HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 3598A* /I 0 a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3598
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
AMENDMENT, MASTER PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT, LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR ZONE 23, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON
281.2 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF LA COSTA
AVENUE, WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND EAST AND
NORTH OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 23.
CASE NAME: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN
IMPACT REPORT, EIR 93-02, FOR A GENERAL PLAN
CASE NO: EIR 93-02
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
A portion of Section 2, Township 13 South, Range 4 West; and a Portion
of Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
City of Carlsbad, State of California.
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of January, 1994,
and the 2nd day of February, 1994 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed bj
law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering al
testimony and arguments, examining the Environmental Impact Report, analyzing the
information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the
Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Environmental Impact Report
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissior
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 will be amended to include tht
comments and documents of those testifying at the public hearing and response:
thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of thf
minutes of said public hearings into the report.
.. I! 0 a
1
2
3
C) That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Environmental Impact
Report EIR 93-02 has been completed in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, the state guidelines implementing said Act, and the
provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning
Commission has reviewed, considered, and evaluated the information contained in
the report.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
D) That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 93-02 as so amended and as evaluated
in the staff report reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission,
is recommended for acceptance and certification as the Final Environmental
Impact Report and that the Final Environmental Impact Report as recommended
is adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable
and feasible alternatives thereto, including no project.
E) That each and every significant environmental impact identified in the
Environmental Impact Report would be overruled or counter balanced by changes
or alteration in the project which would mitigate against said adverse impact 01
through the implementation of the requirements of the Green Valley Master Plar
Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Conditions:
13
14
15
16
1. The Green Valley Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitor@
and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit "A", dated January 5,1994, and should be ref4 to for all conditions, mitigation measures, and monitoriq
programs applicable to development of the GreenValley Master Plan Area. Exhibil
"A" shall be revised to properly reflect the planning areas within the Master Plar
as adoped by the City council.
17
18
2. -cation of the Green Valley Master Plan Environmental Impact Repoll
-*. 19
includes the Errata Sheet dated January 19,1994.
20 1 ...
21
22
23
24
...
...
...
25 11 ...
26
27 ...
...
28
PC RES0 NO. 3598 -2-
.. ll 0 0
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
1 I/ Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of February, 1994, 2
3 // by the following vote, to wit:
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
AYES: Chairperson Savary; Commissioners: Schlehuber, Betz, Noble
& Hall.
NOES: Commissioners: Erwin & Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
12
13 ATTEST:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
..
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3598 -3-
., 0. 0 EXHIBIT "A"
Green Valley Master Plan Environmental Impact Report Mifigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
LAND USE
Potential Impacts -
1. The project's proposed 600,000 square foot retail area will function as Regional Retail which is not in conformance with the site's Community Commercial/Office General Plan designation. Although this is less than the development potential previously allocated to this
site by the City's Growth Management Program (1,000,000 square feet of non-residential
development)' it is not in conformance with the existing General Plan designations of
Community Commercial and Office.
2. The proposal for a regional retail center at this site conflicts with a General Plan Guideline to
"Limit future regional commercial development to the existing Regional Shopping Center, the downtown core commercial area, and the regional facility located southeast of the intersection
of the San Diego Freeway and Cannon Road."
3. Designation and/or development of Planning .Area 4 as a neighborhood commercial site
would conflict with the following General Plan Land Use statements and guidelines. Neighborhood commercial areas should: a) serve the immediate surrounding residential area and draw a high percentage of walk in patrons; b) be oriented to the immediate neighborhood; c) be centrally located within their service areas; and d) be generally located one mile apart.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures will reduce potential land use impacts to below a level of sipfkance:
1. The site's General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations shall be changed to reflect the Regional Retaimesidential Medium HigWOpen Space land use designations proposed by the Master Plan.
2. The City shall assess the General Plan guideline regarding regional retailing and consider
revision based on updated economic and retail trends as well as current land use policies.
3. Planning Area 4 shall be designated as Open Space because the use proposed in this area by the Green Valley Master Plan is in conflict with General Plan Land Use Statements and Guidelines for neighborhood commercial areas.
