Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-23; City Council; 12131; RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES GPA 92-8n CITmF CARLSBAD - AGENe BILL 67 m 4 ma + CI DEPT. PLN uo s I-( CI' GPA 92-8 - CITY OF CARLSBAD 54 DE TITLE: AB # /ai /3 1 uu MTG. 3 -23 - 93 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES a ow &u p1 I (RECOMMENDED ACTION: "Z and ADOPT Resolution No. 93-65 , APPROVING GPA 92-8. Em If Council concurs, both the Planning Commission and staf 4-( x. h .rl ?I aa, oa, recommending- that the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 93-6 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Dirt 0 ua al 4-1-a W ITEM EXPLANATION 4-15 aal :: g$ 4 4" am a 01 um a cr). n no a2 d fi "0 c'1 Ti 4- rl4 3 .d 0 km -22 wa OS bD G* -4 u5 UI am On December 2, 1992 the Planning Commission approved (7-0) a Ge Plan Amendment (GPA 92-8) to add a new policy and text to the C Land Use Element. The new land use policy would permit reside densities to exceed the maximum densities for the provisil affordable housing for lower-income households. This new pro\ will allow these higher densities to be in conformance wit General Plan. Any residential project requesting such density increase wou required to process a Site Development Plan application, applications for residential density increases will be reviewe relative to (1) a project's compatibility with adjacent land use: compliance with specific locational criteria, and (3) the adequ; public facilities. In addition, the request would have ' consistent with the citywide dwelling unit limitation of the C Management Plan (Prop. E) . Any density increase approved pursuz this new land use policy, would be required to be used exclusivel the development of lower-income affordable housing. am - -. E -dg This General Plan Amendment is necessary to bring the City's Lar al u Element into conformance with it's Housing Element. Specificall 92-8 will implement Program 3.7.i. (Mechanism's for Granting DE u .rl u -e -3 a, fid og Increases) of the Housing Element. $2 5: .d & a, Amendment. Please see the attached staff report to the Pla fia, z.2: Commission for details regarding this item. No major issues were identified with respect to this General 4-l up: a3 24 R I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5 .d .;j ucd ?is4 u 0 .d the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on Jul On December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended appro\ -4 u u aJk5 fi 1992. -dab H au 1 FISCAL IMPACT mm \ a a2 m >o c "I- n 2s 6 z 3 0 0 Aside from typical administrative (staff) costs associated processing project applications, no direct fiscal impacts anticipated to result from GPA 92-8. Any development processed this General Plan Amendment will still be subject to growth manag conditions. Required public facilities will be financed throuq ~ existing system of fees and assessments. In addition, the apy i of the General Plan Amendment will not grant any development I to specific projects. The direct fiscal impacts of each project be evaluated as that project is brought forward for Council re I r a c PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1%; / 3 / EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. 934’9 2. City Council Resolution No. 93-65 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3446 and 3447 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 28, 1992 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 28, November 4, 1992, November 18, 1992, and December 2, 1992 1 1 L I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -13 14 15 16 17 18 ,19 ~ I 20 ~ , 21 22 ~ 23 24 ~ i I 0 0 EX RESOLUTION NO 93-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO GRANT DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES CASE NO: GPA 92-08 - CITY OF CARLSBAD CARISBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Mu] Code, the Planning Commission did, on December 2, 1992, duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consid' request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon heari considering all testimony and arguments, examining the study, analyzing the information submitted by staf: considering any written comments received, the Planning Corn considered all factors relating to the Negative Declarati NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by tt Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and cor 2. That the findings and conditions of the P Commission Resolution No. 3446, on file with the City .C1 incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings City Council- in this matter and that the Negative Declara hereby approved. ... 25 // ' 26 ". 27 "* 28 -** 11 *** 4 I 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 I 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 13th day of APRIL , 1993, by the following vc wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Nygaard, Finnila NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member K ATTEST: 1 ALETHA L. F~UTENKRANZ, city Clery (SEAL) I -2- I L '4 ' li. 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 RE8OLUTION NO 0 93-65 A RESOLUTION OF,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 92-08) TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO GRANT DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, TO ENABLE THE bEVELoPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES CASE NO: GPA 92-08 - CITY OF CARLSBAD 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 2, 8 9. hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed. by 1; consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General 10 11 GPA 92-08; and April 13, 1993, held a duly advertised public hearing to COI l2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbac 13 IF aid amendment,, and at that time received the recommendal 14 15 objections, protests, comments of all persons interested opposed to GPA 92-08; and 16 17 Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 18 1. That the above redtations are true and corri 19 2. That the revised Land Use Element of the G8 20 Plan (GPA 92-08) is approved according to (revised) Exhib 21 dated April 13, 1993, attached hereto, and that the findi 22 the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Corn 23 Resolution No. 3447, on file in the Planning Department, an 24 a part hereof, are the findings and conditions of thc 25 Council . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 26 11' ' e . 27 I/* * 28 *.' ... I1 I I II 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 I, ' EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution will be effec days after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meetin City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 13th day of 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES! Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Nygaard, Finnila NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin ATTEST: ALETEA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City ClFrk (SEAL) 1 1 1 i ,> 0 0 (REVISED) EXJm3I-l APRIL 13, 11 1 1 I( e ,e t (4) slopes with an inclination of greater than 40% (5) significant wetlands (6) signif?cant riparian woodland habitats (7) land subject to major power transmission easements (8) land upon which other significant environmental features as determ by the environmental review process for a project are located No residential development shall occur on the lad listed above, however, the City Council pemit limited development of such,property if when considering the property as a whoh prohibition against development would constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of pro& Limited development of accessov or nonresidential uses may be permitted. Development on 'slopes with an inclination of 25% to 40% inclusive shall be designe minimize the grading and slope development provisions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Pro4 shall apply. The City of Carlsbad in implementing its public facilities element and growth management has made an estimate of the number of dwelling units that will be built as a result q application of the density ranges in the Land Use Element to individual projects. l%e C Capital Improvement Budget, growth management plan, and public facilities plans are all bl on this estimate. In order to ensure that all necessary public facilities will be avail concurrent with need to serve new development it is necessary to limit the number of reside dwelling units which can be constructed in the City to that estimate. For that purpose the has been divided into four quadrants along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. maximum number of residential dwelling units to be constmcted or approved in the City November 4, 1986 is as follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844; Northeast Quadrant Q Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southeast Quadrant 10,801. The City shall not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdiv map or other discretionary approval for a development which could result in development ai the limit in any quadrant. In order to ensure that development does not exceed the 1% following growth management control poinfs are established for the Land Use Ekment de ranges. ALLOWED DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE General Plan Densitv Ranges Growth Managem Control Point RL40- 1.5 RLMO - 4 RM4 * 8 RMH 6 IS RH IS - 23 2 1 3.2 6 19 11.5 . e * e t The City shall not approve any residential development at a density that exceeds the grt management control point for the applicable density range without making the follol findings: I. That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the &, in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s pl facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. 2. mat there have been suncient developments approved in the quadran densities below the control point to cover the units irt the project above control point so the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant hi [END OF SECTION] A new Residential Guideline (#19) is proposed to be added to the Land Use Element (I 45) as follows: 19. Allow density increases, above the maximum residential densitiespermitted b General Plan, to enable the development of lower-income aforrdable hou through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. Any Site Developj Plan application request to increase residential densities (either: abovt Growth Management Control Point or upper end of the residential & range@), for purposes of providing lower-income affordable housing, sha evaluated relative to= (a) the proposals compatibility with adjacent land use the adequacy of public facilities; and (c) the project site being locate proximity to a minimum of one of the following: a peeway or major roaL; a commercial center; employment opportunities, a City park or open space, commuter rail or transit center. Any request for a density increase pursua this Residential Guideline shall not be permitted to exceed the Citywide quadrant dwelling unit limitations of the Growth Management Plan (Bopo: E). 3 @ @ @ @ (4) slopes with an inclination of greater than 40% (5) significant wetlad (6) significant riparian woodland habitats (7) land subject to major power transmission easements (8) land upon which other significant environmental features as detem by the environmental review process for a project are located No residential development shall occur on the land listed above, however, the City Council 1 permit limited development of such property if when considering the property as a whole prohibition against development would constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of prop Limited development of accessory or itonresidential uses may be permitted. Development on slopes with an inclination of 25% to 40% inclusive shall be designec minimize the grading and slope development provisions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Prog shall apply. The City of Carlsbad in implementing its public facilities element and growth management i has made an estimate of the number of dwelling units that will be built as a result oj application of the density ranges in the Land Use Element to individual projects. The C on' this estimate. In order to ensure that all necessary public facilities will be avail4 concurrent with need to serve new development it is necessary to limit the number of resider dwelling units which can be constructed in the City to that estimate. For that purpose the has been divided into four quadrants along El Camino Real and Palornar Airport Road. maximum number of residential dwelling units to be constructed or approved in the City 1 November 4, I984 is as follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844; Northeast Quadrant 4,J Southwest Quadrant 10,667;. Southeast Quadrant 10,801. The City shall not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, tentative subdivi map or other discretionary approval for a development which could result in development aE the limit in any quadrant. In order to ensure that development does not exceed the limit following growth management control points are establkhed for the Land Use Element defi ranges. Capital Improvement Budget, growth management plan, and~ubli~ facilities plans are all bt ALLOWED DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE General Plan Densiy Ranges Growth Manageme> Control Point RL0- 1.5 RLM 0 - 4 RM4 - 8 RMH 8 - I5 RH I5 - 23 I 3.2 6 11.5 I9 2 e 0 The City shall not approve any residential development at a density that exceeds the grc management control point for the applicable density range without making the follor findings: I. That the project will provide suficient aaliitional public facilities for the del in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's ph facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. 2. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadran densities below the control point to cover the units in the project above control point so the approval will not result iu exceeding the quadrant limit. [END OF SECTION] .' . - Anew Residential Guideline (#19) is proposed to be added to the Land Use Element (p 45) as follows: 19. Allow density increases, above the maximum residential densities permitted bl General Plan, to enable the development of lower-tncome afsrdab2e hou through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. Any Site Developn Plan application request to increase residential densities (either: above Growth Management Control Point or upper end of the residential der; range(s), for purposes of providing lower-income affordable housing, shall evaluated relative to: (a) the proposals compatibility with adjacent land uses; the adequacy of public facilities; and (c) the project site being located proximity to a minimum of one of the following: a fi-eeway or major road+ a commercial center, employment opportunities, a City park or open space, ( commuter rail or transit center. I GPA92, 3 I1 0 0 E2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3446 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD A POLICY TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO GRANT DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES CASE NO: GPA 92-08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 28th day of Octc 10 /I the 4th day of November, 1992, the 18th day of November, 1992, and on the 11 14 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a 13 request, and 12 December, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to cc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitt1 I.5 // and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission cox 16 17 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning < 19 as follows: 2o A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 21 factors relating to the Negative Declaration. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th to Exhibit "ND", dated July 16, 1992, and "PII", dated July 10, 199; 22 Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaratio: 23 have a significant impact on the environment. . 26 25 Findinp: 24 hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the 1 27 28 .... II 0 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of th .. 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of Decen 3 11 by the following vote, to wit: 4 5 AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTEST: L TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMI 14 15 w/vbLa MICHAEL J. HMMILLU. 1 16 PLANNING DIRECTOR II 17 18 19 1 2o /I 21 22 23 11 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3446 -2- ’ II NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad - All residential general plan land classifications. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend the Land Use Element to authorize density bonuse all residential land use classes for purpose of creating hou! for lower-income households. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pro pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality 'and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of ~ review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a signific impact on the environment) is.hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plm Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department wi 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Dennis Turner in Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4443. DATED: JULY 16, 1992 CASE NO: GPA 92-8 MICHAEL J. MLZM~~ER Planning Director CASE NAME: LAND USE ELEMENT - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS PUBLISH DATE: JULY 16, 1992 DT:km 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1 . 10 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART TIi (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NC DATE: Ju 1. CASE NAME: Land Use Element - Residential Densitv Bonus 2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619)438-1161 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of language to the Land Use Element of the ( to authorize. via a Site Development Plan Permit, the mantina of density increase subiect to a residential land use classification. for the pumose of creatinz housing a and restricted for, lower-income households. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the e The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. 1 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposec provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Er Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that t: any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" wi to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any i project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify fo: Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects car insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings YES-sig" an( respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given t mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. a L 0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? 4. 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? 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- , 0 YES big> - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - - - - - - w- 0 0 BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES I (sigl (insig) 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 barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3 - YES YES (Sk) (insig) - - - - L e HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. . Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 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 emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- 0 YES (sigl - - - - - - - - YES (insig) - - X - - - - 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES big) (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.) - - 35. 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 connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will caw substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - - -5- I e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION 0 The "project" is an amendment to the City's Land Use Element to enable the City to grant den: requested by developers in association with project proposals to construct housing affordable for IC families. The amendment would authorize such bonuses on any site designated for residential c through the approval of a Site Development Plan Permit for a specific project approval and only af of the project to assure: the project meets certain locational criteria, there exist adequate public f neighborhood compatibility, and the project meets the City's overall project design criteria. The each such Site Development Plan Permit would constitute a project under the California En Quality Act, requiring environmental review. This amendment is necessitated as a follow-through to the recent update of the City's Housing : part, the Housing Element calls for the City to grant density bonuses to at least 29 du/acre on an site in the City for lower-income targeted housing. This amendment is required to bring the Land ' into conformance with the Housing Element's Program 3.7.a. (density bonus), Program 3.7.i. ( for granting density bonuses) and Policy 3.7.h. (changing General Plan Land Use Designatiom density). In turn, these Housing Element programs and policy were adopted directly in response 1 Government Code Section 65915, et seq. (requiring a process for granting density bonuses fo housing by all local jurisdictions). In that: (1) this General Plan Amendment is not associated with any specific development proj not directly or indirectly result in any significant physical, biological, or human environmental i that, (3) any future development projects processed with a density bonus shall be required to undc environmental review, no project-specific environmental impacts are anticipated. 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in unstable earth conditio: increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards because no a development is proposed. All future development processed with a density bonus will to comply with all City regulations, including the issuance of grading permits to prc unstable earth conditions or the creation of geologic hazards due to development grading. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not appreciably change the topography o site or alter physical features of any site, in that no specific development is proposed this action. 3. The erosion of soils on or off a given site will not be affected by this General Amendment. All future development processed with density bonuses shall be requir meet applicable standards and all conditions associated with the issuance of grading pel 4. In that no specific development is proposed, this General Plan Amendment will not 1 in any changes in the deposition patterns of beach sands or the alignment of riv streambeds or the bottoms of any lagoons or inlets. 