Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 39061 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 1, 9 e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3906 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR AN AMENDMENT TO EXTEND AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 46,885 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE CASE NO: SDP 86-03(A) WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for approval of the more fully described as an amendment to a Site Development Plan, to allow the cons' of a 46,885 square foot neighborhood commercial center on a 5 acre site for certain I to wit: Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 12586, in the City of Carlsbad, County a San Diego, State of California, recorded on February 25,1983 as file/page nc 83-060578 of official records in the office of the County Recorder of San Dieg County. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of March, 1' the 3rd day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed b! consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tc and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the : Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declara Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhil: dated February 8, 1996, and "PII", dated January 29, 1996, attache and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: I II e 0 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 ,, Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyz considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Village proj and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the F Department, prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Part comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no sui: evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration. environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments t 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Dec for the La Costa Village project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Rc Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the C: Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Prl Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration fo Costa Village project reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Corn of the City of Carlsbad. 4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Suk Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project. Conditions: 1. Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is granted subject to the 2 of SDP 86-03(A). The Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to all ca contained in Planning Commission Resolution 3907. 2. Pursuant to the Interim Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the C: gnatcatcher, the project shall be required to mitigate the take of 1.7 acres 0: sage scrub habitat (CSS) by acquiring for preservation comparable qualitJ at a 2:l ratio. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichevt first, the applicant shall mitigate this impact by purchasing for preserve acres of mitigation credit for comparable quality habitat within the high coastal sage scrub area found in the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bal approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Del of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad. 3. The final grading plan for the project shall incorporate the recommendatio "Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rancho La Costa Plaza'' dated August 1 "Supplemental Slope Stability Analysis for Rancho La Costa Plaza'' date( 1988, and the "Soils Update for La Costa Plaza" dated December 13,1995,l by Geocon, Inc. to mitigate the geologic problems identified by these docul PC RES0 NO. 3906 -2- 1 i1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of Apri by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Monroy, Nielsen Savary and Welshons NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Erwin ABSTAIN: None h!i&M &w WILLIAM COMPAS, Chdrperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director 11 PC RES0 NO. 3906 -3- 0 e .~ City "_ of Carlsbac MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO SANTA ROAD AND LA COSTA AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AN AMENDMENT TO EXTEND FOR TWO YEARS E APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 46,8; SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above describc project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmen Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As result of said review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project v not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subjc project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tk Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Commen from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plannir Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please ci Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (61 9) 438-1 161, extension 4477. DATED: FEBRUARY 8,1996 CASE NO: SDP 86-03(A) Planning Director CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILIAGE PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1996 AH: kr .. "."._""""" ~ "_" .__~~ 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 - (61 9) 438-1 16 "....." ..... - . .~ ~ .~ . ~"."__ 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 1 of 1 \o Q\ Q\ l-4 00 4 E E m .. u 3% E* Fc5 \ow wz *z .. 0 mu @ 20 .5 u zi 5l E 8 3- $3 c 4- wB4 y $8 3 c;i z* b E2 E2 Oh 0 0s +-, 3 .s om LCm3 2b *2 8 g g.3 2 - c, '3 LC 0 * *- .%.9 g .2 3 .3 Beg LC * .t: g& g M *--$ g.5 m gf k 93 y *as 2 .Fa c2 00 0 m3 *E! -25 a c: 3 KJ 373 c oa: u 2 a" gas 00 E8 2 0 EA *-42\o &jEoo a4 * 0 *- LC cas 0 * Gm e$ * G 3 *a .z c, 4 .3 .s *gJ 3 g g.sy **s+j 3 O a0 m3 Eu *;>om 22"* z*gg 0003 E'*% yma, g %w *3 a*.% .9 *ass *- -4 g& *p 0- * 8 Eg +-I E G, c c.3m i .g & + -3 a .- e 8.3& g .s .2 E bD'i3 5 g -5 84.4 $2 0 yz & ** 4 +a *e a* gc, 0e-z bD0 * b 8.9 2 cue6 $$ 32 52 .F 2 E :g 35 2* 2 .q =3 EL!= *g bD* .g s :2 $5 Ea '3 a cda, c, .- *- c, 9 .Y -5 B ow? gla 25 R G 3f.d 2 .2 62 a2 .2 0 g r¶ 0.2 g 8 .t: 02E I/) $JaG .s -g n g c** 2 2 II 2 04 II *so c O *CIz G '0" bapc .E! & c c % *z 0 cl1.g. CI *.a 3 WbZm x &OS e@ *LC c, -ccd 6 a-3 1 am 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 86-03(A) DATE: JANUARY 29, BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA VILLAGE 2. APPLICANT: BURNS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 514 VIA DE LA VALLE, SU SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 . 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AN AMENDMENT TO EXTEND FOR TWO YE1 COMMERCIAL CENTER. THE LA COSTA VILLAGE PROJECT IS LOCATED A SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA COSTA AVENUE AND RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP 86-03(A) FOR A 46,885 SQUAR P-C (LA COSTA MASTER PLm ZONE. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impac Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services - Population and Housing X Biological Resources - Utilities and Servicl - X Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources - X Ar Quality - Noise - Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 3/28/! 0 e DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, an a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepare( I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at lea; one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursual to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on tf earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO: 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, the] WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) ha\ been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlir EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measurc that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has bee prepared. L 24-76 Planner Signature Date L Planner Signature 24-76 Date . a/5/qlo Date I AH:kr 2 Rev. 3/28/! 