4. All areas designated as Open Space in the Master Plan shall be designated as such on the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map as recommended by the COSCRMP.
Checkpoint
Approval of the Master Plan.
Responsible Party
Planning Department
,. 0 0
Sanction
No approval of Master P1Zn without Open Space designation for Planning Area 4.
VISUAL QUALITY/LANDFORM ALTERATION
Potential Impacts
1. The change from a semi-natural (agricultural) to a built environment.
2. The creation of two road breaks in an otherwise contiguous riparian corridor.
3. Landform alteration and the creation of manufactured slopes and retaining walls.
4. Intensification of structural development at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and La
Costa Avenue.
Mitigation Measures
The proposed Master Plan development standards, subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad,
will serve as comprehensive guidelines for the project as a whole. These guidelines, when implemented in conjunction with the additional measures listed below, will mitigate the potential
visual quality impacts of the proposed project to below a level of significance.
1. The decision-making body must find as specified in Section 21.95.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that there is acceptable justification to allow manufactured slopes/crib walls greater than 30 feet in height in the commercial section of the project.
2. Residential or commercial development in Planning Area 4 of the Green Valley Master Plan shall be subject to all applicable requirements of the El Camino Real Corridor Standards
including the approval of a Special Use Permit.
3. It shall be a condition of future discretionary development permits that the grading shall be in compliance with the guidelines of the Master Plan. If they are not in compliance, additional environmental review will be required.
The following mitigation measures represent criteria that shall be used in considering approval of
the proposed Master Plan development standards.
1.. Architectural design standards for scale, massing, rooflines, building color and material, landscaping, and location on-site shall be used to create a visual blend with the bluff topography, existing vegetation, and colors of the native environment.
2. Landscaping and revegetation shall be used to recreate as closely as possible the continuous visual effect of the riparian corridor.
3. Light overspill shall be minimized through the use of lighting shields, minimum intensity lighting, and minimization of lighted signage.
4. Where possible, project contrast shall be minimized and regulated along any bluff silhouette
line or adjacent to native vegetation and Escondido Creek through landscapinghevegetation
and lower pads.
0. .. 0
Checkpoints
1 - Approval of kht& Plan (including development standards consistent with the above criteria).
2. Approval of discretionary development permits.
Responsi6le Parties
1. The decision-making body.
2. Planning Department.
Sanctions
1. No approval of commercial or residential development within the El Camino Real Corridor
without Special Use Permit consistent with Section 21.95.080 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code.
2. No approval of the Master Plan without establishment of development standards consistent
with the above criteria.
AGRICULTURE
Potential Impacts
Since there is no prime farmland existing on-site, there are no significant impacts to agriculture.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
CheckpointslSanctions
No checkpoints or sanctions are required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential 'Impacts
The following potentially significant biological impacts have already been anticipated by the Master Plan and shall be mitigated by the restoration and enhancement plans presented therein:
1. Approximately 1.6 acres (6.5 percent) of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be directly impacted by the project. Occupied habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and other potentially occurring sensitive sage scrub species would also be affected. These direct impacts are
mitigated by the Master Plan which would create 8.01 acres of new coastal sage scrub.
However, due to the presence of California Gnatcatcher in the south-central area (0.6 acre) of sage scrub to be eliminated by the project, impacts in this area should be avoided through project modification rather than restoration.
.. e
2. Approximately 4.6 acres (14 percent) of southern riparian woodland will be directly impacted by the project. These impacts would occur along Encinitas Creek due to the proposed creek crossings and the w5dening of El Camino Real. The proposed Master Plan mitigates these impacts to below a level of significance by incorporating 11.75 acres of riparian restoration and 3.5 acres of riparian enhancement into the Master Plan, although the preferred mitigation option is avoidance of impacts through project modification.