5-6. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not a specific development project and the1 will not have any adverse impacts on ambient air quality nor will it result in any char air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature. -6- 1 0 0 7-10. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not associated with any specific develol project, therefore the proposed amendment will not substantially alter the course or fl marine fresh or flood waters or effect ground water or public water supply. The pro amendment will not cause a depletion of any natural resource or will use subst amounts of fuel or energy. 11. Future projects processed with density bonuses shall undergo environmental revit evaluate impacts to archaeological, historical or cultural resources. This General Amendment is not a specific development project, and therefore will not impact resol BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12/13. Since no specific development is proposed, there will be no impacts to the diversi plant species and there will be no barriers to the normal replenishment of exist species. There will be no introduction of plant species into an area within the Cig this General Plan Amendment. 14. The General Plan Amendment will not impact agricultural lands of any importanc the City. Since this Amendment is proposed Citywide, it would not affect any spe 15/16. Since this project does not propose specific development, there will 'be no impac diversity of animal species and there will be no barriers created to alter the migr movements of animal species within the City and no new animal species will be inn HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 17. Although this General Plan Amendment would authorize the City to grant densiq on a case-by-case permit basis, thus enabling changes in the intensity of use on would not change any land use designation already assigned to property by the : Element. 18 - 22. This amendment's authority to grant density bonuses would not be associated . specific development. It will not substantially affect utilities, schools, police, fire, ex or other public services. The proposed program will not alter or result in the need fi solid waste, hazardous waste or other system. The proposed amendment will not noise levels, light or glare or deal with hazardous substances. Future projects density bonuses shall be required to address and adequately mitigate associated ir 23. The purpose of this Land Use Element Amendment is to grant the City discretionary i to approve requests by developers for density bonuses, so as to create housing affor lower-income families. The inclusion in the Land Use Element of this general i would not directly or immediately change the density of specific areas but could la in density changes being approved in association with specific affordable housin proposals. Such approvals would be on a case-by-case .basis and granted subjt analysis examining specified locational criteria, the adequacy of facilities, anc neighborhood compatibility. The amendment is required to assure compatibility of Use Element with the Housing Element, and the City's adopted objectives for lowe -7- + 0 0 affordable housing. In particular, the amendment facilitates Housing Element Pol: (requiring the approval of land use density bonuses up to 29 ddacre for affordablc projects) and serves as partial implementation of Program 3.7.a. (Density BO: Program 3.7.i. (the establishment of a mechanism for the granting of density 1 proposing bonuses will be subject both to discretionary review using locational 2 criteria, and to environmental review it is concluded that the proposed amen& create no significant density-related environmental impacts either directly or in& 24. Existing housing will not be directly affected by this action and there will not be 2 for additional housing created by the adoption of the recommendations compr amendment. This amendment will assist in the creation of additional units withir which are affordable to lower and moderate income households for which existing has been determined and documented in the Housing Element. Because themendment makes no direct changes in density and all subsequent 25 - 30. The proposed amendment will not substantially affect parking, generate substanti traffic, or alter existing transportation systems. This proposed General PI; Amendment is not affiliated with any specific development project and will n interfere with safety issues such as emergency evacuation response plans or increa density bonuses pursuant to the amendment shall be required to adequately mitiga associated parking or traffic impacts. traffic hazard to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Any future project grantc 31. In that no specific development is proposed with this Amendment, no scenic vist will be obstructed and aesthetically offensive views will not be created by i implementation. 32. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect the quality or quantity 1 existing recreational opportunities. -8- , 0 0 @ALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alterriate 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 altemative. a) This "project" cannot be phased; the authority to approve density bonuses eitl to the land use element or it is not. b) N/A, c) N/A. d) N/A. e) Delay in implementing the amendment would have the effect of deferring ad Housing Element Policy 3.7.h. and frustrating Programs 3.7.a. and 3.7.i. Extc delay would result in the Land Use Element and Housing Element inconsistent, a condition to be avoided in a General Plan. f) WA. g) See response to e). -9- t e e DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X 1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 2 DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conju previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmer not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an a 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 ENVIRl IMPACT REPORT is required. ?/I 01 I qa 3- a.7- Date Signature 'l/G 7 7+/r; I Date Planning Directbr' v LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -1 0- I m 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WlTH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature DT:km -1 1- , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 +, l e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3447 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAEUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD A POLICY TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW THE CITY TO GRANT DENSITY INCREASES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, TO ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES CASE NO: GPA 92-08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 28th day of Ocl the 4th day of November, 1992, the 18th day of November, 1992, and on 1 of December, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law said request; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said 1 considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning1 of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: ' A> That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the I on the following findings and subject to the following conditil recommends APPROVAL of GPA 92-08, according to revised dated November 18, 1992, attached hereto and made a part h ~ Fin-: 1. This General Plan Amendment, to add a policy to the Land Use Elem the City to grant density increases above the maximum ,permitta densities, to enable the development of affordable housing for lo households will eflsure consistency between the Housing Element a Use Element. I .. 