Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-10; City Council; 17755; Carlsbad Family HousingAB# 17,755 m,: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING MTG. 8/10/04 GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06ISDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 DEPT. PLN# RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT. HD. @% CITY ATTY. CITY MGR That the Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. , APPROVING Zone Change ZC 02-06, and ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-271 ADOPTING a Negative Declaration, and APPROVING General Plan Amendment GPA 02-05, Site Development Plan SDP 02-1 3, and Special Use Permit SUP 02-09. NS-715 Administrative Reviewed by and Approvals Final at Planning Commission ptlvt: Declaration To be Reviewed - Final at Council N ec - "- .- X X I On July 7, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval (5-0) of a combined 56-unit inclusionary apartment project located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road. The combined project is not proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement of any pending project. The proposed development requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Residential High (RH) density and a Zone Change to rezone the property from Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) to Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) to implement the proposed RH General Plan land use designation. The applicant is requesting an 11% density increase above the RH growth control point as an incentive to providing affordable housing units. The proposed land use change and density increase require a total allocation of 51 units from the City's excess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is also requesting two deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor Standards, and the necessary findings to allow the deviations can be made. ENVIRONMENTAL: Staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. No potentially significant environmental impacts were identified; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration on June 21, 2004. FISCAL IMPACT: All public infrastucture required by the project would be funded by the developer. The applicant is requesting financial assistance from the City; however, the amount of any approved subsidy is unknown at this time. The fiscal impact resulting from the project will be addressed by a separate agenda bill at a later date. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,755 Facilities Zone Local Facilities Management Plan Growth Control Point Net Density Special Facility Fee GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS: 10 10 19 du/acre 21 du/acre None EXHIBITS: I. City Council Ordinance No. ' NS-715 3. Location Map 4. 5. 6. 2. City Council Resolution No. 2004-271 Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5672, 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 7, 2004 Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 7, 2004. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Anne Hysong, (760) 602-4622; ahyso@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 le li 1E 1s 2c 21 2; 2: 2L 25 2t 2; 21 ORDINANCE NO. NS-715 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE FROM EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE (E-A) TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE (RD-M) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING CASE NO.: ZC 02-06 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the City’s zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 02-06” attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 5667 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not be effective within the City’s Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.) Ill Ill Ill Ill .? 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 25 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on the 10th day of Aucrust 2004, and thereafter. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE Property: From: A. 21 5-021 -06 E-A ZC: 02-06 JULY 7,2004 draft final 0 To: Council Approval Date: RD-M Ordinance No: Effective Date: Signature: - Project Name: Carlsbad Family Housing I Related Case File No(s): Legal Description(s): GPA 02-05/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 All that portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof. 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 RESOLUTION’NO. 2004-271 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RLM TO RH, ZONE CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 56 AFFORDABLE APARTMENT UNITS ON A 2.66 ACRE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE IO. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM E-A TO RD-M, AND SITE CASE NO.: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 7, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment 02-05 to change the land use designation from RLM to RH, according to Exhibit “GPA 02-05” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5666 and incorporated herein by reference, Zone Change 02-06 to rezone the property from E-A to RD-M, according to Exhibit “ZC 02-06” attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5667 and incorporated herein by reference, Site Development Plan 02-13 and Special Use Permit 02-09 for a 56 unit affordable apartment project. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5672, 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 10th day of August , 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Special Use Permit; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all 6 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 factors relating to the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Special Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolved as follows: The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5672, 5666, 5667, 5668 and 5669 constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter. 3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of General Plan Amendment 02-05 as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5666 is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved with GPA Batch No. 2 comprised of GPA 03-05, GPA 03-08, GPA 03-1 3, GPA 04-01, GPA 04-04, GPA 04-07, GPA 04-08, GPA 04-1 1 and GPA 04-1 3, and the Negative Declaration, Zone Change 02-06, Site Development Plan 02-13, and Special Use Permit 02-09 are approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions 5672, 5667, 5668, and 5669. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 10th day of Auaust 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: / (SEAL) J -2- 7 EXHIBIT 3 SITE CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING GPA 02-051ZC 02-06ISDP 02-1 3lSUP 02-09 8 1 3 - 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 EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5672 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 56 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10 CASE NO.: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING CASE NAME: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02- 13/SUP 02-09 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing as 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 stafY, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration. Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated June 21, 2004, and “PII” dated June 21, 2004 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Fin dings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. b. C. d. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration GPA 02- OYZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PC RES0 NO. 5672 -2- 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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. H~ZM~~LER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5672 -3 - - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 Southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment project that is affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5, front setback and wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and guidelines and justification for deviations can be made. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration are 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 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD June 21,2004 to July 10,2004 PUBLISH DATE June 21,2004 /a 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003 NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02- 13/SUP 02-09 PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment project that is affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5, front setback and wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and guidelines and justification for deviations can be made. DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: , pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No. ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director ii 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EN\rIRONMENTAL 131PA4CT ASSESS3lEST FOR\I - P.ART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNIXG DEPARTXIENT) CASE NO: GPA 02-05 ZC 02-06 SDP 02-1 3 SLIP 02-09 DXTE: 06-2 1-04 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Anne Hvsonc. (760) 602-4622 PROJECT LOCATION: The southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners. a California Limited Liability Partnership. 200 E. Washinpton Avenue. Suite 208. Escondido, CA 92026, (760) 738-8401. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: FUM Proposed: RH ZONING: Existing: E-A Proposed: RD-M OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le.. permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use desimation of a 2.66 acre property from Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) to Residential High density (RH) and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and El Camino Real Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment proiect that is affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase above densitv permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5. front setback and wall standards. The relatively flat site is currently occupied by meen houses and contains no sensitive vegetation. The property. which is located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real (ECR) and Cassia Road, is bordered to the north by future Cassia Road, to the west by ECR. to the east by open space that is part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan. and to the south by deed restricted open space. The existing Villa Loma and future Manzanita Apartment proiects are located across ECR on the northwest and southwest comers of Cassia Road. 1 /4 Rev. Q7lQ3l02 ENVIRONhlENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below Ivould be potentially affected b! this prqect. involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact." or "Potentiall\. Sipificant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the follo~ ing page5. 0 Aesthetics c] Geo1ogy:'Soils [? Noise Agricultural Resources ' 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials [7 Population and Housing 0 Air Quality [7 Hydrology!Water Quality 0 Public Srr\.ices Biological Resources [7 Land Use and Planning [7 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources Mineral Resources 0 TransportationiCirculation Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities 6: Service Systems Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the en\.ironnient. and a NEGATI\'E DECLAR4TION nil1 be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environnient. there \\.ill not be a significant effect in this case because the nutigation measures described on an attached sheet ha1.e been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAIWTIOS \vi11 be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the rnvironnient. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant inipact(s)" on the environnient. but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and 2) has been addressed by nutigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration 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 environnient. there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date Planner Signature r Date Planning Director'sB$pmd! Date 1 3 Rev. 07/03/02 EN\’IRONRIENTAL I3IPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Article 5. Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an En\.ironmr.ntal Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the en\,iroimient. The En\.ironniental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identities an\’ ph!.sical. biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City \\.it11 intomiation to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Segative Declamtioii. or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Segative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except ”No Inipact“ ansivers that are adequatel!. supported by an infomiation source cited in the parentheses follo\ving each question. A ”No Impact“ anwer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources sholv that the impact simply does not appl\- to projects like the one imrolved. A “KO Inipact” ans\ver should be esplained \vhen 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 significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies \vhere the incorporation of nlitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a ”Less Than Significant Inipact.” 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 significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but 4 potentially significant adverse 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 nlitigation 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. When “Potentially Significant Inipact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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. 