Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4247e e 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. 4247 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN ADDENDUM TO MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND LOCAL, COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE MAPS SO THEY WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER ON VARIOUS PARCELS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. CASE NAME: GENERAL PLAN, ZONING & LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONSISTENCY PROJECT PHASE I REPORT 93-01 TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CASE NO.: GPA 97-0 1//ZC 97-0 l/LCPA 97-04 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property, described on Exhibits “A’ dated March 18, 1998 , attached to Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4248, 4 4250, and made a part hereof ; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad certified Master EIR 93-01 on Sel 6,1994; and WHEREAS, the Addendum to Master EIR 93-01 for GPA 9: described in the attached Exhibit “Addendum To MEIR # 6”, dated June 12, intended to change the Master EIR 93-01 project description and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1 st day of April 1991 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by SI considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all 1 relating to the Negative Declaration and the MEIR Addendum. ... 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 e 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative De and the MEIR Addendum according to Exhibit "ND" dated June 20,19 dated June 12, 1997, and MEIR Addendum No. 6, dated June 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project mq significant impact on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission finds that, based on the EIA Part I1 and the Addenc General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential : Low to Open Space will reduce potential environmental impacts and the reques use change will not alter impacts as described and mitigated by Master EIR 934 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and co the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this prc any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. E the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that the substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration. 4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the indc judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. ... ... ... ... ... . .. I PC RES0 NO. 4247 -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 .@ 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of April 199f following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, h Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAnSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 4247 -3- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: City of Carlsbad, California Project Description: General Plan, .Zoning and Local Coastal Program Consistenc Project, including approximately 29 parcel level zone changes : the Open Space Zone to be consistent with the parcel’s underlyir Open Space General Plan Land Use Designation and Loc Coastal Program Designation when applicable, 1 parcel level zor change to a residential zone to be consistent with the underlyin Residential General Plan Land Use Designation, and 1 parcel levc general plan amendment to the Open Space Designation to b consistent with the parcels’ Open Space zoning. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above describe project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environment; Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject projec Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannin Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Comments from th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Departmer within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibso in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455. DATED: JUNE 20,1997 CASE NO: GPA 97-01/LCPA 97-04/ZC 97-01 CASE NAME: GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAb CONSISTENCY PROJECT PHASE I PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 20,1997 MICHAEL J. HwZMIwER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-089 0 a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 97-01LCPA 97-04JZC 974 DATE: June 12, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: General.Plan, Local Coastal Proaam, And Zoning Consistency Project Phase I 2. APPLICANT: Citv Of Carlsbad Planning DeDartment 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE WER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbal California 92009 (760) 438- 1 16 1 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NJA 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal Program Consistenc Project, including approximately 29 parcel level zone changes to the Open Space Zone to 1 consistent with the parcel’s underlvinp Open Space General Plan Land Use Designation arl Local Coastal Program Designation when applicable, 1 parcel level zone change to a residenti; zone to be consistent with the underlying Residential General Plan Land Use Designation, and parcel level general plan amendment to the Open Space Designation to be consistent with th parcels’ Open Space zoninp. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec: involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e DETERMINATION. e (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on f environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. c] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI\ DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlil document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is require but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicabl standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includin revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Thereforc a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. kd, CJr; i *Ch %,I - ‘ g c_l^ .. 