0 0 2. This General Plan Amendment, implemenls Housing ament Policy 2 7 site specific environmental review. A Negative Declaration has been is 5 4. This General Plan Amendment will not cause any significant ellviroHma 4 3. This General Plan Amendment helps to implement Housing Elemen PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of tl 1 Program 3.7.i. 3 3.721. and 3.7.f. All future development projects processed pursuant to this GPA shall bc Planning Director on July 16, 1992. 6 8 by the following vote, to wit: 9 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of Decen 10 11 . AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Noble, Welshons, Savary & Hall. 12 13 NOES: None. 14 ABSENT: None. 15 ABSTAIN: None. 16 17 18 19 i TOM ERWIN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING CON 2o 21 ATTEST: 24 25 Planning Director 26 /I 27 28 PC RES0 3447 2 * I I* e e EX, 6 STAFF REPORT ( DATE: OCTOBER 28, 1992 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GPA 92-08 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - An amendment Land Use Element of the General Plan to add a policy which would all0 City to grant density increases above the maximum residential densities pert by the General Plan, to enable the development of affordable housing, th processing of a Site Development Plan permit. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. : recommending APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Din and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3447, recommending APPROVA GPA 92-08 based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This project is a General Plan Amendment (GPA 92-08) to the City’s Land Use Element t a policy which would enable the City to grant density increases above the maximum allo\ General Plan densities for projects proposing affordable housing for lower-income families. amendment would authorize such density increases on any site designated for residential subject to the approval of a Site Development Plan permit for a specific project approval. proposal requesting such density increase would be reviewed relative to: (1) the pro compatibility with adjacent land uses, (2) it’s compliance with certain locational criteria, (f the existence of adequate public facilities. This General Plan Amendment is necessary to bring the City’s Land Use Elemeni conformance with it’s Housing Element. This amendment will serve to implement Policy : (Accommodating General Plan Amendments to Increase Residential Densities) and Prc 3.7.i. (Mechanism’s for Granting Density Increases) of the Housing Element, which are below: I. a GPA 92-08 0 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES OCTOBER 28, 1992 PAGE 2 POLICY 3.7.h, In order to enable the development of afordable housing, the City will accommodate Gen . Plan Amendments to increase residential densities on all PC and LC zoned properties am other residentially designated properties. Any proposed General Plan Amendment reque, increase site densities for purposes of providing afordable housing, will be evaluated re14 to the proposal's compatibility with adjacent land uses and proximity to . employ] opportunities, urban services or major roads. These General Plan Land Use desiglu changes will enable up to 23 dwelling units per acre, and, in conjunction with a twenty percent density bonus, up to 29 dwelling units per acre. PROGRAM 3.7.i. In order to enable the development of afordable housing, the City shall adopt a mechanis) allow discretionary consideration of density increases above the maximum now permitted & General Plan. mis mechanism will include either: a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Development Plan (SOP) or Afordable Housing Overlay Zone. The proposed text revisions to the Land Use Element are included on Exhibit "X". III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. How can the City implement Housing Element Policy 3.7; h. and Program 3.7.i., g Carlsbad's relatively low 'land use densities? 2. Why is staff recommending that Policy 3:7. h. be implemented via density incrt through the Site Development Plan process instead of through General Plan Amendn to specific properties? 3. Is the proposed General Plan Amendment consistent with the various elements o General Plan? Table - 1 shows the 5 residential designations included within the Land Use Element o City's General Plan. As noted, each land use designation has a density range and a maxi number of units permitted per land use designation (Growth Management Control Pa GMCP) under the City's Growth Management Program. As shown in this Table, and consi with the Growth Management Program, the highest residential density achievable in the today is 19 DU/AC. I+ 0 0 GPA 92-08 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES OCTOBER 28, 1992 PAGE 3 TABLE - 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION UNITSIACRE AT GMCP RL (0 - 1.5 DUIAC) 3.2 DU RLM (0 - 4.0 DU/AC) 1.0 DU II I RM (4 - 8.0 DU/AC) RMH (8 - 15 DU/AC) 6.0 DU 19.0 DU RH (15 - 23 DU/AC) 11.5 DU 1’ During the preparation of the City’s Housing Element, the State Department of Housing Community Development and the development community commented that the maxi residential densities permitted per the City’s General Plan were not sufficient to facilitat development oflower cost housing. The State indicated that given the high cost of land u the City, residential densities of around 25 DU/AC would likely be required to enabll development of affordable housing. In response to this input, and at the suggestion of the 5 the above noted Policy 3.7. h. and Program 3-73. were incorporated into the Housing Eler Consistent with Policy 3.7.h. of the Housing Element, this proposed General Plan Amend provides a comprehensive, new land use policy which would allow residential densities increased above the maximum now permitted by the General Plan, for any residential pro, within the City, upon which an affordable housing project is proposed. The proposed General Plan Amendment would retain the existing land use densities for pro not providing lower-income affordable housing, but would authorize the City to grant de increases exclusively for lower-income affordable housing projects. Through this approach integrity of the residential designations of the Land Use Element would not be cornpromi; The new land use policy also specifies that any request to increase site densities, for puq of providing affordable housing shall be evaluated relative to: (1) the proposal’s compatil with adjacent land uses, (2) the adequacy of public facilities, and (3) the project site satis; a commercial center, employment, a commuter rail or transit center, or a City park or ( space. specific locational criteria, including being located in proximity to: a freeway or major road, * ,* 0 0 GPA 92-08 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES OCTOBER 28, 1992 PAGE 4 Consistent with Program 3.7.i., the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element P require that any request for a density increase, above the maximum permitted by the Ge Plan, to enable the development of affordable housing, shall be processed via a Development Plan permit. Through the Site Development Plan requirement, the requc density increase would be authorized exclusively for a specific affordable housing project. approach is recommended over the General Plan Amendment process, discussed in Policy 3.’ which would increase the density permitted on a specific property without, reference specific project. The benefit of the density increase being tied to a development permit VL a legislative action (General Plan Amendment) is that if the project is never developed, the] density increase would be invalidated. In comparison, a density increase granted throu General Plan Amendment could only be invalidated through’ a subsequent General Amendment. The proposed Site Development Plan requirement is also consistent with a reo adopted Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 92-02) which would allow development stam modifications for affordable housing projects to be considered using Site Development procedures. State Law (Sections 65300 - 65300.5) mandates that each planning agency shall prepare , adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of all land w its boundaries. All seven required elements of the General Plan should be internally consi, with regards to policies and programs. While the City’s General Plan is currently underg a comprehensive revision and update (projected to be completed in 1993), the Housing Elen has already been updated (October 22, 1991), consistent with the mandated timeline (Jul 1991) established by Article 10.6 of State Law. The Housing Element, as adopted, is generally consistent with the other elements of the Gel Plan. However, this proposed General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element is nece to ensure consistency between the Housing and ,Land Use Elements and to enable implementation of one major policy and one major program of the City’s Housing Elemen discussed above. With this revision, the City would also be helping to implement Housing Element Progl 3.7.a. (Density Bonus) and 3.7.f. (Priority Processing), as discussed below: State Density Bonus Law mandates that the City shall provide a minimum of a 25% del bonus in addition to the maximum density permitted under the General Plan (the City’s Grc Management Control Points), in exchange for a developer reserving as affordable to spe income classes, a percentage of the units. This proposed amendment to the Land Use Elel will provide the City the specific policy direction to grant density bonuses for the purpos achieving affordable housing, thereby ensuring compliance with State Density Bonus Law, 0 !I GPA 92-08 0 0 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES OCTOBER 28, 1992 PAGE 5 The City’s commitment to expeditiously process affordable housing applications (Ho Element Policy 3.7.f.) would also be realized through this General Plan Amendment, in project specific General Plan Amendments would not be required. SUMMARY In summary, since this proposed General Plan Amendment: (1) implements Policy 3.7h Program 3.7.i. of the Housing Element, (2) helps to implement Programs 3.7.a. and 3.7, the Housing Element, and (3) will ensure consistency between the Housing Element and : Use Element, .staff recommends approval of GPA 92-08. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this General Plan Amendment to the Land Element will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore has issL Negative Declaration on July 16, 1992. The environmental analysis concluded that sina this General Plan Amendment is not associated with any specific development project, (2: not directly result in any significant physical, biological, or human environmental impacts that, (3) any future development projects pr0cessed.with a density bonus shall be rauir undergo detailed environmental review, no project-specific impacts are anticipated. There no letters of comment received during the public review period for this Negative Declm ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3446 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3447 CDDL Scptcmba 17, 1992 . 'I ' 0 '0 EXHIBIT : PLANNING COMMISSION November 4,1992 PAGE 2 3) GPA 92-08 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - An amendment to the Land Use E the General Plan to add a policy which would allow the city to grant density increases abc maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan to enable the development ( affordable housing through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that staff is requesting that the Planning Comm continue all three affordable housing items to the meeting of .November 18, 1992. Staff intends tc and simplify the verbiage in an effort to respond to the comments made by the Planning Commis development community, and public input. Chairman Erwin stated that before continuing the items, he would reopen public testimony in ordl additional comments from the public. Commissioner Schlehuber voiced his objection to reopening public testimony because he felt it w order and would set a precedent. Chairman Erwin requested a ruling from the City Attorney. Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney, r it was a procedural question and open to interpretation. Commissioner Welshons requested Chairman Erwin to poll the Commissioners. A majority of thc Commission felt that they would be willing to accept additional public testimony. Commissioner Hall was concerned that a continuation to November 18th would not allow sufficie the public or the development community to review and absorb the updated revision. Gary Wayr Assistant Planning Director, replied that the updated revision would be available to the public at 1 on November 10, 1992. He stated that the updated revision would not contain major revisions to ordinance but, primarily, a simplification of the wording. Commissioner Welshons suggested the possibility of an extra meeting in order to hear all of the F testimony since this would give staff additional time to make changes and would also allow the Commission more time to make an effective decision. Commissioner Schlehuber commented that if the updated revision would be available for public examination on November 10, 1992, that should allow the public and the development communit representatives ample time to review the revised document. Chairman Erwin concluded that he could accept staff's recommendation for a continuation to Noi 18th and if more time is needed, it could be continued again at that meeting. Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony for Agenda Item #1 and issued the invitation to sps Joe Valenti, 3491 Lawrence Street, Carlsbad, had filed a request to speak but withdrew his requc after the updated revision of the ordinance becomes available. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on Agenda Item #1, Chairman Erwi! the public testimony and opened the public testimony for Agenda Item ##2. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on Agenda Item R, Chairman Erwil the public testimony and opened the public testimony for Agenda Item #3. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on Agenda item #3, Chairman Erwi the public testimony closed. MINUTES I I, , 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1992 PAGE 3 ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to continue 91 -6, ZCA 91 -5, and GPA 92-08 to November 18,1992 with continued publir testimony. AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schramm, ; Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 4) .CUP 247x1 (A) - HARDING GUEST HOME - Request for approval of an amendment to a c ushpermit to incorporate an existing nonconforming 15 bed residential care facility under CUP247x1, and to expand the entire facility by adding 10 new beds and 15 parking spaces 3574 Harding Street in the R-3 Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Jeff Gibson, Assqciate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applic requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit to incorporate an existing nonconforming 1 residential care facitUy under CUP 247 and expand the entire facility by adding 10 new beds and 15 parking spaces at 3574 Harding Street in the R-3 (Multi-family Residential) Zone. Using a diagram on the &st wall, he pointed out some of the special features of the proposed prc stated that the project site bnsists of two separate parcels owned by the applicant and both locatl northeast corner of Harding @reet and Palm Avenue. On Parcel "A" there is a 27 bed, one-story residential care facility, and a we-story single-family residence occupied by the applicant. On F there is an existing one-story budding currently being utilized as an office. The applicant is requc permission to remodel and enlarg&he one-story building on Parcel 2 to include 10 residential ci a dining room, kitchen, and living r&,m. This expansion would bring the total number of beds on parcels to 37. The exterior of this builUing and the single-family home would be upgraded to mat existing building. In addition, one curb &t on Harding and two curb cuts along Palm Avenue wo~ closed, a detached accessory garage WOW be demolished, and leading from Palm Avenue, thert be a 24 foot wide paved driveway leading to\! 5 new parking spaces for guests, residents, and em1 The lots would be consolidated to incorporateqhe entire facility within one lot. All of the proposed improvements would bring the facility into confkmance with local ordinances. Staff recommends approval. \ Commissioner Welshons inquired how many employ\es work at the facility and if there are any pl parking hours. Mr. Gibson replied that two spaces are' equired for employees, per the Parking 0 However, he deferred comment to the applicant on the p ak parking hours for guests. Commissioner Welshons inquired about the term "SH&P" sh wn on the blueprints for the interior of the proposed expansion. Mr. Gibson deferred response to t e applicant. Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued the invit ion to speak. Robert Holmes, 81 0 Caminita Rosa, Carlsbad, addressed the Commi ion and stated that there a employees during daylight hours and two employees after 1O:OO p.m. ne of the employees dri\ vehicle. He stated that the "SH&P" on the blueprint refers to "shelf and e" in the closet. Mr. Hc gave some background on the Harding Guest Home and stated that it was ned in 1959 with s The facility was increased to 15 beds in 1962. In 1980, the facility \ was acqul by Mr. and Mrs. and in 1985, another 10 beds were added. At the present time there are 25 b s. If the expansio approved, 10 more beds will be added. One of the beds would accommodate 7ki a ndicapped per! can accept the staff recommendation. However, since there has never been a co laint since thc was built, he requested the Commission to consider granting the CUP for 10 years % i tead of 5 ye annual review. '\ \ \ MINUTES * 2, 7 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION November 18, 1992 PAG Moderate-Income Households and Sei sity Bonus Program. I, and duly seconded, to continue ZCA oble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schramm, i Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 6) GPA 92-08 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - An amendment to the Land Use Elf above the maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan to enable the devel affordable housing through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Hall, and duly seconded, to continue GPA AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schramm, i NOES: None ABSTAIN: None the General Plan to add a policy and text which would allow the City to grant density increa December 2, 1992. Welshons ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Commissioner Welshons requested that the Babcock Condominiums be put back on the agenda December 2, 1992. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of November 18,1992 was adjourned at 1050 p.m. g7+ ARY . WAYNE Assisfant Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPR MINUTES b l& * e a PLANNING COMMISSION December 2,1992 PAGE 12 operate more quickly than that. and stated that he w density bonus calcul ordinance. Mr. DeCerbo will see that Mr. receives paper copies of the slide presentation. For the record, Chairman Erwin s dated December 2, 1992 had been received fro Avis of Fieldstone La Costa, who cations to some areas of the proposed ordinanc consistency with the State law. the public testimony closed and opened the discussion among the Commission members. Chairman Erwin requested staff to respond to the is currently consistent with State law. Karen Hirata, event that revisions are necessary, they will be brought e City Council hearing. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schle Commission Resolution No. 3442, recOmm proval of the Negative Decl issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Commission Resolution Nc the two typographical errors stated by staff. AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schleh NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Welshons 4) GPA 92-08 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - An amendment to the Land Use Elel the General Plan to add a policy and text which would allow the City to grant density increas above the maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan to enable the devela affordable housing through processing of a Site Development permit. Chris DeCerbo, Senior Planner, using slide projection, reviewed the proposed General Plan amenc for residential density increases and stated that the amendment is necessary to enable the City to ( density increases above the maximum currently allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element fo projects proposing affordable housing for lower-income families. The amendment would authorizt increases for residential use, subject to approval of a Site Development Plan permit, for a specific I: Each proposal requesting a density increase would be reviewed relative to: (1) the project's compa DRAFT MINUTES < ,I a e PLANNING COMMISSION December 2,1992 PAGE 13 with adjacent land uses, (2) it's compliance with certain locational criteria, and (3) the existence of adequate public facilities. Mr. DeCerbo requested that, at the suggestion of a Commissioner, the h on Resolution No. 3447, line 6, should be corrected to read, "...PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENS1 CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, TO ENABLE...". Staff recomme approval. Chairman Erwin stated that he has a philosophical problem with density increases but understands they are necessary to comply with State law. Chairman Erwin opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. There being no persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Erwin declare public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Plai Commission Resolution No. 3446, recommending approval of the Negative Ded issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No recommending approval of GPA 92-08, based on the findings contained therein the change to the heading of Resolution No. 3447 as requested by Mr. DeCerbo. AYES: Chairman Erwin, Commissioners Hall, Noble, Savary, Schlehuber, Schramrn, ar Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Welshon ncerned about Commissioner Hall's statement that Mr. Babcock is br impacted by the inclusion ing fee while his application is being reviewed by the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Schlehuber commen abcock went from one parcel to two parcels, whic same manner as other fees. Chairman Erwin stated that he listened to the ite apparent that Mr. Babcock was that he would be assessed a fee, even before I made his comment. Commissioner Hail requested Commissioner Welstions to exactly what her concern is. can sell, He is concerned that it will he City stops tacking on be a long and drawn 01 commissioner Noble agrees that Mr. Babcock should pay a fee, but what f over an outside agency. Chairman Erwin feels that the applicant has already received a tremendous financial Commissioner Schlehuber believes that a specific time limit has to be followed for applicatio otherwise, developers will continue to request extension after extension in order to circumvent pay DRAFT MINUTES e “1 I , - - “, \” - I -. - 3-h -iJlo . 