HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-08; North Pointe West; Tentative Map (CT)CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOB: (CHECKBOXES)
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
I I Administrative Permit - 2nd
Dwelling Unit
Q Administrative Variance
• Coastal Development Permit
• Conditional Use Permit
Q Condominium Permit
[0^ Environmental Impact
Assessment
• Genet-al Plan Amendment
Q Hillside Development Permit
Q Local Coastal Plan Amendment
Q Master Plan
Non-Residential Planned
Development
I I Planned Development Permit
Planned Industrial Permit
• . Planning Commission
Determination
• Precise Development Plan
Q Redevelopment Permit
• Site Development Plan
n Special Use Permit
• Specific Plan
• Tontativo Porocl Map
Obtain from Engineering Department
Tentative Tract Map
Q Variance
n Zone Change
•
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLYi
List other applications not
^ specified
Udlr-th p6ilniL UJc.^t
2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO{S).
3) PROJECT NAME:
4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: <^ /d/* ^0/1'^4^6. PUD Hd^t^O^.j^. -j-d-f^l (^dC.
5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) .
MAILING ADDRESS
S((>oo Avtnfda Bnc^tm^s^fSo. too
MAILING ADDRESS . .
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE J<BGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE
INFORMATION - IS JRUE/^4JD CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDG^ /V / / .
¥nU- 5/7/^/
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNATUF^/^ DA/E / SIGNATURE DATE '
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M.
A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M.
Form 1 6 PAGE 1 OF 2
8) LOCATION OF PROJECT
ON THE
BETWEEN
STREET ADDRESS
SIDE OF
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST)
(k\dt del CiLdTo AND
(NAME OF STREET)
(NAME OF STREET)
(NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS ft
13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION
16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED
PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE
22) EXISTING ZONING
PUD
11) NUMBER OF EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/
SQUARE FOOTAGE
17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN
ADT^^^^wCcrf^.tf7
20) EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
23) PROPOSED ZONING
12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
15) PROPOSED COMM
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1 8) PROPOSED SEWER
USAGE IN EDU
21) PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION
24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CiTY
STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
TO INSPECT AND ENTERTHE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT
TO EN JRY FOR THlsXll=IPOSE
FOR CITY U$E/ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION
APPLICATION TYPE
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
FEE REQUIRED
'DECEIVED
MAR 0 9 200/
)glfTyr®iy[P(A^i|^^^g^r N RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO.
Fornn 16 PAGE 2 OF 2
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008
Applicant: SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS
Set Id: S000000561
Description
CT010008
PIP9807A
PUD9801A
Total:
Amount
6,855.00
1,375.00
4,370.00
12,600.00
Receipt Number: R0018878
Transaction Date: 03/09/2001 3587 03/09/01 0002 01
CGP"
Pay Type Method Description Amount
Payment Check 7352
Payment Credit Crd MC
11,480.00
542418013 1,120.00
Transaction Amount: 12,600.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: A/tV^h Fcinfl l/Vtsf '
APPLICANT NAME: <^^M (^cf f/Z/y^J? ^l^Ohl/'Ji(/h /Ok^l^l^^S .
Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately
explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any
background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or
appiropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
Description/Explanation.
77?/5 pnjjuui- e^^is-fe us/hj t^Xi^/Zh^ ^^^^
QmL^/y)(j Juxf^'f/'^j &plc?nir^h 8 l^^i-
R«v. 4/81 PfOjOMC.fmi
PLEASE NOTE:
Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law
do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The
City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine
whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal
of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application
is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is
needed to make this application complete. Whep the application is complete, the
processing period will start upefi^the date^^K the completion letter.
Applicant Signature
Staff Signature:
Date: Jpj'^/Ol
be stapled with receipt to application
Copy for file
FROM : K.?.S ENGINEERING PHONE NO. : 619 296 5564 -«>»,„. Mar. 04 2001 11:12PM P2
CjlyL_QfCarlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications wh«:b will require j
discretionary action on the part ofthe City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Commmee. |
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submmal. ^ our project cannoi
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please pnnt.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fratemal
organization, corporation, estate, trast. receiver, syndicate, in tius and any other count>-, cit>- and count>'. cm-
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combinatioa acting as a unit."
Agents may sign dais document; however, the legal name and cnnty of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons havmg a fmancial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or parmership. mclude the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHAKES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a nubliclv-owned cotT>oration. include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person,
Title_
See Attachment
Address.
Corp/Part Carltas Conpany
j[x\e CA limited partnership
_ .Address 5600 Avenida Encinas Ste. 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
OWNER (Not xhe owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE^ LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
parmership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or parmership. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person.
Title_
See Attachment
Address.
Corp/Parr Carlt-as Company
Title CA limited partnership
Address 5600 Avenida Encinas Ste. 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 9200S-73l«i • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ^
•F?JM : K&5 ENGINEERING PHGNE NG. : 619 296 5564 Mar. 04 2031 11:12PM P3
3. .VON-PROnr ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a rrusi. ii<:
names and addresses of AXV person sen.'ing as an officer or director of the non-proil;
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust N/A
Title
Non ProfitTrust.
Title_
N/A
Address Address.
4. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of CitN staff
Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve ^2) months'"
I I Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):.
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify thai all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signamre of owner/date Signature of applicant/date
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicanl
Claritas Conpany, a CA limited partnership
by: Carltas Management Ctompany, a CA corporation, general partner
icant's agent if applicable/date
Ikins, President
owner/applicant's agent
esident
H:ADMlN\COUNTER\DISCUOSUR£ STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Disclosure Statement
ATTACHMENT
1) Applicant
a) Individuals owning more than 10%:
i) Paul Ecke, Jr. - limited partner
P.O. Box 230488
Encinitas, CA 92023-0488
ii) Paul Ecke, III - limited partner
P.O. Box 230488
Encinitas, CA 92023-0488
iii) Lizbeth A. Ecke - limited partner
P.O. Box 234293
Leucadia, CA 92023-4293
iv) Sara Ecke May - limited partner
6 Elm Ridge Lane
Greensboro, NC 27408
2) Owner
a) Individuals owning more than 10%:
i) Paul Ecke, Jr. - limited partner
P.O. Box 230488
Encinitas, CA 92023-0488
ii) Paul Ecke, III - limited partner
P.O. Box 230488
Encinitas, CA 92023-0488
iii) Lizbeth A. Ecke - limited partner
P.O. Box 234293
Leucadia, CA 92023-4293
iv) Sara Ecke May - limited partner
6 Elm Ridge Lane
Greensboro, NC 27408
S:\JIM\MEMOS\MISC\City of Carlsbad Planning Department Disclosure StmtAttachment.doc
C Ffi F OOP-'
Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
December 5, 2001
Smith Consulting Architects
12220 El Camino Real, Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92120
SUBJECT: CT 01-80/PUD 98-01(A) - NORTH POINTE WEST
At the Plarming Commission meeting of December 5, 2001, your application was considered. The
Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Nielsen Absent) to APPROVE your request. The decision of the
Plarming Commission became final on December 5,2001.
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is govemed by Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate
court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes fmal; however, if
within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied
by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record,
the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attomey
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be
filed with the Plaiming Director, Michael J. Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, CA 92008.
If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4600.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Plaiming Director
MJH:MG:nih
Enclosed: Plaiming Commission Resolutions No. 5094, 5095, 5096
C: W9/LNP Real Estate Limited Partnership, 101 Lincoln Centre Drive, Foster City, CA 94404
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Lead Agency:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPA1WMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFG 763.Sa (6-01)
209391 1
(CountyjState Agency of Filing:
Project Title:
DEC 2001
Project Applicant Name:
DEPARTMENT
City 01
W\locument No.:
o
Project Applicant Addre.s..:SfcM)/M^gMlM I^Ql^/f , / H)^'^'^^/^ ^^^^
Project Applicant (check appropriate box): Local Public Agency Q N^^^ District p-|^/ Other Spycial District.
