The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 97-09; La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center; Tentative Map (CT) (10)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-03/SUP 97-02/CUP 97-03/ PS97-32/PUD97-13 DATE: JANUARY 14, 1998 -~ BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-QN SHOPPING CENTER 2. APPLICANT: AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES INC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 348 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY. UT 84111. (801) 536-3919 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MAY 2. 1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (1) Demolition and removal of an existing 69,000± sq. ft. mixed use commercial retail, office, restaurant, and daycare center; (2) Construction of an approximately 86,257± sq. ft. neighborhood commercial shopping center to include a 61,025 ± sq. ft. combination market drug store, 22,500± sq. ft. of general retail, and a 2,732± sq. ft. gas station mini-market; (3) A .93 acre land purchase of an adjacent parcel owned by the Leucadia County Water District and demolition and removal of an approximately 800,000 gallon reclaimed water reservoir on that .93 acre site; (4) A .34 acre purchase of adjacent property owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation; (5) Grading to create an approximately 480 foot long and 7 to 9 foot high earthen mound immediately south of the San Marcos Creek floodway; (6) A General Plan Amendment to change 10.51 acres from (C) to (N), .93 acres from (U) to (N), .2 acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N); (7) a Zone Change to change 11.44 acres from (C-2) to (C-l-Q) and .34 acres from (PC) to (C-l-Q); (8) A tentative map and non- residential planned development permit to subdivide the proposed 11.78 acre site into 8 lots; (9) Traffic improvements to include a traffic signal at the La Costa Avenue driveway entrance, right turn lane on westbound approach to El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection, an advanced signal warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue, a widened existing driveway access to La Costa Avenue, added deceleration lane on the El Camino Real main driveway entrance, consolidation of driveways and placement of driveways further from the El Camino Real/La Costa intersection, and a new median with left turn to enter the site from El Camino Real; and, (10) Realignment of onsite drainage facilities and the construction of an onsite drainage detention basin . SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Rev. 03/28/96 I I Land Use and Planning, | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems M Water Air Quality £<] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services | | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics |Yl Hazards I I Cultural Resources Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [~~| 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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [X] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signat^e Date Planning Director's SignWure 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 environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be 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? (Ref. 1): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Ref. 2) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Ref. 1,2) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (Ref. 1,2) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Ref. 1,2) Potentially Significant Impact D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local i i population projections? (Ref. 1,2) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly I I or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Ref. 1,2) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable i—i housing? (Ref. 1,2) L~' III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Ref. 7) I—I b) Seismic ground shaking? (Ref. 7) i i c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? j—I (Ref. 7) L-' Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Ref. 7) I Id) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Ref. 7) I I f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil |—I conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Ref. 7) g) Subsidence of the land? (Ref. 7) I I h) Expansive soils? (Ref. 7) I I i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Ref. 7) I I IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Ref. 5,6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Ref. 5,6) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D D D D D D D I I D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D n 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)? (Ref. 6) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Ref. 6) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Ref. 6) 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? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact n n n n nnn Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact n n n nnn n n n n V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an K7| I i existing or projected air quality violation? (Ref. 2) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Ref. 2) I I I I c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or I I I I cause any change in climate? (Ref. 2) d) Create objectionable odors? (Ref. 2) I I I I nn n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Ref. 2,8) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Ref. 8) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Ref. 8) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Ref. 8) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? n a a a aa a a a a VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (Ref. 3,4) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Ref. 3,4) 1 D D n n n E n & Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Ref. 3,4) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Ref. 