Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-21; City Council; 17799; LOHF SUBDIVISION - GPA 04-04|LCPA 04-04CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 8 CI W U P 6 2 .. 2 0 i= G Y J 2 3 0 0 LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA G PA 04-04lLCPA 04-04 DEPT. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-303 , APPROVING the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment GPA 04-04, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 04-04, for the Lohf Subdivision GPA land use change. ITEM EXPLANATION: On August 18, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval (6-0) of a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to adjust the boundary of the land use designations within the Lohf and Steiner subdivisions. The City-initiated proposal is part of the General PlanIZoning Consistency program; one aspect of which is attempting to provide consistency between the General Plan land use and Zoning designations. Since the project 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 4.47 acres. The new boundary would be coincident with the subdivision boundaries and the existing R-1 -Q zoning designation boundary. It would also eliminate the existing situation where some individual lots have two land use designations. 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 Lohf Subdivision GPA. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed Lohf Subdivision 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 29, 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. 'I1 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,799 EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2004-303 2. Location Map 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5679,5680, and 5681 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 18, 2004 Draft Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 18, 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. 2004-303 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 LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA LAND USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA CASE NO.: GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on August 18, 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 21st 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 04-041LCPA 04-04; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: I. That all recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2004-303 and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5679, 5680, and 5681, 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 El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5679 and 5681. .... 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 El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5680, 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 21st day of SeDtember , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finilla, Kulchin, Hall and Packard. NOES: None ABSENT: NoneA (SEAL) -2- 4 EXHIBIT 2 LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA GPA 04-04lLCPA 04-04 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. 5679 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.47 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) TO RESIDENTIAL GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2 1. CASE NAME: LOW SUBDIVISION GPA LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) ON PROPERTY CASE NO.: GPA 04-04LCPA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application with the _. City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 1 through 9 of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-13, Steiner Property, according to Map No. 14039, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on September 19,2000; and Lots 1 through 13 and 49 through 51 of Carlsbad Tract CT 97-15, Lohf Subdivision, according to Map No. 13839, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on August 23, 1999, all 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 18th day of August 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. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, Exhibit ‘“D” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated June 29, 2004, and “PII” dated June 22, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. .... , ’. -2- 7 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 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5679 -3- 8 - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision GPA PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 West of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres from Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Medium Density. 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 (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [x1 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 0 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 NEGATWE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATWE 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: ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 9 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Lohf Subdivision West of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres from Residential Medium Density to Residential Low Medium Density. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of -. A copy of the initial study (EL4 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 20 days of the date of this notice. Comments from the public are invited. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaYadoption 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 29,2004 to July 19,2004 PUBLISH DATE June 29,2004 lo 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 04-04LCPA 04-04 DATE: June 22,2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision GPA LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim 760-602-4623 PROJECT LOCATION: West of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieg.0 PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Av. Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density (RM) ZONING: One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-1-0) 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: Recluest for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) over existing subdivided and develoDed single family residential properties within the Lohf and Steiner subdivisions. 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. _. u Aesthetics Geology/Soils Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardshTazardous Materials 0 and Housing 0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyhVater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources _I 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 I2 Rev. 07l03lQ2 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) w 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 this 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 lmpact 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 that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothmg further is required. c Planning Director’s Mature Date 3 13 Rev. 07103l02 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 sigmficant 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 ‘&No 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 information 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 “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &l 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 Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07f03102 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. 