HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-07; Planning Commission; ; SDP 96-03 - CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES• ., -The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 7, 1996
ItemNo. @
Application complete date: June 28, 1996
Project Planner: Don Neu
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD COMP ANY STORES -Request for a
recommendation of approval of a Site Development Plan for a 300,000 square
foot specialty retail center on 26.65 acres located at the southeast comer of Paseo
Del Norte and Car Country Drive within Planning Area 6 of the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 13.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3965
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of SDP 96-03, based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application proposes developing a vacant retail site in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan
located west of the Flower Field planning area. The project as designed complies with all
requirements of the specific plan including a maximum single story parapet height of 28 feet in
addition to a maximum of 2 percent of the total building square footage proposed as architectural
features not to exceed 42 feet. These height limitations reduce the area of the flower field
planning area that will be obstructed from view by the development at locations west of the site.
In addition the substantial conformance exhibit approved grades for the site will result in the
property elevations being lowered from 1 to 8 feet from existing grade and 3 to 12 feet from
grades approved on the Master Tentative Map for Carlsbad Ranch (CT 94-09).
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a site
development plan for the Carlsbad Company Stores specialty retail center proposed for the
southeast comer of Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Drive in Planning Area 6 of the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan. The 26.65 acre project is proposed to be built in multiple phases and
consists of four, one-story buildings totaling 300,000 square feet and surface parking for
approximately 1,536 vehicles. The building floor plans indicate that in excess of 100 tenant
spaces will be provided. Tenants will consist of retail stores, art galleries, restaurants and other
specialty retail uses consistent with the specific plan.
SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD IMP ANY STO~S
AUGUST 7, 1996
PAGE2
•
The buildings are designed in the mediterranean style and include building materials in
conformance with the specific plan guidelines such as stucco walls, clay tile roofs with an
architectural feature with a metal roof, clear glass storefronts and windows, ornamental grilles
and gates, wood shutters and fabric awnings. Buildings are oriented to minimize the amount of
rear building elevations visible to the public. The rear building elevation visible along the
eastern side of the project has received additional treatment and will be further screened by the
grade change along this property line and the landscaping which will be planted on the slope.
The project has been designed to be sensitive to views of the adjacent flower fields at Carlsbad
Ranch. This includes: 1) lowering of the existing grades and lowering building parapet heights
to allow views over the tops of the buildings to the flower fields on the hill beyond, 2)
maximizing views by limiting architectural features over 28 feet in height to no more than 2
percent of the total roof area with a maximum height of 42 feet, 3) consolidation of the buildings
to the east and the north end of the site to maximize flower field view angles, 4) selective use of
trees and landscape material to avoid visual obstruction of the flower fields, and 5) introduction
of a 50 foot wide flower field view corridor/retail mall that will connect to the pedestrian
pathway through the flower fields to Armada Drive. A sidewalk is also provided through the
project site to the south to connect to the flower field parking and information/retail area.
Generai Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for the Site And Adjacent Property
The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent
properties:
General flan
'"'%."'
. Zoning '. Jt~sting Land Use
Site R (Regional Com.) C-2-Q Vacant & Agriculture
North R (Regional Com.) C-2-Q & C-2 Auto Dealerships
South OS (Open Space) O-S Flower Fields Parking
East OS (Open Space) O-S Flower Fields (Ag.)
West T-R (Travel/ Rec. C-T-Q Vacant & Hotel I
Com.) Restaurant
Site Description
The project site is currently a vacant pad on the western 10.7 acres. Land previously used for
agricultural production and a palm tree nursery comprises the balance of the site. No sensitive
native vegetation exists on the property as a result of the agricultural and nursery uses.
Prior Actions
On January 9, 1996 the City Council approved the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
(SP 207(A)) and related applications. The project site is designated as Planning Area 6
(Specialty Retail) in the Specific Plan. The plan allows for the development of a maximum of
300,000 square feet of retail and related uses. The Planning Commission in addition to
SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD IMP ANY STO~S
AUGUST 7, 1996
PAGE3
recommending approval to the City Council of the Specific Plan Amendment on December 6,
1995 approved the Master Tentative Map (CT 94-09) for Carlsbad Ranch. The master tentative
map creates Lot 2 with an area of 15.95 acres which will be consolidated with the existing 10.7
acre lot. The mass grading of the project site will be accomplished under CT 94-09.