State Agency | " Private Entity | >
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: #
) Environmental Impact Report
) Negative Declaration
) Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only)
) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
( yCounty Administrative Fee
(VO Project that is exempt from fees
TOTAL RECEIVED
$850.00
$1,250.00
$850.00
$850.00
$25.00
$
Signature and title of person receiving payment
WHITE-PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW-DFG/I fAS&J Pll
$ —0
PINK-LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD-STATE AGENCY OF FILING
Notice of Determination
0 1 07
To: From: CITY OF CAfeLSBABlAN 2002
Planning DepartmeWNHiNGOtPARTMEHT
i^iiT ^ * City Of ,50 1635 Faraday Avenue CfUiai ^
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Ji'
(760) 602-4600
Office ofPlanning and Research
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 [p S L 1 0
Gregory J. Sm*. Rscorder/Oourty Clerk
county Clerk OEC 10 2001^
County of San Diego
Mailstop 833, Attn: Wendy
PO Box 121750
SanDiego, CA 92112-1750
Project No: CT 01-08/PUD 98-01(A)/PIP 98-07(A)
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 ofthe Public
Resources Code.
OS
DEfUTY
North Pointe West
Project Title
City of Carlsbad, Michael Grim (760) 602-4623
State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number
North of Corte de la Pina, between Corte del Cedro and El Camino Real, City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego
Project Locations (include County) j
Project Description: Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned Unit Development
Amendment and Planned Industrial Permit Amendment to allow the subdivision of 14.6 acres
into eight industrial lots and the construction of one industrial building on each proposed lot.
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on December
6, 2001, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project.
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment
2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of
CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval ofthe project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of
project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
MICHAEL J. HOLZMlLLER;-Planning Director
Date received for filing at OPR:
Date
Revised October 1989
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNT\ .X^,<K
SAN DIEGO COU^'^^^Y ON DEC 1 0 2001
POSTED DECI 0 2001 REMOVED JAN 0 9 2002
RETURNED TO Av^i^NCY ON JAN 0 9 200?
DEPUTY
^^^^ ^^^^
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
North of Corte de al Pina, between Corte del Cedro and El Camino
Real, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
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 Califomia 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, Califomia 92008. Conaments 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:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
NOVEMBER 5, 2001
CT 01-08/PUD 98-01(A)/PIP 98-07(A)
NORTH POINTE WEST
PUBUSH DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2001
MICHAEL J. HO
Planning Director
R
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
PO BOX 944209
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2090
CERTIFICATION OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (Include County):
North Pointe West - CT 01-08/PUD 98-01(A)/PIP 98-07(A) - Located north of Corte de
la Pina, between Corte del Cedro and El Camino Real, City of Carlsbad, Coimty of San
Diego.
Name and Address of Applicant:
Carltas Company
5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
Carlsbad CA 92008
Project Description:
Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Platmed Unit Development Amendment and
Planned Industrial Permit Amendment to allow the subdivision of 14.6 acres into eight
industrial lots and the constraction of one industrial building on each proposed lot.
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
1. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department has completed an Environmental Initial Study
for the above referenced property, including evaluation of the proposed project's
potential for adverse enviroimiental impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
2. Based on the complete Envirotmiental Initial Study, the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department finds that the proposed project will not encroach upon wildlife habitat area,
will have no potential adverse individual or cimiulative effects on wildlife resources, and
requires no mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed project which would
affect fish or wildlife.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project
will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
ilk
MICHAEL J. HObJMILtER
Plaiming Director
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD
MJHMG:"* Date: IT./^/O I
Section 711.4, Fish and Game Code
DFG: 1/91
o o FILECOPY
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 5 2001, to consider a request for a Tentative Tract Map
and Non-residential Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow the subdivision of 14.6
acres Into eight (8) Non-residential Planned Unit Development lots and the construction pf one
(1) 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 and more
particularly described as:
Lots 9 through 12 of Carlsbad Tract No. 98-07, according to Map No.
13716, filed in the Office ofthe County Recorder on December 31, 1998,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 29, 2001. If you
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and the Planned Unit Development Amendment in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)
CASE NAME: NORTH POINTE WEST
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 23, 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
SITE
NORTH POINTE WEST
CT 01-08/PUD 98-01
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
North of Corte de al Pina, between Corte del Cedro and El Camino
Real, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego
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 constraction 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 Califomia 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, Califomia 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:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
NOVEMBER 5, 2001
CT 01-08/PUD 98-01(A)/PIP 98-07(A)
NORTH POINTE WEST
PUBUSH DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2001
CHAEL j". HOta^ J M MICHAEL
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us ®
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 01-08/PUD 98-01(A)
DATE: October 23. 2001
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: North Pointe West
APPLICANT: Smith Consulting Architects
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12220 El Camino Real. Suite 200. San
Diego CA 92130 (858)793-4777
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 9. 2001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Tract Map. Non-residential Planned Unit Development
Pennit 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.
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.
QLand Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation Public Services
I I Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics
I I Hazards •] Cultural Resources
I I Noise !• Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
o
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I 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 I 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 I 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 Direclor^SigiiaCure Date
Rev. 03/28/96
Q
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 potentiaUy significant
effect on the environment, but ^ 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
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detemiined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
• S
• m
• s
• • • K
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local | [
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or | |
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#I:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable I I
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
•
•
•
• Kl
• • K
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fauh rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) [ [ | | | |
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) | [ | | | |
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs I I I I I I
5.1-1-5.1.15) I—I I—J l__l
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - I I I I I I
5.1-15) L_l I—I l__l
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) | [ | [ | |
f) Erosion, changes in topography or imstable soil [ [ [ | | [
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) | | | | | |
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) | | | [ [ [
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - I I I I [ I
5.1-15) L_l l__l l_l
El K
K
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#I:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 -5..2-1I)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
X • • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would die
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicycUsts?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
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 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) 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)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
PotentiaUy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• m
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.I0.I-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- I I I I I I
15) I—I 1—1 I—I
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- I I I I I I
1-5.9-15) '—' '—' '
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) • • • X b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) • • • X c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) • • • X d) Maintenance of pubhc facilities, including roads? • • • X e) Other govemmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -• • • X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
K X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5) • • • X
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#1 :Pgs
5.11-1-5.11-5) • • •
c) Create hght or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) • • • X
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing rehgious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • 3
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Cahfomia history or
prehistory?
• • • m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually | | [ [ ^
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable fiiture projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will |^ ^
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
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 98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 98-07),
which reviewed the potential impacts associated with the subdivision of 50.23 acres into 12
industrial lots and constraction 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 southem Maritime Chaparral and the
removal of pampas grass from the existing drainage channel on the westem 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 98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
c 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 constraction of one industrial building on
each lot on property located at the eastem tenninus 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 del 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 98-01/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 westem 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
Pemiit to allow the creation of lots without direct access to a public street and the constraction 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 constracted on three of
these upper lots. Four of the twelve lots were located on the lower portion of the site, along the
westem 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
constraction. 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. 03/28/96
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 subsequentiy 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 altemative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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 altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
II Rev. 03/28/96
c o
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 infonnation, 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, Califomia, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lincoln North Pointe industrial subdivision (CT
98-07/PUD 98-01/PIP 98-07), dated June 25, 1998, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:'
DATE RECEIVED:
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:
2.
3.