3,4) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Ref 3,4) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Ref. 2) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Ref. 2) 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? (Ref. 7) n D n n n n 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)? (Ref. 9,10) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (2) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Ref. 9, 10, 11, 12) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (ref. 2) D D n n D D n n n X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?D n n XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Ref. 2) b) Police protection? (Ref. 2) c) Schools? (Ref. 2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Ref. 2) e) Other governmental services? (Ref. 2) nnnn n n nn n n n n 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? (Ref. 2) 8 D n £ Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Communications systems? (Ref. 2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Ref. 2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Ref. 2) e) Storm water drainage? (Ref. 2) f) Solid waste disposal? (Ref. 2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Ref. 2) Potentially Significant Impact Dd D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? D D D D D D D XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? D Dn D D D D nn n XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? n n n n XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Ref. 3,4) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Ref. 2) n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact IEI Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier 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. (Ref. 2 - On file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009) 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. (Overriding Findings of Consideration for cumulative regional air quality and circulation impacts) 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. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project site is designated in the Carlsbad General Plan (GP) as Community Commercial (C), Public Utility (U), Travel/Recreational Tourist (TR), and Open Space (OS). The portion of the site designated (C) and (U) has a General Commercial (C-2) zoning designation. The project site is 11.78 acres in size with a project proposal for approximately 86,000± sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial land uses. Based on the GP Land Use Element's Community Commercial (C) site criteria of 10 to 30 acres and 100,000 to 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area, the project site is qualified in the GP more as a Neighborhood Commercial (N) (3 to 10 acres & 30,000 to 100,000 sq. ft.) site rather than a (C) designated site. In addition, the (U) GP designation is currently inconsistent with the (C-2) zoning designation. The (U) GP designation is for public infrastructure land uses. The (C-2) zoning designation is not consistent because it allows commercial land uses not infrastructure uses. Changing the entire site's GP designation to (N) and the zoning designation to (C-l) would bring it into conformity with the GP's commercial criteria and eliminates the inconsistency between the GP and zoning designations. The (OS) designated portion of the site (.14 acres) is shown on the GP's Conceptual Open Space & Conservation Map as potentially constrained open space and not dedicated GP open space. The project's Vegetation Analysis and Wetland Determination prepared by Planning Systems, dated September 16, 1997 and updated December 18, 1997, indicates that this area of the site is not constrained and does not contain wetlands or other sensitive native habitat. Therefore, the GP Amendment to redesignate this area to an (N) designation will not negatively impact the Open Space and Conservation Element of the GP. The adjustment of constrained open space boundaries does not require a General Plan Amendment or need to comply with the adjustment procedures of the Open Space and Conservation Element if further detailed study shows it is not constrained and the open space designation is shown on the General Plan Conceptual Open Space & Conservation Map as potentially constrained (not dedicated/approved) open space. There are no agricultural resources on or adjacent to the project site. The surrounding development consists of the Leucadia County Water District's wastewater pumping and storage facility to the east, a neighborhood commercial shopping center located across La Costa Avenue to the south, El Camino Real to the west, and the La Costa Resort Hotel and golf course to the north. The redevelopment and minor expansion of this existing commercial site is compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community. A General Plan Amendment to change 10.51 acres from (C) to (N), .93 acres from (U) to (N), .2 acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N) would change the physical project description of the GP on which a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepared; Since the GP changes would result in minor and insignificant changes to the impacts generated by the GP, this project is still relying on the findings of the MEIR for cumulative impacts to traffic and air quality (See XVI for discussion). II. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project consists of the redevelopment and minor expansion of an existing neighborhood 11 Rev. 03/28/96 commercial shopping center, therefore, it would not induce substantial growth in the area or displace existing housing. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The site is currently developed with an existing shopping center, day care center, and reclaimed water storage basin. The project's Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated February 6, 1997, indicates that the site is still suitable for commercial use and there are no adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility, provided the recommendations in the geotechnical study are implemented. Chapter 15.16.