5 Rev. 07103102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. 11. 111. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light and glare, whxh would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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-1 997 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 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 Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 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? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 El OBI 0 0 0 0 OM 0 0 OM 0 0 OBI 0 0 OM 6 Rev. 07103102 I6 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 U.S. 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? 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? 7 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rev. 07l03102 No Impact I7 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated LV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance 0 0 0151 of a hstorical resource as defrned in $15064.5? Cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance 0 0 ow of an archeological resource pursuant to $ 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0151 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0151 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other Substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shalung? 0 0 ... 111. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? n 0 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 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w Bl w w [XI w 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 1s 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 working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for peopIe residing or working in the project area? 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: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Sign ificani Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation tncorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 17 No Impact w IXI w w IXI [XI w w KI 9 Rev. 07103i02 I9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for wlvch permits have been granted)? 0 0 [XI El c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, whch 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? e) 0 0 I8 0 0 r) 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! 0 0 0 g) h) 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? 0 0 0 0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? w 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? 0 0 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. do 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IX. x. X. Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incoroorated 0 0 ow 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)? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or 0 0 ow wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 ow Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater 0 0 ow receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: 0 OB Physically divide an established community? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 0 ow regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (includmg 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? 0 0 ow Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fkture value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 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? NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 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) ow 0 0 ow 0 ow 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated cl 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 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, with 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? 0 0 0 0 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 IXI X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: [XI 0 0 0 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)? b) Displace' substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 lxl [XI 0 0 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: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El [XI [XI w [XI i) Fire protection? 0 0 0 ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 0 Cause an increase in traffic, whch 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) 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)? 0 0 d) 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 Q g) Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) 0 0 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless impact 0 OH 0 0 0 0 0 ow 0 OH OH 0 0 OH ow 13 Rev. 07/03/02 a3 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES 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 hstory or prehstory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI 151 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) b) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the 14 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 15 Rev. 07103102 23- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project involves 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 4.47 acres withn the Lohf and Steiner residential subdivisions, generally located east of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane. The existing General Plan land use designation boundary does not follow the existing property lines within the single-family subdivision, resulting in some lots containing two land use designations. It also results in the existing One Family Residential (R- 1-Q) zoning implementing two different General Plan designations within the same subdivision. The proposed General Plan land use boundary would follow the project boundary for the single-family subdivision, with the R-1-Q zoning implementing only the RLM land use designation. The property covered by the proposed land use designation change is already subdivided and constructed 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 land use boundary over the developed 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 future 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 an existing residential subdivision. No agricultural resources exist on the property and the proposed land use 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 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 existing 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 designation boundary adjustment. The site is already 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 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. 16 Rev. 07103102 ad HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact. No construction or alteration to the currently approved development is proposed with the land use designation boundary adjustment and no additional hazards or hazardous materials will result due to the proposal. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: No Impact. designation boundary adjustment. Therefore no impacts to hydrology or water quality will result. No construction or alteration to the existing residential subdivision is proposed with the land use 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 Iand use 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 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 designation boundary adjustment. Given the above, no adverse impacts to public services would occur. RECREATION: No Impact. recreational demand will occur. Therefore, no adverse impacts to recreation will result from the proposal. No construction is proposed with the land use designation boundary adjustment and no increase in TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIG : No Impact. No additional development is proposed with the land use 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. UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: No Impact. The proposal involves no construction and therefore no increase in utility and service system demand would occur with the land use designation boundary adjustment. Therefore, no adverse impacts to said services would occur. 17 Rev. 07103102 a3 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. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 5680 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 CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.47 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) TO RESIDENTIAL GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) ON PROPERTY CASE NO: GPA 04-04 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 1 through 9 of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-13, Steiner Property, according to Map No. 14039, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on September 19,2000; and Lots 1 through 13 and 49 through 51 of Carlsbad Tract CT 97-15, Lohf Subdivision, according to Map No.13839, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on August 23, 1999, all 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 04-04” dated August 4, 2004, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA - GPA 04-04 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 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 2q 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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA - GPA 04-04, based on the following fmdings: 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 single family development with. densities from 2.2 to 3.0 dwelling units per acre; no property within the area proposed for change could be further subdivided; the proposed General Plan designation is implemented by the existing R-1-Q zoning on the property; both existing subdivisions have provided for their fair share of houslng affordable to lower income households; and the adjustment of the boundary between RLM and RM will result in no property 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 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: i" r"K H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5680 -2- GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE Project Name: Lots 1 - 9 of Steiner Property, CT 99-13, according to Map No. 14039, filed on September 19,2000; and Lots 1 - 13 and 49-51 of Lohf Subdivision, CT 97-1 5, according to Map No.13839, filed on August 23, 1999, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Property From: To: Council Approval Date: ~ A. see attached RM RLM Resolution No: B. Effective Date: c. Signature: I Related Case File No@): Property/Legal Description(s): LCPA 04-04 G.P. Map Designation Change Approvals i D. Attach additional pages if necessary GPA: 04-04 draft final 0 EXISTING PROPOSED August 4, 2004 List of Affected Parcels - Lohf Subdivision GPA 2 15-920-0 1 2 15-920-02 215-920-03 2 15-920-04 2 15-920-05 2 15-920-4 1 21 5-921 -0 1 2 15-92 1-02 2 15-92 1-03 2 15-92 1-04 2 15-92 1-05 2 15-92 1-06 2 15-92 1-07 2 15-92 1-08 2 15-92 1-09 2 15-92 1- 10 215-921-35 2 1 5-92 1 -3 6 2 15-92 1-37 2 15-92 1-38 2 15-921 -39 2 15-921 -40 21 5-92 1-4 1 21 5-921 -42 2 15-92 1-43 2 15-92 1-45 2 15-92 1-46 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. 5681 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.47 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY (RM) TO RESIDENTIAL GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH AND SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 2 1. CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) ON PROPERTY CASE NO: LCPA 04-04 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, the City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program designations regarding property described as Lots 1 through 9 of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-13, Steiner Property, according to Map No. 14039, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on September 19,2000; and Lots 1 through 13 and 49 through 51 of Carlsbad Tract CT 97-15, Lohf Subdivision, according to Map No. 13839, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on August 23, 1999, all 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 04-04” dated August 4, 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 18th day of August 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 35 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) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on March 25, 2004 and ending on May 7, 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 based on the following findings and subject to the condition: RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA - LCPA 04-04 Fin dings: 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 developed 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. Condition: 1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration and GPA 04- 04, as specified in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5679 and 5680 for those other approvals. .... .... PC RES0 NO. 5681 -2- 34 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 to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: /FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOVLZM~ER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5681 -3- 35 c LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LCPA Map Designation Change Property From: To: A. see attached RM RLM B. C. n LCPA: 04-04 Approvals Council Approval Date: Resolution No: Effective Date: Signature: draft final 0 august 4, 2004 EXISTING PROPOSED Attach Additional pages if ndcessary I List of Affected Parcels - LOHF SUBDIVISION LCPA 2 1 5-920-0 1 2 1 5-920-02 2 1 5-920-03 2 1 5-920-04 2 1 5-920-05 21 5-920-41 21 5-921 -01 21 5-921 -02 21 5-921 -03 21 5-921 -04 2 1 5-921 -05 2 1 5-92 1 -06 21 5-921 -07 21 5-921 -08 21 5-921 -09 21 5-921 -1 0 2 1 5-92 1 -35 2 1 5-92 1 -36 2 1 5-92 1 -37 21 5-921 -38 2 1 5-92 1 -39 21 5-921 -40 21 5-921 -41 2 1 5-92 1 -42 2 1 5-92 1 -43 2 1 5-92 1 -45 21 5-921 -46 37 EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: August 18,2004 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Michael Grim Project Engineer: N/A SUBJECT: GPA 04-04LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA - Request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM), on property generally located west of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5679, ~- RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5680 and 5681, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 04-04 and LCPA 04-04, based upon the findings contained therein. 