units; 10. Require 48 SF of storage space/DU, exclusive of the required garage area (20’ x 20’ for a 2 car garage and 12’ x 20’ for a 1 car garage); 11. Require community recreation parking of 1 space\1 5 residential lots or dwelling units that are located greater than 1000’ from a recreation center lot; 12. Reduce the number of required covered resident parking spaces from 2 to 1 for multi-family residential dwelling units; 13. Require that only projects with more than 25 units must provide RV storage; 14. Redefines recreation types of uses and stipulates that only projects with more than 25 units must provide active recreation facilities; 15. Give credit for one guest parking space in driveways over 40 feet long; 16. Reduce allowable percentage of compact parking spaces from 45 percent to 25 percent of total required and only allow in multi-family projects of greater than 25 units; 17. Require a commonly-owned and landscaped open space buffer along arterial roadways; 18. Require that pocket parks must be provided in projects of 50 or more units. 25 percent of the total recreation area must be provided as pocket parks with recreation amenities. 12 Rev. 03128196 - 19. Modifies present City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines, to a) incorporate additional architectural design requirements to ensure design quality in the architectural features of single - family homes, and b) to apply to all single family zones for new projects of more than 4 units. Staff has determined that this proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment could not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore prepared a - negative declaration. No mitigation measures are required. Specifically, the environmental analysis performed by staff resulted in this determination for the following reasons: 1. The amendment is not associated with any specific development project and does not propose any development; 2. The amendment does not affect: any General Plan or zoning designation, allowable densities or land uses, or any environmental plan; 3. The amendment does not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical, biological, or human environmental impacts, and; 4. The amendment does not conflict with or affect any of the 15 environmental factors ( i.e., Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing) as listed in this Environmental Impact Assessment Form and as discussed in the related section below. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Non-Relevant Items 1. Land Use and Planning - The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment will not conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations or any applicable environmental plans adopted by the City because it does not affect density or allowed land uses. Consistent with the City’s R-l and R-2 residential zones, the revised ordinance will restrict the permitted uses through PUD to detached single family in the R-l zone and detached single family and duplex in the R-2 zone. For this same reason the amendment will not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses in any area and will not impact agricultural uses or established communities. The proposed development and design standards revisions will promote the development of user\pedestrian friendly, livable neighborhoods with homes that are in better proportion to lot sizes. 2. PoDulation and Housing - Since this Planned Development Ordinance amendment does not propose any development or affect allowable land uses or densities, the amendment will not affect any population projections, induce substantial growth, or displace any existing housing. 3. Geolopic Problems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, no changes in topography resulting in unstable earth conditions, erosion of soils, ground shaking, landslides/mudflows, alteration of deposition patterns, or other geologic problems will occur. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant geological impacts. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 - 4. Water - The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment is not specific to any site, but could apply citywide. No development is being proposed, and no sites are being identified for specific uses through these amendments. Also, the proposed amendments will not change any regulations, policies, standards, or guidelines already in place which affect or address water conditions or the prevention/handling of problems related to water bodies, absorption rates, hazards, discharge, turbidity, or the availability of water. The ultimate placement of any future uses will be reviewed and - considered at the time a development application is submitted, just as it is under the current regulations. Detailed analysis of site conditions and possible development impacts will be evaluated at the time a project application is submitted. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any potentially significant water impacts. 5. Air Quality - As no site-specific project nor changes to standards or policies regarding air quality is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impact to air quality. 6. Transportation/Circulation - Implementation of the proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment will not result in increased daily vehicle trips. The reduction in street and driveway widths (from 36 ‘ to 34’ and from 30’ to 24’ respectively)) and will function to reduce vehicle speed, thus minimizing the potential number and severity of traffic accidents while still providing adequate travel lane width (minimum of 20’). Hazards or safety concerns will be minimized by slower vehicle speeds that provide greater driver reaction time to recognize a problem and to either stop or take evasive action. Less distance is required to stop a vehicle at slower speeds. The revised parking standards will still require adequate on site resident parking (2 spaces/DU) and on or off street visitor parking to serve the neighborhood needs. Additional guest parking (1 space/l5 residential lots or dwelling units that are located greater than 1000’ from a recreation center lot will also be required. For private streets, the parking lane width will be reduced from 8’ to 7’ leaving a minimum of 20’ for the travel lanes. The proposed 7’ parking width is adequate to accommodate sub compact cars as well as SW’s. The parkway width for private streets will be increased from four and a half feet to seven feet and the sidewalk will be placed behind the parkway instead of adjacent to the curb. Trees will be planted in the parkway instead of outside of the right of way. These proposed changes decrease the amount of hard surface and increase the amount of parkway planter within the right of way. It puts a greater distance between the pedestrian on the sidewalk and the streets travel lane. Moving the pedestrian away from the street is safer than being adjacent to the street. It also gives the pedestrian more of a feeling of walking with nature instead of walking in a street. By having the trees closer to the street both the optical narrowing of the street and the shadows cast on the street by the trees act to reduce the perceived street width, thus slowing traffic down. Reducing speed has the direct benefit of reducing the severity of injuries of any people involved in a vehicle related accident. 