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires the recommendations included in a project's geotechnical investigation to be incorporated into the project's grading plans and/or specifications. Therefore, separate mitigation conditions are not required as part of the Negative Declaration. IV. WATER The project site is located adjacent to San Marcos Creek. The minor expansion of the neighborhood commercial land use, including an expanded parking area would result in somewhat more impervious surfaces and increased runoff from the site. Currently the existing drainage from building roofs and paved surfaces on-site, either flows, directly into the drainage system in El Camino Real and then into San Marcos Creek, or directly into San Marcos Creek via concrete lined drainage channels. Urban runoff from the site is currently reaching San Marcos Creek without the benefit of on-site best management practices to reduce urban pollutants from the runoff water. To mitigate potential water quality impacts to below a level of significance the project would incorporate drainage inlet pollutant filtration devices and an on-site drainage desiltation basin along the northern property boundary adjacent to San Marcos Creek, as shown on the site plan. Chapter 15.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that development utilize best management practices to prevent pollutants from entering storm water conveyance systems by complying with all applicable provisions of local ordinances and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges. Parking lot owners and operators are required by local ordinance to clean their parking lots as thoroughly as is necessary to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm water conveyance system to the maximum extent practical, but not less than once prior to each wet season. There is no development proposed in the San Marcos Creek floodway, however, the existing shopping center and the Leucadia County Water District Facility are located in the floodplain adjoining the floodway. The project's "HEC-2 Study" prepared by Dr. Howard H. Chang, dated February 1997, and updated by a letter dated June 25, 1997 and December 11, 1997, indicates that the proposed grading, filling, and redevelopment in the San Marcos Creek floodplain would not significantly impact the floodway or floodplain and would not result in additional exposure to risk of on-site or off-site flooding from a 100 year flood. In addition, the project would not significantly change the direction of surface water movement or ground water flow, and, therefore, would not affect adjoining properties. All the project's drainage would still flow north towards San Marcos Creek. V. AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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 particulars. 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 GP 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 alternative 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 been incorporated into the design of the project. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. The proposed neighborhood commercial land uses will not create significant objectionable odors and there are no sensitive receptors to pollutants in close proximity to the project site. The closest residential land uses to the project site are located approximately 450 feet to the south. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The site is currently occupied by approximately 69,000± sq. ft. of mostly vacant neighborhood commercial type land uses and a vacant former service station site. The project's traffic study prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., dated April 25, 1997, indicates that, at full occupancy, the existing commercial development generated a baseline of approximately 10,200 average daily trips (ADT). The redevelopment of the existing commercial center and 1.27 acre expansion of the site, including approximately 86,000± sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial land uses and a new gas station with 12 fueling stations, would generate approximately 12,132 ADT. To reduce the project's direct traffic impacts to below a level of significance and to substantially improve the operation of the El Camino Real/La Costa intersection, the following traffic improvements are incorporated into the design of the project: 1. A raised median on El Camino Real along the project's frontage to eliminate left-turns exiting the site onto El Camino Real; 13 Rev. 03/28/96 2. A protected left-turn pocket on El Camino Real for vehicles entering the site to maximize safety and traffic operations on El Camino Real and at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection; 3. Consolidated project access driveways away from the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection to eliminate an existing cut-through route through the project; 4. Signalized and widened project access on La Costa Avenue to provide efficient ingress and egress to both the project site and Plaza La Costa. An advanced warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue, 300 feet in advance of the new traffic signal; 5. Deceleration right-turn lanes on El Camino Real at the access driveways to enhance safety and maximize through-put capacity on El Camino Real; 6. Installation of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach to the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection. El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are both part of the Regionally Significant Arterial system and the proposed project is expected to generate 212 net new PM peak hour trips; therefore, a Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis was conducted by the project's traffic engineer, in accordance with the 1994 Congestion Management Program Update. Because the redevelopment project would not add 50 or more net peak hour trips to either roadway in one direction, further analysis of these roadways is not required by the CMP. In addition the project would not add 150 or more net peak hour trips to any freeway system, which also exempts the project from more extensive CMP analysis. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project's Vegetation Analysis and Wetland Determination prepared by Planning Systems, dated September 16, 1997 and updated December 18, 1997, indicates that no significant adverse direct or indirect biological impacts would occur to sensitive biological resources in the San Marcos Creek or Batiquitos Lagoon area as result of the proposed project. The San Marcos Creek, in this area of the drainage, has been channelized by past development, and the vegetation that presently exists is significantly dominated by non-native, weedy species. The wetland delineation line occurs no closer than 15 feet from the project's northern property line. The upland vegetation that occurs on-site is not considered sensitive. The project has been designed to avoid encroachment into the exiting creek corridor wetlands, therefore, no significant impacts would occur to sensitive bird species in the Batiquitos Lagoon area, such as the California least tern, and species dependent on riparian habitat such as the Least Bell's vireo, and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The willow habitat adjacent to the project's northern property line is not extensive enough to support the foraging activities of these bird species. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES No non-renewable resources has been identified with the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of non-renewable resources. The subject 14 Rev. 03/28/96 site does not have any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil, coal, sand, or gravel) that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state. IX. HAZARDS Aside from the short-term air quality impacts and potential hazards associated with dust, vehicle emissions, and certain materials (paint, fuels, tools, and heavy machinery) during construction activities, the proposed project would not result in a significant risk or hazard to employees and customers of the shopping center. In 1985 one 500-gallon waste oil, two 4,000-gallon, and two 6,000-gallon single-walled steel underground storage tanks (UST's) were removed from the ARCO service station located at the very southwest corner of the site. The UST's were replaced with one 550-gallon waste oil and three 12,000-gallon gasoline double walled plastasteel UST's in the same locations. Between 1988 and 1995, consultants for ARCO commissioned 31 boreholes and the installation of 12 groundwater monitoring wells on and off-site. Quarterly groundwater sampling has been performed at the site since 1991 and liquid-phase hydrocarbons have been detected in several of the wells. In July 1995, ARCO's consultant, SECOR, supervised the removal of one waste oil and three gasoline UST's (UST's installed in 1985), and the demolition of the entire service station. In August 1995, six of the monitoring wells were destroyed prior to beginning remedial excavation of the site. In November 1995, SECOR supervised the remedial excavation of over 4,500 cubic yards (6,735 tons) of hydrocarbon contaminated soil from the site. In June 1996, SECOR supervised the drilling and installation of the 13th monitoring well (MW-13). To date, there are 7 existing monitoring wells, and MW-13 is the only well being actively monitored. Five of the remaining wells have been below required reporting limits for hydrocarbon concentrations for a minimum of 15 quarters. Since 1991 the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (SAM) has maintained an open Unauthorized Release File (Case # HI 3502- 001) on the site and has required mitigation and monitoring to bring the site into compliance with current health standards. In June 1997, SAM sent a letter to ARCO stating that the soil and ground water contamination detected within the property lines have been remediated to the satisfaction of SAM and no further site assessment or remediation is required for the area within the property boundaries of the ARCO site. However, SAM is unwilling to issue a "No Further Action" letter, because there are still two areas outside of the former service station property boundaries (lease lines) that have been affected by the hydrocarbon release that will require additional site assessment activity. The two areas that remain in question are adjacent to soil sample S36-6.5 at the western sidewalk along El Camino Real, and soil sample SI00-6 and MW- 13 near the driveway on the north side of the former ARCO site. Monitoring Well 13 and the remaining contaminated soil would all be located within the 30 foot landscaped parking and building setback along El Camino Real. The site is located in a non- beneficial groundwater use area and hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater samples have decreased over time due to natural degradation. As a result, project implementation would not impact ARCO's ability to maintain MW-13 at the request of SAM. To insure that the remaining contaminated ground water and soil does not pose a significant impact to the environment and the future use of the project site, the project will be conditioned by the City to comply with any applicable assessment, remediation, and monitoring requirements of SAM, prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 X. NOISE Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City's Construction Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code). The project site and surrounding neighborhood is currently impacted by traffic noise from two existing commercial centers, La Costa Avenue, El Camino Real and the intersection of the two roadways. The project will generate noise associated with a neighborhood shopping center, including single-event noise from vehicles (car doors, horns), delivery trucks, car stereos, and loud voices, which is very similar to the noise currently created by the two existing commercial centers and the two major roadways in this area. The closest residential land use is located over 450 feet to the south and approximately 165 feet in elevation above the project site. The proposed loading area for the market and the service station are both located at the north end of the project site. Given the existing high level of ambient traffic noise in the area generated by the two roadways and existing commercial centers, the incremental increase in single-event noise generated by the expansion of the commercial center will not significantly increase existing noise levels in the area. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project is subject to all the conditions of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan as well as the Citywide Facilities Management Plan for 11 classes of public facilities and services. These plans projected facilities and service needs at buildout of the City. These facilities include for: fire, police, school, roads, local government offices, parks, sewer, storm drain, and sewer. The City's Growth Management Plan requires a financing plan to be part of the Local Facilities Management Plan to assure the provision of the listed facilities and services concurrent with their need. The applicant has submitted a Sewer Availability letter, dated February 12, 1997, from the Leucadia County Water District, stating that sewer service can reasonably be expected and available for the project. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The project will affect the existing routing of the storm drainage and gravity sewer systems of the Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) due to the project's purchase of the 0.93 acre parcel currently owned by LCWD. As part of the agreement of the purchase, the project will reroute the existing storm drainage systems on the LCWD property and will provide easement and construction of a storm sewer system on the acquired shopping center property to route the flow to the existing San Marcos Creek storm drain outfall. Another agreement of the parcel purchase is to reroute the existing gravity sewer on LCWD property to a new manhole on the gravity sewer discharging to the Leucadia Pump Station. The reclaimed water emergency storage basin currently occupies the 0.93 acre LCWD purchase parcel and will be demolished as part of this project. With the purchase of the parcel, the LCWD will require an existing digester be converted to a temporary reclaimed water storage facility. The miscellaneous changes to piping and conversion of the digester will occur on LCWD property. At a later date, an off-site reclaimed water storage facility will be constructed. Environmental impacts associated with the construction of the reclaimed water storage reservoir will be addressed under a separate site-specific environmental document. The proposed changes as outlined above will have less than significant impact on the existing conditions. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 XIII. AESTHETICS This project is located along the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor and is at the same elevation as the roadway. The project would provide a 30 foot landscaped building and parking setback from El Camino Real. The 30 foot setback would have a combination of trees, shrubs, and earthen berms to help visually screen parked cars and to visually soften the buildings when the project is viewed from the public roadways. The largest proposed structure is the market/drug store building which would be located over 400 feet from El Camino Real and over 440 feet from La Costa Avenue. The architecture and landscaping are both designed to provide a pleasing aesthetic effect when viewed from El Camino Real, La Costa Avenue, and from within the project site. The building facades along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue have been enhanced to include recesses in the building walls and a variety of roof elements and offsetting building planes. Project monument signs along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are limited to a height of 7 feet and can only be externally illuminated. Based on the above mentioned design elements and features the project would comply with the requirements of the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development Standards, and, therefore, minimize impacts to the scenic corridor. The large flat roof of the market/drug store would be visible from residential dwellings that are located southeast of the project and approximately 165 feet higher in elevation. To minimize the potential negative aesthetic impacts of the flat roof and associated roof equipment the project has been conditioned to use roof and screening materials and colors that minimize glare and the reflection of light. The project is also required to adequately screen all roof equipment prior to occupancy of the building. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES The San Marcos Creek was channelized in this area and the site was mass-graded to create pads for a gas station, shopping center, parking lot, daycare center, and the Leucadia County Water District's facility. The project's geotechnical investigation indicates that the majority of the project site contains artificial fill and alluvium. Given the past grading and development of the site, the presence of archaeological resources is not anticipated. The existing structures on the site date back to the 1960s or early 1970s and the site and surrounding area have no unique ethnic, cultural, or physical presence (such as architecture) that the project would impact. XV. RECREATIONAL The project is not residential and will not directly generate a demand for community parks. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, 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 some intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard and El Camino Real. 