3. The project will increase the amount of area impacted by traffic generated noise by
approximately 2.5 percent in the southern part of the riparian woodland and by 3.8 percent in the northern part of the woodland. The area of riparian woodland impacted by project generated noise is estimated to total less than 0.75 acre. Although this impact is essentially mitigated within the 15.25 acres of riparian enhancement proposed by the Master Plan, the preferred mitigation option is impact avoidance through project modification.
The following potentially significant biological impacts of the project are not mitigated by the proposed restoration and enhancement plans presented in the Master Plan:
1. Approximately 1.0 acre (13 percent) of southern coastal salt marsh will be directly impacted
by the proposed access to the site at Levante Street.
2. Impacts to certain sensitive annual plant species in the south-central area of sage scrub (0.6 acre) to be eliminated by the project are unknown because it does not appear that adequate surveys were conducted in the upland bluff areas during the Spring.
3. The project as proposed will reduce wildlife movement through Encinitas Creek with the placement of the two proposed bridge crossings. This creek is identified as a wildlife corridor in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Although the open space plan presented in the Master Plan incorporates extensive restoration of
riparian and upland habitats? potentially significant impacts may still occur from implementation of
the project. The Required Mitigation Measures? outlined below, would reduce to below a level of significance all significant impacts to biological resources? with the exception of impacts to wildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. .These wildlife movement impacts can only be acceptably mitigated through implementation of an alternate subdivision design or design modifications (see Mitigation Which Involves Design Mod@cationlRevisions to Tentative Map, following page).
Required Mitigation Measures
General Note
To ensure the implementation of all mitigation for potential impacts to biological resources, the
applicant for each discretionary development permit proposed under the Master Plan shall prior to
approval of each permit, as appropriate, show evidence to the City Planning Department that a qualified consulting biologist has been retained to monitor all relevant mitigation, assure compliance with mitigation requirements? supervise implementation of mitigation? and file a report on mitigation compliance with the Planning Director upon completion of major components of biological mitigation requirements.
Mitigation Which Can be Added to the Proiect as Proposed:
1. The effectiveness of the proposed buffer areas between the proposed development and natural areas should be increased through the use of barrier plantings such as cacti. The planting of the buffer areas should be subject to the review and approval of the resource agencies.
.. 0 0
2. Two acres of southern coastal salt marsh habitat shall be restored on-site.
3. The 0.6-acre of sag; scrub in the south-central portion of the site at the foot of the bluff shall be avoided through grading redesign.
4. Detailed restoration plans based on the required mitigation ratios and the Open Space and
Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan outlined in the Master Plan shall be prepared, reviewed? and approved by the appropriate resource agencies prior to grading permit.
Mitigation Which Involves Design ModQkationlRevisions to Tentative Map
Proposed here are four approaches, or options, to mitigate impacts to wildlife movement along
Encinitas Creek. Each of these options involves design modifications to the proposed Master Plan, one of which must be incorporated in order to reduce potentially significant impacts to wildlife movement to below a level of significance. They are as follows, in order of preference:
1. Because the most preferable mitigation option is avoidance, it is recommended that both of the creek crossings be eliminated to reduce impacts to riparian areadwildlife movement along Encinitas Creek. An added benefit associated with this option is the reduction of impacts to southern coastal salt marsh. This mitigation option, however, may not be feasible based on
project circulation and access requirements.
2. If only one crossing can be eliminated? the greatest benefit would be attained from eliminating
the creek crossing at Levante Street, provided that the remaining crossing at Calle Barcelona is redesigned to meet the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study (Ogden 1992; see following page) or to specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. This would create the largest possible block of riparian habitat and also reduce impacts to southern coastal salt marsh by 0.4 acres. These reductions would allow for restoration of 1.2 acres of salt marsh within the riparian area designated by the Master Plan and would also reduce the amount of restoration required by the project for direct impacts from Levante Street.
3. If options #1 and 2 are found to be infeasible, a third approach would be to eliminate the creek crossing at Calle Barcelona and build the remaining crossing at Levante Street to the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study or to specifications acceptable to the
California Department of Fish and Game.
