HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-14; City Council; 17786; Thompson/Tabata GPA 04-11/LCPA 04-10t3 w > 0 oc a a a
.. z 0 F= 0 a
J 23 z 3 0 0
AB# 17,786
8 CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
TITLE: 1 DEPT. HD. w!
THOMPSONJTABATA GPA
GPA 04-1 IILCPA 04-1 0 I CITY MGRS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-294 , APPROVING the Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment GPA 04-1 1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA
04-1 0, for the ThompsonJTabata GPA land use change.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 21, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval of a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to adjust the boundary of the land use designations within the ThompsonJTabata
subdivision. The City-initiated proposal is part of the General Plan/Zoning Consistency program;
one aspect of which is attempting to provide consistency between the General Plan land use and
Zoning designations. Since the ThompsonJTabata site is located in the City's Coastal Zone, a
Local Coastal Program Amendment is also needed to ensure consistency between the City's
General Plan and the Local Coastal Program.
The proposed land use revision would relocate the boundary between the Residential Low Medium
Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density (RM) designations, changing the designation of
approximately 7.9 acres. The new boundary would follow the internal street system and would
eliminate the potential for one lot to have two land use designations. The alignment of the new
General Plan land use boundary would be coincident with the existing zoning designation boundary
between One Family Residential (R-I -Q) and Residential Density Multiple (RD-M-Q). The property
covered by the proposed land use designation change is already subdivided and has no potential
of further subdivision, therefore no impacts to the yield of the property would occur. The proposal
is consistent with all applicable regulations and staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending approval of the ThompsonJTabata GPA.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed ThompsonJTabata GPA project was reviewed for any potential adverse impact to the
environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No construction or
revisions to the approved development are proposed. The boundary adjustments bring the
General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal Program into conformance with each other. Therefore,
the proposal would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Planning
Director issued a Negative Declaration on June 18, 2004 for public review and no comments were
received.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible in that the proposed action merely revises the land use designations and regulations on the property.
'11
//I
//I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,786
EXHIBITS:
1. Council Resolution No. 2004-294
2. Location Map
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5675, 5676, and 5677
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 21, 2004
Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 21, 2004.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Michael Grim, (760) 602-4623, mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
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. 2004-294
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE
THOMPSON/TABATA GPA LAND USE DESIGNATION
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED WEST OF AVIARA PARKWAY, SOUTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
CASE NO.: GPA 04-1 1 /LCPA 04-1 0
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on July 21, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 14th day of
September , 2004, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration,
General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment and at that time received
recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the
Negative Declaration and/or GPA 04-1 I/LCPA 04-1 0; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That all recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2004-294
and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5675, 5676, and 5677, on file with the City Clerk and made a part
hereof by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3. That the application for a Negative Declaration and Local Coastal
Program Amendment on property generally located west of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia
Lane, is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5675 and 5677.
....
....
....
.... 3
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
4. That the application for a General Plan Amendment from Residential
Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) on property generally located
west of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, as shown in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5676, is hereby accepted, approved in concept, and shall be formally approved
with GPA Batch No. 2 comprised of GPA 02-05, GPA 03-05, GPA 03-08, GPA 03-13, GPA 04-
01, GPA 04-04, GPA 04-07, GPA 04-08, GPA 04-1 1, and GPA 04-1 3.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 14th day of September , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finilla, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
‘SE.
-2-
SITE
TH 0 M PSO N/TABATA G PA
EXHIBIT 2
GPA 04-1 I /LCPA 04-1 0
5
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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5675
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAFZSBAD, CALIFORMA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND
THE MELLO I1 SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) AND
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS OVER APPROXIMATELY 7.9 ACRES ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF AVIARA
PARKWAY, SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
CASE NO.: GPA 04- 1 1/LCPA 04- 10
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a
portion of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12
South, Range 4 West in the San Bernardino Quadrant, 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 21st 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 staff, 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:
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
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated June 18,2004, and “PII” dated
June 11, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
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 APPROVAL 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 II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5675 -2- 3
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 21st day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. ZMI~ER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5675 -3- 8
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Thommon/Tabata GPNZC
PROJECT LOCATION: West of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, City of
CASE NO: GPA 04-1 1/ZC 04-07/LCPA 04-10
Carlsbad, County of San Diego
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local
Coastal Program Amendment to adjust the boundary between the Residential Low Medium
Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density (RM) General Plan designations over
approximately 7.9 acres and to adjust the boundary between the One Family Residential with a
Qualified Development Overlay and Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development
Overlay zoning designations over approximately 1.5 acres within the ThompsodTabata
residential subdivision.