(To be completed by staff)
A/6lr^h P/),'lnh. Wjl^f
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7*hi6 pMjtf.jf CidhSfSh df U6fh^ (f.)(l^i*tn^
pNjjuJ (PUb f^ '01/PIP 7((^r T) ^hd^mthdihi^
Mi^J'/ha ^pphn/a^/5 fair c3/7 ^/of- ncn-n^fdlimJ'i^l
PUD ^-fVhii^ IHfji fdcVf df ind ui-fHel u^i on /d-. (eac
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning Q Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
I I Population and Housing Q Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
I I Geological Problems \^ Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
I I Water Q Hazards O Cultural Resources
I I Air Quality Q Noise Q Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 Enviroimiental 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 proj ect-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end ofthe
forai under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (/?//<? -^7 )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (yC//? fg-^ 7 )
c) Be incompatible with Existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (;S7/7.?^-(37 )
e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (^y^ -.^y )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (t^S\fi -* $ < )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastmcture)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (/V^y-/2e$ )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault mpture? (Qf^g-(:>y )
b) Seismic ground shaking? {Q,f^^)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunaim, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows? ((i/" f^-tf? )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(csr f a-<r7)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (6 r ^t'^"^ )
h) Expansive soils? ( (i,r'<fg-07 )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface mnoff? {CT f^^Oy )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? {tf 7^ -d 7 )
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• •
• • • 0-
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• •
• • • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attaciied)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( Cf ffi^7 )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((i^r -(?7 )
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
thiough substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Crfi-6 7 )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( df - 'J'/)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
{crU'02 )
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
{(^rtt-oi )
Alter air movernent, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( ? 2> - (J "')
Create objectionable odors? ( C f ^ - tf 7 )
b)
c)
d)
Would the VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION,
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?
{r^fS-6 1 )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
{PiPi^-t I)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
{fi/p n-dj)
Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • 0"
No
Impact
•
• • 0-•
• • • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• , • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0^
• • •
• • • w
• • •
• • •
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? (/»i;<f? f^-d / )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? I I I I
0^ •
• 0^
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Infomiation Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ^ §-C j )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
(9^-6/ )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( f'UC? /)
vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
{hP^i^-^tl )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (A/<>f^-'<2>i' )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (/^^^ ji "Of)
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)? iPlJO ^^"6 { )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (PUO ^6 / )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards'? {pUOii-0/ )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? {fPUi? ^i-Of )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh,
grass, or trees? ( ^ ^ " f /)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( pUO 9 i"^! )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
O 0 0 &-
o 0 0
o 0 0 0"
o 0 O B-
0 • O 0-
• 0 0 B"
0 O o B
o o 0 B"
0 0 0 B-
0 o o B-
o 0 o 0^
0 0 0-O
0 o 0 B-
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( PU t> ^^-tj)
b) Police protection? {t>UI} lS'^^ )
c) Schools? (/V/C? )
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
{Faafhdi )
e) Other govemmental services? {PUP 7(j -'(5 J )
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supphes,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (/* Ltl? f ^ /)
b) Communications systems? (PlSlP 'if )
0 0 0 B^-
o 0 0 0-
o 0 0 0 0 0 B^
0 0 0 B-^
0 o 0 B^
o 0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (piyp f^-^)/ )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? {^P'Q ^t -'^fj )
e) Storm water drainage? (^Z/|? ^ S ~^ ) )
f) Solid waste disposal? (
g) Local or regional water supplies? {flJ^O ^^"^ I )
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
t Impact
B B B B-
0 B B B-
0 B B B-B B B 0^ B B B
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
{f//l?f3-6l )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? {m^S'Oj )
c) Create light or glare? (^^^/^
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (^'5i^j(? -(f / )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( jptJfP ^S j)
c) Affect historical resources? (P/Jp ^^"6) )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
{PUtPlt-6])
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( pUt^ )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional | ^[.^-^
parks or other recreational facilities?
{P^/pfS-^^/ )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? I I I I I I I <J—• {Mli'd/ ) U U U
B O 0 3-
B 0 o 0-
B 0 0
B 0 0 B-
B 0 0 B 0 0
B 0 0 B-
B 0 0 B-
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the enviromnent, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
B B B B^
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectiy?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
B
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
B
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
B B'
0 B B B^
XVII. 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 EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identi^ earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review. JjL^ 1^1/0 U-d(^ /7/^ ^^^Oj f- Cf f^-tf/.
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
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
C -P^%L
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these enviromnental factors.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concunent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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 ofan EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
fiirther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 fiill and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
Rev. 03/28/96
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concunent with need; 2) provisions to
develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Coimcil Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fiirther environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
10 Rev. 03/28/96
NOV-20-01 08:01A P.02
FROM : K&S ENGINEERING ^ PHONE NO. : 619 296 5564 Qlov. 19 2001 06:33ftt1 P2
KftS ENGINEERING
Planning 6rigin9«r)ng Surveying
November 19,2001 ' 0 "^ ^ cX>PS>
,w Of of ntP^ City of Carlsbad ^i-f^ ^[p, 0
Engineering Department
Mr. Mike Shirey
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Northpointe West
Pursuant to our discussion, the Northpointe West project will be phased as shown on Ihe
attached drawing. Buildings 5-8 and associated improvements; drive aisles, parking, hardscape
and landscape will be phase I. Buildings 1-4 and associate improvements will be phase 2.
Further refinement of this phasing is as follows:
1) The entire site wi 11 be graded with phase 1.
2) All stonn drain, erosion control, and BMPS will be constructed or placed with phase 1.
3) The water will be looped through phase 2 for fire flow in phase 1. D.G. will be provided
for surfacing over this water lines in phase 2 with phase 1 to provide access.
4) The entire project will be mapped in one phase. Improvements for phase 1 may begin prior
to recordation ofthe map.
Ifyou have any questions, please contact me. We appreciate your assistance. Note that wc are
scheduled for the City Design Coordinating Committee on Nov«nber 27**", 2001; thus wc need
your input as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Imsande,
Project Manager
Cc: John White
John Bailey
Scott Cairns
7801 Mission CenterCourf. Suite 100 • San Diego, Coltfornia 92108 • (619) 29<^5565 . Fax (619) 294^5564
Z:\D»U-ri*oedVPROJECP01 -0$5\P»<U:cnific»tion doc
o
o o
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
October 18, 2001
Scott Calms
Smith Consulting Architects
12220 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Dlego, CA 92130
SUBJECT: CT 01-08/PUD 98-01(A)/PIP 98-07{A) - NORTH POINTE WEST
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits In the City of Carisbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Non-resldentlal Planned Unit
Development Permit Amendment and Planned Industrial Permit Amendment, application no.
CT 01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A), as to its completeness for processing.
The items requested from you eariier to make your Tentative Tract Map, Non-resldentlal
Planned Unit Development Permit Amendment and Planned Industrial Permit Amendment,
application no. CT 01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07{A) complete have been received and
reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application Is now
complete for processing. Although the Initial processing of your application may have
already begun, the technical acceptance date Is acknowledged by the date of this
communication.
Please note that although the application Is now considered complete, there may be Issues
that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any Issues
should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City
may request. In the course of processing the applicafion, that you clarify, amplify, correct,
or otherwise, supplement the basic Informafion required for the application.
Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 602-4623, If you have any
questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:MG:mh
c: Chris DeCerbo
Michael Shirey
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us
September 25, 2001
[ecis
RECEIVED
SEP 2 7 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
Mike Grim
Planning Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Project: North Pointe West
No. CT-01-08/PUD 98-01(A)/PIP 98-07(A)
SCA Job No.: 00300.01
Subject: Response to August 28 letter regarding Engineering Issues
Dear Mike:
Tiie following are responses to Mike Shirey, August 28"^ Memorandum letter regarding Engineering
Issues:
Concept Water Qualitv Plan/NPDES:
1. An exhibit showing the offsite area from the existing North Pointe project has been added to the
report. This exhibit shows that fossil filters were installed at all catch basin and inlets within the
existing development. Also, a new Appendix 3 has been added to the report from the new fossil
filter manual. This addresses the effective pollutant mitigation for the various inlets utilized.
