HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 68655
^ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6865
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON
4 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
ONE HALF-MILE NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND EL CAMINO REAL, IN THE
5 SUNNY CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 191) AND LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15.
7 CASE NAME; RANCHO MILAGRO
CASENQ: HDP 06-01
g WHEREAS, Warren C. Lyall, "Developer," has filed a verified application
10 with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Lyall Enterprises, Inc., "Owner,'
11 described as;
Remainder Parcel "A" of Carlsbad Tract 96-02 according to
13 map thereof No. 11242, flled in the offlce of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on October 27, 2000 aU in the
14 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and
15 "K" Street Remainder Parcels ofCarlsbad Tract 00-18
16
17
18
19
2Q Carlsbad Planning Division, RANCHO MILAGRO - HDP 06-01, as provided by Chapter
21 21.95 of the Carisbad Municipal Code; and
22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on February 15, 2012, consider said
request; and
24
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
25
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
26 "
27 relating to the Hillside Development Permit.
28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified applicafion constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permh as shown on Exhibits "A" - "Y" dated February 15, 2012, on file in the
A) That the foregoing recitations are tme and correct. 1
2 . . B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
3 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of RANCHO MILAGRO - HDP 06-01 based
on the following findings and subject to the following condhions;
4 "
5
12
18
19
20
23
Findings:
6 1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
exisfing and proposed conditions and slope percentages.
7
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e., slopes over 40% that have all of the
^ following criteria 1) an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet, 2) a minimum
g area of 10,000 square feet, and 3) comprise of a prominent land form feature, have
been properly identified on the constraints map.
10
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
11 the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the hiUside conditions are properly
identified and are incorporated in the design of the subdivision; the project is
designed to relate to the slope of the land; the alteration of the natural hillsides will
13 be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner to preserve steep slopes and
wildlife habitat to the maximum extent practicable; and both mechanical and
14 biological methods will be implemented to control potential erosion, including
engineering the manufactured slopes to maximize slope stabiUty; choosing
15 appropriate plants for the slopes to reduce the level of erosion of the slopes;
1^ implementing post-construction best management practices (BMPs) that will ensure
run-off is appropriately treated to minimize the potential for erosion; and
17 implementing construction-level BMPs to prevent any silt from entering any of the
HMP open space conservation areas.
4. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that on-site grading is within the
acceptable quantity range with 7,928 cubic yards per acre; none of the proposed
manufactured slopes being created as a result of the proposed grading scheme
21 extend to or exceed 40 feet in height; all manufactured slopes, except for those
perimeter slopes adjacent to the open space preserve that wUl be planted with
22 naturalizing species to avoid the introduction of invasive plant species to adjacent
natural areas, will be landscaped in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual;
lots requiring a slope edge building setback from the top of slope for future
24 residential construction have been identifled on the tentative map; and the proposed
circulation system exhibits a curvilinear street design which foUows the natural
25 undulating topography, avoids large notches in ridgelines, and does not greatly alter
the physical and/or visual character of the hillsides.
2j 5. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that the significant slope and sensitive habitat areas are being preserved in open
28 space.
PC RESO NO. 6865 -2-
6. That the site has unusual geotechnical or soil condifions that necessitate correcfive work
2 that may require significant amounts of grading, in that the site contains expansive soUs
which require corrective grading measures.
3
7. That the proposed modificafion (e.g. aUowing a combination retaining wall/bridge
4 structure with a maximum waU height of 18.2 feet (directly over the channel) on the
^ west side of Street "K" and 17.2 feet on the east side; a retaining waU located on the
south side of Street "X" east of Lot 25 with a maximum waU height of 9.3 feet; and a
6 retaining wall located on the south side of Street "X" west of Lot 6 with a maximum
wall height of 18 feet) will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area
7 than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance, in that alternatives
showing a design using a maximum 6 foot high retaining waU were submitted and
reviewed with the development proposal. The reduced wall height alternative for
9 the area where Street '^K" crosses the northem drainage channel resulted in an
increased impact to wetlands habitat of 7,388 square feet. For the area south of
10 Street "X", the reduced wall height alternative resulted in an additional 5,924
square feet of impacts to sensitive vegetation communities. In these instances, a
11 modification is aUowed since the design using the higher retaining walls would
result in more open space and would reduce disturbance to wetland habitats and
impacts to other sensitive vegetation communities. Given that the waUs are located
13 below the roadways and are not situated in highly visible areas, aUowing an increase
in waU height to offset impacts to sensitive vegetation communities is warranted.
14 The project is conditioned to use a natural earth-tone block for the waUs, and wiU be
of a plantable design with native species that are compatible with the adjacent
1 ^ native habitat species. Lastly, views of the waUs wiU be obscured and minimized by
the adjacent wetland plant species near Street ^^K", which are generally
characterized by lush dense growth, and also by the dense upland and riparian
17 habitats existing in the open space areas south of Street "X".
12
16
18 Findings pursuant to Sunny Creek Speciflc Plan (SP 191) regarding development of slopes
^g of 25% or greater:
2Q 8. A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the subject
slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least 75
21 years, or the life of the stmcture in that, Geotechnical Exploration Inc. (GEI), a
licensed geotechnical flrm, conducted a preUminary geotechnical report and update
22 for the project. The report included slope stability analyses and concluded that the
23 on-site soils would support the proposed slopes with a stability factor of at least 1.5,
which is considered the industry standard of practice. In addition, GEI provided a
24 subsequent letter stating that subject to certain conditions being maintained on-site
during and after construction, the slopes wUI remain stable for at least 75 years, or
25 for the useful life of the proposed structures.