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 adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 An EIR nlust be prepared if "Potentially Significant Inipact" is checked. and including bur nor Iini~teJ to the following circumstances: (1 ) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant: (2) a "Statement of O\wriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR: (7) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant: or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to deternline the level of significance for a potentiall!. ad\.erse eft'ecr. or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentiall). significant effm to belo\\ a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fomi under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be gi\.en to discussing mitigation for impacts. which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources. including but not limited to. trees. rock outcroppings. and historic buildings within a State scenic highway'? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings'? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare. which would adversely affect day or nighttime vieus in the area? 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In detemining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects. lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which. due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation'! Potentially Potentiall!. Less Than 10 Significant Significant Significanr ImpaLt Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a El cl 0 0 0 cl 0 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 El 0 0 E3 0 3 0 IXI 0 0 [x1 0 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Infomntion Sources). Potentlall! Significant lnipact Potentl&lll! Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for ahich the pr,oject region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions ivhich exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'? El 0 14 lsl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? I\'. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Ha\re a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? cl IXI [XI c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 0 IXI d) lnterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'? 0 cl 0 cl IXI e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? 0 IXI IXI f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan:' 0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources 1. I\.. CULTUFtAL RESOURCES - IVould the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 4 15061.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to # 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature'? Disturb any human remains. including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault'? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking'? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction'? iv. Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil'? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse'? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 8 Potentiall! Significanl Inipact 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potrntlall! Significant Lnlrss Lllt12 "3tiOll Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Infomiation Sources) Potentiall! Potrnriall! Significant Siynlficaiit Impact C11lrss Mltl, "a t 1011 Incorporated I\-. HAZARDS AVD HAZARDOL'S RIATEFUALS - Would the project: 0 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport. use. or disposal of hazardous materials'? 17 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and. as a result. would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment'? 0 0 0 [XI' 0 0 0 Ix1 e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? 0 0 f, For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? 0 0 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan'.' 0 0 [XI 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are internixed with wildlands'? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 0 El [XI a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Rev. 07/03/02 34 9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground \yarer table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for lvhich pemits have been granted)'? c) Inipacts to groundxvater quality'? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site'? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flo~v rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site'? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality'? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows'? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam'? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Potentiall!, Potentiall!. Lrss Than \O Significant Significant Signiticanr Inip~~r Impact Lnless InlpllJ \litigation lncoigorated 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 Ix1 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IxI 0 tz 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 10 Rev. 07/03/02 a3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentiall! Less Than Sa IX. X. X. Significant Significant Significant 1 lnipact Cnlrss Impact lliti= l'ation Incorporated m) lncreased pollutant discharges (e.g.. hew.!. metals. 0 0 3 pathogens. petroleum derivatives. synthetic organics, nutrients. oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface Lvater quality (e.g.. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)'? illpact n) Changes to receivin? \vater quality (marine. fresh or 0 Kl 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water 0 0 El wetland ivaters) during or following construction'? body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan'? cl 0 o [XI 0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI 0 17 0 0 5 MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 5 resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State'? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 0 0 [XI mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? I NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 0 groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 11 [XI 0 Rev. 07/03/02 [XI Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than So Significant Significant Signiilcanr Imp.~-r lmpac t Unless lnipxt Xlitigation Incorporated c) .4 substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 0 0 iz: levels in the project vicinit). above levels existing without the project? d) .4 substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing nithout the project'? G 0 e) For a project located Lvithin an airport land use plan or, Lvhere such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 f) 0 El 0 0 El X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 0 (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 17 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0 necessitating the construction of replacement. housing elsewhere? 0 0 [XI c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: o 17 i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection'? 0 iii) Schools'? 0 iv) Parks'? 0 v) Other public facilities'? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Infomution Sources) XI\*. RECFEATIOK Would the project increase the us,e of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'! Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? XV. TRAI\'SPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: -. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips. the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks'? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farni equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access'? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans. or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.%., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Potentiall! Significant Inipact 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Potentiall! Significant Unless m1= cution liicorporatrd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Infomution Sources) c) Require or result in the construction of ne\$ storm \\ ater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. the construction of \\ hich could cause significant en\ ironniental effects'' d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are ne\\' or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the kvastewater treatment provider. which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected denland in addition to the provider's existing comnitments'? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal conmunity. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past proj.ects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of ' probable future projects'?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentiall> Less Tlian \O Sipuficant Significant Signiticm lmpxt Impact Unless 1nip.m Incorporated hlltl, wion 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI [XI [XI [XI 0 0 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify \vhich effects from the above chrckllst \\ er~‘ \\-lthln ri~ scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal sta1iti.u A. and state tvhether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal! SI>. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant nith \firigation Incoqwratrd.” describe the nitigation measures. tvhich \vert incorporated or refined from tht. earlier documenr and the extent to \vhich they address site-specific conditioiis for the project 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIROSMENTAL E\'ALUATIOS AESTHETICS - \Yould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located on the east side frontage of El Canino Real (ECR) and is subject to the regulations of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. as iniplenieiited tliough the El Canuno Real Corridor Development Standards. El Camino Real is identified as a Conmiunit\. Theme Corridor h!. the Cit!.'s Scenic Corridor Guidelines. A continuous noise wall is'proposed along the ECR frontage to eiisure that residents arc not exposed to exterior and interior noise levels exceeding the City's standards. The project deviates from ECR Corridor Standards for right-of-way setback and wall location \vithin the setback. The reduced setback from 70 feet to 22 feet and placement of a sound attenuation wall within the reduced setback \vi11 not reduce the scenic qualit!. of the ECR corridor. Within the approximately 1.300' benveen Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road. the proposed pIolecr would occupy only 295'. The remaining 1000' to the south of the proposed development IS dedicated open space that cannot be developed due to biological constraints. Therefore. the proposed de\.iations \vouid not elinunate views to the east along the ECR corridor or result in continuous development too close to the right-of-\vay. The proposed California Mission architectural style and meandering \Val1 design that consists of split face block ivith pilasters and cap along \vith dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Canuno Real roadway. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES NO Impact. The project site is currently occupied by greenhouses that are utilized for floriculture. The property is not identified as prime or non-prime agricultural land and is not restricted by a Willianlson Act contract. therefore no impacts to such will occur. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (031, and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 nllcrons in diameter (PMi0). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. The proposed General Plan Amendment will increase the density permitted on the site from 5 dwelling units to 56 dwelling units. however, the units are anticipated by the applicable Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and the reallocation of excess dwelling units in Zone 10 to the project site would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The UQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 16 Rev. 07/03/02 a9 e e Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent \vith the growth assumptions in the regional air qualit\. plan'? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin. and as such. is located in an area \\.liere a RiQS 15 br'111g implemented. The project is consistent \vith the gronth assumptions of the Cie's General Plan and the RiQS Therefore. the project is consistent n.ith the regional air qualit\. plan and \vi11 in no \\a!. contlict 01- ahsrrust implenientation of the regional plan. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an esistiiig or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air qualic. violations recorded lvere for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001 ) and one. day 111 2001 for the federal %hour average for ozone and one day for the 21-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. So violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recentl!-. The project \\mild in\.ol\e minimal short-term emissions associated wit11 grading and construction. Such emissions \vould be nlininlized though standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated tvith travel to and from the project \vi11 be nininial. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air qualit\. standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings). nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cuniulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be mininlal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de niiiziinus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g.. schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either directly or through habitat modifications. on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive. or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, tiling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 17 Rev. 07/03/02 30 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or uildlift. species or with established native resident or nligratory wildlife corridors. or impede tlie ust' of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact (a. b. c. &: d) - The project site is previously disrurbed and co\,ered \vith green houses. The site c'omiti.