2. See no. 1. Above.
3. This paragraph has been revised. As discussed in the meeting on September 18, 2001 at the
City, Appendix 4 in the report was prepared for the North Pointe Project. However, It addresses
the entire 50 acres of the North Pointe and the North Pointe West Projects.
4. The intent of this swale, at the toe of the slope, is to mitigate slope erosion and pollutants after
development of the site. The fossil filters are intended to filter the impervious surface runoff.
5. These typographical errors have been corrected.
6. Appendixes dividers have been inserted into the report.
7. The sheets have been renumbered.
Circulation
1. The sidewalk has been located as shown to provide access to the building (Building 8) nearest
to Corte del la Pina, it will then link together all the buildings. A sidewalk placed adjacent to the
private drive would be approximately a 7% grade, and would end at the first driveway entrance
from Corte de la Pina. There would be no disabled access to the buildings. Per the meeting of
12220 El Camino Real
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
858.793-4777
858.793.4787 Fax
o o
Mike Grim
Planning Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
September 25, 2001
North Pointe West
No. CT-01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A)
Page 2 of 3
September 18*, the sidewalk alignment and the 28-foot driveway width, as currently shown, are
sufficient.
2. The ADT allocation has been added to sheet 1 of the TM.
Land Title and Mapping
1. Item No. 11 was previously shown on the TM. See Sheet No. 3 of the TM, adjacent to Corte de
la Pina.
2. A Vicinity map is shown on Sheet A-1. The A-1 & A-2 Sheets have been labeled as PUD98-
01 A, Sheets lof 2 and 2of2.
3. This information has been added/revised as shown on the tentative map correction sheet.
Grading and Drainage
1. Additional discussion has been added to the hydrology report and the "Concept Water Quality
Plan" has been referenced.
2. The sumps for the loading docks have been drained by gravity. Secondary overflows to the
loading docks have been shown. Also, an additional catch basin at Building 8 has been added
as a secondary overflow.
3. Enclosed you will find an update letter dated September 24, 2001.
Sewer
The Invert elevations on the existing sewer lines have been added to the plan with direction of flow
arrows. The sewer flows to Corte de la Pina.
Miscellaneous
1. K & S Engineering has an appointment on September 26, 2001 with Mike Smith, Carlsbad
Fire Marshal, to have the fire hydrant location and driveway configuration approved.
2. See the revise landscape plan Sheet L-1.
3. The redlined TM is attached.
Please notify me as soon as possible ifyou feel that additional information is needed to clarify any of
the above issues.
SMITH CONSULTING AI^CHITECTS
V. Scdtt Cairns, AIA
Architect
Vice President
o o
Citv of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering
September 14, 2001
John C. White
Carltas Company
5600 Avenida Encinas
Suite 100
Carlsbad CA 92008-4452
SUBJECT: NORTH POINTE WEST, CT 01-08, PUD 98-01, PIP 98-07A
Dear Mr. White:
I am responding to your letter to Ray Patchett, dated September 12, 2001. It Is my
understanding that the major project issues have been resolved and that Mike Shirey has
already arranged a meeting for September 18, 2001 to assist you in the resolution of the few
remaining engineering project issues. It is staffs desire to assist you with these minor issues
with the goal of accepting your project application as complete as soon as possible.
Our records indicate that you made two submittals. There were approximately four months
between your first submittal and your second submittal. You and your consultants resolved
several project issues during this time, such as, NPDES, traffic generation rates and the best
way to re-subdivide the existing subdivision. It is my understanding that staff did work with you
to resolve your project issues.
I understand your frustration with the amount of time it has taken to process your project. I
apologize for any miscommunication that may have resulted when we had changes in our staff.
In an effort to minimize any future confusion, please contact John Maashoff at 760-602-2782 or
myself at 760-602-2782 for any engineering issues or Mike Grim your project planner at 760-
602-4632. Mike Shirey will be assisting John Maashoff as an outside consultant.
Thank you for taking the time to write the City. I look fonward to working with you on this project
and share the Caritas goal of completing another quality project.
Conrad "Skip" Hammann, PE
Senior Civil Engineer, Development Services
CCH: cch
Cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer
Mike Grim
HADevelopment Servlces\PROJECTS\CT FIL ES\CT 01-08 North Pointe West - Shirey\CorrespondBnce\Carltas 091401 Itr.doc
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 ^
C - ..^
CARLTAS
COMPANY
September 12, 2001
Ray Patchett
Acting Community Development Director
Gity of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
RE: Industrial Development Application-Lots 9-12 North Point West, Carlsbad
Dear Ray:
This letter is to request your input and assistance regarding the process problems we
have encountered in pursuing a Plaimed Industrial Permit Amendment and Tentative
Map application the Carltas Company filed with the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department on March 9, 2001. The project land is graded, zoned, and all
enviromnental issues have been satisfied. The project is an eight building industrial
complex plaimed as an infill development in the Palomar Airport Business Park area.
The Tentative Map, divides four existing parcels into an eight lot Non-residential
Planned Unit Development. The Amendment to an Existing Planned Industrial Pennit
(Legacy North Point) allows for construction of industrial buildings.
Since the application filing on March 9, 2001, and until now, we have experienced a
series of delays and repeated referrals and shifting responsibilities between city staff
members. The only major issue with the project has been the handling of storm water
runoff to meet the new standards recommended in February 2001 by the State Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SRWQCB). The original application was deemed
incomplete on April 9, 2001, (although the city letter was not received until April 23,
2001). Several phone calls to engineering and planning by myself and Carltas
consultants during the last six months have been either unreturned or met with referral
to other staff members involved in the process. This constant referral between staff
members has resulted in conflicting information and confuses the process. No one
seems to be responsible for the project as a whole.
S:\JC^g^']S^^g'At^^f}Q^S • SUITE ICQ • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-4452 U.S.A.
Telephone: (760) 431-5600 Fax: (760) 431-9020 www.carltas.com
Finally on August 1, 2001 almost five months after filing, Carltas had secured enough
input from staff to resubmit the application, but as of this date Carltas has been
unsuccessful in receiving a complete application letter. On September 6 Carltas
received a letter from Engineering detailing plan review, but many of the previously
negotiated items have resurfaced.
During the last six months, the City's application process for land already graded,
zoned and with a completed Planned Industrial Permit has been extremely slow and
frustrating, especially since only one major issue had to be resolved. At this time, we
are requesting your input to assist us in completing this process. For your review,
enclosed is a simraiary of contacts with City staff during the past six months.
You would probably agree that all projects Carltas has completed in the City of
Carlsbad have been well received and done in a manner consistent with high City
standards.
Please call me at your earliest opportunity to set up a meeting to discuss this ongoing
process. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
John C. White
For the Carltas Company
P.S.- If Carltas cannot receive assistance from the Acting Community Development
Director, it will be necessary to refer this matter to the City Manager!
JCW:so
cc: Michael Holzmiller
Enclosures
S:\JCW\LETTERS\Patchett.doc
North Point West, Lot 9-12, Corte de la Pina, Carlsbad
Sept. 2001
Carltas Company Contacts
John White
Scott Cairns
Bob Imsande
City of Carlsbad Contacts
(JW)
(SC)
(BI)
Carltas Company
Smith Constilting Architects
K&S Engineering
O
Michael Holzmiller (MH) Planning Director
Bob Wojcik (BW) Senior Engineer
Mike Grim (MG) Project Planner
Mike Shirey (MS) Project Engineer (original)
Skip Haimnond (SH) Engineering Dept. (storm water)
Tina York (TY) Project Engineer (new)
Contact Stunmary - North Point West
Date Contact Action
12-10-00 JW met w/MH-Planning Director Reviewed TM and Non-Residential PUD process
2-20-01 Smith Consulting submitted Site Plan
and TM for Preliminary review (fee
$460) to Planning Department
Receipt acknowledged
2-23-01 Carltas/Legacy Partners Carltas closed escrow on land thru an exchange
2-26-01 Mtg. At City MG, MS, JW, SC, BI Reviewed initial Site Plan and map-only major
issue is treatment of storm water run-off, some
minor engineering and planning issues.
