HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 51041
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. 5104
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE CARLSBAD GENERAL PLAN ON 17
PROPERTIES LOCATED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY,
TO BRING THEM INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN’S NEW POLICY VISION FOR THE
LOCATION AND NUMBER OF SHOPPING CENTERS.
CASE NAME: SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS
CASE NO.: GPA 01-06
WHEREAS, The City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by various parties, described in Exhibit “GPA 01-06”
(“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, 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:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated September 4, 2001, and “PII” dated August 29,
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:
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.
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 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of 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 upon 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:
ATTEST:
.
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5104 -2-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Seventeen sites within the City of Carlsbad. Please see maps
attached to Initial Study.
Project Description: Changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual
properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan’s
new policy vision for the location and number of local shopping
centers. Specifically, assigning the new “Local Shopping Center”
designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Shopping
Center” and “Community Shopping Center” designations,
converting one site designated Community Commercial to
Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from
Residential, Low-Medium Density to Local Shopping Center, and
converting one site with a combination designation including
Community Commercial to a combination designation including
Regional Commercial. Please see the attached “Table 1: Property
Descriptions”.
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 Dennis Turner, Principal Planner, in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4609.
DATED: September 4,200l
CASE NO: GPA 01-06
CASE NAME: Shopping Center Redesignations
PUBLISH DATE: September 4,200l ,
MICHAEL J. HC&Zhk&LER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 01-06
DATE: August 29.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Shoupina Center Redesignations
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad. CA 92008,
(760) 602-4609
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMIT-TED: n.a. Citv of Carlsbad proiect
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Changes in the land use class designations on 17 individual
properties to bring them into conformance with the general plan’s new policy vision for the
location and number of local shopping centers. Specifically, assigning the new “Local Shopping
Center” designation to 13 sites with the old “Neighborhood Shopping Center” and “Community
Shopping Center” designations, converting one designated Community Commercial to
Residential - Medium High Density, converting two sites from Residential, Low-Medium
Density to Local Shopping Center, and converting one site with a combination designation,
including Community Commercial to a combination designation, including Regional
Commercial. Please see the attached location maps and “Table 1: Property Descriptions”. Also
see the section entitled: “DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION”.
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 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise III Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
lxl
q
q
q
q
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 document pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
document, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
------XL a--u- 8/2&q
Planner Signature Date I
Date
2 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 “EL4-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.
Rev. 03/28/96
l 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.
l 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 that would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
0
d
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill
Subsidence of the land
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff!
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Potentially Significant
Impact
q q
q q
q
q
q
q
q q 0 q q q
q q q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q q
q q
q
q
q
q
q q 0 q q q
q q q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q q
q q
q
q
q
q
q q 0 q q q
q q q
El
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
Ix1
lzl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
lzl
Ix]
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
Ix]
lzl
Ix]
Ix]
Is1
El
IXI
IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
0 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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
Create objectionable odors?
VI. TR4NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4 b)
cl 4 e) f)
s>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a)
b)
4
4
4
VIII.
4
b)
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q q q
q
q q
q
q 0
q 0 q q
q
q
q q
q q
q q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q q cl
q
q q
q
q q
q 0 q q
q
q
0 q
q q
q q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q q El
q
q 0
q
q q
q q q q
q
0
0 q
q q
q q
No Impact
[XI
lxl
Ix1
lxl
l.xl
El
lxl
lzl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
(XI
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
IXI
IXI
lxl
(XI
6 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) 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?
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to
health hazards?
Increase fire hazard in
grass, or trees?
existing sources of potential
areas with flammable brush,
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a) b) c>
4 e> f) !a
XIII.
a>
b)
c>
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect
Create light or glare?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q
q
0
q
q
q
0 q
El q q q q
q q q
q q q q
q q q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
cl
q
q
q
0 q
cl q q q q
q q q
q q q q
q q q
Less Than
Significani Impact
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q q
q q q q q
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
Ix]
q lxl q lx/ 0 El
q lxl q Ix] q lxl q lxl
q Ix] q El q lx
7 Rev. 03128196
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
4
b)
cl
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
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?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant
Impact
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
Ix)
lxl
lxl
[XI
IZJ
[XI
(XI
lxl
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier ElR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
4 Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
8 Rev. 03128196
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
For this project, no earlier analysis has been relied upon.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This “project” consists of changes to the land use designations for 17 sites shown on the Land
Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan. The proposed action is of a
policy nature only and no construction is being proposed with this action. (Please see the
attached Table 1 for a tabular description of the 17 sites and the changes proposed for each. Also
see the attached site location maps. A name and number that corresponds to the name and
number used in Table 1 is used to identify each mapped site.)