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 (EIA 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 (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Please submit comments in writing to the
Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
Comments from the public are invited.
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 Michael
Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD JUNE 18,2004 TO JULY 18,2004
PUBLISH DATE JUNE 18,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cjiFxyF&i%@.us @
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: ThomusodTabata GPA
PROJECT LOCATION:
County of San Diego
CASE NO: GPA 04- 1 l/LCPA 04- 10
West of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to adjust the boundary between the Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) and
Residential Medium Density (RM) General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres within the
Thompsoflabata residential subdivision.
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:
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 City Council Resolution No.
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 04-1 1//ZC 04-07lLCPA 04-10
DATE: June 1 1,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Thompson/Tabata GPA/ZC
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim 760-602-4623
PROJECT LOCATION: West of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Av,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Residential
Medium Density (RM)
ZONING: One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-0) and
Residential Multiple Density with a Oualified Development Overlay (RD-M-0).
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change. and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to adiust the boundarv between the Residential Low-Medium Densitv (RLM) and Residential
Medium Density (RM) General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres and adiust the boundary
between the One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-0) and Residential
Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlav (RD-M-Q) zoning designations over
approximately 1.5 acres, within the ThompsodTabata residential subdivision.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise
0 Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials Popu1ation and Housing
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 Transportation/Circulation
0 Utilities & Service Systems L] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07lO3102 la
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in ths case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “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. 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 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 thatare imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothng further is required.
/z-z/D4-
Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
/3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Wo Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced mformation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it.is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but 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 mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement
to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” 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 Ovemding 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 /4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR
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 Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
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 determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 OBI
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but 0 0 ow not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and hstoric
buildings within a State scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 ow
Create a new source of substantial light and glare, 0 0 ow quality of the site and its surroundings?
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
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:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 0 0 0 Williamson Act contract?
w
w
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
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?
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 US. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 Rev. 01/03/02 lk
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Interfere 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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 0 17 ow
0 0 ow
0 ow
0 0 ow
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 ow
0 om
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to Q 15064.5?
0 I7 ow Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
0 0 ow Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) 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.
ow
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
0 0 ow ow
iv. Landslides?
7
o 0 nw
17 Rev. 07103102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
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?
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 worlung in the project area?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
w
lxl
[xi
[XI
IXI
w
[XI
w
IXI
[xi
8 JB Rev. 07103l02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
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)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
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'?
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?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
El
El
Ixi
w
w
El
Ixi
El
Ixi
IXI
9 19 Rev. 07103!02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
ow
ow 0 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?
0 0 k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ow ow
ow
0 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
0 0 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
0
0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list?
ow
0 0 ow p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
0 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?
ow c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL. RESOURCES - Would the project:
ow a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of fiiture value to the region
and the residents of the State?
0 0 nw b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
10 Rev. 01103102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
X. NOISE - Would the project result in:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 ow
0 ow
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?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
b)
0 0 ow c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
ow d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where 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 withm the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
ow
0 ow f)
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 0 ow 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)?
0 0 ow b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 ow 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:
11 Rev. 07103102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
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?
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. TRANSPORTATION/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
hghways?
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., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
[XI w w w w
€3
w
[XI
€3
w
IXI
Ixl w
€3
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
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 whch would
cause significant environmental effects?
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?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0
0 0
0 17
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ow
ow
ow
ow
ow
ow
0 0 ow Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehstory?
0 0 OB 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 projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
13 Rev. 07/03/02 a3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incoroorated 0 ow c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
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.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project involves a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adjust
the boundary between the Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density (RM) General
Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres and adjust the boundary between the One Family Residential with a
Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-Q) and Residential Density-Multiple with a Qualified Development Overlay
(RD-M-Q) zoning designations over approximately 1.5 acres within the ThompsodTabata residential subdivision,
generally located west of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane.
The subject property was recently subdivided through the ThompsodTabata residential subdivision map (CT 98-14)
and is currently under construction. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designation boundaries are not
coincident and do not follow the newly created property lines within the subdivision, resulting in some lots
containing two land use and/or zoning designations. The proposed General Plan land use and zoning designation
boundaries would follow the approved street pattern for the subdivision and would be coincident, with the RLM area
being implemented by the R-1-Q zoning and the RM areas being implemented by the RD-M-Q zoning.