\ no sensitive species. riparian or \j.etland habitat or \vetlands as defined b!. Section 104 of the Clean U\'ateI .-ut. 2nd 15 not part of a n.ildlife corridor. GEOLOGYBOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. including the risk of loss. injur! or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning RIap issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of 3lines and Geology Special Publication 32. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? Less than Significant Impact (a.i. to a.iv.): There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults \vithin the City. However. there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake standards). b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact: The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide. lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction. or collapse? No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Vinje d Middleton Engineering, Inc. indicates that the site contains no unstable soil conditions. d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact - The site is contains no expansive soils and is favorable for the proposed development provided the preliminary geotechnical report recommendations are followed. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact - The project site is an undeveloped infill site abutting El Camino Real. Existing sewer facilities are located near the site and are available and adequate to support future residential land use on the site. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upsct and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances. or within one-quarter nlile of an existing or proposed school? astt' d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and. as a result. would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Pio Impact (a. b, c SL d) - The project consists of a multiple family aparmient project: therefore. no hazardous materials would be used or generated by the project. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sltes e) For a project within an airport land use plan. or where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety hazard !or people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact (e & f) - The project is located within the McClellan Paloniar Airport influence area. The Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) specifies the areas subject to safety hazards, Le., the flight activity zone and the crash hazard zone. The development is not located within either of these zones; therefore a significant safety hazard would not result from the development of apartment units. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact - The private residential development does not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than Significant Impact - The project, which is surrounded on three sides by native vegetation. is required to comply with City standards requiring fire suppression zones that create buffers behveen high fuel native species and residential structures. Sixty-foot wide fire suppression zones are proposed between proposed structures and the property line on three sides in accordance with City standards to avoid significant risks involvinz wildland fires. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 f) Create or contribute runoff water. which would exceed the capacity of existing or planncd stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact (a. b, E. d. e, f & g) - The infill project will rely on an existing public storm drain s!wm and is sub~ect to City standards regarding \vater quality, drainage and erosion control. including storm u'ater pemlit (SPDES) requirements and best management practices. The project is conditioned to require a Stomi \f.ater .\lanagement Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance uith the Cit\.'s SPDES General Pemut for Stomi \Vater Discharzes Associated Lvith Construction Activity issued by the State \Vmr Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES ,Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego Come and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition. according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study. No\.eniber 1992. the project site is located in an area nhere development \vi11 not have a significant impact to ground\\.ater. Therefore, the project \vi11 not violate any Lvater quality standards. deplete groundivater supplies or qualit\.. substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding. or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect tlood flows? No Impact (h 8: i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death inyolving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (j 8: k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsuna& or mudflow. I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? n) . Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) P) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City's drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 33 LAND USE .4KD PLAlVNIKG - IF’ould the project: b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy. or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not linuted to the general plan. specific plan. local coastal program. or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact: The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanye to redesignate the property to Residential High (RH) densiy from its current Residential Lon lledlum (RLll) denslr!. designation and to change the zoning from the Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) Zone to the Residential Densit!, llultiple (RD-M) Zone to allow multiple family units. The maximum density allo\ved on the 2.6 acre site under the existing RLM designation growth control point (3.2 dw’acre) is 5 dwelling units, and the masiniuni density under the proposed RH growth control point ( 19 dwacre) is 50 dwelling units. The General Plan Amendment to allou. 50 units would require the allocation of 45 units from the City‘s escess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is requesting 56 units on the property: therefore an 1 loib density increase to allow 6 units above the 50 units pernutted by the RH growth control point is required. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the RH designation and the requested 11% density increase above the RH growth control point require a total allocation of 51 divelling units from the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. The General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RLM to RH is in compliance with General PlanlGro\\Th Management policies that establish locational criteria for higher density multiple fanlily uses and conditions necessary to exceed the grom-th control point. Furthermore. the 100% affordable housing project is in conformance with General Plan policy to allow density increases above the grobvth control point to enable development of lower-income affordable housing that is compatible with adjacent development, where public facilities are adequate, and in proximity to major roadways, public parks and open space. conunercial centers, employment centers, and transit centers. The proposed 56-unit apartment project is conipatible with surrounding developments, including the adjacent 157 unit Manzanita Apartments and 325 unit Villa Loma Apartments. Bus service is available on El Camino Real, and the site is located in proximity to existing and hture employment centers, hture Alga Norte and Zone 19 community parks, and the existing Westbluff Plaza and Plaza Paseo Real commercial shopping centers. Excess units are available in the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. and public facilities are adequate as required by the Growth Management Ordinance to exceed the growth control point. The project also qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43. which establishes policy for the allocation of excess dwelling units, in that it is a 100% affordable apartment project where a density increase is requested as an incentive to providing affordable housing units. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specitic plan, or other land use plan? No Impact (a & b) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact: The project is located within 500 feet of El Camino Real (ECR), a General Plan circulation arterial roadway. The required noise analysis prepared by URS indicates that existing and future noise levels along the ECR roadway would exceed the City‘s 60 dBA CNEL noise standard without mitigation. Exterior noise levels along the El Camino Real and Cassia Road frontages will range between 64 - 70 dBA CNEL. The apartment project has no requirement for private passive or common active exterior recreational space; therefore, the City’s noise standard is not applied to these areas. In an effort to reduce exterior noise levels to the greatest extent possible at locations that would be subject to higher noise levels, the project includes a 6’ high noise wall and 44” high plexiglass noise screens that will be affixed to patioideck railings on the northern exterior patiosidecks of 21 Rev. 07/03/02 3+ Buildings 1. 2. and 3. and the southern and western exterior patios;decks of Building 1. This \\-ill reduce tioijc It.\ i.~. on patiosidecks to below 65 dBA CNEL. The project IS subject to the City‘s 45 dB.4 interior nom standard. 2nd 111 accordance with UBC requirements. interior noise levels will not exceed IS dBA. Thls \\.ill be aszon1pllshed through mechanical ventilation and possible building and ivindo\v acoustical treamients. POPCLATIOK AND HOUSING - \Vould the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact - The project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing and or approved development and served by existing infrastructure. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing. necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? NO Impact (b & c)- The entire project site is currently occupied by greenhouses: therefore. no displacement of houses or people will occur. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? II. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? .. No Impact (ai to a.v.) -The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 10. The provision of public facilities within LFMZ 10, including fire protection, parks, libraries and other public facilities, has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of that area. The 56-unit development will exceed the 5 dwelling units projected by the RLM General Plan designation, however, there are adequate excess dwelling units projected by the City’s Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and adequate facility capacity to accommodate the additional dwelling units proposed for the site. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 10, all public facilities will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional government facilities. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact (a & b) - As part of the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park performance standard requires that 3 acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000 population within a park district (quadrant) must be provided. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 The project site is located within Park District W (Southeast Quadrant) The necessar! pari, acreage tl] ~hlt.\ L~ tilt GMP standard (3 acres 1.000 population) for Park District 4 was based upon the GMP d\\elliiis unit Iiniitatiui~ IOI the Southeast Quadrant Although the proposed land use change ail1 result in additional residential units in the SE Quadrant. the GllP dwelling unit limit will not be exceeded. In addition. the Parks and Recreation Element states that the park acreagr demand for the SE Quadrant. based on the GMP daelling unit linlit. is 1 1 S.8 1 acres. and the anticipated park acreage to be provided at build-out nil1 be 138.14 acres. Therefore, there ivill be adequate parkland u,ithin the SE Quadrant. and the proposed land use change will not cause additional demand for parkland or expansion of recreational facilities. Because park facilities ivill be adequate to sene residential development 011 the site. an!. increase in use of park facilities generated from future development of the site will not result in substantial physical deterioration of any park facility. TRANSPORTATIOK/TRAFFIC-M’ould the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the esisting traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact: The project will generate 360 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 32 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Canlino Real. Cassia Road. Canlino Vida Roble. and Palomar Airport Road. Existing traffic on these arterials are 29,600 El Camino Real, 4.300 Cassia Road, 8.520 Canlino Vida Roble, and 51,200 Palomar Airport Road (ADT 2002). The design capacities of the arterial roads effected by the proposed project are: 40,000 or more El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. 1200 - 10.000 Cassia Rd.. 20.000 Camino Vida Roble in vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent less than 1% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* rn Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C“ 28-43 El Camino Real 2 1-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 ’ *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP stiategies. Based on the design capacity(ies1 of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 36 a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including either an increase in traffic levels or a cl~angt~ in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any a\iation components The project 1s cons~steni \\it11 tilt. Comprehensne Land Use Pian for the McClellan-Palomar Airport It \\auld not. therefore. result 111 a Change ot JII traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks No impact assessed b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or. inconipatible uses:' NO Impact. All project circulation improvements \vi11 be designed and constructed to Cit!. standards: and. tht.rt.fbre. would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent uith the Cit\-'s senera1 plan and zonins. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an inconipatible use. KO impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally. the project aould coniply \vith the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? No Impact (a & b) - The project site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 10 which is served by the Encina wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater treatment capacity has been planned to accommodate the projected growth of Zone 10. Because the project will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated within LFMZ 10, wastewater treatment capacity will be adequate to serve residential development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact (c, d & e) - All public facilities, including water facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed residential land use will not result in growth that exceeds the City's growth projections. Therefore, the proposed land use and zone change will 24 Rev. 07/03/02 not result in a significant need to expand or construct new \vater facilities,supplies. \vasten.ater treatment 01 S[O~III water drainage facilities. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to acconiniodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 8) Comply with federal. state. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste‘! No Impact (f & g) - Existing waste disposal services contracted by the City of Carlsbad are adequate to sene the proposed 56 unit aparmient project without exceeding landfill capacities. Future residential de\ elopnienr result in^ from the proposed iand subdivision \vi11 be required to comply with all federal. state. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste MAiVDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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 esaniples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact - The project will not degrade the quality of the biological or cultural environment in that no disturbance to biological or cultural resources will occur. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region- wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the proposed land use and zone change will result in future residential development, which would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with a future residential development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a residential development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the residential development is implemented. Therefore, the impact is assessed as less than significant. Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan. that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-terni and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that hture residential development on the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 36 Less Than Significant Impact - Development of the site will comply nith Cin. development standurds iicsignrli to avoid substantial adverse environmental effects to residents. The project site is located in an areu \\here Ilun1211 beings could be exposed to 61 - 70 dBA CNEL noise levels generated by the roadivay. .4s discussed abo\.:. c-lt! standards apply to required recreational space. The apartment project has no requirenient for prn’atc pussn.e or common active exterior recreational space: therefore. the Cit\.’s noise standard is not applied to these 31~3s Iu 311 effort to reduce exterior noise levels to the greatest extent possible at locations that u.ould be subject to lyher noise levels. the project includes a noise udl and 44” high plexiglass noise screens that \vi11 be aftised to patio deck railings on the northern exterior patiostdecks of Buildings 1. 2, and 3. and the southern and \wstern exterior patiosjdecks of Building 1. This !vi11 reduce noise levels on patios decks to belolv 65 dBA CSEL. The project is subject to the City‘s 45 dBA interior noise standard. and in accordance ivith UBC requirements. interior noise Ie\.els will not exceed 45 dBA. This will be accomplished through mechanical ventilation and possible building and window acoustical treatments. EARLIER ANALYSIS VSED AND SUPPORTING INFORRIATION SOL‘RCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the CiQ, of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, California. 9200s. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Final Master Environmental Imuact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01 ). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Draft Phase I1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by P 6 D Environmental Services dated October 22,2002. “Biological Reconnaissance of the Bons Property, Carlsbad, California” prepared by P 6 D Environmental Services, dated January 15, 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Vinje 6 Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 14, 2003. “Noise Analysis - Carlsbad Family Housing“ prepared by URS, dated November 5. 2002. “Stormwater Management Plan - Affirmed Housing Group” prepared by Masson 6 Associates. Inc.. dated October 14. 2002. “Prelimnary Drainage Study for Affirmed Housing Group” prepared by Masson & Associates. Inc., dated December 16,2002. Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated February 3, 2003 26 Rev. 07/03/02 39 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5666 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING CASE NO: GPA 02-05 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as: A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 02-05” dated July 7, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - GPA 02-05, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of July 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: 40 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 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 02-05, based on the following findings and condition: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - GPA Findinps : 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated July 7,2004, including, but not limited to the following: a. Land Use: The proposed amendment to the land use designation from RLM to RH is consistent with General Plan policies limiting medium and high density residential developments as documented in the Staff Report dated July 7, 2004. The high density use is compatible with adjacent multi-family land uses, and is or will be served by adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems such as employment centers, El Camino Real, public transportation, parks, schools, and public utilities. The project density of 21 du/acre exceeds the GCP of 19 du/ac; however, excess units are available and public facilities are adequate as required by the Growth Management Ordinance and General Plan. b. Housing: The General Plan Amendment is consistent with policies allowing for increased densities on properties to enable the development of affordable housing served by adequate public facilities and conforms to Council Policy 43 which permits the allocation of excess dwelling units to projects that are low income. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and b. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EL4 Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment PC RES0 NO. 5666 -2- cfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1; 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval o ZC 02-06, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02- 09, and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5667,5668, and 5669. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None RANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOSMILLYR Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5666 -3- GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE G.P. Map Designation Change Property From: To: A. 21 5-021 -06 RLM RH GPA: 02-05 Approvals Council Approval Date: Resolution No: Effective Date: draft [XI final 0 JULY 7,2004 Project Name: Carlsbad Family Housing All that portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the official plat thereof. I Related Case File No@): Property/Legal Description(s): ZC 02-0WSDP 02-13/ SUP 02-09 43 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5667 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM E-A TO RD-M ON CASE NO: ZC 02-06 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit “X” dated July 7, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - ZC 02-06, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 1 7 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 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - ZC 02-06, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. That the proposed Zone Change from E-A to RD-M is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed zoning will implement the RH General Plan land use designation. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the RD-M zone is intended to implement the RH General Plan land use designation. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that the 2.66 acre site satisfies all of the locational criteria specified by the General Plan for placement of high density development. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and b. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 02-05, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02- 09, and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5666,5668, and 5669. 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 “feeslexactions.” PC RES0 NO. 5667 -2- 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 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 Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the' specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None H. WHITTON, ChaipAon CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLYMILQR Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5667 -3 - 1 7 - 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ALLOW A 56 UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT EAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SDP 02-13, TO ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH- CASE NO.: SDP 02- 13 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan as shown on Exhibits “A” - “U” dated July 7, 2004, on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - SDP 02-13 as provided by Chapter 21.06/Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of July 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Site Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: it-? A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannins Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FARIILY HOUSING - SDP 02-13, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environniental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the proposed high density low income apartment project is consistent with the General Plan and not detrimental to existing uses in the area because the site is located in proximity to other multiple family projects of similar density and design, and commercial services and public support systems such as public transportation, two community parks and commercial shopping centers are or will be located in proximity to the site; and the proposed site design ensures that no direct public access off of El Camino Real (prime arterial) is proposed and fire hazards are avoided thereby ensuring that the use is properly related to the site and surroundings and no adverse impacts will result from the project. The project exceeds the density permitted by the RH General Plan designation by 6 units; however, excess units are available and public facilities are adequate as required by the General Plan and the low-income project qualifies for excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the proposed lot coverage of 27.4% is less than half that permitted by the RD-M zone, and the project conforms to all zoning and applicable City standards with the exception of permitted deviations to the‘ El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that all required minimum setbacks are exceeded with the exception of the El Camino Real Corridor setback from right-of-way and placement of wall standards, and split face block fencing, landscape screening and enhanced architecture is provided. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the additional ADT generated by the project will not reduce road segment or intersection levels of service to below the City’s threshold level of “D” or better. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and PC RES0 NO. 5668 -2- 4! 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. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment 6. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 10 and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically: a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. 7. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). 8. The Planning Commission hereby finds that all development in Carlsbad benefits from the Habitat Management Plan, which is a comprehensive conservation plan and implementation program that will facilitate the preservation of biological diversity and provide for effective protection and conservation of wildlife and plant species while continuing to allow compatible development in accordance with Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan. Preservation of wildlife habitats and sensitive species is required by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan which provides for the realization of the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits from the preservation of open space within an increasingly urban environment. Moreover, each new development will contribute to the need for additional regional infrastructure that, in turn, will adversely impact species and habitats. The In-Lieu Mitigation Fee imposed on all new development within the City is essential to fund implementation of the City’s Habitat Management Plan. 9. 