These proposed changes come about as follow-through to a major change to the policy framework of the general plan, approved by the City Council (GPA 00-04, March 21, 2001,
affecting the classification, location, and distribution of retail land uses throughout the city. The
amendment brought about two major arenas of policy change: a) the general plan’s old
“Neighborhood Commercial” designation and the “Community Commercial” land use
designation were merged into a single, new “Local Shopping Center” designation”, and b) new
policies and principles were adopted through which a subsequent “commercial study” was to be
undertaken to establish the ultimate spatial distribution and number of local shopping centers
throughout the city. Over the intervening months the commercial study has been completed. The
current action follows from the study and is concerned with a) converting built and vacant sites
with the old designations to the new .designation, and b) adding and deleting certain shopping
center sites to the Land Use Map in keeping with the results of the commercial study and the new
policy framework.
A new zone for the Local Shopping Center land use designation is being prepared and will be
applied later to those properties with the “L” designation. The new zone is not part of the subject
project.
With 13 of the 17 proposed general plan changes the current land use designation is for either a
community shopping center or neighborhood shopping center and the new designation is for a
local shopping center. As the old designations no longer exist, the proposed changes are
primarily pro-forma in nature, necessary to bring the site-specific designations into conformance
with the new land use nomenclature. From Table 1, these sites are:
1. Carlsbad Plaza North
2. Carlsbad Plaza South
3. Plaza Paseo Real
4. West Bluff Plaza
5. La Costa Plaza
6. La Costa Town Center
7. Poinsettia Plaza
8. Unnamed at Tamarack and Adams Street
9. The Country Store
12. Sunny Creek Plaza
14. MAG properties
15. Tienda de la Esquina, and
16. Smith-Walsh property,
9 Rev. 03128196
The land use changes on the remaining four sites come about as an outcome of the recently
completed commercial study that evaluated the need for future shopping centers and their spatial
distribution, based upon the new policy framework. The City is proposing that land use
designations be changed from commercial to non-commercial, from non-commercial to
commercial, or from one type of commercial to another. From Table 1, these sites are:
10. Calavera Hills Village E-l (from commercial to residential)
11. Robertson Ranch (from residential to commercial), and
13. Bressi Ranch (from residential to commercial)
17. The Pavilions/Green Valley (from Community Commercial to Regional
Commercial).
Nine of the 17 sites are already built with existing shopping centers (see Table 1) There is no
expansion or new construction proposed for any of these sites at this time and, therefore, there
will be no possible environmental effects with this action.
The remaining 8 sites are vacant. Some have undergone some form of environmental review
previously. With others, project proposals are pending and appropriate environmental documents
are being prepared. On still others, no development has been proposed, and, hence, no
environmental review has been done. What follows is a description of each vacant site and its
current status:
10. Calavera Hills, Village E-l. The subject proposal is to change the land use
designation from “Community Commercial” (C) to “Residential, Medium High”
density (RMH - 8-15 dwelling units per acre) on this nine-acre site. The site is part of
the Calavera Hills Master Plan, which is undergoing a major amendment designed
principally to accommodate the preservation of additional acres of sensitive habitat within the plan. The landowners wish to delete the shopping center from the Master
Plan site in favor of medium-high density residential uses. The commercial land use
study indicated that this site is not needed to meet the new location criteria for
shopping center spacing as shopping for this area could be provided via sites in
Oceanside (Quarry Creek) and the Robertson Ranch and Sunny Creek Plaza sites in
Carlsbad. EIR 98-02 finished public review on April 2, 2001. It was prepared for the
Master Plan Amendment and speaks to all of the land use changes proposed for the
Master Plan, including the change in uses for the subject site. The Master Plan
amendment is not yet scheduled for public hearings.