The Tentative Partial Cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract approved
for Lot 2 will become final prior to Final Map recordation for the lot or issuance of a grading
permit. The final cancellation action is tied to the approval of the Final Map and Grading Plans
for Unit I of CT 94-09 and is projected to be ready for City Council action this summer.
Applicable Regulations
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed
within the following section of this staff report:
A. Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207(A);
B. Regional Commercial (R) General Plan Land Use Designation;
C. General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-2-Q);
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020 -Site Development Plan
findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone;
E. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport;
F. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Plan;
G. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13); and
H. Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Program EIR (EIR 94-01), the Environmental
Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality Act.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore this section will
cover the project's compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which
they are presented.
A. CARLSBAD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan establishes the permitted uses for the site as well as the.
development standards and design guidelines. The project plans comply with the requirements
of the specific plan. The permitted uses for the project site include retail business uses,
SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD IMP ANY STO~S
AUGUST 7, 1996
PAGE4
restaurants, office uses, in addition to other uses. The uses proposed for the site are within the
list of permitted uses.
The development standards of the specific plan have also bee~ com.plied with as demonstrated in
the following table:
' ' STAND:ARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Building Height 28 ft. single story 28 ft. & less -single story
3 8 ft. two story NIA
4 2 ft. architectural features 42 ft. architectural features
2% m.ax. two story & 2% of bldg. area m.ax.
architectural features architectural features (5,998
square feet)
Building Coverage 5 0% -If all surface parking 25.8%
Parking Standards 1,500 spaces 1,536 spaces
Signage Sign Program. Required to be Sign Program. proposed is in
approved with the SDP conformance with SP 207(A)
Service/Loading Areas Architecturally detailed and Screen wall proposed with
screened additional landscaping
Trash Enclosures 6 ft. high masonry wall with 6 ft. high masonry wall with
gates. Color and/or materials gates . Color and finish similar
similar to the project to the project.
Open Space Transition Areas Earth berms and landscaping Benning or grade change
along the agricultural interface proposed with landscaping
Building Setbacks Front yard -25 ft. 225 ft.
Street side yard -25 ft. 93 ft.
Interior side yard -25 ft. 425 ft.
Rear yard -25 ft. 70 ft.
Landscape Setbacks Front yard -25 ft. 25 ft.
Street side yard -25 ft. 25 ft.
Interior side yard -15 ft. 15 ft.
Rear yard -15 ft. 15 ft.
Design Guidelines
The specific plan also contains design guidelines applicable to the project site. The guidelines
address building orientation, architectural character, building materials, roofs, and circulation.
The project design com.plies with the design guidelines of the specific plan.
B.&C. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the site were adopted concurrently with
the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan to achieve consistency. The Regional Com.m.ercial (R)
General Plan Land Use Designation provides for the proposed use. The specific plan implements
SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD IMP ANY STO~S
AUGUST 7, 1996
PAGES
the General Plan on the project site and includes required circulation improvements and
provisions for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Zoning for the site is General Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-2-Q). The
zoning designation also permits the uses subject to approval of a site development plan. The
specific plan was established with the requirement that each site require approval of a site
development plan and the zoning reflects this criteria.
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE O-OVERLAY
ZONE
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay) which is part of the zoning designation
for the property requires that a site development plan be approved for the proposed use prior to
the issuance of any building permit. Four findings are required by the Q-Overlay Zone. The
required findings with justification for each are contained in the Planning Commission resolution
for the project. This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each.
The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings as the
project design complies with the requirements of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan as
demonstrated in section "A" of this report. Significant building setbacks in addition to required
landscape setbacks have been incorporated into the project design. The site is also adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the use as all applicable code requirements have been met as well
as the provision of additional parking spaces, 5.9 percent of the parking area will be landscaped
while only 3 percent is required, and building coverage is proposed at 25.8 percent.
