HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 50941
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5094
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION
OF 14.6 ACRES INTO 8 NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT LOTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON EACH LOT, ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CORTE DE LA PINA,
BETWEEN CORTE DEL CEDRO AND EL CAMINO REAL IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: NORTH POINTE WEST
CASE NO.: CT Ol-OS/PUD 98-01(A)
WHEREAS, Carltas Development Company, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 9 through 12 of Carlsbad Tract No. 98-07, according to
Map No. 13716, filed in the Offke of the County Recorder on
December 31, 1998, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of December 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
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
“ND” dated November 5, 2001, and “PII” dated October 23, 2001, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
d.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
SEGALL, C?k&person
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5094
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Corte de al Pina, between Corte de1 Cedro and El Camino
Real, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
Project Description: A Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned Unit
Development Permit Amendment and Planned Industrial Permit
Amendment to allow the subdivision of 14.6 acres into eight Non-
residential Planned Development lots and the construction of one
building on each of these lots.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
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 Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: NOVEMBER 5,200l
CASE NO: CT Ol-08/PUD 98-Ol(A)/PIP 98-07(A)
CASE NAME: NORTH POINTE WEST
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 5,200l
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7374 l . (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.car1sbad.ca.m @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 01-OS/PUD 98-Ol(A~
DATE: October 23.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: North Pointe West
2. APPLICANT: Smith Consulting Architects
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12220 El Camino Real, Suite 200, San
Diego CA 92130 (858)793-4777
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 9.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Man. Non-residential Planned Unit Develonment
Permit Amendment and Planned Industrial Permit Amendment to allow the subdivision of 14.6
acres into eight Non-residential Planned Develonment lots and the construction of one building
on each of these lots.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning Ix1 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
El Population and Housing El Biological Resources El Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems cl Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
q Water cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03l28l96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
q
q
IXI
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date ’ /
Planning Dire&& Sig&&re Date
2 Rev. 03128196
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 @J 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 environmental 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.
3 Rev. 03128196
a 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.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not lad 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 E&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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
c)
d)
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a>
b)
c>
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
c)
4
e)
0
ia
h)
0
- - expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q JII 0
q
0 q
0 q q
q
q
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q q 0
q
0 q
0 q q
q
q
0
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
q
q
0
q
q
II
q
cl
q q q
q
q 0,
q q q
0
q
cl
Ia
lxl
Ix1
El
Ix]
Ia
lxl
El
lxl
IXI
IXI
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
lzl
IXI
El
(XI
lxl
Rev. 03128196 5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
d
f,
g)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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-l - 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: c
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-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
&?I.
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-I 4 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
El
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
III
0
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0.
No Impact
El
lx
IXI
lxl
Ix1
lxl
q
IXI
Ix1
lxl
q
El
IXI
El
lzl
lzl
IXI
la
[XI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c>
4
d
VIII.
a)
b)
cl
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
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 of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 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-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I -
5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#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)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII.UTILITIES ANp SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
7
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
0
U
q
q
q q q q q
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q q
Less Tllan Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q 0 q q q
No Impact
lxl
IXI
Ix1
I8
El
IXI
lxl
IXI
lxl
El
lzl
lxl
(XI
El
lxl
Ix1
(XI
1x)
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a)
b)
c)
4
4
0
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
cl
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
d
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-l - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-l - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-l -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1 :Pgs 5%
1 - 5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated q
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant Impact
q
q q
0 cl q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
0
q
q
q
No Impact
El
IXI
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
El
Ix]
lzl
I8
lxl
ix1
lz
lxl
Ix1
lxl
IXI
IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? q q q Ix]
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, q
either directly or indirectly?
q q IXI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of the North Pointe West project site has been conducted on previous occasions.
The earliest analysis was the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan
Update (MEIR 93-01) which reviewed the potential impacts associated with buildout of the
City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts.