11. Robertson Ranch. The proposal is for a “floating designation” for “Local Shopping
Center” (L) within the Ranch. The entire ranch is currently designated for
“Residential, Low-Medium” density (RLM 0 - 4 d.u./ac.). The owners of the Ranch
are just beginning to consider a master plan or specific plan for the long-range
development of the ranch. Nothing has been submitted to the city for approval at this
time, and no earlier environmental review has been conducted on this site. Although the shopping center is subject to the location policies and guidelines recently
established in the General Plan, the exact location will not be settled until the
master/specific plan is developed and approved by the city. An EIR will probably be
required for the master/specific plan. Preliminary proposals for a lo-acre shopping
center anchored by an Albertsons market have been discussed. The shopping center
study indicates that this site, in conjunction with the Sunny Creek Plaza (site 12) and Quarry Creek site in Oceanside could provide the needed shopping services for the
Calavera Hills and Tamarack/El Camino Real areas.
10 Rev. 03128196
12. Sunnv Creek Plaza, The proposal is a simple conversion of the old “Community
Commercial”(C) to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation on this l&acre
site. The City has been processing a proposal for a neighborhood shopping center on
this site, called Sunny Creek Plaza. The application has remained incomplete for a
long time and recently the city requested that the application be withdrawn due to
inactivity. The site underwent environmental review in 1998, via EIR 98-01, as part
of the review for the Sunny Creek Terraces proposal for 250 residential units, located
south of the Plaza site, across future College Boulevard. The EIR also considered the
impacts of mass grading of the Plaza site (including import of fill from the Terraces site) and the site’s use for the storage of recreation vehicles for the residential
development. Development of the Plaza site for a shopping center likely will require
additional site-specific environmental review. The commercial study indicates that
this site, together with the Robertson Ranch site, is desirable to provide shopping
center coverage to the areas along the El Camino Real corridor north of Palomar
Airport Road and South of Chestnut Street. The trade areas of the two sites would
overlap somewhat.
13. Bressi Ranch. A Master Plan for the 600-acre ranch site is currently being prepared,
together with a preliminary, draft EIR. The Master Plan tentatively calls for a mixed-
use “town center” on approximately 20-25 acres of the site, to include a retail
shopping component. This proposal is still being formulated and is subject to
refinement and change. Neither the draft Master Plan nor the draft EIR is completed
at this time. The subject proposal is to assign a floating “Local Shopping Center” (L)
general plan designation in the approximate location being discussed in the draft
Master Plan for the mixed-use site. This site and the surrounding area are currently
designated in the General Plan for “Residential, Low-Medium” density (RLM 0 - 4
d.u./ac.). The commercial study indicated that a shopping center would be desirable
in this area to provide additional trade area “coverage” for the Bressi Ranch and
Carrillo Ranch areas as well as the industrial corridor along the eastern reaches of El
Camino Real.
14. MAG Properties. This vacant site consists of land designated for nearly 54 acres of
“Community Commercial” (C) and 23 acres of “Office and Related Commercial”
(0). The subject proposal is to convert the old “Community Commercial” (C)
designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L). The City has received and is
beginning a formal review of an application for development of this site, pursuant to
the proposed land use designation. The development proposal is for approximately
444,000 square feet of retail and office uses, plus approximately 131 dwelling units
on other owned land that adjoins the commercial properties. The City is in the
process of scoping and preparing an EIR for this project. The developer may request
further amendments to the general plan to re-configure the retail, office, and
residential land use designations. These land use changes are NOT part of the subject
proposal and would be considered and processed with the development proposal and
EIR. The commercial study indicated that a local shopping center at this location is
necessary to provide basic retail services to southern and eastern parts of the La Costa
community that would not otherwise be adequately served.
15. Tienda de la Esauina. The proposal is to convert the old “Neighborhood
Commercial” (N) designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L) designation.
The 7%acre site is vacant. Approvals were granted several years ago to develop the
11 Rev. 03128196
site with a drive-through drug store. The entitlements were not exercised and,
subsequently, expired. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the earlier proposal
in 1991. This site would also provide service to areas of southern and eastern La
Costa that would not otherwise be adequately served.
