Loading...
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