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