1 si^, %”-$ ,>tJ,,% 17 i p‘?7 - ~Iannk? Signat& Date 6/la kit Planning Director’TSignadde Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS- STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct : Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on tl environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form ol checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impactt by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding wheth to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previous approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequate supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A ‘‘F Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that tl impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer shoul be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specif factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potenti impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standarc and policies. e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation c mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Le5 Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City mu! describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less tha significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect j significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect o the environment, but A potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) hav been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaratior including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, an none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and a: the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporate( into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required tc prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuan to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overridinl Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that tht project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 I) e e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and tho mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, t appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be check and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but n limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not bec discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the develop does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact has not been mal pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to le than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the lev of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigatic measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the for under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be givc to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (MEIR) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (MEIR) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (MEIR) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (MEIR) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (MEIR) 0 0 JI 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? (MEIR) 0 indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (MEIR) housing? (MEIR) 0 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? o 0 n d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? U 0 O 0 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 5 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 LessThan No Significan Impact t Impact 0 IXI 0 w 0 w O w. El [XI 0 w 0 IXI 0 w 0 w 0 w O w 0 w o w Ix1 cl [XI IXI 0 IXI 0 [XI cl IXI 0 a El w Rev. 03/28/96 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 cl 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? existing or projected air quality violation? (MEIR) o 0 0 any change in climate? 0 VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (MEIR) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp proposal result in: o curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 0 (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting. alternative g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 o 0 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats in impacts to: (including .but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0 animals, and birds? (MEIR) b) Locally designated species (eg. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 Less Than Significan t Impact 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact w w w [x] w w [XI [XI [XI w w [XI IXI [XI w w [XI. w w [XI [XI 6 Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral proposal? (MEIR) 0 inefficient manner? (MEIR) 0 resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (MEIR) b) Police protection? (MEIR) c) Schools? (MEIR) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? (MEIR) (MEIR) XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 0 0 0 0 cl o 0 o 0 0 0 a) Power or natural gas? (MEIR) b) Communications systems? (MEIR) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (MEIR) e) Storm water drainage? (MEIR) f) Solid waste disposal? (MEIR) 0 0 o 0 facilities? (MEIR) 0 7 0 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless t Impact 0 w 0 0 [XI 0 0 €3 0 0 0 0 0 0 €3 0 IXI 0 w o w 0 w 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 o w 0 0 [XI 0 0'€3 0 0 [XI 0 cl IXI .o 0 0 0 32 IXI 0 [XI 0 El 0 IXI 0 IXI o w Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact g) Local or regional water supplies? (MEIR) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the would affect unique ethnic cultural values? potential impact area? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? parks or other recreational facilities? (MEIR) 0 XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wiidlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a’ plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 either directly or indirectly? 8 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 LessThan No Significan Impact t Impact 0 [XI 0 w 0 ixI El 0 Ix1 0 Ix1 w I7 El 0 [XI o w 0 €3 w w 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 e XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. a Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CE( process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatj declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available 1 review. A Final Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was certified f the 1994 update of the Citv's General Plan. The Final MEIR is on file in t Planninp Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA, 92009. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist wf within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigatic measures based on the earlier analysis. The Final MEIR analyzed all the impac associated with the land use designations shown on the 1994 General Plan La] Use Map. The Zone Changes and Local Coastal Program Amendments associatl with this Droiect are designed to achieve land use consistency with the land u designations already shown on the General Plan Land Use Map and analvzed the 1994 General Plan uDdate. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refinc from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditio: for the project. Not applicable 9 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Carlsbad’s Planning Department is currently in the process of updating the City’s Gener Plan Land Use, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Maps to make them consistent with one anoth per the requirements of California State law. State law currently requires that zoning conform to a~ implement the General Plan. Therefore, where inconsistencies exist between these designations, tl law requires that changes be made to bring about consistency. This General Plan Land U: Consistency Program is one segment of the City’s larger, more-comprehensive General P1; Implementation Program that was approved by the City Council with the last major update of tl General Plan in 1994. The General Plan is the City’s required long range comprehensive land UI plan for the future physical development of the City and the Zoning provides the developme standards that control the use and intensity of development for property within the City of Carlsba Every property in the City has a General Plan land use designation, a Zoning Map designation, a~ when located in the Coastal Zone, a Local Coastal Program land use designation. These land u. designations (i.e. open space, residential, commercial, industrial) are shown on three separate offici; maps that are legally adopted by the Mayor and City Council Members. During the Planning Department’s recent review of the official maps, properties has been identified i having inconsistent General Plan land use designations, Local Coastal Program land use designation and Zoning Map designations. To achieve consistency between the General Plan, Local Coast Program, and Zoning Map the City will be officially amending either the General Plan Land Use Ms or the Zoning Map. For properties located in the Coastal Zone there will also be Local Coast Program Map Amendments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - PARCEL LIST 10 Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 - - I # I SITE LOCATION I EXISTING I EXISTING I PROPOSED I DESCRIPTIC - I1 I 1 GENPLAN I ZONING 1 CHANGE I r 18. Power Line Easement RD-M TO OS RD” os APN: 2 15-240-44 19. Church Site - GP was Chsu 6628 Santa Isabel St. APN: 215-330-01 1994 fi-om N to RMH C-1 TO RD-M c- 1 RMH 20. ODen SDace Lot # 23 RLM TO OS os FUM APN: 223-150-50 24. Open Space Lot # 120 RD-M TO OS RD” os APN: 216-463-28 23. Open Space Lot # 1 19. RD-M TO OS RD” os APN: 216-460-42 22. Open Space Lot Por 247 RD-M-5 TO OS l2D-M-5 os APN: 215-571-70 21. Open Space Lot # 749 R-1-15 TO OS R-1-15 os APN: 215-430-15 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: This analysis does not contain a detailed discussion for each individual environmental impact analys category fiom I. Land Use and Planning through XV. Recreational on the checklist because, for th project, in all cases but one, the proposed action would result in a property’s zoning being change consistent with the property’s existing General Plan land use designation and Local Coastal Progra designation (applicable to the parcels located in the Coastal Zone). The Final MEIR analyzed all tb impacts associated with the land use designations shown on the 1994 General Plan Land Use Ma which is still applicable to the land use designations shown on the current General Plan Land Us Map. The proposed .Zone Changes and Local Coastal Program Amendments associated with th project are designed to achieve land use consistency with the land use designations already shown a the General Plan Land Use Map and analyzed in the Final MEIR for 1994 General Plan update. The project also includes one parcel level General Plan Amendment which would not be covered b the analysis in the Final MEIR because it is changing the description of the General Plan Land Us Map that was analyzed in the 1994 General Plan update. In this case, the parcel’s General Plan lan use designation would be changed from a residential designation to an open space designation to b consistent with the parcel’s existing open space zoning. Since the Open Space (OS) General Pla designation is more restrictive in terms of land use and development potential than the residenti: (EM) General Plan designation, it can be concluded that less future environmental impact woul potentially occur. Because the proposed General Plan Amendment would change the physic: composition of the map/plan and there is not an increase in the potential for environmental impact, separate addendum to the Final MEIR will be processed as part of the General Plan Amendmen portion of this project. The addendum will also serve to update the project description of the Fina MEIR (see attached addendum). In all cases the proposed project would result in a change to a property’s zoning designation, Loca Coastal Program land use designation, or General Plan land use designation to a more restrictive lan~ use designation (i.e. residential to open space or commercial to residential), thus resulting in les intensity of development and less potential for significant environmental impacts. This project is nc associated with any specific development project and will not directly or indirectly result in an significant environmental impacts. Any future development project on any of these parcels shall bt required to undergo project specific environmental review if that development project is proposing tc create significant environmental impacts. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 SOURCE DOCUMENTS (On file in Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsba CA 92009, (760) 438-1161: 1. Carlsbad General Plan, updated in 1994; and, 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the updated 1994 Carlsbad General Plan. - ; f ,.~ 12 Rev. 03/28/96 @ * EIR 93-01 ADDENDUM # JUNE 12,199 ADDENDUM TO MEIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation on APN: 223-15C 50-00 from Residential Low Medium (RLM) to Open Space (OS) to be consistent with th parcel’s existing open space (OS) zoning. CHANGE IN IMPACTS Since the Open Space (OS) General Plan land use designation is more restrictive in terms of lan use and development potential than the Residential Low Medium (RLM) General Pla designation, it can be concluded that less fbture environmental impact would potentially OCCUI The use of the site for open space purposes rather than residential dwelling units will eliminat public facility and resource demands and eliminate vehicle trips, thus, reducing traffic impacts o surrounding roads and intersections and an incremental decrease in the cumulative contributio to air quality.