All features necessary to adjust the use to existing and permitted future uses will be provided.
Screen walls, berming and landscaping are proposed to screen loading areas. Adequate vehicle
circulation has been provided to accommodate truck turning movements. The southern most
access to the site will be shared with the Flower Fields (Planning Area 7) as the existing Flower
Fields driveway will be closed and relocated to the location shown. The project is proposed to be
developed in phases and the rear of structures which will be visible until the completion of a
future phase will receive additional architectural treatment as is proposed for the buildings
parallel to the project's eastern lot line. The entire parking lot will be developed with the first
phase and landscaping of the future phase building pads will occur as required by the Landscape
Manual as staff has identified the area as highly visible to the public and it therefore warrants
immediate treatment (Landscape Manual Section E.3-1.2-2.lc.). The planned street system is
adequate to handle all traffic generated by the use. The proposed use is consistent with the use
analyzed in the circulation analysis prepared for Program EIR 94-01 for the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan.
E. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN -PALOMAR
AIRPORT
The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for McClellan -Palomar Airport.
The southern half of the project site is located within the 60 CNEL noise contour for Palomar
Airport. The site is approximately 8,800 feet west of the airport. The airport land use plan
identifies the use as being compatible with the noise levels for the site. The project was sent to
SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD IMP ANY STO~S
AUGUST 7, 1996
PAGE6
SANDAG staff and the Palomar Airport Manager for review. An avigation easement was
requested by SANDAG staff. A condition requiring the granting of an avigation easement has
not been included for the project. Page 10 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
McClellan-Palomar Airport requires an avigation easement only when a use is listed as
"conditionally compatible". The proposed use is compatible with the CLUP and therefore an
avigation easement is not required pursuant to the approved plan.
F. MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
As designed the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment
of the Local Coastal Program. The project site has been previously disturbed by agricultural
activity and is approved for grading. No steep slopes or native vegetation exist onsite. The
project will not have drainage impacts on coastal resources as the project includes an oil and
grease interceptor in the parking lot drainage plan. The project will require the approval of a
coastal development permit.
The suggested modifications for the Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Carlsbad Ranch
were accepted by the City Council on June 11, 1996. The Coastal Commission is scheduled to
effectively certify the Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Carlsbad Ranch at its August
13-16, 1996, hearing.
G. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE {LFMP -ZONE 13)
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 13 in the
northwest quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with
the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
.. FACILITY IMPACTS COMPl.IANCE.WITI:i
STANDARDS .,
City Administration NIA Yes
Library NIA Yes
Wastewater Treatment NIA Yes
Capacity
Parks $.40/sq. ft. Yes
Drainage NIA Yes
Circulation 15,000 ADT Yes
Fire Station 4 Yes
Open Space NIA Yes
Schools Payment of non-residential Yes
school fee at bldg. permit
issuance
Sewer Collection System 166.67 EDU Yes
Water Distribution System 166.67EDU Yes
SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD L ANY STO~S
AUGUST 7, 1996
PAGE7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed use was analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01)
certified for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and related applications on January 9,
1996 by the City Council. Mitigation required for the grading plan and final map for Master
Tentative Map 94-09 has been applied. Mitigation measures incorporated into this Site
Development Plan include preferential parking spaces for carpools, adequate on-site circulation
to reduce vehicle queuing, bicycle parking facilities, showers for bicycling employees' use,
pedestrian connections to the site, review by the Police Department of security plans for the
project, use of reclaimed water for landscaping watering and the provision of trash enclosures
large enough to accommodate recyclables. As a result, the environmental analysis for the site
development plan included an Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Part II)
focusing on any changes from approved plans and the project contemplated in the EIR to what is
proposed with this site development plan. No additional significant adverse impacts were
identified in the initial study for this project, therefore, no further environmental review is
required. A Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was prepared for the project and
published in the North County Times Newspaper. A Notice of Determination will be filed upon
the final action being taken on the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3965
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
5. Disclosure Form
6. Prior Environmental Compliance
7. Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Part II
8. Exhibits "A" -"Q", dated August 7, 1996.
DN.bk
AGUA HEDTONDA LAGOON
I
I
\
\
I , ,
/
\
\
\
\
' -...