4. If neither of the creek crossings can be eliminated, the fourth mitigation option would be to include both of the project's creek crossings. but redesign each one to meet the standards established by the Otay Ranch Corridor Study or to specifications acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. This would mitigate the wildlife movement impact to below a level of significance. Any impacts that remain after implementation of these redesign measures shall be mitigated by habitat restoration as outlined in the Master Plan.
Bridge Standards to Facilitate Wildlife Movement (Established bv Otay Ranch Corridor Studv):
Bridges are preferred to culvert underpasses, and the length to width ratio of the
underpass should be less than two (i.e. if the width of the bridge is 100 feet long, the width of the underpass should be at least 50 feet wide). Deviation from this ratio will
only be allowed where the bridge/underpass is greater than 30 feet high.
Bridge height should be at least 12 feet.
.. e
Preferred Mitigation
Although noise impacts $e considered to be mitigated by the proposed restoration plans presented
in the Master Plan, the preferred mitigation option is by project design. This may include noise attenuation structures and modifications in the plot plan to move noise sources away from sensitive habitat areas. For example, eliminating one or both of the creek crossings as described above would reduce both the noise and habitat fragmentation impacts.
Checkpoints
1. Grading permit.
2. Mitigation report by consulting biologist submitted to City Planning Department prior to any
>
grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments
2. California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, consulting
biologist.
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permits without acceptable mitigation reviewed and approved by California Department of Fish and Game for creek crossings.
2. No approval of grading permits without satisfactory landscaping and revegetation plans.
3. No issuance of building or occupancy permits without properly accomplished mitigation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact (i.e., total
removal) of the cultural resources at archaeological site GV-4.
Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to the archaeological resources on-site shall be mitigated to below a level of
significance by excavation and analysis of a representative sample. This shall include one of the
following:
1. A minimum area of 26 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by hand prior to grading.
Only Stratum I1 shall be systematically excavated since Stratum I contains little cultural material and is believed to be imported. Special emphasis shall be placed upon analyzing the faunal remains since the test results suggest animal bone is among the most scientifically useful and interesting components of the deposit.
2. A minimum of 52 square meters of GV-4 shall be excavated by controlled mechanical means similar to those described in Van Horn, Murray, & White 1986; and Van Horn 1988. The
other conditions set forth in item (1) above would remain the same. The reason for the larger
.. 0 e
sample as compared to item (1) above is due to the high cost of conventional archaeological
excavation conducgd by hand. Alternately, controlled mechanized excavation offers the
potential for acquisition of a significantly larger sample for substantially less cost.
Regardless of which of the two methods is chosen, the archaeologist directing the mitigative work
shall have the authority to halt excavations if, in his or her judgement, there is nothing to be gained by continuing.
Checkpoint
Report by consulting archaeologist submitted to City Planning Department upon completion of work and prior to any grading for construction affecting the site.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
2. Consulting archaeologist.
Sanction
No building permits or grading permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting archaeologist is submitted to City Planning Department.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potential Impacts
The subject area may contain paleontological resources from Eocene and Pleistocene sedimentary units, and Holocene sediments which could be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate any potential paleontological impacts of the project to below a
level of significance:
1. A paleontological resource monitoring plan shall be developed by a Certified Paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading operations. This plan should include a grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further evaluate the fossil resources of the site.
2. Salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant concentrations of fossils are encountered.
Checkpoints
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Report by consulting paleontologist upon completion of grading.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
.. e 0
2. Consulting paleontologist.
Sanctions
1. No approval of grading permit without mitigation plan.
2. No building permits to be issued until mitigation report by consulting paleontologist is
1-
submitted to City Planning Department.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potential Impacts
1. The alluvium and slopewash/colluvium that underlies much of the proposed development
area may be susceptible to liquefaction and/or seismically induced settlement during significant seismic events.
2. Future development of the site may create conditions where the on-site materials would be
susceptible to slope instabilities. The alluvium and the slopewash/colluvium underlying the
area proposed for development is compressible and considered unsuitable, in their present state, for the direct support of structural loads. As much as 10 inches of settlement may occur where fills of 20 feet in depth are to be placed.