The property covered by the proposed land use designation change is already subdivided and has no potential of
further subdivision, therefore no impacts to the yield of the properties will occur. Since all of the affected properties
are already subdivided and no additional development is proposed with this project, no impacts to any physical
features, such as scenic resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or geologic features, will occur. The adjustment
of the zoning and land use boundaries over the developing properties does not preclude the continued conformance
with the Mello I1 segment policies. The proposal is consistent with all applicable policies and regulations and staff
has no issues with the proposed land use designation change.
AESTHETICS:
No Impact. The proposed legislative actions do not impact the existing or fiiture development of the residential
subdivision. No development is proposed with the actions and no adjustments to the existing development are
proposed. Therefore no impacts to aesthetics will result.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:
No Impact. The project site is currently under development for a residential subdivision. No agricultural resources
exist on the property and the proposed land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment will not increase or
reduce the amount of agricultural land. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources will occur.
AIR QUALITY:
No Impact. No additional development is proposed with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment.
Therefore no increases in emissions, sources of dust, or objectionable odors will occur.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE:
No Impact. All natural open space areas preserved with the ThompsodTabata residential subdivision will remain
and no development or alteration of any areas with biological resources is proposed. Therefore, the proposed land
use and zoning designation boundary adjustment will not have an adverse impact on biological resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
No Impact. No additional grading is proposed with this land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment.
The site is already being developed in accordance with the approved subdivision map and, therefore, no impacts to
cultural resources would result.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
No impact. No grading is proposed with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment and no
adjustment to the existing, approved grading plan would result from the proposed boundary adjustment. Therefore,
no adverse impacts due to geology or soils will result.
15 Rev. 07103lQ2
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact. No construction or alteration to the currently approved development is proposed with the land use and
zoning designation boundary adjustment and no additional hazards or hazardous materials will result due to the
proposal.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
No Impact. No construction or alteration to the currently approved development is proposed with the land use and
zoning designation boundary adjustment. Therefore no impacts to hydrology or water quality will result.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
No Impact. The proposed land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment will bring the zoning, General
Plan, and Local Coastal Program designations into conformance and will eliminate the potential for individual lots to
have more than one designation. Since the subject property is already subdivided and has no potential for further
subdivision, no impact to the residential yield of the property will result. Therefore, no adverse impacts to land use
and planning will occur due to the proposal.
MINERAL RESOURCES:
No Impact. No grading is proposed with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment and no
adjustment to the existing, approved grading plan would result from the proposed boundary adjustment. Therefore,
no adverse impacts to mineral resources will result.
NOISE:
No Impact. No construction or adjustment to approved construction documents is proposed with the land use and
zoning designation boundary adjustment. No new sources of noise will occur with the land use adjustments.
Therefore, no adverse impacts due to noise will result from the proposed actions.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
No Impact. The subject property is already subdivided and has no potential for further subdivision, therefore no
impact to the residential yield of the property will result from the land use and zoning designation boundary
adjustment. There is no alteration of the project’s provision of housing affordable to lower income households.
Given the above, the proposal would not cause any adverse impacts to population and housing.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
No Impact. The proposal involves no construction and therefore no increase in public service demand would occur
with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment. Given the above, no adverse impacts to public
services would occur.
RECREATION:
No Impact,
increase in recreational demand will occur.
proposal.
No construction is proposed with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment and no
Therefore, no adverse impacts to recreation will result from the
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC :
No Impact. No additional development is proposed with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment
therefore no increases traffic generation will occur. No further subdivision of the subject property is allowed by
virtue of the land use boundary adjustment. Given the above, no adverse impacts to transportation or traffic will
occur.