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City con1 Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the fol checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impa the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding wht prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously a1 EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are ade supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be ex when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potentia: is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and 1 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorpor2 mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Le Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must desc mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significa: 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an ( significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effec environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a1 EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including I or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circun requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation n required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pur; applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a ‘Statement of Overriding Considc has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/5 0 0 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mi1 measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appr “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a M Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been di or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does nc to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Stater Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant: through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significanc potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in red potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be ; discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/! e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #1) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source #1) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Sources #1 and #2) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source #1) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (Source #1) 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (N/A) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source #1 and #2) - - - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (N/A) - - - 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Sources #1 and #5) - - - b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources #1 and #5) - - x c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources #1 and #5) - - - 5 Rev. 3/28/! e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources #1 and #5) e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #5) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #5) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #5) h) Expansive soils? (Source #5) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #5) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #1) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #1) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #1) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source #1) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #7) f) Change 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? (Source #1) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact I - - - - x - - x - - - - - - - - - - - - x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/! 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Source #5) - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources #1 and #5) - i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source #1) - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1) x b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #1) - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source #1) - d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #1) - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources #1, #3, #4) x b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (N/A) - c> Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source #1) - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source #1) - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source #1) - 7 Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact 1 - x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rev. 3/28/! 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source #1) - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #1) - 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? (Source #6) - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source #6) - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #6) - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #6) - e) Wildlnfe dispersal or migration corridors? (Source #S) - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Source #1) - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source #1) - 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? (Source #1) - Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact - - - - x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/! 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 1 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? (Source #1) - - - b) Possible interference with an . emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source #1) - - - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () - - - d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #1) - - - e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source #1) - - - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #1) - - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #1) - - - 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? (Source #1) - - x b) Police protection? (Source #1) - - x c) Schools? (Source #1) - - - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #1) - - X e) Other governmental services? (Source #1) - - X 9 Rev. 3/28/! 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 1 a) Power or natural gas? (Source #1) - - - b) Communications systems? (Source #1) - - - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Source #1) - - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #1) - - - e) Storm water drainage? (Source #1) - - - f,) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1) - - - g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1) - - - XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source #1) - - x b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? () - - - c) Create light or glare? () - - x XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source #1) - - x b) Disturb archaeological resources? () - - - c) Affect historical resources? () - - - d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () - - - 10 Rev. 312815 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 0 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact I - - - - - - - - - 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 wild life 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? - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - x - - x - x 11 Rev. 312819 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other ( process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or ne declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the follow: attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for r( b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were witk scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based ( earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpor describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the e document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 12 Rev. 3/28/95 a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION Background On August 19, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration and Development Plan for the La Costa Plaza project which includes 46,885 square feet of retail 1 a drive-thru restaurant, and a gas station. The site is designated by the General Plan and th Costa Master Plan for commercial land use due to its location at the intersection of two circul: arterial roadways in the City's southeast quadrant. Access to the commercial center is provide three driveways, one on Rancho Santa Fe Road and two on La Costa Avenue. Sloping topography amounting to a 40 foot drop from north to south necessitates grading M lowers the site along Rancho Santa Fe and raises it along the southern boundary to create a buil pad to accommodate the commercial center. The result of this grading scheme is that the cenl separated from the roadway by a landscaped setback and crib/retaining wall and separated residential development to the south by a 40' landscaped slope. Offsite grading is necessitate this grading scheme adjacent to the southern property line where the construction of a dra buttress fill is required. The site contains disturbed grassland and 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat requiring mitig; for any disturbance. 