11. EXPLANATION This item was scheduled to be heard at the August 4, 2004 meeting, which was canceled due to lack of a quorum. The dates on the staff report and plans have not been changed. The dates on the resolutions have been changed to reflect the meeting and adoption date of August 18,2004. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5679,5680 and 5681 Staff Report dated August 4, 2004, with attachments 38 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: NIA I P.C. AGENDA OF: August 4,2004 I Project Planner: Michael Grim I Project Engineer: N/A SUBJECT: GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA - Request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres fi-om Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM), on property generally located west of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 2 1. I. RECOMMENDATION -. That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5679, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5680 and 568 1, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 04-04 and LCPA 04-04, based upon the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The project involves a City-initiated action that would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations for properties within the Lohf and Steiner subdivisions to correct an existing General PldZoning inconsistency. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designation boundaries are not coincident and do not completely follow the property lines created by the subdivision, resulting in some lots having two General Plan designations and forcing the existing R-1-Q zoning to implement two General Plan designations within the same residential subdivision. The proposal would relocate the General Plan land use designation boundary to the subdivision boundary, resulting in a change from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) over approximately 4.47 acres. All of the property covered by the proposed land use designation change is already developed and has no potential of further subdivision, therefore no impacts to the yield of the properties will occur. 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 boundary within the Lohf and Steiner subdivisions. The proposal would adjust the boundary between the RLM and RM land use designation boundary over approximately 4.47 acres, relocating the land use boundary to be coincident with the subdivision boundaries and the existing R- 1 -Q zoning designation boundary. GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA August 4,2004 Pane 2 The land use designation of the Local Coastal Program would be adjusted through the accompanying Local Coastal Program Amendment. The subject properties are located west of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane and are all developed with single-family homes. The properties were subdivided through the Lohf Subdivision (CT 97-15) and the Steiner Subdivision (CT 99-13). Both subdivisions have been constructed and occupied. 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 adjustment 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 boundary crosses through the Lohf and Steiner subdivisions, resulting in several parcels having two General Plan designations and the existing One Family Residential with Qualified Development Overlay (R-1 -Q) zoning designation implementing two different General Plan designations within the same subdivisions. The proposed boundary would follow the subdivision boundaries to the east and north, as well as the existing R-1-Q zoning designation boundary. -. The Lohf Subdivision GPA is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. Local Coastal Program; C. D. E. Zoning Ordinance and Existing Subdivisions; Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); and Zone 21 Local Facilities Management Plan. 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 Lohf Subdivision 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 04-04/LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA August 4,2004 Page 3 Land Use Open Space and Conservation TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Use Classification, Goal, Objective or Program The RLM and RM designations would be divided by the existing subdivision boundaries. 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 The Lohf Subdivision was constructed at a density of 2.2 dulac and the Steiner Subdivision at 3.0 dulac, both consistent with the RLM land use designation. The proposed land use boundary adjustment does not affect the ability of the project to provide its proportionate share of affordable housing in that the developers already purchased affordable housing credits in the Villa Lorna apartment project. The proposed land use boundary adjustment does not alter the approved development, thereby continuing to preserve the approved natural open space within the subdivision boundaries. 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 I1 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 land use designation change from RM to RLM is consistent with the policies contained in the Land Use Plan for the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. Since all of the affected properties are already developed 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 change from RM to RLM over the developed properties does not preclude the continued conformance with the Mello II segment policies. The land use change represents the relocation of an existing boundary between the RM and RLM designations; therefore no new land use is being added to the plan. Given the above, the proposed Lohf Subdivision GPA is consistent with the Mello 11 Land Use Plan of the LCP. 4' GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA August 4,2004 Page 4 C. Zoning Ordinance/Existing Subdivisions The proposed Lohf Subdivision GPA must be consistent wiill the existing Zoning and the existing, developed subdivisions. The subject area of the proposed land use change is zoned One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay (R-I-Q), as is the remainder of the Lohf Subdivision. The R-1 zone is the preferred zoning designation to implement the RLM General Plan land use designation. As stated above, the area proposed for the land use change covers a portion of the existing Lohf Subdivision and the entire existing Steiner Subdivision. The Lohf Subdivision was constructed at a net density of 2.2 dwelling units per developable acre and the Steiner Subdivision was constructed at a net density of 3.0 dwellings per acre. Both of these existing densities are within the range of the RLM designation (0.0 - 4.0 dwellings per acre) and below the Growth Control Point (3.2 dwelling units per acre); therefore the proposed land use designation is appropriate for the existing 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 Lohf Subdivision 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 fully developed, all public facilities necessary to serve the Lohf Subdivision and Steiner Subdivision developments are already in place. Therefore, the proposed land use change 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 RM designation 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 land use change is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The potential environmental impacts due to the proposed land use and zoning boundary 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 existing residential subdivisions 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 and zoning 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 and zoning designation boundary adjustment would not produce any significant adverse impacts to the environment. The Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration on June 29, 2004 for a 20-day public review and no comments were received. GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA August 4,2004 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Location Map 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5679 (Neg. Dec.) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5680 (GPA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5681 (LCPA) Background Data Sheet (with attached list of affected parcels) 43 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: GPA 04-04/LCPA 04-04 CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision GPA APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to chanpe the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) on property generally located west of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 9 of Carlsbad Tract CT 99-13, Steiner Property, according to Map No. 14039, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on September 19, 2000; and Lots 1 through 13 and 49 through 51 of Carlsbad Tract CT 97-15, Lohf Subdivision, according to Map No. 13839, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on August 23, 1999, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California APN: see attached Acres: 4.47 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: N/A -. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RM (proposed to change to RLM) Density Allowed: 4.0 - 8.0 du/ac Existing Zone: R-1-0 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: 0.0 - 4.0 du/ac Proposed Zone: R- 1-0 Zoning Site R- 1 -Q General Plan RM Current Land Use Single family residential ~ ~~ North RD-M-Q RM Open space South R-1-Q RLM East L-c West R-1-Q RLM RLM Single family residential Vacant/Open space Single family residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated List of Affected Parcels Lohf Subdivision General Plan Amendment Assessor’s Parcel Number Address 2 1 5-920-0 1 2 1 5-920-02 2 1 5-920-03 2 1 5-920-04 21 5-920-05 2 1 5-920-4 1 21 5-921 -01 2 1 5-92 1 -02 2 1 5-92 1 -03 2 1 5-92 1 -04 2 1 5-92 I -05 2 1 5-92 1 -06 2 1 5-92 1 -07 2 1 5-92 1 -08 2 1 5-92 1 -09 21 5-921-1 0 2 1 5-92 1 -35 2 1 5-92 I -36 2 1 5-92 I -37 2 1 5-92 1 -38 2 1 5-92 1 -39 2 1 5-92 1 -40 21 5-921 -41 21 5-921 -42 (partially) 2 I 5-92 1-43 (partially) 2 1 5-92 1 -45 1772 Dove Lane 6838 Moorhen Place 6834 Moorhen Place 6835 Moorhen Place 6839 Moorhen Place 1767 Oriole Court 6830 Moorhen Place 6826 Moorhen Place 6822 Moorhen Place 6818 Moorhen Place 6814 Moorhen Place 6823 Moorhen Place 6827 Moorhen Place 6831 Moorhen Place 1770 Oriole Court 1760 Oriole Court 1756 Skimmer Court 1760 Skimmer Court 1764 Skimmer Court 1777 Skimmer Court 1773 Skimmer Court 1769 Skimmer Court 1765 Skimmer Court 1761 Skimmer Court 1757 Skimmer Court 1752 Skimmer Court 45- Planning Commission Minutes August 18,2004 DRAFT Ex,HaiLT35 1. CUP 94-04x2 - CARLSBAD SD-475 - Request for an extension of CUP 94-04x1 to allow the continued operation of a cellular communication facility at the southeast corner of Pi0 Pic0 Drive and Chestnut Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. 3. GPA 04-041LCPA 04-04 - LOHF SUBDIVISION GPA - Request for a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 4.47 acres from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM), on property generally located west of El Camino Real, north and south of Poinsettia Lane, in Local Facilities Management Zone 21. 7. CDP 04-02 - FLETCHER RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new single-family residence within the City’s Coastal Zone located at 5030 Tierra del Oro Street within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. 8. CDP 04-25 - LYNN RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow for the construction of a single family residence within the City’s Coastal Zone located on the west side of Black Rail Road between Triton Way and Corte Orchidia within Local Facilities Management Zone 20. IO. PUD 02-10(A) - VLC GREENS NEIGHBORHOOD 1.10 - Request for a determination that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Villages of La Costa Program EIR and that the Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA; and a recommendation of approval for a Planned Unit Development Amendment for building floor plans, elevations and plotting for the development of 64 single-family detached homes within the Villages of La Costa Greens Neighborhood 1 .IO generally located north of Alga Road and west of future Alicante Road in Local Facilities Management Zone IO. Mr. Neu stated that agenda Items 1, 3, 7, 8, and 10 are normally heard in a public hearing context, however, these projects are 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 Items 1, 3, 7, 8 or 10 or if any of the Commissioners wished to speak on those Items. MOTION ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, NOES: None Commission approve Items 1, 3, 7,8 and IO. VOTE: 6-0 Montgomery and Segall LohfLohfSubdivision Subdivision General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentGPA 04GPA 04--04/LCPA 0404/LCPA 04--0404 Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPAProject DescriptionProject Description„„Part 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 neighborhood.neighborhood.„„New boundary would follow the existing New boundary would follow the existing zoning designation boundary and the project zoning designation boundary and the project boundaries.boundaries. Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPAExisting GP/LCP BoundaryExisting GP/LCP Boundary Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPAProposed GP/LCP BoundaryProposed GP/LCP Boundary Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPASite ConditionsSite Conditions„„Neighborhoods affected are the Neighborhoods affected are the LohfLohfand and Steiner Subdivisions.Steiner Subdivisions.„„Developments approved 1999 and 2000, Developments approved 1999 and 2000, constructed and occupied.constructed and occupied.„„Total of 26 single family properties directly Total of 26 single family properties directly affected by land use designation change.affected by land use designation change. Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPAProject ConsistencyProject Consistency„„Proposed 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 Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPARecommended ActionsRecommended Actions„„Adopt Resolution No. 2004Adopt Resolution No. 2004--303 approving 303 approving the Negative Declaration, General Plan the Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment.Amendment. Lohf Lohf Subdivision Subdivision General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan AmendmentGPA 04GPA 04--04/LCPA 0404/LCPA 04--0404