3. Shallow groundwater may impact the stability and working conditions in trench excavations, drilled pier excavations, or may occur as nuisance water in cutslope excavations.
4. Expansive soils may be encountered in excavations along the eastern site boundary where the
Delmar Folmation underlies the site.
5. The earth materials onsite are generally susceptible to erosion from running water. Surface runoff has created incised gullies in the loose materials underlying the areas proposed for development.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate the potential geologic impacts of the project to below a level of significance:
1. A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, including subsurface exploration and laboratory analysis, shall be performed to address the potential geotechnical impacts and to provide geotechnical criteria for the design of the proposed improvements. The evaluation(s) shall
include appropriate subsurface explorations, laboratory analysis and engineering analysis to evaluate liquefaction potential, compressible soils, expansive soils, slope stability, dewatering parameters, soil corrosivity and other appropriate geotechnical concerns. From this data, recommendations for earthwork, slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage, building foundations, retaining walls, pavement structural sections, and other. design considerations shall be formulated.
2. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
.. 0 0
3. The project grading and foundation plans shall incorporate recommendations provided in the
comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. All cut and fill slopes shall be observed and inspected by the project engineering geologist. Geologic inspection of the cut and fill slopes shall be performed at the
time of grading in order to confirm conditions of stability. Additional and/or revised mitigation measures may be necessary based upon the geology of the exposed deposits and should be anticipated.
Checkpoint
Prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Party
City Engineering Department.
Sanction
No grading permit until measures are completed.
~~
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The proposed development will lower the 100-year water surface elevations of Encinitas
Creek by up to 0.5 feet in some areas as compared to existing conditions. In one area, on the
Kroblen property located directly upstream of the proposed Levante Street crossing of the
creek, proposed development will raise the 100-year water surface elevations up to 8.7 feet
above existing conditions. However, because the inundated portion of the property has
development constraints, this is not considered to be a significant impact. The required construction of Basin "C" per the Chang study (1991) will further reduce the impact to the Kroblen property.
2. The proposed project will increase the 10-year peak runoff of on-site storm water by approximately 24%. (No change would result in the peak runoff leaving the site if the storm drain system is built as proposed, see Mitigation Measures).
3. The proposed development poses a potential impact to water quality both during and after construction. During construction, there are significant areas of bare earth due to grading operations. The soils on the project are classified as having severe erodibility factors. This sediment poses a hazard to water quality both as a pollutant itself, and as a transport mechanism for other pollutants. After construction and the establishment of landscaping, the threat of erosion and sedimentation decreases significantly.
4. The development of the project will result in the covering of approximately 30% of the site
with impermeable structures (buildings and paving). Roofs of buildings allow airborne
pollutants to collect and become concentrated during the long dry season. The first rain washes these pollutants onto the pavement, which transports them,offsite. Paved areas collect airborne pollutants as well as pollutants transported or deposited by vehicular traffic. Food operations in markets and restaurants can result in further pollutants leaking from trash enclosures. This site is located directly adjacent to the biologically-sensitive Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. Without proper mitigation, the project has the potential to significantly impact these resources.
*. 0 e
5. Potentially hazardous agricultural chemicals may be present within soils on-site. These
materials can comejnto contact with the receiving waters, and have an adverse impact on the beneficial uses of those waters.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the Storm Drainage and Desiltation/Depollutant Plan as proposed in the Master Plan, in addition to the following measures, will mitigate the potentially significant hydrology/ water quality impacts of the project to below a level of significance:
1. Upon submittal of the final engineering documents, a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed storm drain facilities shall be prepared. The project facilities plans shall incorporate
recommendations provided in the comprehensive evaluation, and be reviewed and approved by the project hydrological consultant. Additional mitigation measures will also be given at
the time of the grading plan review if necessary.
2. The depollutant basins shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards detailed in the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (March 1993) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The maintenance program of the sedimentation and depollutant basins shall be prepared and approved at the final design stage.