9. Grading of the slopes is essential to the development intent and design in that, the intent
27 of the proposed project is to develop a residential project exhibiting a rural
character, whUe preserving environmentally constrained areas. This is being
28 accompUshed by limiting the development envelope primarily to those areas of the
site which have historically been used for agricultural purposes. In this manner, the
natural setting can be maximized and areas predominated by steep slopes can be
PC RESO NO. 6865 -3-
preserved in open space. The point of ingress for the main access road was
2 established by the previously approved Cantarini Ranch project entry point, whUe
egress to the adjacent Mandana property is fixed pursuant to HMP exhibits. The
3 intervening aUgnment between these two points was set to meet engineering design
standards and minimize disturbance of the natural areas, whUe also providing an
4 opportunity for residents to enjoy the natural, rural surroundings from the
^ proposed decomposed granite traU and riparian overlook seating area forming the
perimeter of the development envelope. Additionally, in order to maintain gravity
6 fiow of sewer, the elevation of the site dictates that sewer connection must be made
at the Sunny Creek sewer main. This necessitates disturbance of a Umited amount
7 of the subject slope areas. In order to accompUsh the stated desires of the speciflc
plan to create a rural character, care has been taken to cluster lots in areas that
^ would otherwise be disturbed by grading for access or utilities. This approach has
9 been used to reduce grading quantities and contribute to a rural design character in
accordance with the design guidelines of the speciflc plan. The project design
10 preserves critical habitat areas and linkages in accordance with the HMP. Lastly,
slope area and habitat impacts are minimized by designing a residential lot layout to
11 overlap grading impacts necessary to accommodate area wide circulation and
^2 infrastructure extension.
J3 10. Slope disturbance will not result in substanfial damage or alteration to major wildlife
habitat or native vegetation areas in that, RECON prepared a Biological Technical
14 Report (BTR) for the project, which demonstrates that the proposed development
wiU not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wUdUfe habitat or native
vegetation. Speciflcally, the BTR demonstrates that the proposed project, whUe not
located within a core area, will however enhance core or linkage areas in the area
and wiU contribute to implementation of the HMP through the preservation of more
17 than 67yo of the on-site coastal sage scrub whUe minimizing impacts to other
habitats.
18
11. Ifthe area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is in excess of 10
acres, no more than one-third of the total steep slope area shall be subject to major grade
2Q changes in that, the area of the project to be graded is 14.24 acres in size with 1.87
acres (13.1%) consisting of steep slopes with a slope gradient of 25% or greater.
21 Grading for the main access road, decomposed granite trail areas, and other pubUc
improvements account for 0.97 acres of impact to this slope category, whUe grading
22 for the residential pads account for 0.90 acres. As evidenced here and on the
23 HiUside Development Constraints Map included as part of the project exhibits, the
area to be disturbed is not predominated by steep slopes.
24
12. If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is less than 10
25 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no intermption of significant wildlife
corridors occurs in that, as demonstrated above the disturbed area of the site is not
predominated by steep slopes, and the project wUl not interrupt any wildlife
corridors.
26
27
28 13. Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and in many
cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of vegetation
from these areas will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have been mifigated.
PC RESO NO. 6865 -4-
As iUustrated in the RECON prepared Biological Technical Report and HiUside
2 Development Constraints Map, no grading or removal of natural vegetation wiU
occur on north facing slopes.
3
4
5
23
14. The Planning Commission ofthe City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for RANCHO
6 MILAGRO - GPA 06-03, ZC 06-02, CT 06-04, SUP 06-05, HDP 06-01, and HMP
09-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
7 comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Division, prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ofthe project; and
9 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum have been prepared in accordance with requirements of
10 the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
11
12
13
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds
14 that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
15
lg 15. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
17 to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
18 •
19
c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Conditions:
2Q Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the approval of
the flnal map or issuance of grading permits, whichever occurs flrst.
21
1. If any of the following condifions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
22 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condifion issuance of all
24 future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the
25 property title; insfitute and prosecute litigafion to compel their compliance with said
condifions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this HiUside Development Permit.
27
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
28 and modificafions to the Hillside Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
them intemally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
PC RESO NO. 6865 -5-
1 Development shall occur substanfially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
2 development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4
^ 4. If any condifion for constmction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
5 are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Govemment Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be
7 invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
g 5. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Rancho MUagro Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum.
10
6. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
11 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attomey's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
13 or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this HiUside Development
Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discrefionary or
14 nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
1^ including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
lg facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives unfil all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
17 approval is not validated.
12
18 7. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 06-03,
ZC 06-02, CT 06-04, SUP 06-05, and HMP 09-01 and is subject to all conditions
2Q contained in Plaiming Commission Resolutions No. 6860, 6861, 6862, 6863, 6864, and
6866 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
21
This approval shall become null and void if grading permits are not issued for this
22 project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
23
24
25
26
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
"fees/exactions."
27 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Govemment Code Section
28 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required informafion with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
PC RESO NO. 6865 -6-
^ follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
2 annul their imposition.
3 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
4 zoning, grading, or other similar applicafion processing or service fees in cormection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
5 expired.
5
7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Califomia, held on February 15, 2012, by the following
vote, to wit: 9
10
AYES: Chairperson Schumacher, Commissioners Amold, Black,
11 L'Heureux, Nygaard, Scully and Siekmann
12
13
14
15
16
17
NOES;
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST
LA.
18 MICHAEL SCHUMACHER, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
19
20
21
22
DON NEU
24 City Plarmer
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6865 -7-