llriiSITE
' \
\
PALOMAR Al RPO RT RD
,,
C <~ ::i:,, C r JJ f;; m
-< ::r:
JJ 0 00 m z
CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
SOP 96-03
CASE NO: SDP 96-03
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
APPLICANT: Craig Realty Group
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 300,000 square foot specialty retail center on 26.65 acres
located at the southeast comer of Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-7 Carlsbad Ranch Unit I and II
per Map No. 13078 and Lot 2 of CT 94-09
APN: 211-022-03 & portion of21 l-022-15 Acres: 26.65 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: ~N"--=/A-=---
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: R (Regional Commercial)
Density Allowed: NI A Density Proposed:N -~/ A __________ _
Existing Zone: -=C--=-2=--"""'O _______ Proposed Zone: --=C--=-2=--...,.,O __________ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning
Site C-2-Q
North C-2-Q & C-2
South O-S
East O-S
West C-T-Q
Land Use
Vacant pad & agriculture
Auto Dealerships
Flower Fields Parking
Flower Fields
Vacant & Hotel /
Restaurant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): -=-16.=...c6"-'-.6-=-7'----------------
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: ~F~eb=r=u=ary'-'-"'1~5~, =19~9~6 ____________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
D Negative Declaration, issued ____________________ _
D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _
[:8J Other, Prior Compliance with EIR 94-01 certified January 9, 1996
CITY OF CARLSBAD,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: SDP 96-03 -CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1l GENERAL PLAN: ~R _________ _
ZONING: C-2-O ~~---------------------------
DEVELOPER'S NAME: ~C=ra=ig_R~e~a=lty'-'---'G=ro=u_p __________________ _
ADDRESS: 1500 Quail Street, Suite 510, Newport Beach, CA 92660
PHONE NO.: (714) 224-4115 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 211-022-03 & portion of211-022-15
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 26.65 Acres, 300,000 Sq. Ft.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ___________________ _
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =N __ IA _____ _
Library: Demand in Square Footage =N =--"-"I A;..;c_ ____ _
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) NIA
Park:
Drainage:
Demand in Acreage =
Demand in CFS =
$.40lsg. ft.
NIA
Identify Drainage Basin= N"-"-'-1 A ________ _
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 15 000
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space:
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer:
Served by Fire Station No. = --=-4 ______ _
Acreage Provided= N~IA'-"'-------
Non-res. School fee
Demands in EDUs 166.67
Identify Sub Basin =N =--:.:..:I A'-=-------
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 166.67
L. The project is not proposing any dwelling units thereby not impacting the Growth
Management Dwelling unit allowance.
•
City of Carlsbad
... Yhi,i,iief•i•24•Eiii 11 f4,il
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A;:>PLICANT'S STA7'El.AENT OF ~ISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHI? INTERESTS ON ALL A?PLJCATIONS WHICH WILL i:;eau,AE
i)ISCRETIONARY ACTION ON Tt·,E PART OF THE Cri'Y COUNCIL. OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE
k.. L. .~v-, "·· .. __ ., •
;Please Pnnt)
The following information must be disclosed: FEB 1 5 1996
1 . Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Steven L. Craig
1500 Quail Street, Suite 510
Newport Beach, CA 92660
2. Owner
3.
4.
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Carlsbad Ranch Company
a caiifornia ljmited partnership
5600 Avenida Encinas #JOO
Carlsbad, CA 92008
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 1 0% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partners mp
interest in the partnership. Carltas Company
a California limited partnership
5600 Avenida Encinas #100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Palomar-Cannon Partnership
C/O Kint Real Estate Investments
14241 E. Firestone Blvd., #400
I.a Mirada, CA 90368
If any person identffled pursuant to (1) or (2} above is a non-profit organization or a trust, 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 trust.