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. The El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue intersection is included in this group of 17 Rev. 03/28/96 intersections projected to fail. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the GP Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative 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 would be incorporated into the design of the project. 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 certification of the GP 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 cumulative circulation impacts is required. The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will fail Growth Management intersection performance standards at buildout with or without the redevelopment of this neighborhood shopping center. This is due to regional through traffic and traffic generated by new residential land uses in combination with the growth of the La Costa area and the City of Encinitas. Without redevelopment of the existing commercial center the intersection will still fail at buildout, and no intersection improvements would occur. The proposed GP Amendment would allow the site to be expanded in size by 1.27 acres, which indirectly leads to the potential generation of 1,932 additional ADTs, however, the project Developer has been conditioned to improve the intersection and mitigate all the direct project related circulation impacts to the intersection and surrounding roadways (Section VI) to a level of insignificant impact. The project's contribution to cumulative traffic impacts generated by the minor intensification of this site may be minimized by the fact that the traffic operations in and around the site would be improved and the provision of conveniently sited neighborhood shopping opportunities dispersed throughout an area helps to reduce the distance and duration of the ADTs. Shortened shopping trip lengths incrementally reduces traffic congestion at other intersections and road segments and helps reduce air pollution. SOURCE DOCUMENTS (Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009: Phone (760) 438-1161) 1. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1994. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 18 Rev. 03/28/96 3. Vegetation Analysis Wetland Determination for La Costa Plaza, Carlsbad California, Planning Systems, September 16, 1997. 4. Supplement Vegetation Analysis/Wetland Determination for La Costa Plaza, Carlsbad California, Planning Systems, December 18, 1997. 5. "HEC-2 Study for La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center #121-283, Dr. Howard Chang, February 1997 and "HEC-2 Study Update Letter", Dr. Howard Chang, June 25, 1997 and December 11,1997. 6. "Preliminary Drainage Study for Lucky Site ", O'Day Consultants, Inc., April 7, 1997. 7. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lucky/Sav-on Drug/Grocery Store #121- 283, La Costa Area, Carlsbad, CA ", GeoSoils, Inc., February 6, 1997. 8. "Final Report Carlsbad Lucky Store Traffic Study", Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., April 25, 1997. 9. "Letter from Leucadia County Water District concerning 800,000 gallon reclaimed water reservoir" Michael J. Bardin, Assistant General Manager, July 25, 1997. 10. "County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Site Assessment and Mitigation Division, Hazardous Materials Cleanup Case File #H13502 for ARCO Facility #1939, 7654 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA", 1985 to Present. 11. " Well Installation Report and Request for Case Closure to SAM" SECOR, August 1, 1996. 12. "SAMLetter to ARCO " Mr. Nasser Sionit, Project Manager, SAM, June 18, 1997. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) HAZARDS 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for areas of the project site which are impacted by contamination, the developer shall comply with all applicable assessment, remediation, and monitoring requirements of the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Site Assessment and Mitigation Division. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION 2. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the site plan, in accordance with the following: a. A raised median on El Camino Real along the project's frontage to eliminate left- turns exiting the site onto El Camino Real; 19 Rev. 03/28/96 b. A protected left-turn pocket on El Camino Real for vehicles entering the site to maximize safety and traffic operations on El Camino Real and at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection; c. Consolidated project access driveways away from the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection to eliminate an existing cut-through route through the project; d. Full traffic signal installation and widened project access on La Costa Avenue to provide efficient ingress and egress to both the project site and Plaza La Costa. Install an advanced warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue, 300 feet in advance of the new traffic signal; e. Deceleration right-turn lanes on El Camino Real at the access driveways to enhance safety and maximize through-put capacity on El Camino Real; f. Installation of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach to the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection. WATER QUALITY 3. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. AESTHETICS 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit the Developer shall submit a final roof plan and color and materials board for all the project buildings for review and approval by the Planning Director. To the extent feasible, all roof materials and colors shall minimize glare and light reflection from the roof. 20 Rev. 03/28/96 5. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall to the extent feasible be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. SEE ATTACHED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 21 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 Signature 22 Rev. 03/28/96