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 PC RES0 NO. 5668 -3- 49 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 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. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 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 condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions 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 Site Development Plan. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If any condition for construction 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 are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold 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 attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s approval is not validated. PC RES0 NO. 5668 -4- 50 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 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, and SUP 02- 09, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5666,5667, and 5669 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 2 years from the date of project approval. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. This project has been found to result in impacts to wildlife habitat or other lands, such as agricultural land, which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The Developer is further aware that the City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective following final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. The City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee. If the Habitat Management Plan is approved, then the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the In-lieu Mitigation Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any an all approvals for this project shall become null and void. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict 56 dwelling units as affordable to lower-income households for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad PC RES0 NO. 5668 -5- 51 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 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Municipal Code. The recorded Affordable Housing Ageenlent shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. Final landscape plans shall provide a dimensioned fencing plan showing all perimeter masonry block and open iron rail fencing at a height not to exceed 6 feet. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 10, pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90. All such taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Planning. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan by Resolution No. 5668 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be as shown on Exhibit “A.” Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 123 standard parking spaces, as shown on Exhibit “A.” PC RES0 NO. 5668 -6- 5a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. 22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the existing El Camino Real Transportation Comdor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). Enpineering: 23. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. 24. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. 25. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards. "NO structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3." FeedAPreemen ts 26. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 27. The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 28. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. Grading 29. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. (The developer must submit and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior to issuance -7- 53 PC RES0 NO. 5668 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 30. 31. of a building permit for the project.) Prior to the issuance of a grading pemiit or bui ling permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must either amend the site plan or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved site plan as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Dedications/Improvements 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the site plan. The offer shall be made prior to the issuance of any building permit for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. El Camino Real shall be dedicated by the owner along the project frontage based on a centerline to right-of-way width of 63 feet and in conforniance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Cassia Road shall be dedicated by the owner along the northern project boundary based on a centerline to right-of-way width of 30 feet and in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The total dedication required for Cassia Street is ?4 width plus 12’ for a total width of 42’. Additional right of way may be required to accommodate the frontage improvements and offsite transitions to northbound E! Camino Rea! in conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. Some improvements shown on the site development plan and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along the project boundary. PC RES0 NO. 5668 -8- 54 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 39. 40. 41. Direct access rights for the project frontage with El Camino Real shall be waived by separate deed or document prior to building permit issuance. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic'and hazardous waste products. B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements: a) Half street improvements to El Camino Real including transitions as approved by the City Engineer. Improvements to include but not be limited to grading, landscape, irrigation and drainage, curb, gutter & sidewalk, Fully improved median, and traffic signals or traffic signal relocation. b) Half plus 12' street improvements to Cassia Rd. from El Camino Real east to the cul de sac of this project including but not limited to grading, landscape, irrigation and drainage, curb, gutter & sidewalk and transitions as required. c) Extension of public utilities to serve adjacent development north of this project as required. A utility plan to show alternate routes and service connections can be submitted to resolve future connection and service issues. PC RES0 NO. 5668 -9- Tid 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 d) Downstream drainage improvements or maintenance of existing drainage desiltation / detention basins may be required. Increased runoff from this project or diversion of runoff shall be designed to not impact existing facilities beyond the acceptable capacity. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 42. The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards to accommodate truck access through the parking area and/or aisles. The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information and approved by the City as part of the grading plan review. Code Reminders 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. 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.” 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 Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for PC RES0 NO. 5668 -10- 56 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 processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection 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 expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None RANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOBMILBR Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5668 -1 1- 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5669 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI E CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 56 UNIT AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING CASE NO: SUP 02-09 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability Partnership, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Anthony and Dicky Bons, “Owner,” described as A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (‘the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Special Use Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “U” dated July 7, 2004, on file in the Planning Department CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - SUP 02-09, as provided by Chapter 21.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of July 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Special Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 5Y 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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 02-09, based on the following findings and subject to the following condition: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - SUP Findings: 1. That the project conforms to the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone through compliance with applicable El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for Area 5 except for necessary deviations to setback and wall location standards. 2. That the deviation to the setback standard is necessary because it is infeasible for the proposed project. Due to high fuel species that occupy permanent open space surrounding the project, 60’ wide fire suppression zones are required between structures and rear and side property lines, which results in side and rear setbacks that are six times greater than the 5’ - 10’ required by the RD-M zone. These additional setback widths significantly reduce the developable area of the property; therefore, the 8’ reduction in the front setback is necessary to enable a site design that incorporates recreational amenities and conforms to City development and design standards. 3. That the deviation to the wall location standard is necessary within the reduced front setback because the noise attenuation wall is proposed to ensure that at-grade noise levels are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Placement of a sound attenuation wall within the reduced setback will not reduce the scenic quality of the ECR corridor in that within the approximately 1,300’ between Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road, the proposed project would occupy only 295’. The remaining 1000’ of ECR frontage to the south of the proposed development is encumbered by a conservation easement due to biological constraints. Therefore, the proposed deviations would not eliminate views to the east along the ECR corridor or result in continuous development too close to the right-of-way. The wall does not interfere with required sight distance and will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety. The meandering wall design that consists of split face block with pilasters and cap along with dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the project; and b. 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 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and PC RES0 NO. 5669 -2- 59 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 d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment Conditions: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, and SDP 02- 13 and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No. 5666,5667, and 5668. 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.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 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, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5669 -3- 1 1 t 1 t 5 1( 11 1; 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July 2004 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: t MICHAEL J. HOLZ~ILL~~ Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5669 -4- EXHIBIT 5 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: July 7.2004 ItemNo. @ Application complete date, April 27, 7001 Project Planner. Anne Hqsong Project Engineer: Clyde M'ickhani SUBJECT: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-061SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and El Camino Real Special Use Permit for a 56 unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5672 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02-09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 2.66 acre property from RLM to RH and a Zone Change from the Exclusive Agriculture Zone (E-A) to the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) to allow multiple family units, and a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit to allow a 56 unit apartment project that is affordable to low income families. The applicant is also requesting incentives that include an 11% density increase above density permitted by the RH designation growth control point and deviations to the El Camino Real Corridor, Area 5, front setback and wall standards. The project complies with applicable City standards and guidelines and justification for deviations can be made. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project site is a previously disturbed 2.66-acre parcel that is currently occupied by green houses. The property, which is located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real (ECR) and Cassia Road, is bordered to the north by future Cassia Road, to the west by ECR, to the east by open space that is part of the Villages of L2 Costa Master Plan, and to the south by deed restricted open space. The existing Villa Loma and future Manzanita Apartment projects are located across ECR on the northwest and southwest comers of Cassia Road. Topographically, the entire site is relatively flat and contains no sensitive vegetation. The property to the east is part of an HMP habitat preserve that contains sensitive vegetation. The property to the south GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 contains sensitive vegetation and is encumbered by a consewation easement. The eastern extension of Poinsettia Lane is currently under construction to the south of the adjacent property. The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate the property to Residential High (RH) density from its current Residential Low Medium (RLM) density designation and to change the zoning from the Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) Zone to the Residential Density Multiple (RD-M) Zone to allow multiple family units. The maximum density allowed on the 2.6 acre site under the existing RLM designation growth control point (3.2 du/acre) is 5 dwelling units, and the maximum density under the proposed RH growth control point (19 du/acre) is 50 dwelling units. The General Plan Amendment to allow 50 units would require the allocation of 45 units from the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. The applicant is requesting 56 units on the property; therefore an 11% density increase to allow 6 units above the 50 units permitted by the RH growth control point is required. The applicant, El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P., is also requesting an ECR Special Use Permit (SUP) and Site Development Plan (SDP) and to allow the proposed 56 unit apartment project. The site has frontage on El Camino Real requiring compliance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. A SDP is required pursuant to Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance for apartment projects with more than 4 units and for multi-family affordable projects of any size. Therefore, the SDP for the proposed 56-unit affordable housing apartment project involves both the overall apartment project and the combined affordable housing project. The project requires an easterly extension of Cassia Road for the purpose of providing access to both the subject site and the property to the north and frontage improvements to El Camino Real. The site design for the 56 unit apartment project requires minimal grading to create a building pad for 4 separate two-story apartment buildings with a partial subterranean garage below Building 1 (see Exhibits “A” and “L”). Proposed amenities include a pool area, a 1,648 square foot office and recreation building, and tot lot. Due to highly flammable sensitive native vegetation that surrounds the site on three sides, the site design is driven by the required 60 foot wide fire suppression zones between property lines and buildings. As a result, the proposed apartment buildings are centrally located on the site with perimeter parking and Cassia Road located within the fire suppression zones. One, two, and three bedroom units are proposed that range in size from 646 square feet to 1,019 square feet. Unit A is one bedroom, Unit B is two bedrooms, and Units C and D are three bedroom units. Building 1, which faces El Camino Real, is the largest building with 24 units, Building 2 has 8 units, and Buildings 3 and 4 each have 12 units, Each unit is provided with a patio or balcony deck and storage closet. Building 1 patios and balcony decks facing El Camino Real have been sound attenuated to the greatest extent possible by an at grade 6’ high split face block sound attenuation wall and 44” high transparent panels affixed to second story balcony railings. The California Spanish architectural style includes mission tile roofs, arched recesses and windows, and metal trim elements on all elevations. The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: A. General Plan; 13 GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06ISDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 B. Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Chapter 2 1.24 - RD-M Zone Chapter 2 1.44 - Parking Ordinance Chapter 21.85 - Inclusionary Housing Chapter 21.53 - Multiple Family/Affordable Housing Chapter 21.40 - Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone/El Camino Real Corridor Standards; and C. Growth Management. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The project is consistent with applicable Elements of the General Plan as indicated by the following table. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential Low Medium density that is characterized by single-family development to Residential High density characterized by multiple family development. The site location, topography, and characteristics are consistent with the following General Plan Element implementing policies regarding the location of high density developments. ELEMENT Land Use TABLE 1: GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Existing: Residential Low-Medium (RLM) Density (0 - 4 dwelling unitdacre) Implementing Policies C.4K.8: Limit medium and high density residential developments to those areas where they are compatible with adjacent land uses, and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems such as streets, parking, parks, schools, and public utilities are, or will be, adequate to serve them. PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS Proposed: Residential High (RH) Density (1 5 -23 dwelling units/acre) The proposed 56-unit apartment project is compatible with surrounding developments, including the 157 unit Manzanita Apartments and 325 unit Villa Loma Apartments. Bus service is available on El Camino Real, and future Alga Norte and Zone 19 COMPLY Yes Yes GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 Implementing Policy C.5: Locate multi-family uses near commercial centers, employment centers, and major transportation corridors. Implementing Policy C.7: Locate higher density residential uses in close proximity to open space, community facilities, and other amenities. Growth Control Point: 19 dwelling unit/acre. Implementing Policy C.2 Allow density increases above growth control point to enable development of lower-income affordable housing that is compatible with adjacent development, where public facilities are adequate, and in proximity to major roadways, public parks and open space, commercial centers, employment centers, and transit community parks and the Westbluff Plaza and Plaza Paseo Real commercial shopping centers are located within one mile of the site. El Camino Real is currently being widened and other public facilities are adequate to serve the development. The project has direct access to ECR and is within one mile of existing and future employment centers to the north and commercial centers. The project is located in proximity to the future Alga Norte and Zone 19 community parks and is bounded to the south and east by permanent open space. The project density of 21 du/acre exceeds the GCP of 19 du/ac; however, excess units are available and public facilities are adequate as required by the Growth Management Ordinance and the General Plan. The 56 unit apartment project is compatible with the 325 unit Villa Loma and 157 unit Manzanita apartment projects to the northwest and southwest, public facilities are adequate, and the project is in proximity to ECR, two future public parks and dedicated Yes Yes Yes Yes GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 Page 5 Housing Public Safety Noise centers. Existing Zone: Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) - The E-A Zone does not implement residential land use designations. Implementing Policy 3.7M3.7.i. - Accommodate General Plan Amendments to increase densities on properties to enable development of affordable housing with adequate public facilities. Policy 3.8 - Implement Council Policy 43 for allocation of excess dwelling units Provide project review that allows consideration of seismic and geologic hazards. Reduce fire hazards to an acceptable risk level. Noise attenuation for properties within 500 feet of circulation arterial roadways. Residential interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. open space, commercial centers and public transit service. Proposed Zone: Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) - RD-M zoning allows multiple family development that is consistent with the RH General Plan desknation. Project is 100% affordable housing that is within the RH General Plan density range but requires an 11% density increase above the growth control point. The affordable housing project satisfies the criteria established by Council for allocating excess dwelling units. Project improvements will not significantly impact or be impacted by geologic or seismic conditions. Project provides 60' fire sumression zones. The project is conditioned to require a 6' tall masonry noise wall to attenuate noise. The project is conditioned to require future units to comply with the interior noise standard. Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes Yes GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06ISDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 Page 6 Circulation Requires new development to construct improvements needed to serve proposed development. Minimize the number of access points to major and prime arterials to enhance the functioning of these streets and thoroughfares. * The proposed General Plan Amendment to the RH de All public infrastructure will be constructed in accordance with City standards. The project design takes access off Cassia Road which is a local street. No direct public access off of El Camino Real (prime arterial) is proposed. ignation and the requested 11 Yes Yes I density increase above the RH growth control point require a total allocation of 51 dwelling units from the City’s excess dwelling unit bank. Consistency findings for approval of the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from RLM to RH and compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance and General Plan policies for allowing projects to exceed the growth control point are stated above. The project qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43, which establishes policy for the allocation of excess dwelling units, in that it is a 100% affordable apartment project where a density increase is requested as an incentive to providing affordable housing units. B1/2. RD-M Zone/Parking Ordinance As shown on the following table, the proposed multi-family development meets or exceeds the RD-M Zone and Parking Ordinance standards: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 Standard Use - TABLE 2: RD-M ZONE/PARKING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Required Multi-family and Single Familv Units Building Height Parking Required: 12 - 1 Bedroom Units 44 - 2/3 Bedrooms Units Guest Parking 10 Units @ .5 Spaces/Unit 46 Units @ .25 SpaceskJnit Lot Size I Minimum 10.000 Sa. Feet 35 Feet 1.5 Spacemnit = 18 Spaces 2 SpacesAJnit = 88 Spaces = 5 Spaces = 12 Spaces Total Required = 123 Spaces Lot Width I Interior Lots: 60 Feet . Lot Coverage 1 60% S ebac ks : Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 10 Feet 5 Feet 10 Feet Proposed 56 Multi-family Units 2.659 Acres 295.2 Feet 27.41% 22 Feet 40 - 60 Feet 60 Feet Maximum 33’6” 18 Spaces 88 Spaces 5 Spaces 12 Spaces Total Provided = 123 Suaces B3/B4. Inclusionary Housing/Multiple FamilylAffordable Housing Section 2 1.85.080 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance anticipates that combined projects are proposed to satisfy a particular project or project’s inclusionary housing requirement. The proposed 56-unit project would not satisfy a specific project currently under review; however, the units could be used to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of future projects meeting the necessary criteria. The City Council has the sole discretion to authorize a proposed combined affordable housing site through their approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement. The project location, which is in proximity to public transportation, employment, commercial services and recreational opportunities, and buffered from existing development by open space and El Camino Real meets the locational criteria specified for a combined inclusionary housing project. Section 21.53.120 of the Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a site development plan for multi-family apartment projects exceeding 4 units, and affordable housing projects of any size, based on findings that the project is consistent with the underlying zoning and in conformance with the General Plan policies and goals, and in accordance with the Qualified Overlay Zone. Findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone ensure that the use is consistent with the General Plan, will not adversely impact the site or surrounding uses, and that the site and street system are adequate to accommodate the use. Incentives such as density increases to enable the reservation of affordable units are permitted. 68 GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 As specified in Table 1 above, the project is compatible with existing and future multi-family apartment projects located across ECR on the northwest and southwest comers of Cassia Road. No adverse impacts to adjacent projects will occur because the project is surrounded by undeveloped open space to the east and south, and roadways and/or undeveloped property to the west and north. The proposed extension of Cassia Road will provide access to the undeveloped property to the north. The property to the north is also currently designated. for RLM density development; however, it is anticipated that due to biological constraints, future developnient will also require a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property to enable multi-family development. The site and street system are adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed site design complies with all RD-M zone development standards, and the street system serving the project would operate at acceptable levels of service with the additional demand generated by the project. Based on an analysis performed by staff, the proposed 11% density increase to enable the low income units is a necessary incentive to offset the subsidy necessary to reserve 56 affordable units. The affordable housing project complies with General Plan Policy C.2 applicable to projects requesting density increases above the growth control point as stated in Table 1. The project is compatible with surrounding development and public facilities, roadways, and public services are in proximity to the development. Additionally, the low-income project qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with criteria established by Council Policy 43. B5. Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone/El Camino Real Corridor Standards The proposed project is located on the east side frontage of El Camino Real and is subject to the regulations of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, as implemented through the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Pursuant to 21.40..040, a special use permit is required. Deviations to the ECR Corridor Standards are permitted if specific findings that compliance for a particular project is infeasible, the scenic quality of the corridor is maintained, no adverse impact on traffic would result, and the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone is met. The project is located within Area 5 of the El Camino Real Corridor (Sunfresh Rose to Olivenhain Road). As shown on the following table, the project is consistent with all applicable development standards except for setback and wall location: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7, 2004 Page 9 Standard Adopted Criteria Proposed Project Design Old CalifomidHispanic Hispanic (tile roof, stucco Theme materials, arches) Median Intersections and median Access at planned intersection Breaks breaks Compliance Yes Yes Sidewalks Signs Building Height Grading Setback Walls in Setback Street Furniture Street light spacing *The project proposes to reduce the 30' building setback to 22' from the right-of-way and to locate a noise attenuation wall within the 22' setback that meanders between a distance of 5' to 18' from the right-of-way. The necessary findings for approving these deviations are that: Determined by Staff Per City standard Yes Freestanding monument sign Freestanding monument sign Yes stucco and wood 7' ta11/12' long 35' from grade maximum 33'6" from grade maximum Yes No cut or fill exceeding 10' Yes from original grade At grade: 30' minimum. 22' minimum proposed; No* Some screening to be incorporated into setback. Minimum of 25' of right-of- 5' - 18' No* way Wrought iron or wood None proposed Yes City standard City standard Yes stucco and wood 3' ta11/7' long Cut/fill not to exceed 5 feet landscape screening provided - 1. Roof Not visible Not visible Equipment Land Uses Land use changes should be addressed at time of request. Land use change proposed. The building setback and wall location standards are infeasible for the proposed project, and the proposed deviations are consistent with the intent of the ECR Corridor Standards. Due to high fuel species that occupy permanent open space surrounding the project, 60' wide fire suppression zones are required between structures and rear and side property lines. This results in side and rear setbacks that are up to six times greater than the 5' and 10' required by the RD-M zone. These additional setback widths significantly reduce the developable area of the property; therefore, the 8' reduction in the front setback is necessary to enable a site design that incorporates recreational amenities and conforms to City development and design standards. Yes Yes GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 2. The reduced setback and placement of a sound attenuation wall within the reduced setback will not reduce the scenic quality of the ECR corridor. The noise attenuation wall is proposed to ensure that at-grade noise levels are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Within the approximately 1,300’ between Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road, the proposed project would occupy only 295’. The remaining 1000’ to the south of the proposed development is dedicated open space that cannot be developed due to biological constraints. Therefore, the proposed deviations would not eliminate views to the east along the ECR corridor or result in continuous development too close to the right-of-way. The wall does not interfere with required sight distance and will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety. The meandering wall design that consists of split face block with pilasters and cap along with dense landscape screening will maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway. C. Growth Management Table 4 below details the project’s conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program and Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan. *The project is 6 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. No potentially significant environmental impacts were identified; therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration on June 2 1,2004. GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SW 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING July 7,2004 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. AHmh Planning Commission Resolution No. 5672 (ND) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5666 (GPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5667 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5668 (SDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5669 (SUP) Location Map Local Facilities Impact Assessment Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “U” dated July 7,2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Carlsbad Family Housing - GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02- LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 10 GENERAL PLAN: RLM TO RH ZONING: E-A TO RD-M DEVELOPER’S NAME: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liability Partners hip ADDRESS: 200 E. WashinPton Avenue, Suite 208, Escondido, CA 92026 PHONE NO.: /760) 738-8401 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 215-021-06 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 2.66 Acres156 Units ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 195 Library: Demand in Square Footage = 104 Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 56 EDU Park: Demand in Acreage = .39 Drainage: Demand in CFS = 5.67 Identify Drainage Basin = D (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 336 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2 Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A Schools: Elementary: 5.03 Middle School: 2.22 High School: 2.76 Sewer: Demands in EDU 56 Identify Sub Basin = H (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 12,230 The project is 6 units above the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. 73 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SW 02-09 CASE NAME: Carlsbad Family Housing APPLICANT: Carlsbad Family Housing Partners, a California Limited Liabilitv Partnership REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and El Camino Real Special Use Permit for a 56 unit affordable apartment proiect located at the southeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Rang;e 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. APN: 2 15-02 1-06 Acres: 2.66 Proposed No. of LotsRJnits: 56 Units GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RLM to RH Density Allowed: 0-4 du/acre (5 units) Existing Zone: E-A Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 15-23 du/acre (50 units) Proposed Zone: RD-M Zoning General Plan Site E-A RLM North L-c RLM South RD-M-Q RLM East P-c os West RD-M-Q RM Current Land Use Green Houses Vacant Vacant Vacant Manzanita Apts. PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 56 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued June 2 1,2004 0 c] Other, Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated - City of DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defrned as “Any individual, fm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person See Attached CorpPart INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- Title Title Address Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (ie, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a comoration or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Anthony Bons Title Husband/Trus tee Address 2570 H illcrest Ave. Address 2570 Hillcrest Ave. wm Dicky Bons Title W i f e / Trus tee Escondido, CA 92025 Escondido, CA 92025 75- 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 3. NON-PROFIT L .ZANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonmofit oreanrzation or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profiflrust Non Profiflrust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (1 2) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Nov. 5, 2002 ofhm&pplicant’stagex&& ‘ ate Housing Partw.P. Its: General Partner Print or type name of dapplicantkxgeatx By: James Silverwood Its: President H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 76 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (attachment) APPLICANT El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership I GENERAL PARTNER Affirmed Housing Group, a California corporation 99.0% ownership interest in El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P. James Silverwood, an Individual I LIMITED PARTNER James Silverwood, an Individual 1 .O% ownership interest in El Camino Family Housing Partners, L.P. 100.0% ownership interest in Affirmed Housing Group 77 4 E 78 NOU3tlUSN03 UOj ION 5 LL 6 1-- _- I bl I --. \ \ 80 NOLL3fM.LSN03 UOj ION NOLL3nUSN03 MOA ION E , I;! ;I- ,;# ! I I 5 --* &r I I I , I, :’ / ’/ ’ .’ \ dl ..... : ?8 K bf f : ;. P " .. . 2 it ; .. -, . 1 c .... 86 C C c C c I -4 I I C" Ull z /--- E P rg P $6 93 I3 ...... - . _.._ ........ R -. . . .- .... 1 I .......... il .- 4 ‘j .... - .’ \ \ r e n* .I m .:-, 29 1 I 4 96 Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT 6 DRAFT Page3 July 7, 2004 2. GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 - CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration, and recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and El Camino Real Special Use Permit for a 56-unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10. Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Anne Hysong would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Whitton asked the applicant if he wanted to continue with the Public Hearing with only five Commissioners present. The applicant stated he would like to continue. Chairperson Whitton opened the Public Hearing on Item 2. Associate Planner Hysong stated this project is a request for the recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan and El Camino Real Special Use Permit to development a parcel located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in the southeast quadrant. The site is a 2.6-acre parcel currently occupied by greenhouses. The 56-unit combined affordable project consists of 4 two-story apartment buildings. Building 1 has a partially subterranean 40-space parking garage, and the project includes a recreation building with laundry facilities, a pool and a tot lot. The project also includes a meandering six-foot high noise attenuation wall within the setback along El Camino Real. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the property from Residential Low-Medium density to Residential High density to be consistent with the General Plan policies regarding the placement of high-density residential projects, particularly multi-family projects. The proposed density of 21 dwelling units per acre exceeds the RH General Plan growth control point. The project requires an 11% density increase above the units that are allowed by the RH General Plan designation which equates to about 6 units over the 50 units that are allowed. The project is consistent with General Plan policy for exceeding the growth control point because excess dwelling units are available, public facilities are adequate, and it is a 100% affordable housing project located in proximity to El Camino Real, the future Alga Norte and Zone 19 parks, the West Bluff Plaza and Plaza Paseo Real commercial shopping centers, and also existing and future employment centers. Because the project is 100% affordable and is requesting a density increase as an incentive, it qualifies for the allocation of excess dwelling units in accordance with Council Policy 43. The project also requires a Zone Change from exclusive agriculture to the RDM zone. The RDM zone implements the RH General Plan designation by allowing multiple family uses. The project is consistent with the RDM zone development standards. Setback standards are exceeded and structures are below the maximum building height and coverage limitations. The project also provides 123 resident and guest parking spaces in accordance with the City's parking standard. The proposed combined affordable housing project is not proposed to satisfy any particular project's inclusionary housing requirement. The inclusionary housing ordinance establishes locational criteria for combined projects that require the site to be in proximity to the amenities previously mentioned. Sites are required to be buffered from existing development by open space, and this site satisfies all of those criteria. The findings required by the Qualified Overlay Zone for any apartment project over 4-units can also be made. The project would not result in adverse impacts, the site is adequate to accommodate the apartment development, and the street system serving the project will operate at acceptable levels with the additional demand. The project, which has frontage on El Camino Real, is consistent with the applicable El Camino Real Corridor standards with two exceptions. The project is consistent with the Corridor standards because a General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the land use consistent with the project. The architectural style is California Spanish as required. The grading design, building height and signage proposed all conform to the El Camino Real Corridor Standards. The proposed deviations would reduce the required 30-foot building setback from the El Camino Real right of way to 22 feet and allow a noise attenuation wall within the setback. These deviations are justified because