3-9-01 Plaiming Dept.
Fee $12,600
Smith Consulting submitted PIP, TM application
3-14-01 MG, letter Rec'd preliminary review comments
4-23-01 MH, letter Letter stating application incomplete
S:\JCW\GENERAL\NoPomtWest-ContactSummary.doc
5-3-01 City Meeting, MG, MS, JW, BI, SC Reviewed storm water run off issues - MS
leaving City - new project engineer is TY
5-9-01 rw Phone call to TY No retum call
5-10-01 BI called SH City will not meet to review
5-17-01 Meeting with BI & SH Best Management Practice reviewed
5-18-01 TW Phone call to BW No retiun call
5-21-01 rw Phone call to SH Call referred to SH
5-21-01 JW Phone call to BW No retum call
5-22-01 JW Phone call to SH SH called to say staff is still reviewing details
6-13-01 JW Phone call to BW No retum call
6-14-01 JW Phone call to MG, SH BI submitted concept Water Quality Control Plan
6-14-01 JW Phone call to BW No retum call
6-18-01 JW Phone call to BW No retiun call
6-18-01 JW Phone call to SH SH says TY to review
6-19-01 JW Phone call to BW Referred call to SH
6-19-01 JW Phone call to SH
6-21-01 JW Phone call to MG MG says no news
6-21-01 JW Phone call to SH SH says under review by TY
6-25-01 JW Phone call to MG MG says doesn't know status of eng. review
6-25-01 JW Phone call to SH
6-25-01 JW Phone call to TY No retum call
6-27-01 JW Phone call to MG MG left message, no news
6-28-01 JW Phone call to TY Letter received firom TY re NPDES review
6-29-01 JW Phone call to MG No retum call
6-2-01 to 7-17-01 BI, SC Numerous calls by SC & BI, to
SH,TY
Calls not retumed
7-2-01 JW Phone call to MG MG said engineering reviewing requirements of
NPDES permits
7-11-01 JW Phone call to BW No retum call
7-17-01 BI call to SH Tried to arrange mtg, staff doesn't want to meet
8-1-01 Bi & sc resubmitted application to
MG
Received by City with changes requested by SH
o
S:VlCW\GENERAL\NoPointWest-ContactSummary.doc
8-8-01 JW Phone call to MG MG says no response yet
8-11-01 JW Phone call to MG Will check on status
8-16-01 JW Phone call to MG Will check on status
8-17-01 JW Phone call to SH No rettim call
8-20-01 JW Phone call to SH SH says comments soon
8-22-01 JW Phone call to SH-referral to MS MS says will review (comments by end of week
8/24)
8-27-01 JW Phone call to MG MG says comments by end of week (8/31)
8-28-01 JW Phone call to MG MG will check on status
9-4-01 JW Phone call to MG No retum
9-5-01 JW Phone call to MG No retum call
9-6-01 MG called JW Pick up Eng comments to resubmittal (36 days)
o
S:UCW\GENERAL\NoPointWest-ContactSummary.doc
3ep-10-01 09:45A P . 02
Timeline for North Pointe West - Carltas Company
By Scott Cairns. Smith Consulting Architects
SCA Job No, 00300
September 10, 2001
DATE ACTION
3/9/01 Package submitted for Discretionary Review-
er 01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A)
4/9/01 Called Mike Grim (MG) to check on 30 Day completeness letter
4/13/01 Mike Grim returned call said we should have letter early next week
4/18/01 Received faxed "Draft" copy of letter from MG
4/19/01 Call Mike Shirey (MS) to set up meeting regarding letter
4/23/01 Received final copy of review letter
4/24/01 MS called back and said earliest that they could meet was May 3
5/3/01 Meeting at City of Carlsbad at 2:30 with Mike Grim and Mike Shirey to discuss
drainage sidewalk and street width plus or misc. issues. MS said he was leaving
but he thought Tina York would be taking over and would have her get back to
us on sidewalk and road width
5/15/01 Called Skip Hammann (SH) at Mike Shirey's request to set meeting to discuss
drainage and the use of fossil filters.
5/16/01 Called SH to set nneeting
5/18/01 Called SH to set meeting
5/21/01 SH called and left message - no need to meet he spoke with K&S Engineering
and explained how they were to prepare the report. SH mentioned that Tina
York would be the project engineer and we shouki contact her to follow-up
6/1/01 Left message for Tina York (TY) to see what the schedule was for determination
of road width and sidewalk requirement
6/5/01 TY returned call and left message that she had reviewed the documents and
would discuss her findings with SH and get back to me
6/12/01 Called and left message for TY to see if she had any conclusions
6/13/01 TY called and said the existing road width was acceptable, but that the sidewalk
would be required to be installed on the east side of the existing road
6/14/01 Concept Water Quality plan submitted to City for review
Sep-lO-Ol 09:45A P . 03
6/21/01
6/26/01
6/27/01
6/28/01
6/29/01
7/6/01
7/10/01
7/16/01
7/17/01
8/1/01
8/7/01
8/7/01
8/8/01
8/13/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/20/01
8/21/01
8/28/01
8/29/01
9/2/01
9/6/01
Called TY to see if she had a chance to review CWQ Plan
Called TY to see if she had a chance to review CWQ Plan
TY returned call saying she and SH had reviewed plan and was ready for pick
up.
Picked up plan and returned it to K & S
Called K & S to confirm they had received report. Bob Imsande said they would
call the City to get clarification.
Left message with SH to see if he had provided clarification to K & S
Left message with SH to see if he had provided clarification to K & S
SH left message he had spoken to K & S and provided clarification
Spoke to K & S and they were revising their plan to incorporate their comments
into package
Resubmitted package to City (Mike Grim) for r&iiew incorporating all comments.
Called MG to see if there had been any progress, he said all copies had been
distributed the day they were resubmitted. Suggested I call SH to see if Mike
Shirey was back on project.
Left message for SH re MS
Left Message for TY
Left message for SH
SH called to say MS vyas back on the project
Tried to reach MS but no extensran yet
Left message for MS
MS called and left message he was reviewing and would be ready next week
Called MS to see if comments were ready
MS called and said he would complete review by 9/3/01
MS called and said he had completed review, but wanted SH to comment would
be at a meeting with SH on Thursday and would speak to him
MS called and said he had not ahd a chance to speak to SH but would have
comments ready by 9/7/01
10 tects
August 1, 2001
Mike Grimm
Planning Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Project: North Pointe West
No. CT-01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A)
Subject: Response to April 9"^ letter regarding Land Use Permits
Dear Mike:
The following are responses to your April 9, 2001 letter regarding the Caritas Company application
for Land Use permits:
Planning:
1. The distances between buildings are shown on the site plan Sheet A-2.
2. The project name and numbers are shown on the Title Sheet.
3. Roof plans were shown on the site plan. Sheet A-2, at each building with the roof drains
indicated.
4. The breakdown is shown on the site plan at the bottom of each building summary with the
associated ADT's for each building.
Engineering:
1. P.E. Properties, LLC has signed the application and it was turned in a week after the original
submittal.
2. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concept plan was submitted
to Tina York as requested by Skip Hammon on June 13, 2001. This plan has been reviewed
by the City of Carisbad Engineering Department and returned to K & S Engineering. The
report has been approved in concept with minor comments. Two (2) revised copies are
endosed.