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
(Over)
Disclosure Statement Page 2
s. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Bcar.:s
Comm1ss1ons, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes _ No xx If yes, please indicate person(s} _____________________ _
~,,defined u: 'Any 1nd1V1dual, firm, c00annersh1i:,, I01nt venture. u1oc1at10n, soc1al club. fraternal organ,zation. corporat,on. estate trust
recerver. syndicate, 1h11 and any other county. crty and county, crty mun1c1palrty, d11tnc:t or other potrt,cal 1uodM11on. or any otner ;iro1.p or
comoInatI0n acting as a unrt.'
FRM00013 8/90
?ygnature of ap~e
Steven L. Craig
Print or type name of applicant
--
City of Carlsbad
■:;; e,,, ,, • ,,. , •t@•Si a,, ,t@ 01
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described
below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental
documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed.
Project Title: Carlsbad Company Stores
Project Location: Southeast comer of Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Drive
Project Description: A Site Development Plan for a 300,000 square foot specialty retail center
on 26.7 acres
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30)
days of date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
JUNE 5, 1996
SDP 96-03
CARLSBADCOMPANYSTORES ~ w
JUNE 5, 1996 ;j;;?~it fo MICHAEL ):HOLZM}LLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: SDP 96-03
DATE: May 30, 1996
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Company Stores
2. APPLICANT: ~St_e_v-en~L_. C_r_a_.ig_,__ _____________________ _
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 1500 Quail Street, Suite 510, Newport
Beach, CA 92660 (714) 224-4115
4. DATE BIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: =--Fe=b=-ru=a=-ry~15c.....,-=-1"'"'99'-'6'--_________ _
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: A Site Development Plan for a 300,000 square foot specialty retail
center on 26.7 acres located at the southeast comer of Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Drive
within Planning Area 6 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
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.
~ Land Use and Planning
D Population and Housing
D Geological Problems
~ Water
~ Air Quality
~ Transportation/Circulation
D Biological Resources
~ Public Services
~ Utilities & Service Systems
D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
~ Hazards
D Noise
~ Cultural Resources
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
• DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D 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.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An 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 environmental impact
report (EIR) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
G-3-9G
Planner Signature Date
p~ Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
-• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (1; pg. 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (1; pg.5.4-5 through 5.4-13, 5.7-1 through 5.7-
18, and 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(I; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (I; pg. 5.1-1 through 5.1-16)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (1; 5.7-1 through 5.7-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (I; pg. 7-1 through 7-4)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (I; pg. 7-8 and 7-
9)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (I; pg. 7-8 and 7-9)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (I; Appendix A)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (I; Appendix A)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1;
Appendix A)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (l; Appendix A)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1; Appendix A)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (I;
Appendix A and pg. 5.12-6 and 5.12-7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (I; Appendix A)
h) Expansive soils? (1; Appendix A)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1; Appendix A)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (1; pg. 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (1; Appendix A)
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
~
□
Rev. 03/28/96
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality ( e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (1; pg. 5.9-13 through 5.9-22 and 5.12-1
through 5.12-7)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1;
pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through
5.12-7)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1; pg.
5.9-13 through 5.9-22)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (1; pg. 5.2-1
through 5.2-8)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1; pg. 5.2-1,
5.2-4, 5.2-6, and 5.2-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (1; Appendix A)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1; Appendix A)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1; pg.
5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(1; pg. 5.5-1 through 5.5-29 and 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (1; pg.
5.5-25 and 5.5-26)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1;
Appendix A)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1; pg.
5.7-16)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1; pg. 5.7-1
through 5.7-18)
VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
-Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
Rev. 03/28/96
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (1; pg.