4. Proper protection to the creek shall be provided by the use of silt fences and other approved methods during grading between the desiltation basins and the creek.
5. Drainage facilities must be provided concurrent with development of the area.
6. A Phase I environmental analysis shall be prepared for the site to evaluate the existence of hazardous/toxic materials on-site, and to make recommendations for any remediation procedures.
7. No grading shall be performed during the rainy season as determined by the Coastal Commission.
8. Detention Basin "C" (located on the east side of El Camino Real per Chang Study) shall be
constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the project; or other means utilized to
provide required freeboard at the crossings of Encinitas Creek for the project access and El
Camino Real.
Checkpoint
Prior to recording of first final map or issuance of first grading or building permit.
Responsible Parties
City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions
1. No recording of final map or issuance of grading or building permit without Financing Plan
guarantee for construction of required drainage facilities.
2. No approval of grading permit without necessary conditions and proper drainage and
depollutant system shown.
.. 0 e
3. No approval of final maps or issuance of building or grading permits.
CIRCULATION
Potential Impacts
1. At site buildout, the project is projected to generate the following approximate trip ends: 33,400 daily, 850 AM peak hour (495 In and 355 Out), and 3,075 PM peak hour (1,580 In and 1,495 Out).
2
2. Under year 1995 conditions, the intersection of El Camino RealLa Costa Avenue would be
expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour under the "General Plan Land Use
Alternative" (see Section 5.0). The El Camino ReaVOlivenhain Road intersection is expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour under alternative number four (roadway
connections at Leucadia and La Costa only). These two intersections do not meet service level standards of LOS D or better given their respective scenarios and would therefore be considered significantly impacted. All other intersections are expected to operate acceptably.
3. Under year 1995 conditions, if the project is built without the Leucadia Boulevard connection, the La Costa Avenue road segment with a single lane in either direction, between 1-5 and El Camino Real, would not operate acceptably for project alternatives 1 through 3 (see Circulation section for description of alternatives). These road segments would, however, operate acceptably with two lanes in each direction. Because project occupancy would not occur until La Costa Avenue is widened to two lanes in both directions, this
potential impact would be mitigated. Additionally, if the project is built with the Leucadia
Boulevard connection, all road segments would operate acceptably.
4. Under year 2000 conditions, all intersections would be expected to operate acceptably under the "With Leucadia Boulevard" scenario, with the exception of the P.M. peak hour at the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road for Alternatives 1 and 2. With the widening of the northbound, southbound, and westbound curb lanes to accommodate right
turning vehicles, however, the intersection will then operate at an acceptable level of service.
Under the "Without Leucadia Boulevard" scenario, however, the intersection of El Camino
Real and La Costa Avenue is expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour for the "without north access" scenarios utilizing both Project and General Plan Land uses.
Operation at this level is considered a significant impact. The intersection is expected to
operate acceptably during the P.M. peak period.
5. Under year 2010 conditions, the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road is expected to operate at a LOS E during the A.M. peak hour for Alternative 6 and a LOS E during the P.M. peak hour for Alternative 3, respectively. To reduce this otherwise significant impact to a level of service D or better it would require a third eastbound and westbound through lane on Olivenhain RoadLeucadia Boulevard. This leg of the intersection, however, is not within the City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction. Additionally, the -need for this lane is not necessarily generated solely by the proposed project. A second eastbound through lane is necessary at the year 2010 with or without the project.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures will mitigate the potential circulation impacts of the project to below a level
of significance:
.. e 0
1. Intersection of 1-5 Southbound Ramps & La Costa Avenue: On the 1-5 southbound ramp,
construct one additbnal southbound left-turn lane for a total of two. On La Costa Avenue, construct one additional westbound left-turn and through lane for a total of two each and one additional eastbound through lane for a total of two. These improvements are required by the
year 1995.