3.
4.
5.
The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) statutory requirements
under tentative order 2001-01 are addressed in the concept plan.
The pre and post Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plans (SWPPP) will be provided as part
of the final engineering drawings prepared for grading and improvement permits. This
approach is mentioned in Paragraph 4.1 ofthe submitted concept plan.
The ADT as previously mentioned is indicated on each building summary on the site plan
Sheet A-2.
All existing easements are now shown on the tentative map. Enclosed is an updated title
report.
Gravity sewer flow from the buildings is shown on the grading plan with the lateral indicated.
12220 El Camino Real
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
858,793-4777
858,793.4787 Fax
o
Mike Grimm
Planning Department
CITY OF CARLSBAD
August 1, 2001
Project: North Pointe West
No. CT-01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A)
Page 2
6. The looped fire line is shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan.
7. A vicinity map is now shown on the site plan.
8. The owner of the North Pointe project has agreed to amend the CC & R's to include both the
upper and lower lots for reciprocal access and maintenance obligations. A copy is enclosed.
Tina York reviewed the existing street width and has indicated that it is acceptable. Tina
indicated, however, that a 4-foot wide sidewalk with a 6" curb would need to be added at the
east side of the existing road.
9. A plan approved by the City Fire Marshall will be submitted to confirm hydrant location.
10. An approved plan will be submitted showing Fire Marshal approval.
11. The report has been amended to discuss impacts, mitigation and conclusions.
12. In discussions with the City engineering department it appears that the encroachments are
minor and if necessary can be handled with encroachment removal agreements.
13. There are no overhead utilities within the property.
14. See the site plan for the truck turning access for buildings 7 and 8.
15. Revisions are coordinated.
16. Many issues have been discussed beyond this review and we feel they all have been
addressed.
17. Check prints have been returned with this letter.
Planning:
1. A tree to parking stall count is shown on Sheet L-1.
2. Why can't the North Pointe West Association maintain the entire area? This will provide
more uniform maintenance and higher quality look to the entire project.
3. This employee eating area has been combined with the eating area in the front of Lot 4 for a
larger single area.
Sincerely,
SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS
V. Scott Cairns, AIA
Vice President
Enclosures
CC: John White, Caritas
Bob Imsande, K 8i S Engineering
L:\PROJECn00files\00300\00300-LTR071801-CARLS.doc
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 9, 2001
Smith Consulting Architects
Suite 200
12220 El Camino Real
San Diego CA 92130
SUBJECT: CT 01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A) - NORTH POINTE WEST
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carisbad. The Planning Department
has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development Permit
Amendment, and Planned Industrial Permit Amendment, application no. CT 01-08/PUD 98-
01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A), as to its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information
which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of Items must be submitted
directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted
simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No
processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The
second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has
30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be
complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note
that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, March 9, 2001, to
either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the
application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be
deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed
withdrawn, a new application must be submitted.
Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (760) 602-4623, if you have any questions or
wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:MG:mg
c: Chris DeCerbo
Michael Shirey
File Copy
Data Entry
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. CT 01-08/PUD 98-01 (A)/PIP 98-07(A) - NORTH POINTE WEST
Planning:
1. Please provide the distances between proposed buildings and distances from proposed
buildings to proposed property lines.
2. Please provide the project name and project numbers on the title sheet of the project
plan package.
3. Please provide roof plans, including proposed locations for all mechanical equipment,
and cross-sections indicating how the proposed project adequately screens rooftop
equipment
4. Please provide the proposed breakdown of uses within each proposed buildings. This
breakdown is needed to verify the parking requirements and traffic generation presented
in the submittal.
Engineering:
1. P.E. Ill Properties, LLC, must sign the application as an owner, per the Preliminary
Title Report (PR).
2. As previously requested, please indicate how National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) criteria will be met. This could include, but not be
limited to, doing a combination of the following: directing surface run-off through
vegetated swales prior to discharge to a storm drain or the public right of way,
constructing a gravel/sand filter system, constructing de-pollutant basins, numeric
sizing, etc. Comprehensive pollutant mitigations measures must be proposed with
this project. Please be advised, use of the existing desiltation basin is highly
recommended.
Additionally, the proposed project falls under the statutory requirements of San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) Tentative Order No. 2001-01,
which was adopted on February 21, 2001.
Finally, please be advised that pre and post construction Storm Water Pollutant
Prevention Plans (SWPPP) will be required for this project.
3. Staff research indicates that this site is allocated a maximum of 891 vehicle trips per
day (tpd), in accordance with the CT 98-07/PUD 98-01 traffic report. The site
development plan (SDP) indicates 897tpd. The 6tpd is not significant; however, what
is significant is how this ADT was determined. The SDP indicates that it is based on
tpd allocated to the underiying lots (i.e., lot's 9-12). The question is, do the proposed
building square footages also generate 897tpd? Therefore, as previously indicated,
please indicate the ADT, as generated by building square footage. If the proposed
trip generation is greater than 891 tpd, then a new traffic report will have to be
prepared analyzing the additional impacts and recommending additional mitigation
for the intersections and street segments for the surrounding area. Additionally,
increasing the project's ADT may detrimentally impact existing ADT allocation for the
upper portion of the site (Lincoln/Via Sat). Therefore, also as previously indicated,
please submit documentation from the "upper" property owners indicating that they
are aware of and concur with the proposed project.
4. Please show PR, Schedule 'B' item's 6 and 11 on the tentative map (TM) and
indicate their future dispositions. Also, please indicate the future dispositions of all
easements.
5. Please show gravity sewer flow from the proposed buildings.
6. Please show a "looped" wateriine for the project.
7. As previously requested, please provide a Vicinity Map on the site plan.
8. Staff again reviewed Title 20.16 of the Carisbad Municipal Code (CMC) regarding the
requirement that all proposed lots have dedicated public access. Since a Non-
residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) is being proposed, the lot configuration
is acceptable as shown, provided that, some mechanism is used to facilitate public
access to all of the proposed lots. The easiest way to accomplish this would
probably be to amend the existing project CC&R's, adding a provision that all lots,
both upper (i.e., Lincoln North Pointe/ViaSat) and lower, have reciprocal access
rights and maintenance obligations. The amended CC&R's would have to be
approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to or concurrent with the project's
final map.
Additionally, please show the access drive at a minimum width of 32' with concrete
sidewalk on one side. Show a typical section of the access drive on the TM.
9. Two on-site fire hydrants are being proposed. Is this sufficient for a project of this
size? Provide documentation from the City Fire Marshall regarding on-site fire
protection.
10. As previously indicated, proposed traffic patterns for the site are somewhat
circuitous. Submit documentation from the Carisbad Fire Marshall that this proposed
design is acceptable for emergency services.
11. As previously requested, since California Coastal Commission Mello II detention is
not required, what impact does the proposed drainage system have on the water
surface elevations (WSE) to the existing creek for a 100-year storm? Additionally,
the drainage report is incomplete. The technical data is there, however, the report
lacks any discussion regarding impacts, mitigation, conclusions, etc. Please revise
the report to include these discussion items.
12. As previously indicated, there are a number of flat work encroachments into an
existing 32' Public Utility & Access Easement. This may not be acceptable.
Additionally, where does this easement go? It seems to go off-site, rather than
connecting north of proposed Building 1.
13. As previously requested, are there any existing overhead utilities located within or
adjacent to the property? If so, please show them and indicate that the project will
underground the utilities.
14. As previously indicated, useable truck access must be achieved at all proposed
buildings, including building's 7 and 8.
15. Please make sure that any revisions that are made to one plan, are also made to all
applicable plans.
16. Please be advised, because many of the preliminary review issues were not
addressed, and the project may have to be substantially revised to meet NPDES
requirements, staff did not complete a full review of the project. Once these issues
are resolved, staff will finish reviewing the project.