16. Smith-Walsh Property. The subject proposal is simply to convert the old
“Neighborhood Commercial” designation to the new “Local Shopping Center” (L)
designation. Recently the City prepared a preliminary review of the 5-acre, vacant
site for the development of a 50,000 square-foot shopping center to be anchored by a
Henrys market. A formal proposal has not been submitted to the City. The commercial study indicated that the trade area of the existing Poinsettia Village
shopping center (located westerly, across I-5) would overlap much of the trade area of
a center on this site. However, a Henrys-based center would provide an alternative
mix of goods and services and could, therefore, be supported under the new policy
framework. If the owner makes a formal submittal, the City will prepare an
appropriate environmental document for the development.
17. Pavilions/Green Valley. This area is designated in the Carlsbad General Plan with a
combination designation of “Community CommerciaVOffce and Related
Commercial! Residential, Medium High Density” (C/O/RMH, 8-l 5 d.u./ac.). The
proposal is to convert the “Community Commercial” (C) portion of the designation to
“Regional Commercial” (R/O/RMH) on this 18-acre, vacant site. The site is part of
the Green Valley Master Plan, for which EIR 93-02 was prepared in 1995. The
Master Plan calls for up to 300,000 square feet of retail commercial on this site. The
City has received and is reviewing a development proposal for The Pavilions,
261,000 square feet of general retail development. Because of the size and type of
commercial development being proposed and, particularly, its location relative to the
adjoining Encinitas Town Center complex, a regional center located to the south,
across Calle Barcelona, the commercial study suggests that the site would not serve as
a local shopping center and would be better classified as regional commercial. The
site is not needed to provide trade area service to eastern and southern La Costa,
provided that the MAG and/or Tienda de la Esquina site(s) are developed with a local
shopping center(s).
Visitor Serving Overlay Zone: three of the sites are within the City’s Visitor Serving Overlay
Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.208). This overlay zone ‘was created in 1999 to supplement the underlying zoning for commercial and visitor-serving land uses by requiring a conditional
use permit with the City Council as the decision-maker. The purpose is to prevent the over-
proliferation of certain uses, to promote maximum public disclosure about new
commercial/visitor serving proposals, to assure good design and design compatibility with
existing uses, and to assure good vehicular circulation and the integration of alternative
transportation alternatives into project design. The overlay zone exists along the central coastal
corridor of the City and along the western reaches of El Camino Real. The three sites subject to
this additional development review are (with reference to Table 1):
7. Poinsettia Plaza
8. Site at Tamarack Avenue and Adams Avenue
16. Smith/Walsh site
III conclusion, the proposed action (changes of general plan land use land use classifications on
17 sites) will not result in any construction and, therefore, will not result in any environmental
12 Rev. 03128196
impacts. Development projects that rely on the proposed general plan changes either are
preparing site-specific environmental documents, or will prepare them when and if development
projects are proposed.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
None
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
None required
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 Signature
(Not applicable)
Attachments:
1. Table 1: Property Descriptions
2. Site Location Maps
13 Rev. 03/28/96
II II II II II II
. .
y” ‘I 32 ZOJOfYlY
PROPERTY #I & #2
CARLSBAD PLAZA
NORTH & SOUTH
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #3 & #4
PLAZA PASEO REAL &
WEST BLUFF PLAZA
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #5 & #6
SITE
LA COSTA PLAZA &
LA COSTA TOWN CENTER
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #7 & #16
POINSETTIA PLAZA &
SMITH/WALSH PROPERTY
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #8
SITE
VON’S AT TAMARACK AVE.
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #9 & #11
Sll
THE COUNTRY STORE &
ROBERTSON RANCH
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #I 0
CALAVERA HILLS
VILLAGE E-l
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #I 2
RANCH0 CARLSBAO
GOLF COURSE
SUNNY CREEK PLAZA
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #I3
SITE
BRESSI RANCH SITE
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #I4 & #I5
SITE
MAG PROPERTIES, RANCH0 LA
COSTA VILLAGE & TIENDA DE LA
ESQUINA
GPA 01-06
PROPERTY #I 7
THE PAVILION
GPA 01-06