7. Biological Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impact to biological resources. Although the proposed regulations discourage the use of cul-de-sac streets, there are provisions included to permit this type of street when there are environmental 14 Rev. 03J28J96 - features that need to be preserved. Any development application will be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to biological resources. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impact to energy and mineral resources. 9. Hazards - The proposed project is not specific to any site and could apply any place within the City. However, no development is proposed through this project. In addition, the project will not create any new uses (i.e., uses not currently allowed in the City). Proposed policies and standards addressing narrower street widths and relocated sidewalks are uses which typically do not present any risk of explosion, release of hazardous substances, etc. However, any development proposed in the future will be analyzed in detail for potential hazard impacts. Therefore, the proposed project does not result in any potentially significant hazards impacts. Street narrowing is not expected to interfere with either emergency response to a neighborhood or the ability of residents to evacuate. The recommended modified street grid design facilitates emergency evacuation by minimizing the use of single access street design. Connectivity, a major feature of this street design, ensures residents will have more than one vehicular route of escape during a major emergency event 10. Noise - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no exposure to noise impacts and no exposure to unacceptable levels of noise. 11. Public Services - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impacts to public services. 12. Utilities and Services Svstems - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impacts to utilities and services systems. No development is proposed through this project. Under the City’s adopted growth management regulations, all development in the City is required to provide all necessary public facilities and services concurrent with development. This requirement would not be altered by the proposed project. Underground utilities, located in the parkway, are normally placed under the edge of the sidewalk. By relocating the sidewalk away from the street, the utilities would likewise shift with and stay under the sidewalk. This is done to protect the utilities from anyone digging in the parkway. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to public utilities and services systems. 13. Aesthetics - The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment will improve the aesthetics of residential neighborhoods by reducing the amount of asphalt (through street narrowing), requiring parkways landscaped with trees, requiring that dwelling units be in better scale and proportion with residential lot sizes (through adding a larger minimum lot size, establishing lot coverage standards and increasing side yard setbacks), requiring front porches or front balconies on 25 percent of homes, requiring the incorporation of recessed and side-loaded garages into product design, reduce the permitted number of three-in-a-row garages, increase the amount of private and common recreation area per unit, reducing the number of required covered resident parking spaces from 2 to 1 for multi-family residential dwelling units, requiring a commonly- 15 Rev. 03128196 - . l owned and landscaped open space buffer along arterial roadways, requiring at least 25 percent of the homes to be single-story structures and incorporate additional architectural design requirements to ensure design quality in the architectural features of single - family homes. 14. Cultural Resources - As no site-specific project is proposed as part of this Planned Development Ordinance amendment, there will be no impacts to cultural - resources. The proposed amendments are not specific to any site. They could apply any place in the City. Any development application will be analyzed in detail for potential impacts to cultural resources. However, the code amendments proposed currently (the “project”) will not have any impact on cultural resources. 15. Recreational - The proposed amendment will not increase the demand for parks or other recreational facilities and will not affect existing recreational opportunities because the proposed amendment will not induce growth in the City and will not reduce the number or amount of areas currently planned for recreational -uses. The proposed modification to require increased common recreation area per unit, will increase project recreational opportunities. 16 Rev. 03J28J96 ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 The project description has been revised to indicate that the proposed project will also include: 1) a new City Council policy outlining the City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its intent to consider these principles in the review of proposed residential projects, and 2) an amendment to City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines (proposed name: Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to add several new/modified architectural guidelines addressing building mass and facade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single- family and two-family development proposals. The purpose of this addendum is to document this change in project description, and to clarifjl that this change, which establishes principles and architectural guidelines for the development of livable neighborhoods, will not result in any significant environmental impacts or necessitate any revision to the findings of the project negative declaration.