5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-
13)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(1; pg. 5.4-1 through 5.4-13)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (l; pg. 5.4-1
through 5.4-13)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1;
Appendix A)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1; Appendix A)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (1; Appendix A)
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)? (1; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (l; 5.9-1 through 5.9-4)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (I; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (I; pg. 5.6-1 through 5.6-7)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (I; pg. 5.7-8 and 5.7-9)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1 through
5.8-7)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1; pg. 5.8-1
through 5.8-7)
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1; pg. 5.9-1 and 5.9-2)
b) Police protection? (1; pg. 5.9-2 through 5.9-4)
c) Schools? (I; pg. 5 .9-7 through 5 .9-13)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (l;
pg. 5.7-2, 5.7-3, and 5.7-16)
e) Other governmental services? (I; pg. 5.7-2 and 5.7-16)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □
□
-Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□ ~
□ □
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □
□
Rev. 03/28/96
-Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? (1; Appendix A)
b) Communications systems? (I; Appendix A)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (1; pg. 5 .9-4 through 5 .9-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (l; pg. 5.9-4 through 5.9-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (1; pg. 5.12-1 through 5.12-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (I; pg. 5.10-1 through 5.10-5)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1; pg. 5.9-13 and
5.9-22)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (1; pg.
5.11-1 through 5.11-7)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (1; pg.
5.11-1 through 5.11-7)
c) Create light or glare? (I; Appendix A)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1
through 5.3-8)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (I; pg. 5.3-1 through
5.3-8)
c) Affect historical resources? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1; pg. 5.3-
1 through 5.3-8)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1; pg. 5.3-1 through 5.3-8)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (I; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1; pg. 5.7-2
through 5.7-3 and 5.7-16)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□
-Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□ □ □
□ □ ~
~
□
□
□
~
□
□ □
□
□
□
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
□ □
Rev. 03/28/96
--Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
b)
c)
XVII.
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually □ □ □ limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will □ □ □ cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects :from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined :from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
-DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Carlsbad Company Stores is a specialty retail center proposed for the southeast comer of Paseo
Del Norte and Car Country Drive in Planning Area 6 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The
26.7 acre project will be built in multiple phases and consist of four, one-story buildings totaling
300,000 square feet and surface parking for approximately 1,500 vehicles. There may be in
excess of 100 tenants that will consist of retail stores, art galleries, restaurants and other specialty
retail uses consistent with the specific plan. The buildings are designed in the mediterranean
style and will include building materials in conformance with the specific plan guidelines such as
stucco walls, clay tile roofs, clear glass storefronts and windows, ornamental grilles and gates,
wood shutters and fabric awnings.
The project has been designed to be sensitive to views of the adjacent flower fields at Carlsbad
Ranch. This includes: 1) lowering of the existing grades and lowering building parapet heights
to allow views over the tops of the buildings to the flower fields on the hill beyond, 2)
maximizing views by limiting architectural features over 28 feet in height to no more than 2
percent of the total roof area with a maximum height of 4 2 feet, 3) consolidation of the buildings
to the east and the north end of the site to maximize flower field view angles, 4) selective use of
trees and landscape material to avoid visual obstruction of the flower fields, and 5) introduction
of a 50 foot wide flower field view corridor/retail mall that will connect to the pedestrian
pathway through the flower fields to Carlsbad Ranch.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project was evaluated in the "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final
Program Environmental Impact Report, dated November 1995 (EIR 94-01)." EIR 94-01
evaluates the environmental effects of the development and operation of: The Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan; improvements to the I-5/Cannon Road Interchange; and the development of a 24.2
acre parcel immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the specific plan site. The Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan is a planning document which will guide the development of a 447.40 acre
area through the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines, regulations, and implementation
programs. The proposed land uses for the Specific Plan include office, research and
development, related light manufacturing, commercial, hotel, destination resort, golf course,
agriculture, a vocational school campus, and LEGOLAND Carlsbad. The 24.2 acre parcel
adjacent to the northern boundary is proposed as a continuation of the Specific Plan golf course.