providing the full setback and 97 Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 4 eliminating the wall is infeasible for this project due to site constraints. The site is surrounded on three sides by high-fueled native vegetation within the open space which requires a 60-foot fire suppression zone on those three sides between the property lines and structures. This results in side and rear setbacks that are up to 6 times greater than what is normally required by the RDM zone. The noise attenuation wall, which meanders from 5 feet to 18 feet behind the right-of-way, is necessary to reduce traffic noise generated by El Camino Real. These deviations will not reduce the scenic quality of the corridor or have an adverse impact on traffic safety. Permanent open space located between Poinsettia Lane to the south and the project will maintain views to the east along the corridor. The proposed meandering wall design, which consists of split face block with pilasters and cap, and dense landscaping in front of the wall, will maintain or enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real corridor. Mrs. Hysong concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Dominguez inquired about the detail, building material and height variation on the noise attenuation wall. Mrs. Hysong responded that the wall will not be mounded however the wall is consistently 6-foot along the entire frontage and will meander from 5 feet near the right-of-way to 18 feet with project signage incorporated into the wall about midpoint. Dense landscaping in front of the wall is also included so that it will be aesthetically appealing and will serve to screen the wall from El Camino Real. The fence will be made of split face block with cap and pilasters, and contrasting colors. Commissioner Montgomery stated that when looking at the site on its own, it seems to have an urban feel to it with a significant amount of hardscape and very light landscaping. He asked for an explanation or reason for staffs support of the project based on the landscaping in its current condition. Mrs. Hysong responded that the 60-foot suppression zone which pushed the buildings into the middle of the site drove the design of the project. Staff also felt that in lieu of landscaping, the amenities such as a pool and recreation room were desirable for the project, which creates more hardscaping in the center of the project. Commissioner Montgomery also inquired if the developer was required to completely improve Cassia Road, and if so, what are the plans, if any, for development north of Cassia Road, what are the impacts, and if everything is planned and sufficient in nature in order to have that development occur. Deputy City Engineer, Bob Wojcik responded that the project is conditioned such that the developer will construct half plus twelve feet in width (32 feet) of pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk on their side, and the standard parkway. The other portion of the street would be built in the future including another 8 feet of pavement; the sidewalk and parkway will be done by the project to the north when it is developed. Ms. Hysong stated that the project was developed with a cul-de-sac street which would provide access to both properties. Cassia Road would provide access to the developable portion of the site to the north. Mrs. Hysong further stated there will be no further extension of Cassia Road. Commissioner Baker asked if the project was conditioned to determine the size and type of landscaping or if it's just to be heavily landscaped. Mrs. Hysong stated the landscape plans, which are part of the conceptual landscape plan being reviewed, show 24 inch box trees and 36 inch box palm trees. Chairperson Whitton asked if there would be a bus pickup location in close proximity to this project either on El Camino Real or Cassia Road. Mr. Wojcik stated he spoke with the planner from the North County Transit District (NCTD) who commented that NCTD would want a location on El Camino Real approximately 400 feet north of Cassia Road which would be required with the future development to the north. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Jim Silverwood, President of Affirmed Housing Group, commented the project would provide quality affordable housing for the local workforce, it complies with the strict Carlsbad development standards with the exception of the one requested waiver and it would bring significant improvements to the Cassia Road/El Camino Real intersection. He concluded his presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Baker commented the staff report states this is a stand alone project but there is the possibility that small, future projects can buy housing credits within this project. She asked if the applicant was aware of the agreement and if he could explain the agreement. Mr. Silverwood stated that Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 5 there is no agreement in place but the project is subject to a future meeting with the Housing Commission and then City Council would later ratify that. Commissioner Baker inquired if there would be an onsite manager for the project. Mr. Silverwood stated there would be. Commissioner Baker further inquired if the design of the project was something the applicant submitted or if it was based on what the City requested. Mr. Silverwood stated that the style the applicant agreed to proceed with was initially brought about by the standards for the El Camino Real corridor. He stated they tried to adhere to those standards first which led to the current design. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the laundry facilities are sufficient for an apartment grouping of this size and what calculations were used to determine the size. Mr. Silverwood stated that based on his company’s experience the size is adequate and there is an actual calculation of numbers of washers and dryers per every ten apartment units and a certain ratio used. This calculation is something used internally in his company. This figure was given to the architect very early in the process so that the facilities are adequately sized. Commissioner Montgomery asked if that seems to work well within the working atmosphere of an apartment complex. Mr. Silverwood responded that he believed it did. Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of the applicant or of staff. Seeing none, he closed Public Testimony on the item. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5672 recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5666, 5667, 5668, and 5669 recommending approval of GPA 02-05, ZC 02-06, SDP 02-13, and SUP 02-09 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Commissioner Montgomery stated his support for the project. He stated that the current zoning designation would allow for 5 houses on the site which he feels is an inappropriate use given the El Camino Real corridor. He stated this is an example of what was talked about at the previous meeting with giving the property owners flexibility in uses of their property and being able to control the density of their projects. He feels that with this type of project it shows when there is flexibility in planning without restrictions placed on it, the city can actually come up with projects that fit the correct site. He applauded the applicant and staff for coming up with this project. Commissioner Dominguez also feels fortunate that the development corporation submitted this type of project and for the City to utilize it in an area which seemed tough to develop. He commended the applicant and feels it will be a great project. Commissioner Heineman stated his support of the project. VOTE: 5-0 AYES: NOES: None Whitton, Baker, Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery Chairperson Whitton closed the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 99 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, August IO, 2004, to consider a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Negative Declaration, and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit for a 56 unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10 and more particularly described as: A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after August 6, 2004. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Negative Declaration, and/or Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING PUBLISH: July 30, 2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING GPA 02-05/ZC 02=06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 7575 METROPOLITAN DR CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING PARTNERS STE 208 200 E WASHINGTON AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92026 CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMUNITY SERVICES PUBLIC WORKSlENGlWEERlNG CITY OF CARLSBAD DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER CLYDE WICKHAM CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER ANNE HYSONG CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SANDIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 I .P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BONS CHARITABLE TRUST 25709 HILLCREST AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92026 MANZANITA PARTNERS LLC 1764 SAN DIEGO AVE SAN DIEGO CA 921 10 BRESSI DAUGHTERS TRUST SUITE 302 10409 RIVERSIDE DR TOLUCA LAKE CA 91602 REAL ESTATE COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT SUITE 180 1903 WRIGHT PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MANZANITA PARTNERS LLC 1155 CUCHARA DR DEL MAR CA 92014 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, {DATE}, to consider a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and El Camino Real Corridor Special Use Permit for a 56 unit affordable apartment project located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 10 and more particularly described as: A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after {DATE}. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, and Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-1 3/SUP 02-09 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING PUBLISH: {DATE} CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE CARLSBAD FAM I LY H 0 US I NG GPA 02-05EC O2-O6/SDP 02-1 31SUP 02-09 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA 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 matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: A I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS, California This r '3 Day of July, 2004 This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of A portion of fractional northeast quarter of southwest auarter of Section 23. TownshiD 12 South. Aanae 41 West San Bernardino Me- ' .I ridian in the Ci bad, kouny of $n Diego:~~~~I I State of Ca ifornia of Carls Those persons wishing to speak on this pro osal are cordial1 invited Po ttend the ubfc hearing. Eo ies of tfe agenda bill wilfbe available on and after Au- gust 6 2004: If you have any qiestions please call Anne Hysong 'in the Plan- nin De artment at (760) 608462l If ou challen e the General PYan Arnenyment Zone Chan e Site Develbpment Plan abgative Declaration andhr Special Use Permit in court you ma be limited to raisilig only tLse issues you or someone else raised at the p,ublic hearing de- scribed in this notice or in written correspondence de- livered to the City of Carls- bad Attn: Cit Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Vlllage Drive, Carlbbad, CA &008, ai or prior to the public hearing. I CASE FILE: GPA 02-05/ZC 02-WSDP 02-13SUP 02-09 1 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING ITY OF CARLSBAD ITY COUNCIL NCT 1671506 Julv 30,2004 I . . - -. . - Signature Legal Advertising 1 // NORTH COUNTY TIMES Carlsbad Family HousingCarlsbad Family HousingGPA 02-05/ZC 02-06/SDP 02-13/SUP 02-09 Approval For:Approval For:•Negative Declaration•General Plan Amendment•Zone Change•Site Development Plan•El Camino Real Special Use Permit•Received recommendation of approval by Planning Commission on July 7, 2004 Location MapLocation MapE L C A M IN O R E A L POINSETTIALNCARRILLOWYCASSIA RDSITELAS PALMAS DRCAMINOVIDAROBLE Site CharacteristicsSite Characteristics•2.66 acre parcel occupied by greenhouses•El Camino Real frontage•Relatively flat•No sensitive vegetation•Surrounded on two sides by permanent open space Project FeaturesProject Features•56 unit combined 100% affordable housing project•Four two-story apartment buildings•Partially subterranean 40 space parking garage•Recreation building, office, laundry room & pool•60 foot fire suppression zones around property perimeter•6 foot noise attenuation wall within reduced ECR setback General Plan ConsistencyGeneral Plan Consistency•Re-designate from RLM to RH–Compatible with surrounding high density development–Adequate commercial services–Adequate parks, employment centers, transportation corridors–Buffered by permanent open space General Plan Consistency (Cont.)General Plan Consistency (Cont.)•Density allowed: 19 du/acre•Density proposed: 21 du/acre•11% density increase–100% affordable–Adequate public facilities–Employment centers–Adequate public services•Allocation of excess units consistent with Policy 43 Zoning ConsistencyZoning Consistency•Re-zone to RD-M–Implements RH General Plan designations•Multiple family use•Adequate site area•Exceeds setback requirements•33’ 6’’ maximum building height•123 parking spaces InclusionaryHousing/Qualified Overlay ZoneInclusionaryHousing/Qualified Overlay Zone•Combined affordable project•Satisfies location criteria•Consistent with General Plan•No adverse impacts•Adequate site and street system El Camino Real Corridor StandardsEl Camino Real Corridor Standards•Land use change proposed with project•Access from Cassia Road extension•California Spanish architectural style•Freestanding monument sign•Building height below standard•No significant grade change•Deviations required–22’ minimum right of way setback–Noise wall within reduced setback Environmental ReviewEnvironmental Review•Negative Declaration published June 21, 2004•No public comment