No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 109B; Lincoln North Pointe; Specific Plan (SP)CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATIOIM 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) Q Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit Q Administrative Variance Q Coastal Development Permit Second itional Use Permit Q Condominium Permit Environmental Impact Assessment Q General Plan Amendment 0^ Hillside Development Permit CU Local Coastal Plan Amendment Q Master Plan Non-Residential Planned ^Development Planned Development Permit (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) Planned Industrial Permit Q Planning Commission Determination Q Precise Development Plan I I Redevelopment Permit I I Site Development Plan Special Use Permit Specific Plan AMeslOMe^JTV I I Tentative Parcel Mop Obtain from Engineering Department Tentative Tract Map • • Variance Zone Change O List other applications not specified ^6 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NOISl.: 3) PROJECT NAME: 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 2.13 - C>ZO- H- 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) ^ Bx.mcOTivE. P/^(uy , <^oii^ /OO .MAILING ADDRESS,'n^J\rck!-lech CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE iKvii^i^ CA 'l^Cp/h (7i4:>2e>i''z/oo CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE ANp, CQRRECT TO THE BEST OF MY '•myy^yiy. w./,. 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 S^i/l THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ly 1/ v ^ 1 \ SIGNATURE DATE SIGITATIJRE DATE C:U o# CatkUA /A -/he. Coor,^y^\- San 0\<^Q , 'S-IJ^. Q-t-7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 16 f 0 S 0 PAGE 1 OF 2 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT ON THE BETWEEN STREET ADDRESS (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) SIDE OF AND (NAME OF STREET) EL. CAMtt-40 RgAV-.. (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 0) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 1 6) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING IMP/ 31.5 FH 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT TT^AFFlC 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING 1 2) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 15) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 2io PI 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY/ITOB THIS PU^SE SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED HDP Put> JTDOO.OO Pip rG 7o ^oo 9P loryo.cxo (fTAt TOTAL FEE REQUIRED SP RFGEfVED MAR 0 h 1998 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 1 6 PAGE 2 OF 2 PRO^CT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANfriON PROJECT NAME: L isJicoL-hd ^<:^(l?T^-^ Poi•4Tg- APPLICANT NAME: THOMA€. LAyi^^^J^F Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, cr appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation. nne f^poe^^c^ pR-ojEcrr UO^/KJ^C^ O.A -THE: ^ITH OF THB iCOsl S loe.P.EO pOR^ PLAi4«^&0 MOU^T(^lAl_ p5S(2-miT AT THl*^ Time • ^1^^^ I TlAJO-'STO^^ OFFICE.tOAfZ^HoOtje e>OlL.oi»4Cb^ TOTALL^IMO 371,000 ^r. BUiLOlNlGptp l^-^ lAJluU l4oO^£ VlP^-SAT (OFFICE C>KlL•Y^ AsJO WILL. WCLUPE -TU)0 ^-TE.CU\-TC- C^^^ FARM'S* ~ ^K/E LOCATEC:* OKJ -THe (SjfcCxJKlO "THE. CTTHER. LJOCA-THO ONJ THE, R-Cop OF -10 -3a?-EEK4 -THE. AKJ^^^4K^A'^? FROM -TWE ^TP^eT AMO 50VLP>IKJG?^ |ZO^0O(9'%f^. ; fo^L. Vlf^-^AT FO-TU(^ e^^i'AtAeiCKi- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY 7 7 C "1 /I DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ' I O H ENVIr^ONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Lead Agency: A^/ pKbhl^l^L^ Date: W/j^/^^ County/State Agency of Filing: \, J Document No.: County/State Agency of Filing: ^ / jy — Project Title: JJnCOln H f^fil^ft^ Project Applicant Name: Phone Number: Project Applicant Address: Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency Q School District Q Other Special Distridt | j State Agency CD Private Entity I I CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ^ ( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ (Vf Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ jHyTD / 0 O ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion (Sfate Wafer Resources Confro/SoaftfOn/y) $850.00 $ ( ). Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ (V) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ J^5'< 00 ( ) Project that is exempt from fees Signature and title of person receiving payment: ^FIRST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECOND COPY-DFQ/FAsii^ THIRD COPY-LE^DAGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING Notice of Determination L From: CITYOFCARLSBAD Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 To: ^ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 jp Gmgory J. Smith, Recorder/County Cleik 3 County Clerk 0CT^26 1998 County of San Diego Mailstop 833, Attn: MITA BY PO Box 1750 San Diego, CA 92112-4147 Project No: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Lincoln North Pointe Project Title 98061093 City of Carlsbad, Chris DeCerbo (760)438-1161 ext.4445 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number El Camino Real, Carlsbad, Califomia, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Project Description: A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting * Program, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit to , subdivide a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (P-M) zoned property into 12 non-residential lots, grade the entire site and construct 6 office/warehouse buildings and a satellite antennae dish farm on property generally located along the west side of El Camino Real to the south of Palomar Airport Road. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on September 22, 1998, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will have a significant effect on the environment 2. X A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. 1£ 2^ MICHAEL J. HCJEZMIISLER, Planning Director Date received for filing at OPR: Date Revised October 1989 City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: South of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. Project Description: Subdivision of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrially (PM) zoned property into 12 office/warehouse lots (ranging from 2.47 to 6.28 acres in area), balanced grading (350,000 cubic yards) of the site and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging firom 60,000 square feet to 72,425 square feet in area and totaling 385,085 square feet) and a satellite antennae dish farm. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Plarming Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plarming Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Plaiming Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4445. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 25, 1998 SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 98-07/HDP 98-05/CUP 98-08/ SUP 98-03 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE JUNE 25, 1998 MICHAEL JyHOLZMILL Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 ® NOTICE OF COMPLETIOI^ Mail to: State Clearinghou.5c, 14UU luiuSw^et, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 443^Pi3 Project Title: Lincoln North Pointe - SP 109(B)\ CT 98-07\PUD 98-01\PIP 98-07\HDP 98-05\CUP 98-08\SUP 98-03 Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760M38-116L ext.4445 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY See NOTE Below: SCH# PROJECT LOCATION: County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad Cross Streets: El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 50.23 Assessor's Parcel No. 213-020-14 Section: Twp. Range: Base: Within 2 jVIiles: State Hwy #: Waterways: Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:, DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: • NOP Q Early Cons Q X Neg Dec \J • Draft EIR Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other: NEPA: • NOI • EA • Draft EIS • FONSI OTHER: Q Joint Document Q Final Document • Other: LOCAL ACTION TYPE: Q General Plan Update X Specific Plan Amendment • Rezone • Annexation Q General Plan Amendment • Master Plan • Prezone • Redevelopment • General Plan Element IS Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit • Coastal Permit Q Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, Other: Planned Industrial Q Community Plan Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit DEVELOPMENT TYPE: Q Residential: Units Acres • Water Facilities: Type MGD • Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees • Transportation: Type Q Commercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees • Mining: Mineral Q Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres 50.23 Employees • Power: Type Watts Q Industrial: 385,085 • Q Educational: • Waste Treatment: Type Q Recreational: • Hazardous Water: Type Q Recreational: • Other: PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: • • • • • • • • AestheticA'isual Agricultural Land Air Quality Archaeological/Historical Coastal Zone Drainage/Absorption Economic/Jobs Fiscal Q Flood Plain/Flooding Q Forest Land/Fire Hazard [J Geological/Seismic Q Minerals Q Noise Q Population/Hsg. Balance Q Public Services/Facilities Q Recreation/Parks Q Schools/Universities Q Water Quality • Septic Systems Q HjO Supply/Ground HjO Q Sewer Capacity ^ Wetland/Riparian Q Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Q Wildlife • Solid Waste Q Growth Inducing Q Toxic/Hazardous Q Land Use Q Traffic/Circulation Q Cumulative Effect ^ Vegetation Q Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use The south-eastern 21.4 acres of the subject property is developed with the recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial building(s) and associated utilities and parking lot. The northeastem comer of the site (10.42 acres) is comprised of ruderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitat/vegetation exists within the westem 18.42 acres ofthe property./PM (Planned Industrial)/?! (Planned Industrial). Project Description: The specific development actions include: (1) subdivision of the propertv into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area. (2) grading of the entire propertv (350.000 cubic yards balanced on-site), and (3) the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60.000 sf and 72.425 sf in area and totaling 385.085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989 NOTI^ OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNT\|Jf.ERK Mail to: County Clerk. County of San Di^, Mailstop 833, PO Box 1750, San Diego, C/^^112 Response must be received by; August 6. 1998 Public Hearing Date: August 19. 1998 |g f] n Public Hearing Place: 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA. 92008 ^ ^ Public Hearing Time: 6:00 p.m. BBflaiy if. Smith. RacordT^ounlyOlork Project Title: Lincoln North Pointe - SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08 Lead Agencv: CITY OF CARLSBAD - PLANNING Contact Person: Chris DeCerbo 4445 Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760) 438-1161. extension City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION: County: SAN DIEGQ COUNTY City/Nearest Community: CITY OF CARLSBAD Cross Streets: El Camino Real Total Acres: 50.23 Assessor's Parcel No. 213-020-14 Section: ^Twp. Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: NS. Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: CEQA: • NOP • Supplement/Subsequent • Early Cons • EIR (Prior SCH No.) ^ Neg Dec Q Other: • Draft EIR Waterways:_ Railways: NCTD _Range: Base: Schools: LOCAL ACTION TYPE: •General Plan Update ^ •General Plan Amendment Q •General Plan Element •Zone Code Amendment • Specific Plan Amendment Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan • Rezone ^ Use Permit ^ Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) • Annexation • Redevelopment • Coastal Permit • Other: DEVELOPMENT TYPE: •Residential: Units_ gjOffice: Sq. Ft.. •Commercial: Sq. Ft._ ^ Industrial: Sq. Ft. •Recreational: 316.733 68.362 Acres_ Acres_ Acres_ Acres PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: ^ Aesthetic/Visual • Flood Plain/Flooding • Schools/Universities • Water Quality •Agricultural Land • Forest Land/Fire Hazard • Septic Systems • Water Supply/Ground Water •Air Quality • Geological/Seismic • Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian •Archaeological/Historical • Minerals • Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading • Wildlife •Coastal Zone • Noise • Solid Waste • Growth Inducing •Drainage/Absorption • Population/Housing Balance • Toxic/Hazardous • Land Use •Economic/Jobs • Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation • Cumulative Effect •Fiscal • Recreation/Parks • Vegetation • Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Previously graded and vacant/Planned Industrial/Planned Industrial Project Description: Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit to subdivide a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (P-M) zoned property into 12 non-residential lots, grade the entire site and construct 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings, a satellite antennae dish farm, and rooftop satellite antennas on property generally located along the west side of El Camino Real to the south of Palomar Airport Road. Where documents are located for Public Review: Community Development Center, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009 .luly 1994 ^, /C yO(.y City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION August 31, 1998 Richard Simons Lincoln Property Company 30 Executive Park Suite 135 P. O. Box 19693 Irvine, CA 92713-9693 SUBJECT: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08 - LINCOLN NORTH POINTE At the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 1998, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-0 (Savary Absent) to APPROVED AS AMENDED your request. Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161. Sincerely, MICHAEL ^JrHOLmiLLER Plarming Director MJH: AL:MH Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4354, 4355, 4356, 4357, 4358, 4359 and 4360 c: Thomas Lamore Smith Consulting Architects 5355 Mira Sorento Place San Diego, CA 92121 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ^ PROOF OF PUBLIC A>N (2010 & 2011 CCP.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk ofthe printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, underthe dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Aug. 6, 1998 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcos Dated at California, this -day of Aug. 1998 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is Wmhe County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBUC HlEAfflMG ^mCE IS HEREBY GIVEN, to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Coinnilssion of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamlwrs, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carldiad, Calrfornia, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 19,1998, to consider a request for ap-proval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Mon-itoring and Reporting Program,. Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permil and Condi-tional Use Permit to subdivide a 50-23 «ci% Planned Industrial {P-M) zoned property into 12 non-reaidential lots, grade the entire site and construct 6 office/rsMaMih and development/ warehouse buildings, a satellite fttennae dish farm, and rooftop satellite antennas on proper^ generally located along the west side of El Camino Realto Bie south of Palorflar Air-port Road in Locai Facilities Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 1110, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, state of Califbmia, according to parcel map thereof filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on November 10, 1972 as File-No. 302114 of official records. Those persons wishing to speak ort this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hewing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after August 13,1998. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Dieparf-ment at (760) 438-1161, extension 4445. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Specif-ic Plan Amendment Tentative Map, Non Residential Planned Unit Development Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit, If approved is established by state law and/or city ordinance and is very short. If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit ift court, you may be lim-ited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or In written corre-spondence delivered to the City df Carlsbad at or prior to the pubiic hearing. GASEFILE; SP 109(BVeT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-OgCUP 98-08- X CASeNAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE * CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Legal 59188 August 6,1998 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: South of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. Project Description: Subdivision of a 50.23 acre Plarmed Industrially (PM) zoned property into 12 office/warehouse lots (ranging from 2.47 to 6.28 acres in area), balanced grading (350,000 cubic yards) of the site and the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging from 60,000 square feet to 72,425 square feet in area and totaling 385,085 square feet) and a satellite antermae dish farm. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4445. DATED: JUNE 25, 1998 CASE NO: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 98-07/HDP 98-05/CUP 98-08/ SUP 98-03 CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 25, 1998 n MIC Planning 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SP 109('B)\ CT 98-07\PUD 98-01\PIP 98-07\HDP 98-05\CUP 98-08\SUP 98-03 DATE: 6/16/98 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE 2. 3. APPLICANT: Thomas Lamore. Smith Consulting Architects ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5355 Mira Sorrento Place. Suite 600. San Diego CA. 92121. 619-452-3188 DATE EIA FORM PART 1 SUBMITTED: 3/4/98 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed proiect entails the development of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (PM) zoned propertv which is located south of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. The specific development actions include: (1) subdivision of the propertv into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area. (2) grading of the entire propertv (350.000 cubic vards balanced on-site), and (3) the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60.000 sf and 72.425 sf in area and totaling 385.085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. SUMMARY OF 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. I I Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • Water ^ Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services ^ Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics I I Hazards Q Cultural Resources I I Noise 1^ Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect I) 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. An Mitigated 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 Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature" Date l^-iV'lk Plaiming Director's Signatur<5 Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "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 adversely significant, 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 significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 environmeiital document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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. 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. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • • • m POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastrucUire)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) • • • • • • • m • ^ • M III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other aheration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X V. AIR OUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1 -5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1"-5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • K VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, in impacts to: Would the proposal result Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) b) c) d) e) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (#2) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (#2) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) VIII. a) b) c) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 -5.13-9) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (# 1:Pgs 5.10.1 -1 - 5.10.1 -5) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) c) d) e) X. NOISE. Would the proposal resuh in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or resuh in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-5) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) e) Other govemmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • Less Than Significant Impact • • No Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) c) Create light orglare?(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fiiture projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • K • m Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. With the exception of biological resources, earlier analysis of this proposed office/warehouse project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this project. The development of this project will however result in significant biological impacts that were not analyzed in the MEIR for which mitigation measures are required. Accordingly, these biological impacts and required mitigation measures are described below. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project is located south of Palomar Airport Road and along the west side of El Camino Real and entails the subdivision of a 50.23 acre property into 12 office/warehouse lots which range in area from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres and the constmction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (385,085 square feet) on lots 1-3 and 6-8. The project's grading would be balanced on-site and would consist of 350,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Elevations on the project site range from 220 feet at the westem end ofthe property to 325 feet at the eastem end. The south-eastem 2L4 acres of the subject property is developed with the vacated Hughes Aircraft industrial building(s) and associated utilities and parking lot. The northeastem comer of the site (10.42 acres) is comprised of mderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitat/vegetation exists within the westem 18.42 acres of the property. The project site is designated for Planned Industrial development. The property is surrotmded by light industrial development to the south and west, and a hotel to the north. El Camino Real borders the eastem property boundary. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion Biological Resources Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant direct and indirect biological impacts to the following sensitive upland habitat and sensitive plant species: Coyote Brush Scmb (.35 acres), Southem Maritime Chaparral (15.32 acres). Mule Fat Scmb (.06 acre), Del Mar Manzanita (72 individuals), Del Mar Mesa sand aster (80 individuals) and Nuttall's scmb oak. The project is conditioned to mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 (31.46 acres) the project's impacts to 15.32 acres of Southem Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat and sensitive plant species. The specific mitigation site(s) (either within the City of Carlsbad or outside of the City) or mitigation method (in-lieu fee) shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Califomia Department of Fish and Game. The mitigation shall be required to be approved by such agencies and implemented by the developer prior to the issuance of grading permits for any phase of the project. The westem edge ofthe project site includes .7 acres of wetlands (Southem Willow Scmb) which will not be directly impacted by development. In order to mitigate potential indirect impacts to this wetland, the project has been designed to include a minimum 10 foot wide buffer along the eastem wetland edge, and is conditioned 1. that the wetland be enhanced by the removal of non-native pampas grass, and 2. that the proposed manufactured slope located adjacent to the wetland be planted with a mix of species which are primarily native to the area and which are compatible with the fimction of the wetland. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Operation-related emissions are considered ctimulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fiirther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required^ 13 Rev. 03/28/96 III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92009, (760) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment - Hughes Propertv. dated February, 1998, Dudek and Associates. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) \. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any phase of this project, the project developer shall be required to mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 (total of 31.46 acres) the project's impacts to 15.32 acres of Southem Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat. The specific mitigation may include the acquisition of 31.46 acres of comparable quality habitat either from within the City of Carlsbad or outside the City of Carlsbad and/or the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for ftiture acquisition of comparable acreage and quality habitat. The specific habitat mitigation sites and/or in- lieu fees shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any phase of this project, non-native pampas grass shall be removed from the on-site wetlands and the proposed manufactured slope adjacent to and east of the wetlands shall be planted with a mix of species which are primarily native to the area and are compatible with the fimction of the wetlands. 3. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date 16 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: Lincoln North Pointe FILE NUMBERS: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98- 05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08/PIP 98-07 APPROVAL DATE: Auaust 19, 1998 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure Indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Cod^ Section 21081.6). Mitigation IVIeasure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any phase of this project, the project developer shall be required to mitigate at a ratio of 2:1 (total of 31.46 acres) the project's impacts to 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat. The specific mitigation may include the acquisition of 31.46 acres of comparable quality habitat either from within the City of Carlsbad or outside the City of Carlsbad and/or the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for future acquisition of comparable acreage and quality habitat. The specific habitat mitigation sites and/or in-lieu fees shall be subject to the approval of the City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Project Planning/ US Fish & Wildlife/ CDF&G Yes 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any phase of this project, non-native pampas grass shall be removed from the on- site wetlands and the proposed manufactured slope adjacent to and east of the wetlands shall be planted with a mix of species which are primarily native to the area and are compatible with the function of the wetlands. Project Planning Yes Yes m z < Ti O m z H 9 > H O O o z m P Tit TJ B> (Q Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, responsible for monlloring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other Infonnation. RD = Appendix P. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4355 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 109(B) TO REPEAL THE SPECIFIC PLAN ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL TO THE SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE CASE NO.: SP 109(B) WHEREAS, Lincoln Property Company, "Developer", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by W9/LNP Real Estate Limited Partnership, "Owner", described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 1110, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to parcel map thereof filed in the Oflice of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on November 10, 1972 as File No. 302114 of official records. ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Specific Plan Amendment, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, LINCOLN NORTH POINTE, SP 109(B) as provided by SP 109 and Govemment Code Section 65.453 and Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of August, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 20,1973, the City Council approved SP109, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 836 and City Council Resolution No. 3087. 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 foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LINCOLN NORTH POINTE, SP 109(B), to repeal SP 109 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The subject property was originally processed under Specific Plan 109 in 1972 due to its location within the Palomar Airport Influence Area. However, the City's Updated General Plan no longer mandates that projects located within the Palomar Airport Influence Area be required to process a specific plan. Instead, Land Use Element Airport Planning policy C.I requires that all projects that are located within the Airport Influence Area be required to process other discretionary permits for approval. The proposal to process this project through other discretionary permits (CT, PIP, PUD, HDP, CUP and SUP) is therefore consistent with the General Plan. Any future development of the subject property shall require the approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. 2. The existing SP 109 is obsolete and does not include all the necessary Speciflc Plan provisions, pursuant to Article 8, Sections 65451 of the California Planning and Zoning Law. 3 All necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate provisions have been provided to implement those portions of the capital improvement program applicable to the subject property. 4. The proposed industrial uses will be appropriate in area, location and overall design to the purpose intended. The design and development standards are such as to create an environment of sustained desirability and stability. Such development will meet performance standards established by this title. 5. In the case of other similar non-residential uses, such development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects from such development. 6. The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon. 7. The area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the development. PC RESO NO. 4355 1 8. Appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted in the mitigated negative declaration for the project. 2 3 12 Conditions: ^ 1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Specific Plan Amendment document(s) necessary to make them 5 intemally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development 6 different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 7 2. Approval of SP 109(B) is granted subject to the approval of HDP 98-05/CT 98-07/SUP 98-03/PUD 98-01/CUP 98-08 and PIP 98-07. 8 g 3. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so 10 implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all 1^ future building permits; deny, revoke or fiirther condition all certificates of occupancy issued imder the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No 13 vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Specific Plan Amendment. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 4355 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, Califomia, held on the 19th day of August 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Monroy. Nielsen, and Welshons ABSENT: Commissioner Savary ABSTAIN: B^iCfe Y NQBLt^Chairper'son CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMIELER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4355 -4- e City of CARLSBAD Planning Departme A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: August 19, 1998 Application complete date: May 15, 1998 Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno SUBJECT: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08- LINCOLN NORTH POINTE - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit to subdivide a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (P-M) zoned property into 12 non- residential lots, grade the entire site and construct 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings, a satellite antennae dish farm, and rooftop satellite antennas on property generally located along the west side of El Camino Real to the south of Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Plaiming Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4354 and 4355 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and SP 109(B), and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4356, 4357, 4358, 4359, 4360 APPROVING CT 98-07, PUD 98-01, HDP 98- 05, SUP 98-03 and CUP 98-08, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION This proposal is for the development of a Planned Industrial project (12 lots and 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings totaling 385,085 square feet in area) upon a 50.23 acre property located adjacent to and south of the Olympic Resort Hotel along El Camino Real. The project site was formerly developed with the recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial buildings and associated parking. ViaSat Inc. will be the tenant of three of the proposed buildings and two future buildings. The Hughes Aircraft project was originally developed pursuant to Specific Plan 109. In that the General Plan no longer requires that the subject property be processed under the specific plan, the project includes a specific plan amendment to repeal Specific Plan 109. The project complies with all applicable City standards, all project issues have been resolved and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this project. SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 2 ^-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Lincoln Properties, the applicant for this project, is requesting approval of one legislative action (Specific Plan Amendment) and five quasi-judicial permits (Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit) to develop a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (P-M) zoned property, which is located along the west side of EI Camino Real to the south of Palomar Airport Road. The specific development actions include: (1) subdividing the 50.23 acre parcel into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area (see Exhibits "A"-"I"), (2) grading the entire property (350,000 cubic yards balanced on-site), (3) constmcting 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings which range from 60,000 to 72,425 square feet and total 385,085 square feet in area upon 6 of the proposed non-residential lots (see Exhibits "J"-"AA") and constructing satellite antennas upon the rooftop of one of the buildings