EIR 94-01 analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Agricultural Resources, Air
Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Biological Resources,
Traffic/Circulation, Hazardous Waste/Pesticide Residue, Land Use Compatibility; Noise, Public
Services and Utilities, Solid Waste, Visual Aesthetics/Grading, and Water Quality. The Initial
Study prepared for the Specific Plan Amendment is contained in Appendix A of EIR 94-01 and
analyzed additional issues which were determined not to have a significant environmental
impact. EIR 94-01 was certified by the Carlsbad City Council on January 9, 1996. At that time
Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and
Monitoring Program were approved. All mitigation measures applicable to the Carlsbad
Company Stores project proposed for Planning Area 6 of the Carlsbad Ranch have been
incorporated into the project design or are required as conditions of approval for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
• •
References to the applicable section of EIR 94-01 are provided next to each item on this
environmental impact assessment form. A brief explanation is provided in the following section
for each item checked as having a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated":
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
d) Agricultural Resources
The project site includes approximately 15.95 acres that were approved for tentative
cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract. The analysis in EIR 94-
01 concluded that no mitigation measures are necessary as project impacts will be
reduced to level less than significant through the payment of fees consistent with the
coastal program, the preservation of 53 acres on-site, and through the implementation of
policies contained in the specific plan.
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of the existing agricultural lands on the
Carlsbad Ranch and cumulative areas to urban uses will result in a significant incremental
impact to agricultural resources. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted
for this cumulative impact.
V. AIRQUALITY
a) Air Quality
No significant impacts as a result of construction activity are anticipated. Implementation
of the air quality mitigation measures will lessen long-term operation air quality impacts
to a level less than significant. It was concluded in the analysis for EIR 94-01 that the
development anticipated under the proposed specific plan amendment together with the
development of other related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact on the region's air quality. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted
for this cumulative impact.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) Increased Vehicle Trips
A series of circulation system improvements are required as part of the development of
the Carlsbad Ranch property. With the implementation of the improvements identified in
EIR 94-01 all of the analyzed intersections and street segments are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service. It was determined that the Carlsbad Ranch project in
conjunction with cumulative build-out forecasts, will result in a significant cumulative
impact to the I-5 freeway and SR-78. A statement of overriding consideration was
adopted for this cumulative impact.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
• • IX. HAZARDS
d) Exposure to existing sources of potential health hazards
Evidence of surface staining and possible pesticide contamination was observed at
several locations on the project site. Although no significant levels of soil contamination
from pesticides or herbicides were detected during soil testing in 1989 and 1995, the
potential for undetected contamination does exist due to the fact that the project site has
been historically used for agricultural production. Exposure of persons to unremediated
soils is a potential impact. Implementation of mitigation measures listed in EIR 94-01
will reduce this potential impact to less than significant. The mitigation measures
require soil monitoring and remediation of any affected soils during site development.
These mitigation measures will be implemented during the mass grading for Tentative
Map 94-09.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
b) Police protection
The EIR analysis concluded that the conversion of an agricultural area to an urban area
which will attract visitors will require additional law enforcement and crime prevention
services. The potential increase in demand on police services is a significant impact.
This demand for police protection will be reduced through implementation of a
mitigation measure requiring security measures to be incorporated into the proposed
developments. The applicant has prepared a security plan which has been submitted to
the Carlsbad Police Department for review and approval.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
f) Solid waste disposal
The generation of additional solid waste is a potentially significant impact. The
mitigation measure identified in EIR 94-01 which has been applied to the project will
reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measure requires the
submittal of a solid waste management plan to address the project's needs for recycling
facilities and diversion programs/measures which can be implemented.
g) Local or regional water supplies
The project will require the construction of onsite water lines. The impacts of buildout of
the Carlsbad Ranch project to water supplies are potentially significant. Implementation
of the mitigation measures contained in EIR 94-01 will reduce impacts to a level of less
than significant. The mitigation includes utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping on the
project site.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
b) Paleontological resources
12 Rev. 03/28/96
• • Areas of the Carlsbad Ranch contain geologic formations with a high potential for
yielding significant paleontological resources. Mitigation measures requiring a
paleontological monitor are required for the project and will be implemented during the
mass grading for Tentative Map 94-09.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS -(NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161)
1. "Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City
of Carlsbad, November 1995."
13 Rev. 03/28/96