16 Rev. Q7lQ3lO2
UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
No Impact. The proposal involves no constnction and therefore no increase in utility and service system demand
would occur with the land use and zoning designation boundary adjustment. Therefore, no adverse impacts to said
services would occur.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
17 17 Rev. 07/03/02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5676
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADJUST THE
DENSITY (RLM) AND THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY (RM) LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OVER
APPROXIMATELY 7.9 ACRES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED WEST OF AVIARA PARKWAY, SOUTH OF
POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW-MEDIUM
CASE NO: GPA 04-1 1
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a
portion of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12
South, Range 4 West in the San Bernardino Quadrant, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 04-11” dated July 21, 2004, attached hereto and on file
in the Carlsbad Planning Department THOMPSON/TABATA GPA - GPA 04-11 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 21st day of July 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
11, based on the following findings:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSON/TABATA GPA - GPA 04-
Findings :
1. The proposed change in General Plan land use designation from RM to RLM is
consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the existing
subdivisions, in that the proposed designation reflects the existing approved single
family development with densities from 2.56 to 3.89 dwelling units per acre; no
property within the area proposed for change could be further subdivided beyond
that approved through Carlsbad Tract CT 98-14; the proposed General Plan
designation would be implemented by the R-1-Q and RD-M-Q zoning on the
property; the existing approved subdivision has provided for its fair share of
housing affordable to lower income households; and the adjustment of the
boundary between RLM and RM will result in no individual lots being located
within two General Plan designations.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of July 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5676 -2- a9
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA: 04-11
draft final 0
EXISTING
PROPOSED
portion of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12
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. 5677
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MELLO 11
SEGMENT OF THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) AND
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS OVER APPROXIMATELY 7.9 ACRES ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF AVIARA
PARKWAY, SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 20.
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
CASE NO: LCPA 04-10
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application for an amendment
to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property described as
A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a
portion of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12
South, Range 4 West in the San Bernardino Quadrant, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “LCPA 04-10” dated July 21,2004, attached hereto,
as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2,
Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal
Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of July 2004, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
31
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
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 Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
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.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on June 10,
2004 and ending on July 22, 2004, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
10 based on the following findings:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THOMPSON/TABATA GPA - LCPA 04-
Findinm:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by
this amendment, in that the project area has already been subdivided and graded in
accordance with the Mello I1 segment of the Local Coastal Program and no impact
to environmentally sensitive lands, agricultural lands, scenic resources, or geologic
stability will occur as a result of the proposed change in the land use designation.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring it into consistency with City’s General Plan Land Use
Map and Zoning Map.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of GPA 04-11 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5676 for that other
approval incorporated herein by reference.
...
PC RES0 NO. 5677 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
15
2c
21
2;
2:
2'
2:
2(
2:
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 21st day of July 2004, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HO&ILMR
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5677 -3 -
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LCPA Map Designation Change Approvals
Property From: To: Council Approval Date:
A. 21 4-1 70-80 See map for line Resolution No:
B. 214-170-81 adjustment Effective Date:
C. 214-170-84 Signature:
I D. 214-170-85 E. 214-170-89
Attach additional pages if necessary
LCPA: 04-10
draft final 0
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Project Name: Thompsonflabata GPA
PropertylLegal Description(s):
A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a
portion of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Townshp 12
South, Range 4 West inn the San Bernardino Quadrant, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
I Related Case File No(s): GPA 04-1 1
EXHIBIT 4
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item NO. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 21,2004
Application complete date: NJA
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: NJA
SUBJECT: GPA 04-11/LCPA 04-10 - THOMPSON/TABATA GPA - Request for a
Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to adjust the boundary between the Residential Low-Medium Density
(RLM) and Residential Medium Density (FW) General Plan designations over
approximately 7.9 acres on property generally located west of Aviara Parkway,
south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5675,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5676 and 5677, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 04-1 1
and LCPA 04-10, based upon the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The project involves a City-initiated action that would adjust the boundaries of the General Plan
and Local Coastal Program land use designations for properties within the ThompsodTabata
subdivision to correct an existing General PldZoning inconsistency. The existing General Plan
land use and zoning designation boundaries are not coincident and the General Plan boundaries
do not follow the newly created property lines within the subdivision, resulting in some lots
containing two land use designations. The proposal would revise the boundary between the
RLM and RM General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres for properties recently
subdivided by the ThompsodTabata residential subdivision. The property covered by the
proposed land use designation change is already subdivided and has no potential of further
subdivision, therefore no impacts to the yield of the properties will occur. The proposed General
Plan boundaries would follow the alignment of two streets within the development and would
eliminate the potential for one lot to have two land use designations. The proposal is consistent
with all applicable policies and regulations and staff has no issues with the proposed land use
designation change.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to adjust the General Plan land use designation boundaries within the
ThompsodTabata residential subdivision. The proposal would adjust the boundary between the
RLM and RM General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres. The land use
designations of the Local Coastal Program would be adjusted through an accompanying Local
Coastal Program Amendment.