and a satellite dish antennae farm along the northem boundary of the project site (see Exhibits "HH"-"KK"). The project site is designated for Planned Industrial development. The property is surrounded by light industrial development to the south and west, and the Olympic Resort Hotel to the north. El Camino Real borders the eastern property boundary. The southeastem 21.4 acres of the subject property was formerly developed with the recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial buildings and associated parking lots. The northeastem corner of the site (10.42 acres) adjacent to the Olympic Resort Hotel is comprised of ruderal habitat (non-native weeds). Dense native habitat/vegetation (Southern Maritime Chaparral) and a drainage (wetlands) exists within the western 18.42 acres of the property. Elevations on the project site range from 230 feet within the drainage at the western end of the property to 310 feet at the eastem end along El Camino Real. The project applicant proposes the development of the property in 4 phases. Phase I includes the mass grading of the entire 50.23 acre property and the development of lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 with buildings, parking, open space and landscaping. Phases II and III will include the development of lots 4 and 5 respectively and Phase IV includes the development of lots 9-12. Consistent with the requirements of the P-M zone, a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP 98-07) for Phase I has been processed by the applicant and conditionally approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the future development of lots 4-5 and 9-12, Planned Industrial Permits shall also be required to be processed for approval through the Planning Director. As noted above. Phase I is comprised of 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings ranging from 60,000 to 72,425 square feet in area and totaling 385,085 square feet upon lots 1-3 and 6-8. The Phase I project has been designed with a "campus" theme whereby buildings and open space areas are centralized with parking and circulation drives located around the perimeter of the buildings and open space. The required parking spaces, employee eating areas, loading/delivery areas and refuse collection areas for each building are provided on each corresponding lot. The only common areas on the project are access driveways and landscaping. ViaSat Inc. is the proposed tenant for buildings 1, 2 and 3 (and proposed future buildings 4 and 5). Building 1 will be developed as the ViaSat administration building and buildings 2 and 3 as SP I09(B)/CT 98-07/PUD LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 3 »^-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ ViaSat engineering/research and development buildings. The ViaSat buildings 1-3 have been designed around a rectangular shaped landscaped employee lunch courtyard which includes tables, chairs, benches, a basketball court and two sand volleyball courts. The ViaSat buildings are generously parked for research and development/office uses (4 spaces/1000 square feet). On behalf of ViaSat Inc., Lincoln Properties is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of a number of satellite antennas upon lot 2. As shown on Exhibits "HH"-"KK", a satellite antenna dish farm is proposed within the northwest comer of lot 2 and other antennas upon the rooftop of building 2. The at-grade satellite dish farm will include 18 satellite dish antennas which range from 4 to 12.2 feet in diameter and from 10 to 18 feet in height and a 120 square foot (12 foot tall) terminal building. The antenna dish farm will be surrounded by a 6 foot tall chain link fence and will be screened from the adjacent property to the north by evergreen trees and shrubs. The proposed building 2 rooftop antennas will include 14 satellite dish antennas (between 4-6 feet in diameter and 6-9 feet tall), 8 helical coil linear pointing antennas (each measuring 15 feet in height), 12 cellular antennas (8-10 feet in height) and 4 "batwing" antennas which measure 8 feet tall. The antennas will be screened by a proposed building parapet which varies from 9 to 14 feet in height. Speculative office/research and development/warehouse buildings are proposed on lots 6-8. Buildings 7 and 8 have been designed around a landscaped courtyard that includes a water feature (fountain), tables and chairs, and building 6 includes two landscaped courtyards with tables and chairs. Buildings 6-8 are parked for a combination of office (66.6%) and warehouse (33.3%) uses at a parking ratio which ranges between 3.4 - 3.6 spaces/1000 square feet. All of the Phase I buildings are two-story. Buildings 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 have a maximum height of 35 feet (including architectural features and roof equipment) and building 2 is 41.6 feet in height (including a maximum 14 foot tall parapet to screen proposed rooftop antennae). The proposed buildings will utilize the same exterior building materials and colors. The buildings will be tilt-up concrete, painted in a tan color with green and white color accents. Green glass and stone tile accents are proposed to complement the selected building colors. The project will include two accesses off of El Camino Real, including a signalized driveway access along the southern property boundary and a right-in/right-out driveway access located between lots 3 and 4. A third driveway access to lots 9-12 will be provided off of Corte De La Pina. The signalized primary project access drive will extend from El Camino Real westward through the property to provide access to the lower level lots 9-12. Intemal project circulation will include minimum 30 foot wide truck driveways and minimum 24 foot wide parking drive aisles. SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 4 1^-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ The proposed project is subject to the following regulations: A. Carlsbad General Plan; B. Specific Plan 109; C. Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.34); Nonresidential Planned Development (Municipal Code Chapter 21.47); Hillside Development (Municipal Code Chapter 21.95); Conditional Uses (Mimicipal Code Chapter 21.42); Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.40) and El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards; D. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20); and E. Growth Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 21.90) and Local Facilities Management Zone 5. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies using both text and tables. A. General Plan The project site has a Planned Industrial (PI) General Plan designation. The proposed office/research and development/warehouse uses are consistent with the Planned Industrial General Plan designation. Consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies, the proposed project has been designed to: (1) be compatible with surrounding industrial and travel/recreational commercial (hotel) uses and Palomar Airport, (2) provide adequate circulation, parking, loading, storage and recreational/open space areas to meet the operational needs of the development and (3) adequately screen from view proposed mechanical equipment, loading and storage areas and satellite antennas. The project is also consistent with other General Plan Elements as summarized in Table 1. )^-l SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD^-Ol/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 5 TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Public Safety Design all stractures in accordance with seismic design standards of the UBC and State building requirements. All buildings will meet UBC and State seismic codes. Yes Open Space and Conservation Minimize the encroachment of development into wetland and riparian areas. Designate as buffers portions of land next to environmental areas. Require private development which impacts sensitive resources to provide appropriate mitigation measures. The project has been designed to not encroach into the wetland (.7 acres) that is located along the western edge of the project site. The project has been designed to include a minimum 10 foot wide buffer between the edge of development and the on-site wetland. The project has been conditioned to mitigate at a 2:1 ratio (total of 31.46 acres) impacts to 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat. The specific mitigation may include the acquisition of 31.46 acres of comparable quality habitat either from within the City of Carlsbad or outside the City of Carlsbad and/or the payment of an in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad for future acquisition of comparable acreage and quality habitat. Yes Yes Yes Circulation Require new development to constmct roadway and intersection improvements needed to serve proposed development. Project will provide median constmction along El Camino Real frontage, deceleration lanes at northern and southern driveways and a signalized intersection at southern driveway. Yes )^-l SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD^-Ol/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 6 B. Specific Plan 109 The recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial buildings and associated development was approved in 1972 through Specific Plan 109. The site was processed under the specific plan in 1972 due to its location within the Palomar Airport influence area. Any additional development or redevelopment of the subject 50.23 acre Hughes Aircraft site remains subject to Specific Plan 109. Specific Plan 109 currently only includes a Site Development Plan for the Hughes Aircraft development and does not include the required specific plan contents, pursuant to Article 8, Sections 65451 of the California Planning and Zoning Law. A proposal to process a new development on the subject property through a Specific Plan would therefore require that Specific Plan 109 be amended to incorporate all the required contents per Section 65451 of State Law. The City's Updated General Plan however no longer mandates that projects located within the Palomar Airport Influence Area be required to process a specific plan. Instead, Land Use Element Airport Planning policy Cl requires that all projects proposed within the Airport Influence Area be required to process other discretionary permits for approval. Accordingly, the project applicant is requesting that Specific Plan 109 be rescinded and that this project be processed through other discretionary permits (CT, PIP, PUD, HDP, CUP and SUP) as proposed. C. Zoning 1. P-M Zone - The proposed office, research and development, and warehouse uses are all permitted uses in the P-M zone. As previously noted and summarized in Table 2, the project does comply with all standards of the P-M zone and a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP 98-07) has been conditionally approved by the Planning Director subject to the approval of the other discretionary permits included herein. TABLE 2 - P-M ZONE & PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS P-M ZONE/PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARD PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES? Lot Size: No minimum size required for a Nonresidential PUD. 2.47 - 6.28 acres per lot Yes Lot Coverage: 50% 15.5%-30.4% Yes Max Building Height: 35' Maximum is 35' Yes Height Protrusions: 45' BIdg. 2 has a parapet up to 41 feet and 6 inches Setbacks: (Minimum) Front - 50 feet Side - 10 feet Rear - 20 feet 160 feet 10 feet 20 feet Yes SP I09(B)/CT 98-07/PUD^-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 7 Employee Eating Area: 300 sq. ft./5,000 sq. ft. or a total of 23,105 sq. ft. 32,705 sq. ft. Yes Parking: Office/R&D- 1:250 Warehouse- 1:1000 Total spaces required - 1,337 Office/R&D- 1:250 Warehouse - 1:1000 Total spaces provided - 1,434 spaces Yes Compact Parking: 25% or 334 spaces 13% or 188 spaces Yes 2. Nonresidential Planned Development Permit - The proposal to create individual ownership lots which do not have direct access from a dedicated public street necessitates that a Nonresidential Planned Development Permit be processed to supplement the proposed tentative subdivision map (CT 98-07). The proposed lots would share common landscaping and driveway access. The project has been conditioned to ensure that issues pertaining to common ownership, including joint use access and maintenance of common areas, are adequately addressed in the owner's association covenants, conditions and restrictions. As noted previously, the project has been designed to provide the required parking, employee eating areas, loading/delivery areas and refuse collection areas for each building on the corresponding lot. Each lot has adequate parking as proposed and the project has been conditioned to ensure that any future tenant improvements comply with the City's parking standards. As discussed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4357, the project complies with all of the required Nonresidential PUD findings of Section 21.47.020 of the Municipal Code. The development of this planned industrial project will provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the City in addition to contributing to the City's tax base. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The project has been designed to meet the requirements of the underlying P-M Zone, and all policies and standards of the City, and is compatible with surrounding existing planned industrial and hotel uses. Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone - This project is located along El Camino Real. El Camino Real is classified as a scenic corridor, and a Special Use Permit has been submitted with this project, as required by Chapter 21.40 of the Municipal Code. The project complies with the requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards as follows: SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD^-Ol/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 8 TABLE 3 - EL CAMINO REAL SCENIC CORRIDOR STANDARD"AREA 4" PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES? Design Theme - Planned "campus type" research, business, service center Campus theme - buildings and landscaped courtyards with perimeter circulation drives and parking. Yes Grading - No cut or fill exceeding 15 feet from original grade. 7 feet Yes Building Setback - 30 feet from ECR. 160 feet Yes Parking Setback - 25 feet from ECR. 35 feet Yes Roof Equipment - No roof equipment shall be visible from adjacent developed areas. Rooftop equipment is adequately screened from adjacent hotel and industrial developments. Yes 4. Conditional Use Permit - As previously discussed, the project applicant proposes the development of a satellite dish antenna farm (including 18 satellite dish antennas) within the northwest corner of lot 2, and 38 additional antennas upon the rooftop of ViaSat's Research and Development building 2. In the P-M Zone, more than one satellite antenna may be permitted upon approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed satellite antennas comply with the required CUP findings of Section 21.42 of the Municipal Code. Specifically, the antennas are directly associated with and integral to the permitted ViaSat Inc. research and development use. The proposed satellite dish farm is located a minimum of 750 feet west of and 10 feet below the elevation of El Camino Real and buffered from views from El Camino Real and the Olympic Resort Hotel to the north by an existing eucalyptus grove and a proposed 6 foot tall chain link fence and evergreen trees and shrubs (see Exhibit "KK"). The project has been conditioned to incorporate additional landscaping along the east side of the satellite antennae farm to completely screen the antennas from views from El Camino Real. The proposed building 2 rooftop antennas will also be adequately screened from views from El Camino Real and the Olympic Resort Hotel by a 9-14 foot tall building parapet (see Exhibit "JJ"). The proposed ground-mounted satellite antenna dish farm and building 2 roof-mounted antermas also comply with the required findings of Chapter 21.53 as summarized in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD^-Ol/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 9 TABLE 4 - GROUND-MOUNTED ANTENNAS - SUBSECTION 21.53.130(e)(1) STANDARD PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES? Antennas should be located in the rear 50% ofthe lot Satellite antenna farm is located in the rear northwest comer of lot 2 Yes Antennas should not exceed 20 feet in height Antennas range from 10 to 18 feet in height Yes Antennas should not be used as signs No signage is proposed on antennas Yes Antennas should be screened from adjacent properties and public view so that no more than 25% of each antenna extends above the top of the screening material. The 10-18 foot tall antennas will be adequately screened from El Camino Real and the Olympic Resort Hotel by an existing eucalyptus grove, (trees up to 30' tall) and a proposed six foot tall chain link fence and evergreen shrubs and pine trees (which will extend up to 50' in height) Yes Antennas shall not be located in any required parking area The antenna farm will be located outside of the required parking area for building 2 Yes TABLE 5 - ROOF-MOUNTED ANTENNAS - SUBSECTION 21.53.130 (e)(2) STANDARD PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES? Antermas shall not exceed 15 feet in height nor extend more than 5 feet above the permitted height of the building upon which they are located The antennas range from 6 to 15 feet in height. The maximum permitted building height, including protrusions, is 45 feet and the antennas do not extend above 41.5 feet in height Yes Roof-mounted antennas shall be screened so that the antennas are not visible at ground level The roof-mounted antennas will be adequately screened from ground level views by a building parapet which ranges from 9 to 14 feet in height Yes 5. Hillside Development Permit - The topography of the existing property is comprised of a previously graded pad along El Camino Real (maximum elevation of 310 feet MSL) which slopes gently westward to a drainage (230 feet MSL) located along the westem terminus of the property. Located between the graded pad and the drainage is an SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD^-Ol/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 10 intervening manufactured slope (50% gradient) ranging from 20 to 40 feet in height and extending north to south across the property. Pursuant to the City's amended Hillside Ordinance, because this project proposes the development of the existing manufactured slope, a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) is required. As discussed in Planning Resolution No. 4358, the proposed project complies with the required HDP findings of Section 21.95 of the Municipal Code. Specifically, all undevelopable areas of the site have been identified on the Constraints Exhibits "LL"-"SS", and the project complies with the Purpose and Intent provisions of the Hillside Ordinance, substantially conforms to the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual and complies with the Development and Design Standards of the Hillside Ordinance as summarized in Table 6. TABLE 6 - HILLSIDE ORDINACE - SECTION 21.95.120 STANDARD PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES? Development of Manufactured Slopes of Over 40% Gradient The existing 50% gradient slope is an intervening manufactured slope located between split level pads on a single lot and therefore is developable Yes Acceptable Volume of Grading: 7,999 cu yds/acre 7,692 cu yds/acre Yes Maximum Manufactured Slope Height: 40 feet Maximum manufactured slope height is 35 feet Yes Contour Grading: Manufactured slopes greater than 20' in height and 200' feet in length and which are visible from a Circulation element road, collector street or useable public open space Proposed manufactured slopes which are over 20' in height are located within the western part of the property and are not visible from a Circulation Element Road, collector street or useable public open space (park) Yes Slope Edge Building setback: .7 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical imaginary diagonal plane measured from edge of slope to building or a minimum slope edge setback of 25 feet for buildings 7 and 8 Buildings 7 and 8 are setback from the manufactured slope edge a minimum of 74 feet Yes Landscape manufactured slopes consistent with the City's Landscape Manual The westem facing manufactured slopes will be landscaped consistent with the City's Landscape Manual Yes SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD T?S-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0 LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 11 D. Subdivision Ordinance The proposed tentative map complies with all the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20. The project site is proposed to be subdivided into 12 lots ranging in size from 2.47 to 6.28 acres. The project grading to create building pads, private driveways and parking lots will consist of 350,000 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on-site. The proposed project includes the construction of a new 8" sewer line which will connect to Corte De La Pina. Water service is provided by an existing 12" waterline on EI Camino Real. Drainage from the project site will flow from east to west and into a temporary de-silting basin on lot 12. Project circulation improvements include a traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and the project's southern primary access driveway, a dedicated left turn lane on southbound El Camino Real at this signal, median improvements along El Camino Real, and a proposed dedicated right turn/deceleration lane at each of the project's two driveways. E. Growth Management Ordinance The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized in Table 7. TABLE 7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE FACILITY IMPACTS/STANDARD COMPLIES? City Administration N/A Yes Library N/A Yes Wastewater Treatment Capacity 349.75 EDU Yes Parks N/A Yes Drainage Encinas Canyon Yes Circulation 5,009 ADT Yes Fire Station 2 Yes Open Space N/A Yes Schools Carlsbad Yes Sewer 349.75 EDU Yes Water GPD Yes Growth Control Allowance N/A Yes V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The initial study (EIA - Part II) prepared for this project determined that the project will result in direct significant and adverse impacts to biological resources. Specifically, the project will impact 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat which is located within the western third of the property. The developer has agreed to add mitigation measures to the project to reduce the significant adverse biological impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD LINCOLN NORTH POINTE August 19, 1998 Page 12 )^-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-0^ (CEQA). The balance of the project site has been previously disturbed, or graded and developed with the recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial buildings and therefore supports no significant habitat, plant or animal species nor any historical, archaeological or paleontological resources. The development of the project site with up to 629,560 sq. ft. of non-residential uses was covered under Master EIR 93-01 for the City's Updated General Plan. This project (385,085 sq. ft. of non-residential uses) is therefore consistent with the projected development anticipated under MEIR 93-01, and is accordingly regarded as a subsequent project for which the environmental effects have already been considered. Furthermore, the project has either been designed or conditioned to incorporate all feasible and pertinent mitigation measures identified in Master EIR 93-01 (i.e.; bus stop and traffic signal along El Camino Real, erosion control measures). In consideration of the foregoing, on June 25, 1998, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. No comments were received. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4354 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4355 (SP) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4356 (CT) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4357 (PUD) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4358 (HDP) 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4359 (SUP) 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4360 (CUP) 8. Location Map 9. Background Data Sheet 10. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 11. Disclosure Statement 12. Exhibits "A" - "BBB", dated August 19, 1998 CD:dcli LINCOLN NORTH POINTE SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/ PIP 98-07/HDP 98-05/ CUP 98-08/SUP 98-03 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: SP I09(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/PIP 98-07/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08 CASE NAME: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE APPLICANT: Thomas Leimore, Smith Consulting Architects REQUEST AND LOCATION: The proposed proiect entails the development of a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (PM) zoned propertv which is located south of Palomar Airport Road along the west side of El Camino Real. The specific development actions include: (I) subdivision of the propertv into 12 non- residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area, (2) grading of the entire propertv (350,000 cubic vards balanced on-site), and (3) the construction of 6 office/warehouse buildings (ranging between 60,000 sf and 72,425 sf in area and totaling 385.085 square feet) on proposed lots 1-3 and 6-8 and a satellite antennae dish farm. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 1110. in the Citv of Carlsbad. Countv of San Diego. State of Califomia, according to parcel map thereof filed in the office of the Countv Recorder of San Diego Countv on November 10. 1972 as File No. 302114 of official records. APN: 213-020-14 Acres: 50.23 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 12 Lots GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial (PI) Density Allowed: NA Density Proposed: NA Existing Zone: Planned Industrial PM Proposed Zone: Planned Industrial PM Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site P-M Demolished Hughes Aircraft Buildings North C-T-Q Olympic Resort Hotel South P-M Watkins Manufacturing Corp. East L-C Vacant West P-M Industrial/Warehouse PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 349.75 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: February 25, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued June 25, 1998 I I Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ • Other, CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Lincoln North Pointe SP 109(B)/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98- 05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 5 GENERAL PLAN: PL ZONING: P-M DEVELOPER'S NAME: Lincoln Propertv Companv ADDRESS: 30 Executive Park. Suite 100 PHONE NO.: (714) 261-2100 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 213-020-14 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC, SQ. FT., DU): 629.560 sf ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A 5009 A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) D. Park: Demand in Acreage = E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = I. Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDU Identify Sub Basin = (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 349.75 EDU $251.824.00 Encinas Canvon = 2 N/A Carlsbad 349.75 5A City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: L Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. ThoMA^ Lan^orc SAI.VA CjD^^i4-//ia Arck:-Uc4s 2. Owner List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property involved. Un/cMp i^Al?^Lir. L:mi4^d Pet.At\t/^li»f> /rv/n-e, CA °IZC*I1>-^dl^ 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a tmst, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the tmst. DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 Disclosure Statement (Over) Page 2 Have you had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No ^ If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) Print or type name of owner L Print or type name of applicant DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2 PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 14 Commissioner Savary stated her support for the project, and as stated by Commissioner Nielsen, there is a potential problem regarding floodwater that must be solved. Commissioner Heineman stated his support for the project. Chairperson Noble also stated his support for the project. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4341 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4342, 4343, and 4344 approving CT 98-02, SUP 98-01, and HDP 98-01, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECESS: Chairperson Noble declared a recess at 7:58 p.m., and the Commission reconvened at 8:09 p.m., with six Commissioner present. Commissioner Savary did not return to the dais. 5. SP 109(B1/CT 98-07/PUD 98-01/HDP 98-05/SUP 98-03/CUP 98-08 - LINCOLN NORTH POINTE - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit to subdivide a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial (P-M) zoned property into 12 non-residential lots, grade the entire site and construct 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings, a satellite antennae dish farm, and rooftop satellite antennas on property generally located along the west side of El Camino Real to the south of Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that Principal Planner, Chris DeCerbo will present the staff report. Project Planner, Chris DeCerbo presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This is a request for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit to develop a 50.23 acre Planned Industrial zoned property which is located along the west side of El Camino Real to the south of Palomar Airport Road. The specific development actions include subdividing the 50.23 acre property into 12 non-residential lots which will range from 2.47 to 6.28 acres in area, balanced grading of the entire property, the construction of six office/R&D/warehouse buildings, the construction of a satellite antennae dish farm along the northwestern corner of Lot No. 2, and the construction of rooftop antennas on top of building No. 2. The project applicant proposed development in several phases. The first phase will include buildings No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. The remaining pads (#4, #5, and the four lower level pads at the southwest of the property) will be developed at a later date. The first phase will include buildings, parking, open space, and landscaping. A Planned Industrial Permit for Phase I has already been processed by the applicant and conditionally approved by the Planning Director, subject to approval of the actions of this Commission. The Phase I project has been designed with a campus theme, whereby buildings and open space areas are centralized with parking and circulation drives located around the perimeter of the buildings and open MINUTES PU\NNING COMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 15 space. The required parking spaces, employee eating areas, loading and delivery areas, and refuse collection areas for each building are proposed on each corresponding lot. The only common areas in the project are access drives and some common landscaping. One of the reasons this project has been regarded as a City Council priority is that the City is very interested in keeping the firm, ViaSat, Inc., in Carlsbad. ViaSat, Inc. will be the tenant of three of the proposed buildings (#1, #2, and #3) and two of the future buildings. The ViaSat buildings have been designed around a rectangular shaped, open space courtyard which includes seating areas, lunch areas, volleyball courts, and a basketball court. On behalf of ViaSat, Inc., Lincoln Properties is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the development of a number of satellite antennas upon lot 2. The at-grade satellite dish farm will include 18 satellite dish antennas ranging from 10 feet to 18 feet in height and a 120 square foot terminal building. The dish farm will be surrounded by a 6 foot tall chain link fence and screened with evergreen trees and shrubs. There is an existing eucalyptus grove (with trees up to 30 feet in height) along the north side of the dish farm site between the proposed dish farm and the Olympic Resort Hotel, and additionally shrubs and trees will be planted to add to the density of the screening and thereby adequately obscure the dish farm from the view from the hotel building and the driving range. Additionally, the dish farm is located about 750 feet from El Camino Real and will be about 10 feet below grade, so it should not be very visible. Staff has included an additional condition requiring additional landscaping as necessary to screen the antennas. The roof-top antennas will include a total of 38 satellite dishes and antennas of varying sizes, shapes, heights, and diameters and will be screened by a 9 foot to 14 foot high parapet All of the Phase I buildings are two-story; five will be no greater than 35 feet in height, while the sixth (the antenna building) will reach a height of 41.6 feet. The buildings will utilize the same exterior building materials and colors. The buildings will be tilt-up concrete, painted in a tan color with green and white color accents. Green glass and stone tile accents are proposed to compliment the selected building colors. The project will include two accesses off of El Camino Real, including a signalized access-way along the southern property boundary as well as a right-in/right-out driveway access located between lots 3 and 4. Additionally, there will be a third driveway access to lots 9 to 12, off Corte De La Pina. Ultimately there will be an opportunity for traffic to access and depart the site from one of three driveways which will result in better circulation. Staff analysis of the project focussed on the project's compliance with the General Plan, the development standards of the Planned Industrial zone, El Camino Scenic Corridor Development standards, and Municipal Code standards regarding the development of ground mounted and roof mounted satellite antennas through Conditional Use Permits. The project, as proposed is in compliance with all of the above development standards. There is an existing Specific Plan No. 109, which covers the property. It is a Site Development Plan for the former Hughes Aircraft project. At the time the Hughes Aircraft site was developed, there was a specific requirement to do a Specific Plan because it was in the Airport Influence Area for Palomar Airport. The City's updated General Plan no longer mandates that sites in the Airport Influence Area be under Specific Plan, but indicates that other permits are appropnate. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting that the project be processed under the permits as proposed, in addition to a Planned Industrial Permit which has already been conditionally approved. The project will impact 15.32 acres of southern maritime chaparral vegetation and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat. The developer has agreed to add mitigation measures to the project to reduce the significant adverse biological impacts to a level below significant. The biological mitigation alternatives could include acquisition, at a 2 to 1 ratio (31.46 acres) of southern maritime chaparral, at a site within the City of Carlsbad and put it into open space, acquisition of a site outside of the City in a jurisdiction that has mitigation banks for appropriate habitat, or payment of an in-lieu fee of a dollar value that the City could (at some time in the future) acquire habitat either in or outside of the City. These mitigation alternatives, in general, have been reviewed by the City Council and found to be appropriate alternative means of mitigation. Other environmental mitigation measures include the preservation of the on-site MINUTES PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 16 wetlands (.7 acres) and enhancement by the removal of non-native pampas grass, and the incorporation of a 10 foot wetlands buffer from the toe of development of this project. The project has responded to all of the issues that have been identified through review and has complied with the required mitigations mandated by the state and federal resource agencies. Based on the compliance with all of the associated and applicable standards, staff recommends approval of this project. The Specific Plan Amendment, will have to go on to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Monroy asked if there is an implication that if there is a need for additional antennas, the applicant would have to come back to the City for further permits. Mr. DeCerbo replied that the CUP (if approved) will be for a certain type and number of antennas and if they change types or numbers, the CUP will be subject to amendment. Commissioner Monroy asked if there is any possible way that the installation of a signal light, as proposed, could be held in abeyance until it is determined that it is absolutely necessary. Principal Engineer, Bob Wojcik replied that he is not certain if he can say that it would not be safe to delay the installation of that signal, once there is traffic making left turns into the project. Given the current level and speed of travel on El Camino Real, the concern would be whether or not a left turn could be safely negotiated without a controlled intersection. Mr. Wojcik stated that as far as the impact that the proposed signal would have on the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real signalized intersection, the spacing is 2205 feet and the standards are 2600 feet. The distance between the proposed signal and the existing signal is 400 feet shorter than the standard. However, there is another large area to the east, that is currently being planned, that has frontage on only El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Because the City does not want all of that development's traffic using Palomar Airport Road exclusively, the City has agreed with them that they can use the same point of access to El Camino Real as the proposed intersection for this project. Commissioner Compas asked what the sequence and timing of the construction of these buildings will be. Mr. DeCerbo replied that buildings No. 1, 2, & 3 will be built first. The balance of the first Phase would be buildings No. 6, 7, & 8. Regarding the timing, Mr. DeCerbo stated that the applicant is better able to provide that information. Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Wojcik if he can project the number of daily trips (ADT) for this development, how they will compare with the ADT of the former Hughes Aircraft project, and are this project's ADT likely to impact Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Wojcik replied that there is more square footage in this project but the R&D and Office uses will be very similar to that of Hughes. However, without knowing the actual number of occupants of the buildings, he estimated that there will be a significant increase in traffic, after all of the buildings have been completed and occupied. Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. DeCerbo if the antennas will only be used by ViaSat or can they be subleased. Mr. DeCerbo replied that they would not be allowed to sublease, under the CUP that will be issued (if approved). Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, stated that the CUP runs with the land and if they choose not to use them, they can lease them since that is their business. Mr. Wayne reminded the Commission that only 18 of the eventual 38 antennas are before the Commission for approval at this time, and when the time comes to increase the number from 18, an amendment to the CUP would be required. Commissioner Welshons, stated that the drawings for the proposed signalized intersection indicate that MINUTES PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 17 there are provisions for a left turn and a right turn but there is no provision for a straight through movement into the Bressi Ranch project. With that in mind, Commissioner Welshons asked how the addition of a new condition (as stated in item No. 7 of the errata sheet) will satisfy the increase of an additional through lane of traffic. Mr. Wojcik replied that the additional lane will be achieved with the removal of the island that is currently shown on the tentative map. He went on to state that the primary reason for the removal of the island is the impact on a truck's turning radius. In a meeting with the applicant, Mr. Wojcik continued, he told him that they would probably need a third lane (through lane) at that intersection and with that island out, let's simply put wording in that says that the width of that entrance and exit will be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mr. Wojcik further stated that that also goes along with one of the other conditions that requires the signing and striping plans for the signal, and when the City gets the signing and striping plans, they will have all the lane widths and they will make sure that the proper lane width will be there. Commissioner Welshons asked if there is any type of condition that can be added that would prevent everyone from arriving and leaving the facility at the same time during peak hours, thereby lessening the Impacts on the Intersections in the immediate area. Mr. Wojcik replied that there is no condition in this project that would specify any type of congestion management plan because the project does not meet the requirements for having a congestion management plan. However, he stated, staff recognizes the concern and has asked the applicant's traffic engineer to be ready to address that issue. Commissioner Welshons asked If a condition for congestion management, requiring staggered hours of operation, could be added if the response of the applicant's traffic engineer Is not to the Commission's satisfaction. Mr. Wojcik replied that a condition with some type of wording that would require a congestion management acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer could be added. Commissioner Welshons asked how many employees will be working at this facility at buildout. Mr. Wojcik replied that he does not know how many employees there will be. Referring to the staff report and the statement that Phase I (buildings No. 1, 2 ,3, 6, 7, & 8), has already received conditional approval by the Planning Director, Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. DeCerbo to explain what that conditional approval means. Mr. DeCerbo explained that it means that the Planned Industrial Permit is approved, subject to approval of all ofthe other permits before this Commission. Commissioner Welshons asked if that was intended to expedite the approvals for them because it also includes the regrading of the property. Mr. DeCerbo replied that the conditional approval was not necessahly to expedite. The applicant could have processed the map and subsequently processed the Planned Industrial Permits, but the Planning Director does have the authority to approve Planned Industrial Permits. Also, the demolition of the old Hughes buildings was done on a demolition permit. Rich Simons, Development Manager, representing Lincoln Property Company, 10 Double Coves, Newport Beach, CA, stated that he had nothing to add except to say that the proposed traffic signal Is an Important element to the development. He went on to say that with the employees that ViaSat will have, the traffic signal is a necessity as well as an enhancement for the Bressi Ranch site. Additionally, the three R&D buildings will be developed in conjunction with the ViaSat buildings. Mr. Simons further stated that they are holding two of the pads for buildings No. 4 & 5, and will be for the future expansion of ViaSat. MINUTES PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 18 Commissioner Compas asked if buildings No. 4 & 5 will be built whether or not ViaSat Is ready to use them. Mr. Simons replied that buildings 4 & 5 will not be built until ViaSat is ready for them. However, they are constructing buildings 6, 7, & 8, on a speculative basis. Commissioner Compas asked what will happen to future buildings 4 & 5 if ViaSat is no in a position to occupy them. Mr. Simons replied that If ViaSat does not exercise their option, then Lincoln Property Co., would have the right to build for another tenant. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Simons if he has read the errata sheet and does he agree with everything in it. Mr. Simons replied that he has read the document and agrees with everything in it, including the modification discussed with Mr. Wojcik. Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, asked If Mr. Simons Is referring to Condition No. 25 and Mr. Simons replied affirmatively. Mr. Rudolf then proposed a change to Errata Sheet Item No. 2, Condition No. 25, as follows: 'The use of each of the proposed buildings shall be restricted so that any additional traffic generated does not Impact the existing traffic circulation and the additional traffic Impact fees are paid, but In no event shall the total project traffic generated exceed 5,036 ADT without appropriate environmental review. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map non-mapping data sheet." Mr. Simons stated that Mr. Rudolfs proposed change to Condition No. 25 Is acceptable. Commissioner Compas asked if the purpose of the change is so that the project will not be restricted to a single tenant. Mr. Rudolf replied that that is correct. Gerard Tanksley, Facilities Manager for ViaSat, 214 Glenn Arbor Drive, Encinitas, stated that he Is available to answer questions. Commissioner Compas asked if ViaSat Is publicly traded on the Stock Market and how old Is the company. Mr. Tanksley replied that ViaSat went public in February, 1997, and Is 12 years old. Commissioner Compas asked how many people ViaSat employs. Mr. Tanksley replied that there are currently 360 employees. Commissioner Compas asked how many employees they except to have in five years. Mr. Tanksley replied that If they ultimately occupy buildings No. 4 & 5, the number of employees could be as high as 700 or 800. On the other hand, if they do not occupy buildings No. 4 & 5, the number will be In the 500 range. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Tanksley to describe ViaSat's product and also asked who their customers are. Mr. Tanksley replied that the bulk of the business is very high quality, secured defense type MINUTES PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 19 communications. For example, he stated, they make the telephone for Air Force One as well as nearly every radio used in ali of the armed services. He explained that they appear to have a niche In what Is called THEMA communications which makes very efficient use of the satellite band widths and allows more signals to be multiplexed over them. He added that the projections are very good for that type of communication to become a requirement over the long term. Commissioner Compas asked if their business will be predominantly for the government. Mr. Tanksley replied that they are trying to pariay that business Into commercial/rural telephony. Regarding the possible staggering of working hours. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Tanksley to give the Commission a general idea of how their operations work, such as hours of operation and whether or not everyone enters and leaves at the same time. Mr. Tanksley replied that they have a very flexible approach to the hours and that some of the engineers come in late and leave late. He added that they have a very small footprint, In terms of production, and the hours for the production department are 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. The company is more than 60% engineers and work hours are somewhat unintentionally staggered. Mr. Tanksley further stated that their Human Resources Department Is very open to whatever Is culturally suitable and helps the community. Commissioner Welshons asked If ViaSat would accept a very general condition to that effect. In case traffic becomes a problem. Mr. Tanksley replied that he cannot speak for the founders of the company but Is sure that agreement can be reached. Commissioner Welshons asked why they need antennas on top of the building as well as the ones on the ground. Mr. Tanksley replied that their primary objective Is to get the larger dishes out on the dish farm and the smaller pole, whip, and dish antennas on the roofs which Is an answer to not having a giant dish farm. Also, the objective of the antenna will dictate where It is placed since all antennas do not have all of the same capabilities. Commissioner Welshons asked if ViaSat operations could put Carisbad at risk by enemy factions. Mr. Tanksley replied that they do not know of any risk of that nature since they are basically a "think tank" and a research and development facility for equipment used by both government and private commercial entitles. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf if he could craft some wording for a very generalized condition as suggested eariier to Mr. Tanksley. Mr. Wojcik interjected and replied that an additional condition is not necessary because It Is already In the Growth Management Plan. He went on to explain that the proposed signal will be a City signal and as such, if the level of service falls below the City standards, the applicant will be required to come up with a traffic control plan to achieve compliance with the standards. Commissioner Monroy asked if other developments would be held to the same standards and he was answered affirmatively. Mr. Wayne stated that part of the action being taken by this Commission relies on the MEIR, as such, the applicant must comply with mitigation measures that are in the MEIR, otherwise the City would be dealing with projects that would a significant, non-mitigable, impact on the environment and the Commission would not be able to approve the project. He added that those types of conditions that require compliance with the MEIR are In the PIP and are woven Into all ofthe Individual projects. MINUTES PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 20 Mr. Rudolf stated that the bus stop and the traffic signal, that are Included as requirements on this project, come from the MEIR which Is why the City has the power to exact them. Sam Kabb, Traffic Engineer with Urban Systems Associates, 4540 Kearney Villa Road, San Diego, responding to some of the traffic issues that have been raised, stated that the Phase I development will generate enough traffic to trigger Caltrans warrants for the Installation of a traffic signal and to delay that installation Is not recommended, especially from a liability and safety standpoint. Also, Mr. Kabb stated that he is also the traffic engineer for the Bressi Ranch project and that their concept plan is relying on that location for access. With respect to this project generating more traffic than Hughes Aircraft did, Mr. Kabb stated that there is more square footage In this project and it Is covered under the MEIR so that the Impacts from the additional traffic have already been accounted for in that document. He added that there is no new traffic expected, that hasn't already been planned in the City's General Plan for this parcel. Mr. Kabb pointed out that their calculations at buildout show that the facility's driveway, where the signal will be, will be acceptable according to the Growth Management Plan and will be at LOS "A" in the morning and LOS "B" in the afternoon. Also, there is enough flexibility for three lanes coming out of that driveway. With regard to stacking, Mr. Kabb stated that calculations indicate that there is ample stacking room at the intersection. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Kabb to state the percentage of cars that will using the northern entrance and what percentage will use the southern entrance. Mr. Kabb replied that the number of cars using the northern entrance ( right-in/right-out) will be about % of the total load into the two driveways. In addition, the overall distribution to the driveways will depend, primarily, on where the individuals live. As for percentages, Mr. Kabb estimated that about 33.3% of the traffic will enter and exit the northernmost driveway and about 66.6% will enter and exit the southernmost driveway. Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Kabb If his calculations for this intersection also included those persons that are not part of this project, namely those that are part of the adjacent project. Mr. Kabb answered affirmatively. Commissioner Welshons asked how many cars will be able to stack while waiting to proceed northbound on El Camino Real. Mr. Kabb replied that nine or ten cars will be able to stack at that intersection. Commissioner Welshons stated that it appears that Mr. Kabb Is In favor of only two lanes at the intersection which would make the right hand lane both a through lane as well as a right turn lane, which would block or restrict right turns. Mr. Kabb responded by stating that the plan is being prepared to eventually provide an extra right turn lane when the Bressi Ranch project is built and they take access at that intersection. Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the Invitation to speak. Seeing no one wishing to testify. Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony. Mr. Wayne stated that after conferring with the applicant and receiving the applicant's approval, he wished to proposed an amendment to Item No. 4 on the Errata Sheet as follows: ... for easements and/or maintenance agreements acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attomey shall be executed by the owner and/or shall be placed on the Final Map for shared driveways . . ." Mr. Wayne continued by stating that this condition strictly relates to the connecting of all of the lots in this 12 lot subdivision. It interconnects all 12 lots so that they all have reciprocal access easements over each other. MINUTES PLANNINGCOMMISSION August 19, 1998 ^ Page 21 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4354 and 4355, recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and SP 109(B), and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4356, 4357, 4358, 4359, 4360 approving CT 98-07, PUD 98-01, HDP 98-05, SUP 98-03 and CUP 98-08, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Including the errata sheet, dated 8/19/98, with the corrected language to Item #2 as read Into the record by Mr. Rudolf and corrected language to Item #4, as read Into the record by Mr. Wayne. In Commissioner Savary's absence. Chairperson Noble stated that she asked him to state, for the record that she Is concerned about the increased traffic and the proposed traffic signal. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Noble, Heineman, Monroy, Welshons, Compas, and Nielsen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Savary PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS: None CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission of August 19, 1998, was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, GARY^. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. MINUTES %ITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEN^ BILL AB# /^^Jl^ MTG. 9/22/98 DEPT. PLN ^ TITLE: LINCOLN NORTH POINTE - SP 109(B) DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY. I CITY MGR "Ij^ UJ g cc CL SE < -J o z D o o RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Citv Council ADOPT Resolution No. ff"-^^. APPROVING the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Specific Plan Amendment 109(B). ITEM EXPLANATION: On August 19, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved (6-0) the non-legislative discretionary development permits (CT 98-07, PUD 98-01, HDP 98-05, SUP 98-03 and CUP 98-08) for the Lincoln North Pointe project. These permits will allow Lincoln Properties to develop a 50.23 acre property (including the former Hughes Aircraft industrial site) which Is located adjacent to and south of the Olympic Resort Hotel along El Camino Real. The specific development actions include: (1) subdividing the 50.23 acre parcel into 12 non-residential lots ranging from 2.47 acres to 6.28 acres in area, (2) balanced grading of the entire property, (3) constructing 6 office/research and development/warehouse buildings totaling 385,085 square feet in area upon 6 of the proposed non-residential lots, and (4) constructing satellite antennas upon the rooftop of one of the buildings and a satellite dish antennae farm along the northern boundary of the project site. ViaSat Inc. is the proposed tenant for 3 ofthe 6 Phase I buildings and 2 proposed future buildings. The project as proposed was approved by the Planning Commission without major revisions. The recently demolished Hughes Aircraft industrial buildings and associated development was approved in 1972 through Specific Plan 109. The site was processed under specific plan in 1972 due to Its location within the Palomar Airport Influence Area. However, the City's Updated General Plan no longer mandates that projects located within the Palomar Airport Influence Area be required to process a specific plan. Accordingly, the project applicant Is requesting, and the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that Specific Plan 109 be rescinded and that this project be processed through other discretionary permits (CT, PIP, PUD, HDP, CUP and SUP) as proposed. With the repeal of Specific Plan 109, all future development upon the subject property would still require the approval of a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) by the Planning Director. FISCAL IMPACT: All future development upon the subject property will require the processing and approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. The Planned Industrial Permit application fee will adequately cover the staff/administrative costs for processing such permits. No other fiscal impacts will result from the approval of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Planning Commission has determined that this project will result In direct significant and adverse impacts to biological resources. Specifically, the project will impact 15.32 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC) and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat which is located within the western third of the property. The developer has agreed to mitigate at a 2:1 ratio the project's impacts to 15.32 acres of SMC and .41 acres of other sensitive habitat, thereby reducing the significant adverse biological impacts to below a level of significance in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The specific mitigation may