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 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 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 ConditionsNeighborhoods 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 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
Lohf Lohf Subdivision GPASubdivision GPARecommended ActionsRecommended ActionsAdopt 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