The next environmental review document covering the project site was the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Lincoln North Point industrial subdivision (CT 9%07/PUD 98-Ol/PIP 9%07),
which reviewed the potential impacts associated with the subdivision of 50.23 acres into 12
industrial lots and construction of industrial buildings on those lots. The subject area was
approved as four lots, with up to 124,475 square feet of office/research and
development/warehouse uses. The maximum traffic generation allowed for these four lots was
891 average daily trips (ADT). The Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the subdivision,
grading and development of the site with industrial uses would not cause any significant adverse
environmental impacts. The mitigation measures contained in this Mitigated Negative
Declaration dealt with the replacement of impacted southern Maritime Chaparral and the
removal of pampas grass from the existing drainage channel on the western edge of the site.
Since the site is already graded and the pampas grass has been removed from the drainage
channel, these mitigation measures do not apply to the current proposal.
The current proposal is very similar to that approved through the Lincoln North Pointe
subdivision (CT 9%07LPUD 9%Ol/PlP 98-07). The graded area would remain the same with no
encroachment into any adjacent slopes. The proposed pad height would remain within five feet
of the existing graded pad height. The proposed buildings would contain office/research and
development/warehouse uses and would total 146,800 square feet. While the total square
footage of buildings would increase from the original approval, the total traffic generation would
remain the same, with a maximum of 891 ADT. Given the above, the proposed project would
not cause any significant adverse environmental impacts.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Smith Consulting Architects is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Non-residential
Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow the subdivision of 14.6 acres into eight Non-
residential Planned Unit Development lots and the construction of one industrial building on
each lot on property located at the eastern terminus of Corte de la Pina. A Planned Industrial
Permit Amendment, also included with the project, is ready for Planning Director approval
subject to approval of the other discretionary permits. The project site is designated Planned
Industrial (PI) in the General Plan Land Use Element and is zoned Planned Industrial (P-M).
The property is located north of Corte de al Pina, between Corte de1 Cedro and El Camino Real,
and is surrounded by industrial land uses.
The property has been previously subdivided and graded in accordance with the Lincoln North
Pointe industrial subdivision (CT 98-07/PUD 98-Ol/PIP 98-07); the site is located on a lower pad
area east of the remainder of the subdivision. As part of the Lincoln North Pointe project, an
access road was created along the western edge of the graded pad leading from Corte de la Pina
uphill to the development adjacent to El Camino Real. To the west of the access road is a
surface drainage channel with vegetation.
The Lincoln North Pointe industrial subdivision (also know as Legacy North Pointe) was
approved on August 19, 1998 and involved the subdivision of 50.23 acres into 12 non-residential
lots. The project included a Non-residential Planned Unit Development and Planned Industrial
Permit to allow the creation of lots without direct access to a public street and the construction of
buildings on the industrial lots. Eight of the lots were located on the upper portion of the site,
adjacent to El Camino Real. Three two-story office buildings have been constructed on three of
these upper lots. Four of the twelve lots were located on the lower portion of the site, along the
western boundary. The area covered by these four lots is the subject of this North Pointe West
industrial subdivision project.
The eight proposed Non-residential Planned Unit Development lots would range in size from 1.3
acres to 2.4 acres in size. All lots would contain an industrial building, surface parking,
landscaping, and an outdoor employee eating area. The site would be covered by a reciprocal
access easement, allowing vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking access throughout the
site. The existing North Pointe project is covered by an Owner’s Association and CC&Rs to
provide common area maintenance and the proposed subdivision would be a part of that
Association. The proposed buildings would range in size from 13,300 square feet to 21,200
square feet and would contain office, research and development, and warehouse uses. The
architecture would be of a similar style to the existing buildings within the North Pointe project
and the buildings would measure 32 feet in height to the top of the roof parapet.
The project site would take direct access off of Corte de la Pina and would also gain access from
the two existing entrances to the North Pointe project off of El Camino Real. The project
proposes balanced earthwork of 20,000 cubic yards cut and 20,000 cubic yards of fill. All
facilities needed to serve the project are already in place or will be provided concurrent with
construction. The project includes Best Management Practices, such as fossil filters and
vegetative swales, to address storm water quality in accordance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit requirements. No major soils, drainage, sewer or
improvement issues are associated with the project.
10 Rev. 03J28J96
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out
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 build-out, 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 alternative 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.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively 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 projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent ‘with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lincoln North Pointe industrial subdivision (CT
98-07/PUD 98-Ol/PIP 98-07), dated June 25, 1998, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department.
,
12 Rev. 03/28/96