2. Intersection of 1-5 Northbound Ramps & La Costa Avenue: On La Costa Avenue, construct one additional eastbound and westbound through lane for a total of two. Also, construct one eastbound left-turn lane. On the 1-5 northbound ramp, construct one additional northbound right-turn lane for a total of two. These improvements are required by the year 1995.
3. Intersection of El Camino Real & Calle Barcelona: Construct new intersection including:
dual northbound left-turn lanes, one southbound through lane wide enough to accommodate
right-turns, dual eastbound left-turn lanes, one eastbound through lane and one eastbound
right-turn lane. These improvements are required by the year 1995.
4. Intersection of El Camino Real & Olivenhain Road: On El Camino Real, construct one additional southbound through lane wide enough to accommodate right-turns by the year
1995.
5. La Costa Avenue - Between El Camino Real & Interstate 5: Construct additional east and westbound through lane for a total of two in each direction by the year 1995.
6. La Costa Avenue - Between Interstate 5 Northbound & Southbound Ramps: Construct additional east and westbound through lane for a total of two in each direction by 1995.
7. El Camino Real - Between La Costa Avenue and Olivenhain Road: Construct additional
southbound through lane by 1995.
8. Intersection of El Camino Real & Alga Road: On Alga Road, construct one eastbound right- turn lane. On El Camino Real, construct one additional northbound left-turn lane for a total of two by the year 1999.
9. Intersection of La Costa Avenue & El Camino Real: On El Camino Real, restripe
southbound curb lane to accommodate right-turns by the year 2000.
10. Intersection of El Camino Real & Olivenhain Road: Complete construction of full
intersection by the year 2000 including: dual northbound left-turn lanes, three northbound
through lanes (curb lane wide enough to accommodate right turns), dual southbound left-turn
lanes, three southbound through lanes (curb lane wide enough to accommodate right turns), dual eastbound left-turn lanes, three eastbound through lanes, dual westbound left-turn lanes and three westbound through lanes.
11. El Camino Real - Between Alga Road & La Costa Avenue: Construct one additional southbound through lane for a total of three by the year 2010 (only necessary if Leucadia Boulevard is not constructed.)
To create greater operational efficiency between the proposed project and the Encinitas Ranch
proposed commercial center in the City of Encinitas to the south, the southerly connection of Street
"A" to Via Cantebria in the City of Encinitas may be pursued. This would facilitate a natural circulation pattern between these two proposed major commercial centers. It should be noted, however, that jurisdictional boundaries and additional environmental consequences are associated
with this southerly connection.
.* e e
Checkpoints
I. Construction of imgovements.
2. Approval of tentative maps,
3. ' Building occupancy.
Responsible Parties
City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions
1. No issuance of building permits if Growth Management standards for traffic levels of service are not met.
2. No approval of tentative maps without applicable conditions.
NOISE
Potential Impacts
1. Construction activities on-site will result in short-term increases in noise levels adjacent to site
access routes and the on-site areas under construction.
2. Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in
the vicinity and will be audible (greater than 3.0 dBA) along one link (Calle Barcelona, east of El Camino Real), potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the twelve remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
3. Under year 2000 conditions, project-related traffic noise will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on up to 5 links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the remaining roadway links analyzed in 1995.
4. Project-related traffic noise increases will represent a long-term incremental acoustic impact in the vicinity and will be potentially audible (between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA) on six links, and inaudible (less than 1.0 dBA) on the fifteen remaining roadway links under year 2010 conditions.
5. Project impacts will be significant on only one link under one scenario (Calle Barcelona east of
El Camino Real under 1995 conditions).
6. On-site noise impacts may result from ultimate traffic volumes on El Camino Real, depending
upon the sound propagation rate and site design measures incorporated in the project.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts
below a level of signlficance and insure compliance with applicable noise standards:
1. During construction activities on-site, the following short-term acoustic mitigation measures should be implemented:
., 0 0
Construction activities on-site should take place only during the days and hours specified by the City of Carlsbad to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. I.
All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, should be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receivers.
Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors.
Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and
sensitive receptors during construction activities.