17. A red-lined check print is enclosed for the applicants use in making the requested
revisions. This check print must be returned with the formal application
submittal to facilitate continued staff review.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. Please provide a comparison of the number of trees within the parking area and the
number of parking spaces. The City's Landscape Manual requires parking lot trees to
be provided at a ratio of at least one tree for every four parking spaces. Please also
provide a comparison of the area of parking and the area of parking lot landscaping.
The Planned Industrial zone (Chapter 21.34 of the Zoning Ordinance) requires a
minimum of ten percent of the required parking area to be landscaped, exclusive of
required setback areas.
2. Please more clearly show the landscaping responsibilities. According to the CC&Rs for
the existing final map (CT 98-07), the native open space area is to be maintained by the
entire subdivision, while the manufactured slopes are to be maintained by lots 9 through
12. The landscaping on each Non-residential PUD lot should be maintained by that
property owner.
3. The narrow, 260 square foot outdoor employee eating area provided for lot 4 does not
meet the criteria of the Planned Industrial zone that require a sense of privacy be
apparent. Please revise/relocate the proposed outdoor employee eating area.
^^^^^^^
IgQUflel
LEGACY
PARTNERS
Property
Management Febmary 1, 2001
Marketing
Services
Corporate
Mr, Michael Holzmiller
Services Planmug Director
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Acquisitions & ,
Development 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carisbad, California 92008
Design Services
RE: LOTS 9 - 12: LEGACY NORTH POINTE - CARLSBAD, CA Construction
Management
Financial
Services
Dear Michael:
On behalf of the Legacy North Pointe Association, Legacy Partners and W9/LNP Real
Estate Limited Partnership, owners of the above-referenced lots, please accept this letter
as Design Review approval for the attached site plan and elevations for Lots 9 -12,
As you can see, the project consists of eight (8) industrial buildings proposed by the
Carltas Company, Carltas is currently under contract to acquire Lots 9 -12 and will
submit a Planned Industrial Permit application for the City of Carlsbad's approval.
Design Review approval is required by the CC&R's recorded for the Legacy North
Pointe project.
Please call the undersigned should you require additional information or have questions.
Sincerely,
LEGACY PARTNERS COMMERCIAL, INC.
Richard Simons
Vice President
End.
30 Executive Park, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92614-6741
Legacy Partners • T. 949,261.2100
www.legacyptr.com
itv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Febmary 20, 2001
Rich Simons
Legacy Partners
30 Executive Park, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
Dear Mr. Simons:
As you will recall, the City of Carlsbad and Lincoln Partners (now Legacy Partners) entered into
an agreement dated September 22, 1998, providing for the mitigation of impacts to wildlife
habitat for the project located in Carlsbad known as North Pointe. That agreement called for
Lincoln to take several actions, one of which was to attempt to acquire suitable habitat mitigation
land in Carlsbad. In the event Lincoln did not acquire mitigation land in Carlsbad, the agreement
requires Lincoln to show proof of purchase of mitigation credits firom the Manchester Mitigation
Bank and pay the City $150,000 as consideration for the loss of opportunity to acquire open
space in Carlsbad. The deadline for completion of these actions was September 22, 1999, or
occupancy of the North Pointe project, whichever occiu-s first.
Subsequently, you have constmcted Phase I of North Pointe, and you have acquired the
necessary mitigation credits from the Manchester Mitigation Bank. We understand that you
were not able to locate any suitable mitigation land in Carlsbad. Although we discussed some
altemative ways for Legacy to satisfy the terms ofthe 1998 agreement, these altematives have
not proven to be fhiitful. Therefore, at this time the City of Carlsbad must invoke the provision
of the agreement calling for you to pay to the City the amount of $150,000. In order to preserve
the original intent of the agreement, occupancy of Phase II of North Pointe will be contingent
upon our receipt of payment.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to hearing from you at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
c: City Manager Commimity Development Director
City Attomey Principal Building Inspector
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 14, 2001
Gary Baker
Smith Consulting Architects
12220 El Camino Real, #200
San Diego, CA 92130
SUBJECT: PRE 01- 015 - NORTH POINTE WEST
APN: 213-100-09, 10, 11, & 12
A preliminary review of your project was conducted on IVIarch 1, 2001. Listed
below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary
review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of
your project. The preliminarv review does not represent an in-depth analvsis of
your proiect. Additional issues of concern mav be raised after vour application Is
submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review.
Planning
General and Processing
1. The general plan and zoning designations for the subject properties are as
follows:
a. General Plan: Planned Industrial (PI)
b. Zoning: Planned Industrial (P-M)
2. The proposal is primarily regulated by the following Zoning Ordinance
chapters:
a. Chapter 21.34, Planned Industrial Zone
b. Chapter 21.44, Parking
c. Chapter 21.47, Nonresidential Planned Developments
Per Zoning Ordinance Sections 21.47.072 and 21.47.080, lots in
nonresidential planned developments do not have to meet the minimum lot
size requirement of the P-M zone and the public street frontage, lot
configuration and dimension requirements of the City's Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). However, Section
21.47.072 (a)(4) states that all other development standards of the P-M
zone, such as setbacks and lot coverage, apply.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us ^
PRE 01-15 - NORTH PCMTE WEST ^
March 14, 2001
Page 2
3. To develop the properties as proposed, the following applications are
needed:
a. Tentative Tract Map
b. An amendment to Non-residential Planned Development Permit PDP
98-01.
c. Planned Industrial Permit (PIP)
The applications will require Planning Commission review and approval at a
public hearing. All three applications shall be submitted concurrently.
Application forms and materials are available at the Planning Division
counter. Fee and zoning information, including any Zoning Ordinance
chapters or sections referenced herein, may be obtained at the City's
website, www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us, under City Services, Planning.
4. Prior to occupancy of this second phase of North Pointe, payment of
$150,000 to the City for mitigation of wildlife habitat impacts will be
necessary. Please see the attached letter for further information.
Circulation
5. As a primary access to this neariy 15-acre property and the eight buildings
proposed on it, the private street connecting the property to Corte del la Pina
should comply with private street width requirements found in Section
21.34.070, P-M zone development standards. The minimum street width
required is 32 feet curb to curb with no parking. This width should be
provided to at least proposed building 2.
6. Proposed on-site circulation is hampered by a design that seems similar to a
large, crowded parking lot with minimum aisle widths, no drive aisles free of
parking, and the potential for conflicts throughout due to maneuvering
trucks, parking cars and loading and unloading of goods. Lacking is a
defined circulation hierarchy that clearly identifies primary routes, secondary
accesses, and truck routes. Please consider:
• Eliminating parking along the required private street from Corte de la
Pina.
• Widening the access that begins at the El Camino Real access
continues through the center of the project between the two building
clusters, and ends at the required private street to Corte de la Pina.
• Providing widened aisle ways to serve as truck routes (as done in
phase 1 of North Pointe).
• Establishing a landscape and hardscape theme that cleariy
distinguishes main access ways from secondary routes.
PRE 01 -15 - NORTH PWKlTE WEST ^
March 14, 2001
Page 3
Setbacks
7. As mentioned eariier, non-residential planned developments must comply
with the underiying zone standards, including the following setbacks from
Section 21.34.070 (2):
• Front yard and street side yard: 35 feet average, 25 feet minimum.
• Interior side yard: 10 feet.
• Rear yard: 20 feet.
Please note that each proposed building is required to meet the above
setbacks. Where along a private street, front yard and street yard setbacks
are to be measured from the street curb and entirely landscaped. Proposed
buildings 2, 4, 6, and 8 and their associated parking lot and landscape areas
do not meet this requirement.