5 1. cn ** v 0 0 I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RESlDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES GPA 92-8 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 'I 200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Garisbed, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, to consider an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add ;a policy which would allow the city to grant density increases above the maximum residential densities permitkd by the General Plan, to enable the development of affordable housing, thrwgh processing of a Site Development Plan permit. If you have any questions regardin this matter, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department, at [6 9 9) 438-'I 161 , ext. 4445. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising only those issuesiby you or someone else at the public hearing described in this. notice,. or /in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing APPLICANT City af Carlsbad, PUBLISH: March 'I 1 , 1 993 'oi CARLSBAD CITY COUNCll I THURSDAY CarisbadCityOf3-11-1 varinddkate 3-9 ', . J, &"> ,J" d' '. *I * 0 0 Carlsbad SUN Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled IT I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation! published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and whic per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subsc which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the sz Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one preceding the date of publicat - -- 1 '"ferred to; a L annexed is lished in ea aid newspap ;hereof on t: I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES ~. GPA 92-8 irch 11 r !I r .. L I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carl- sbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carl- sbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6;OO p.m.,'on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, to consider 'an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add a policy which would allow the city to grant density increases above the maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan, to enable the development of affordable housing, through processing of a Site Development Plan permit. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Chris De- :y of perjury I Cerbo in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445. correct. Exel If you challenge the General Plan Amendment in court, you may be San Diego, S limited to raising.only those issues raised by you or someone else at the - public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence . lrch 5 1993 delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. Applicant: City of Carlsbad Ppjld CJ 4141: March 11.1993 Clerk of CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 'i I " ..~ . . - -. -~. Carisbad S Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to W.C.C.N. hc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen yeas, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled m I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which 1 is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and whic per at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscl which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the sa preceding the date of publicat Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one 1 . .. . . . . . .. . ” . . . . . . .. - .. . .. I ,u .___. =iranlnce. I- #lev#. , ,,-f,.---- ,. N 0 T I LA COSTA & RENTALS SALES VONS CENTER 436-51 11 ’ p’u B LI c ‘MoDEL-Lovely 2 BR12 BA* 2 $ , La Costa Ave & EI Camino Real .car, patiolgardens, SkYlites. h -.“-720-1760 I -----”, !( -I RESIDENTIAL~D~~~~~:~” GPl BEAT THE BANK! Huge 2 BR, fireplace & garage. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thaBill, agent, 899-2909. Owner motivated. $164,500. I notice hekinafter referred to; a] notice of which the annexed is copy, has been published in ea and entire issue of said newspal in any supplement thereof on t ing dates, to-wit: March 11 I certify under penalty of perjury foregoing is true and correct. Exe Carlsbad, County of San Diego, ! California on t h p 1 1 t h day of March, 1993 v Clerk 0‘ L t, .4 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES GPA 92-8 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carl sbad will h a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Dri Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m, on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, to consider Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General P1 an to add a pol icy which wo a1 low the city to grant density increases above the maximum residential densit permitted by the General Plan, to enable the development of affordable housi through processing of a Site Development P1 an permit. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Chris DeCerbo in Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445. If you challenge the General P1 an Amendment in court, you may be 1 imited raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the pub1 ic hear described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH: March 11, 1993 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I I' w 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING e NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a pr hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at t PM on Tuesday, 1993, for an amendment to the Land Use Element of General Plan to add a policy which would allow the City to grant density increases at the maximum residential densities permitted by the General Plan, to enable development of affordable housing, through processing of a Site Development Plan per Those persons wishing to speak on these proposals are cordially invited to attend the PI hearing. Copies of the staff reports will be available on and after 1993. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Departn at (619) 438-1161, ext. 4445. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising ( those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice c written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad gt or prior to the public hear CASE FILE: GPA 92-08 CASE NAME: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES PUBLISH: ) 1993 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 7e a’, Y c P a (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice - GPA 92-08 - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASES - CITY OF CARL: for a public hearing before the City Council. I Please notice the item for the council meeting of Thank you. MARTY ORENYAK 1/4/93 Assistant City Manager Dat