2. A noise analysis based upon on-site noise monitoring should be performed adjacent to the
proposed residential areas, prior to construction of the residential uses in order to determine
specific site design measures to be incorporated into the project. Site design measures to
reduce noise at the residential building pads on-site over the long-term should include:
Building setbacks and pad elevations can be used in conjunction with acoustic berm or berm and barrier combinations to reduce intrusive noise levels at those building sites located within areas with excessive noise exposures adjacent to master planned roadways on-site prior to the issuance of building permits.
Multi-story buildings located within ultimate unattenuated noise impact areas may require architectural treatments such as double glazing on the upper floor windows, which should be addressed at more detailed levels of planning.
Any courtyards, plazas and open space areas designed for pedestrian uses should be shielded from intrusive noise levels by intervening structures wherever possible.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final lot layout, pad elevations, building
design, acoustic berm or bem and barrier combinations should be evaluated by an acoustic
consultant to insure that proper noise mitigation has been provided.
Commercial truck access, parking area design, air conditioning and refrigeration units, and refuse bin locations should be carefully designed and evaluated at more detailed levels of planning to minimize the potential for acoustic impacts to adjacent residential development.
Checkpoints
1. Discretionary approval of residential units.
2. Inspection of constructed improvements.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanctions
1. No approval of discretionary development permits until noise report submitted and
appropriate mitigation implemented.
.I 0. 0
2. No issuance of subsequent permits.
c
~
AIR QUALITY
Potential Impacts
1. The development of the project site will generate exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and the automobiles of the construction crew, as well as fugitive dust during soil
movement.
2. The proposed project would generate: 4,970 pounds of carbon monoxide, 603 pounds of
reactive organic gases, 525 pounds of NOx, 68 pounds of particulates, and 39 pounds of SOX daily upon build-out in the year 2000.
Mitigation Measures
Potentially significant short-term (construction-related) air quality impacts shall be mitigated to below a level of significance by implementing the following measures:
1. Construction operations requiring road closures or other types of traffic impediments affecting
roadways adjacent to the site shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours.
2. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction activities on-site, it is possible after clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities to:
seed and water until ground cover is established; water construction sites and equipment in the morning and evening; time activities to avoid windy periods;
conduct street sweeping on local public thoroughfares where silt and sand from the project
site has been deposited by the wind.
3. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of
construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are under-going earth moving operations will be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface (and then be watered again at the end of the day).
4. Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water
these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover.
5, Grading operations shall not be conducted when winds exceed 30 miles per hour.
6. Where possible, diesel-powered construction equipment shall be used rather than gasoline- powered equipment to affect exhaust emission reductions and evaporative and crankcase HC emission reductions.
7. ConstruCtion equipment using diesel drive internal combustion engines shall use a diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05% sulfur and a four degree retard.
8. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
6. e 0
9. Any construction vehicle access roads where dust is deposited should be cleaned after each work day. *
10. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of California Administrative Code.
Significant long-term air quality impacts would be primarily the result of cumulative project-related vehicular emissions. Mitigation outlined below and in the traffic section will partially reduce such traffic-related air emissions and secondary source emissions. However, due to the cumulative incremental nature of these impacts, mitigation to a level of insignificance cannot be fully achieved.
1. Low emission building materials such as preprimed and sanded wood moulding and trim
products and preprimed wallboard, should be considered for construction materials wherever
feasible.
2. The use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting (low pressure sodium vapor lights) should be considered on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site.
3. Future tenants of the project site will adhere to all applicable SDAPCD Rules and Regulations.
Checkpoint
Grading permit.
Responsible Parties
1. City Planning and Engineering Departments.
Sanction
No approval of grading permits without applicable conditions.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Potential Impacts
Overall impacts to public facilities and services have been found not to be significant provided that
all the appropriate agency conditions for development are met, including payment of public
facilities fees.
Mitigation Measures
All the appropriate agency conditions for development shall be met by the project applicant,
including payment of public facilities fees.
Checkpoints and Sanctions
No checkpoints or sanctions are required.