It appears front setbacks for buildings 1, 3, 5, and 7 could be measured
along the west sides of the buildings, based on the proposed location of
main building entries, their orientation to parking, and exterior building
designs. However, much of the west sides of the buildings are inadequately
setback to meet the average or minimum front setback requirement.
Additionally, the irregular lot boundaries make setback requirements difficult
to meet throughout the project.
Employee Eating Areas and Landscaping
8. Section 21.34.070 (3) states employee eating areas shall be located so as to
provide a sense of privacy. The eating area adjacent to the south side of
building 4, for example, does not. To further implement this section.
Planning Department Administrative Policy 24 (enclosed) states eating areas
shall be prohibited in the front and street side setbacks and allowed in the
side and rear setbacks only if warranted.
9. Section 21.34.070 (2) (F) requires landscaping of a minimum 10 percent of a
required parking area, including driveways but excluding plantings in
setbacks. A formal application will need to show that each lot meets this
standard.
10. Diamond-shaped parking lot planters are discouraged; instead, provide
planting islands extending the full length of two opposing spaces.
Parking
11. Parking space overhangs are discouraged, particularly for compact spaces.
PRE 01 -1 5 - NORTH WNTE WEST '"^
March 14, 2001
Page 4
12. The number of compact spaces allotted for building 4 exceeds the maximum
25 percent allowed.
13. Since these are for-sale buildings without specified tenants, you will need to
comply with Planning Department Administrative Policy 14, enclosed. This
policy requires shell buildings to be parked at a ratio of one space per 250
square feet of gross floor area or be subject to a deed restriction stating that
use of the building shall be limited by the parking available and no other uses
creating additional parking demand will be allowed unless additional parking
is provided.
14. All buildings should be provided with adequate, accessible truck loading
docks.
15. The project trip generation for the project site, as approved under CT 98-
07/PD 98-01, is based on a building area about 22,000 square feet smaller
than what is now proposed. This additional square footage may warrant a
traffic report and raises some traffic concerns. See the Engineering
comments below for more information.
Elevations
16. Building elevations should complement existing North Pointe development.
Enhanced elevations should be provided for buildings visible from Corte de la
Pina and along the required private street.
Overall
17. Planning staff concerns regarding the circulation design as well as private
street, setback, and parking requirements may indicate the site is simply
inadequate in size to accommodate all that is proposed. Reduction of the
number or sizes of buildings and elimination of parking may be necessary to
achieve an approvable project.
Engineering
Engineering Department staff have completed a preliminary review of the above-
referenced project. Prior to formal application submittal the following items must
be adequately resolved/addressed:
Significant Issues
PRE 01-15 - NORTH POTNTE WEST W
March 14, 2001
Page 5
1. Staff research indicates that this site is allocated a maximum of 891
vehicle trips per day (tpd), in accordance with the CT 98-07/PUD 98-01
traffic report. Please indicate the proposed total project Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) on the tentative map (TM) and Planned Development Permit
Amendment. If the proposed trip generation is greater than 891 tpd, then
a new traffic report will have to be prepared analyzing the additional
impacts and recommending additional mitigation for the intersections and
street segments for the surrounding area. Additionally, increasing the
project's ADT may detrimentally impact existing ADT allocation for the
upper portion of the site (Lincoln/Via Sat). Therefore, at formal
application submittal, please submit documentation from the "upper"
property owners indicating that they are aware of and concur with the
proposed project.
2. Pursuant to Title 20.16 of the Carisbad Municipal Code (CMC) all
proposed lots must front a dedicated public street, or meet the
requirements of CMC Title 21. Creating the lots as proposed does not
meet Title 20. Please look at the nonresidential Planned Unit
Development (PUD) requirements in CMC Title 21 to determine the type
of subdivision that is acceptable (e.g., condominiums, "postage stamp"
lots, or lots with private streets).
3. Proposed traffic patterns for the site are somewhat circuitous. Submit
documentation from the Carisbad Fire Marshall that this proposed design
is acceptable for emergency services.
4. Please submit a hydrology report at formal project application submittal.
If the project is located within the California Coastal Commission, Mello II
jurisdictional boundary, post developed off-site runoff for a 10-year/6-
hour storm event cannot be increased. If Mello II detention is not
required, what impact does the proposed drainage systems have on the
water surface elevations (WSE) to the existing creek?
5. Please indicate how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) criteria will be met. This could include, but not be limited to,
doing one or a combination of the following: directing surface run-off
through vegetated swales prior to discharge to a storm drain or the public
right of way, constructing a gravel/sand filter system, constructing de-
pollutant basins, numeric sizing, etc. Comprehensive pollutant
mitigations measures must be proposed with this project. Please be
advised, use of the existing desiltation basin is highly recommended.
Additionally, the proposed project falls under the statutory requirements
of San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) Tentative
Order No. 2001-01, which was adopted on February 21, 2001.
Attached, for your use, are applicable provisions of that Order.
Finally, please be advised that pre and post construction Storm Water
PRE 01 -15 - NORTH PCffNTE WEST ''^
March 14, 2001
Page 6
Pollutant Prevention Plans (SWPPP) will be required for this project.
Issues
1. Additional reciprocal access and maintenance easements may be required
between the property owners for the "upper" (Lincoln/ Via Sat) and
"lower" (Carltas) portion of the property.
2. What are the "Utility Easements," located in the existing slope, recorded
June 2000, for?
3. There are a number of flat work encroachments into an existing 32'
Public Utility & Access Easement. This may not be acceptable.
Additionally, where does this easement go? It seems to go off-site,
rather than connecting north of proposed Building 1.
4. Are there any existing overhead utilities located within or adjacent to the
property? If so, please show them and indicate that the project will
underground the utilities.
5. Please Provide a Vicinity Map on the site plan.
6. Show typical street sections for the access drive and Corte De La Pina.
Indicate whether the streets/drive aisles are public or private and show
the existing and proposed improvements on the typical sections.
7. Please indicate the amount of grading proposed for the project in cubic
yards of cut/fill and import/export. Please be advised, a grading plan and
permit will be required for this project.
8. A recent Preliminary Title Report (PR) (issued within 6 months of formal
application submittal) will be required for the proposed project.
9. All easements and encumbrances, as identified in Schedule 'B' of the PR,
must be indicated on the TM and SDP. The future disposition of all
easements and encumbrances must also be identified.
10. The complete property boundary, as identified in the PR, must be shown
on the site plan, including bearings and distances.
11. Please indicate how a 60' radius truck (Caltrans 407-D) will circulate from
the public streets, throughout the site, and to all loading areas. Useable
truck access must be achieved at all proposed building's, including 7 & 8.
12. Indicate the appropriate utility service areas this proposed project falls
under (e.g., CMWD, SDG&E, etc.).
13. Please make sure that any revisions that are made to one plan, are also
made to all applicable plans.
14. Please be advised, this preliminary review does not constitute a complete
review of the proposed project, additional items of concern may be
identified upon formal project application submittal.
PRE 01-15 - NORTH POn^TE WEST ^
March 14, 2001
Page 7
15. A red-lined check print is enclosed for the applicants use in making the
requested revisions. This check print should be returned with the formal
application submittal to facilitate continued staff review.
Fire
Fire Department comments will be sent to you when available.
Questions about this letter may be directed as follows:
• Planning Department comments: Scott Donnell, Associate Planner, at
(760) 602-4618.
• Engineering Department comments: Mike Shirey, Associate Engineer
- Engineering/Development Services, at (760) 602-2747.
• Fire Department comments: Mike Smith, Fire Division Chief - Fire
Prevention, at (760) 602-4660.
Sincerely,
GARY E. WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:SD:cs
Michael J. Holzmiller
Dennis Turner, Team Leader
Mike Shirey, Project Engineer
Mike Smith, Fire Prevention
Bill Plummer
File Copy
Data Entry