33-
GPA 04-1 1/LCPA 04-10 - THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
July 21,2004
Page 2
The subject property is located south of Poinsettia Lane, between Aviara Parkway and
Snapdragon Drive. The property was subdivided through the ThompsodTabata residential
subdivision (CT 98-14) and contains standard lot single family, small lot single family, and
affordable multifamily uses. The development was approved in early 2002 and is currently under
construction. No adjustments to the approved development are necessary to implement the
proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments. No further subdivision of land
is possible within the area proposed for boundary adjustments and all exactions, including public
facilities and affordable housing, have occurred and will not be impacted by the proposed
actions.
The adjustment of the boundaries is part of a Citywide effort to bring the General Plan and
Zoning into conformity. Areas within the City where the General Plan and Zoning Maps are not
in conformity have been identified and targeted for actions to bring the designations into
consistency. Currently, the General Plan and zoning boundaries within the ThompsodTabata
subdivision are not in conformity. Instead of the existing non-congruent alignment of the
General Plan land use boundary, the proposed boundary would follow Crystalline Drive
southward from Poinsettia Lane, then follow Rose Drive southward to the subdivision boundary.
This alignment separates the two product types within the subdivision and precludes the potential
for a single lot to contain more than one land use designation.
The ThompsodTabata GPA is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Local Coastal Program;
C.
D.
Zoning Ordinance and Existing Subdivision; and
Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The ThompsodTabata GPA is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the
General Plan. Particularly relevant to the land use designation amendment request are the Land
Use, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the
project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan.
GPA 04-1 l/LCPA 04-10 - THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
July 2 1 , 2004
Page 3
Element
Land Use
Housing
Open Space and
Conservation
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective or Program
The RLM and RM designations
would be divided by Crystalline
Drive and Rose Drive.
Provide sufficient, new
affordable housing to meet the
needs of groups with special
requirements.
Preserve open spaces in as
natural a state as possible.
Proposed Use and
Improvements
Those properties east of the
dividing line are constructed at
RLM densities and those
properties west of the dividing
line are constructed at RM
densities.
The proposed land use boundary
adjustment does not affect the
ability of the project to construct
the approved affordable housing
project.
The proposed land use boundary
adjustment does not alter the
approved development, thereby
continuing to preserve the
approved natural open space to
the east of the development site.
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
As shown by the above table, the project would ensure conformance with the General Plan.
B. Local Coastal Program
The subject properties are located in the Mello 11 segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program
(LCP). The LCP consists of two parts - the Land Use Plan and the implementing ordinances.
For this portion of the Mello I1 segment, the implementing ordinances consist of the applicable
portions of the Zoning Ordinance. This section addresses only compliance with the Land Use
Plan since Zoning Ordinance compliance is discussed in Section C below. The policies of the
Mello I1 Land Use Plan emphasize topics such as preservation of agricultural and scenic
resources, protection of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access, and
prevention of geologic instability and erosion.
The proposed adjustments to the boundaries between the RLM and RM land use designations are
consistent with the policies contained in the Land Use Plan for the Mello II segment of the LCP.
Since all of the affected properties are already subdivided and no additional development is
proposed with this project, no impacts to any physical features, such as scenic resources,
environmentally sensitive areas, or geologic features, will occur. The adjustment of the land use
boundaries over the developing properties does not preclude the continued conformance with the
Mello I1 segment policies. The land use changes represent the relocation of an existing
boundary; therefore no new land use is being added to the plan. Given the above, the proposed
ThompsodTabata GPA is consistent with the Mello 11 Land Use Plan of the LCP.
37
GPA 04- 1 l/LCPA 04- 10 - THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
July 2 1 , 2004
Page 4
C. Zoning Ordinance/Existing Subdivision
The proposed ThompsodTabata GPA must be consistent with the existing Zoning and the
existing, developed subdivision. The proposed actions would make coincident the boundaries of
the R-1-Q and RLM designations, as well as the boundaries of the RD-M-Q and RM
designations. The R- 1 zone implements the RLM designation by allowing single-family
development with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The RD-M zone implements the RM
designation by allowing the development of small lot single-family development and multifamily
condominiums.
As stated above, the area proposed for the land use changes covers the southern portion of the
existing ThompsodTabata residential subdivision. The subdivision has two components: that
portion within the proposed RLM area was approved at a net density of 2.56 dwelling units per
developable acre and that portion within the proposed RM area was approved at a net density of
3.89 dwellings per acre. Both of these existing densities are close to or within their respective
range of the RLM and RM designations. Therefore the adjusted land use designations are
appropriate for the existing, approved land use. There are no lots within the area that could be
further subdivided; therefore the proposed land use change does not affect any future
development in the area. Given the above, the proposed ThompsodTabata land use change is
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the existing subdivisions.
D. Growth Management Ordinance
Any request to change the land use of a property must be consistent with the City’s Growth
Management Plan. Since the area proposed for the land use change is under development, all
public facilities necessary to serve the ThompsodTabata development are already in place or are
being constructed concurrent with development. Therefore, the proposed land use boundary
adjustment would not have any impacts on public facilities or services. In addition, all excess
dwelling units resulting from the development of the property at a lower density than the Growth
Management Control Point for the RLM and RM designations have been extracted. The
proposed land use change would therefore not result in any additional dwelling units being
deposited in the excess dwelling unit bank. Given the above, the proposed zoning and land use
designation adjustment is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The potential environmental impacts due to the proposed land use adjustment was reviewed for
potentially significant adverse impacts to the environment pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No construction or revisions to the approved development
plan are proposed with the boundary revisions, therefore no impacts to physical features would
occur. The boundary adjustments bring the General Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal Program
into conformance with each other and do not impact the existing approved subdivision. No land
within the area of the boundary adjustments could be further subdivided and the proposed land
use changes do not affect the ability of the project to provide its proportionate share of housing
affordable to lower income households. Given the above, the proposed land use designation
boundary adjustment would not produce any significant adverse impacts to the environment. The
38
GPA 04- 1 1 /LCPA 04- 10 - THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
July 2 1,2004
Page 5
Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration on June 18,2004 for a 30-day public review and
no comments were received.
ATTACHMENTS :
1.
2.
3.
4. Location Map
5. Background Data Sheet
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5675 (Neg Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5676 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5677 (LCPA)
39
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 04-1 1LCPA 04-10
CASE NAME: ThompsordTabata GPA
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adiust the boundary'
between the Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density (RM)
General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres on property generally located west of
Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a
portion of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South, Range 4 West inn the San
Bernardino Quadrant, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California
APN: 214-170-80. -81, -84, -85, -89 Acres: 8.0 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: n/a
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM and RM
Density Allowed: 0.0 - 8.0 du/ac
Existing Zone: R-1-0 and RD-M-Q
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Density Proposed: n/a
Proposed Zone:
Zoning General Plan
Site R-1-Q and RD-M-Q RLM and RM
North R-1, RD-M-Q, and L-C RLM and RM
South R-1 RLM
East P-c os
West RD-M RM
Current Land Use
Under construction
Single family homes
Single family homes
Natural open space
Single family homes
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): n/a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued June 18,2004
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
40
Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT 5
July 21, 2004 DRAFT page2
3. GPA 04-1VLCPA 04-10 - THOMPSONnABATA GPA - Request for a Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adjust
the boundary between the Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Residential
Medium Density (RM) General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres on
property generally located west of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local
Facilities Management Zone 20.
Mr. Neu stated that agenda Item 3 is normally heard in a public hearing context, however, this project is
minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval. He
recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a
vote as a consent Item, including the errata sheets, if any. If the Commission or someone from the public
wishes to pull an Item, Staff would be available to respond to questions.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there was anyone who wished to pull Item 3 or if any of the Commission
wished to speak on those Items.
MOTION
ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Item 3.
Montgomery and Segall
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
NOES: None
Chairperson Whitton closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
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, September 14, 2004, to consider a request to adopt a Negative Declaration,
and approve a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adjust the
boundary between the Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density
(RM) General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres on property generally located
west of Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and
more particularly described as:
A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a portion
of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West inn the San Bernardino Quadrant, 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 September IO, 2004. If you
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and/or Local Coastal
Program Amendment 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 04-1 I/LCPA 04-1 0
CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
PUBLISH: September 3, 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
THOMPSON/TABATA GPA
GPA 04-1 I/LCPA 04-10
Smooth Feed SheetsTM use template for 5160@
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST .
6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD TIM JOCHEN 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024 1960 LA COSTA AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST 0 LIVEN H AI N W AT E R D I ST
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 5201 RUFFIN RD
SD COUNTY PLANNING
SANDIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SANDIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
JOANN WANTANABE RECREATION ADMIN
2519 FLEET ST DEPT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PUBLIC W ORKS/E NG I N EERl NG
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
08/03/2004
ERYD ..?$dress Labeis
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
D EVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MID-PACIFIC REGION
U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
Smooth Feed Sheets’”
RANCHO CARLSBAD HOA
RUSS KOHL
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HI LLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TED OWEN
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FlGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
U S FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE
LEE ANN CARRANZA
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
110 WESTAST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOSANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKETST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
RM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AV
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Smooth Feed SheetsT"
CYRIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LANlKAl LANE PARK
SHARP SPACE3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LAKESHORE GARDENS
TOM BENSON
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOSANGELES CA 90069
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOW E AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE B-5
FLOYD ASHBY
P 0 BOX 232580
ENClNlTAS CA 92023-2580
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 “B” STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DO N N A S C H RE I B ER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 1311
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
LENNAR HOMES
CHRISTINE ZORTMAN
STE 320
5780 FLEET ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-4702
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
BAT1 QUlTOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
JOHN BURNS
P 0 BOX I30491
CARLSBAD CA 92009- OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
MARINE RESOURCES REGION
ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS
STE J
4665 LAMPSON AVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720-51 39
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 to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve
a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adjust the boundary
between the Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density (RM)
General Plan designations over approximately 7.9 acres on property generally located west of
Aviara Parkway, south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 20 and more
particularly described as:
A portion of the eastern half of the northeastern half and a portion
of the southwestern quarter of Section 28, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West inn the San Bernardino Quadrant, 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 Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment 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 04-1 I/LCPA 04-10
CASE NAME: THOMPSONnABATA GPA
PUBLISH: {DATE)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
THOMPSONITABATA GPA
GPA 04-1 IlLCPA 04-1 0
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:
September 03'd ,2004
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 03rd Day of September, 2004
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
I- __
1 I CASE FILE:GPA 04-1 1ILCPA 04-10
CASE NAME:THOMPSONTTABATA GPA CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NCT 16783318 September 03,2004
Signature 'd JaneOlson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Thompson/Thompson/TabataTabataGeneral Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentGPA 04GPA 04--11/LCPA 0411/LCPA 04--1010
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata GPAGPAProject DescriptionProject DescriptionPart of CityPart of City--wide program to provide wide program to provide consistency between General Plan, Local consistency between General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning designations.Coastal Program, and Zoning designations.Relocation of General Plan/LCP land use Relocation of General Plan/LCP land use designation boundary through a residential designation boundary through a residential subdivision.subdivision.New boundary would follow the existing New boundary would follow the existing zoning designation boundary and the zoning designation boundary and the internal street system.internal street system.
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata GPAGPAExisting GP/LCP BoundaryExisting GP/LCP BoundaryPOINSETTIA LNA V I ARA
P K W Y
KESTRELDRWILDROSETERRSNAPDRAGON DRALYSSUMRDCAMINO DE LAS ONDASBATIQUITOS DRNIGHTSHADERDSITERMRLM
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata GPAGPAProposed GP/LCP BoundaryProposed GP/LCP BoundaryPOINSETTIA LNAV I ARA
P K W Y
KESTRELDRWILDROSETERRSNAPDRAGON DRALYSSUMRDCAMINO DE LAS ONDASBATIQUITOS DRNIGHTSHADERDSITERLMRM
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata GPAGPASite ConditionsSite ConditionsSubdivision approved by the City Council Subdivision approved by the City Council in early 2002.in early 2002.Site is graded, models are open, and Site is graded, models are open, and remainder of site is under construction.remainder of site is under construction.Entire development still owned by Entire development still owned by developer (Standard Pacific Homes).developer (Standard Pacific Homes).
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata GPAGPAProject ConsistencyProject ConsistencyProposed amendment is consistent with:Proposed amendment is consistent with:––General Plan elementsGeneral Plan elements––Local Coastal Program policiesLocal Coastal Program policies––Zoning designationsZoning designations––Growth Management OrdinanceGrowth Management Ordinance––California Environmental Quality ActCalifornia Environmental Quality Act
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata GPAGPARecommended ActionsRecommended ActionsAdopt Resolution No. 2004Adopt Resolution No. 2004--294 approving 294 approving the Negative Declaration, General Plan the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment.Amendment.
Thompson/Thompson/Tabata Tabata General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentGPA 04GPA 04--11/LCPA 0411/LCPA 04--1010