1. LAND USE The La Costa Village site is vacant and has been designated for community commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element and La Costa Master Plan for many years. T is currently no commercial development within the immediate area. The project is separ from existing development by Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue, and a 2C landscaped 2:l slope will a provide a buffer between the center and the Parkview ' residential subdivision to the south. The project will serve existing, surrounding reside development; therefore, the commercial center is consistent with the City's General goals to provide for the development of compatible, conveniently located neighbor1 shopping centers and to ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by comme areas in terms of daily shopping needs such as food and personal services. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project will have no impact on population or housing since the commercial site is lo( at the corner of two existing General Plan circulation arterial roadways and will serve exi residential development. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS According to the "Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rancho La Costa Plaza'' dated AI 1987 and "Supplemental Slope Stability Analysis for Rancho La Costa Plaza" dated AI 1988, prepared by Geocon, Inc., the project is not located on any known fault trace. ancient fault zone was encountered entirely within Tertiary-aged formations so the pot€ for movement is considered very low to nonexistent. Off shore faults and the Elsinore 1 13 Rev. 312819: 0 0 are the closes active faults, however, earthquake magnitudes greater than 6 are not expe from these faults. A relatively shallow surficial landslide exists adjacent to the proposed cut/fill slope alon; southern property boundary; therefore, remedial grading in accordance with the Gel recommendations will be required. The site is underlain by surficial soils consisting of existing fill soils, topsoils, slopev alluvals, surficial landslide debris and by two formational soil units. The surficial soil, not considered suitable for the support of fill or structural loads in their present cond and will require remedial grading. A proposed transition (fill over cut) slope alonl southerly property boundary would require the construction of a drained buttress fill. project will be conditioned to comply with these mitigation measures. 4. WATER The project is located within the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed and Section 5.2 of Mi EIR 93-01 identifies potentially significant water quality and sedimentation impacts tc watershed that will result from future development and requires mitigation rneasurt reduce those impacts to insignificant levels. Development of the project will CI impervious surfaces thereby reducing absorption rates and increase runoff rates and n velocities. Drainage from the site which includes a gas station, constitute a potenl significant impact to water quality due to potential pollutants in the “non-point” source u runoff. The project is therefore conditioned to comply with relevant MEIR mitig: measures including compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy, (NPDES) permit ensuring the provision of the best management practices to reduce sur pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge into sensitive biological areas. significant impacts to surface waters will result due to required compliance with the 2 11 LFMP and the City’s Grading Ordinance, which ensure the provision of adeq ” drainage facilities to service the site concurrent with development. According to the Geocon Geologic Investigation, impacts to groundwater encountl between the Torrey Sandstone Formation and the underlying Del Mar Formation rec the installation of subsurface drains within a recommended buttress fill along the prope southerly property boundary to reduce the potential for groundwater buildup. The prc will be conditioned to comply with these recommendations to avoid significantly impac the course, quantity, or rate of flow of groundwater. 5. AIR QUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of cal monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particul; These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additi air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued develop me^ buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant imy on the air quality of the region. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 e 0 To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildo variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These incl 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Conge; and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative mod transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy effil building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies 1 adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditio1 project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the projt located within a %on-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is ma “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, there the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EII 01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overr . Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerati applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, inch this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is requ This document is available at the Planning Department. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Additional traffic generated by the La Costa Village project will not significantly impac surrounding roadways or intersections which currently operate at acceptable levels. payment of the projects fair share of fees to finance future required improvements to Ral Santa Fe Road in accordance with the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan will er an acceptable level of service through the City’s buildout. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included ir updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segment: be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersection: be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictj control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections a Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a numb intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management perform; standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan builc numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. T include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with nee1 provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle ro additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participatic regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic : a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not withi] jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulr mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project 01 included as conditions of project approval. 15 Rev. 3/28/9! e e Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because o failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-tr; therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This pr is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not reql because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolutior 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered b General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental re of circulation impacts is required. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Biological Resource Survey performed on October 19, 1994 by Ogden Environmc and Energy Services for the project site identified 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub (( vegetation. A single pair of California gnatcatchers was observed during an earlier SL and the biologist heard one gnatcatcher during the survey. No other sensitive pla1 animal species were observed. Due to the small size and isolated nature of the coastal scrub observed, Ogden considers its preservation value to be low. The proposed mitiga which consists of the purchase of credits in the Carlsbad Highlands Conservation Bank 2:l replacement ratio, will reduce impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat to an insignif level. Habitat Management Plan - 4d Rule The project site is located within Preserve Planning Area (PPA) 7, but outside of its area boundaries, as defined by the City’s draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) dated 4, 1994. Of the 896 total acres of coastal sage scrub within PA7, the core area contains acres or nearly 50% of the CSS habitat. Although disturbance to approximately 1.7 a CSS will result from the construction of the project, it will not preclude the ability of the to implement its draft Habitat Management Plan (subregional NCCP) since nej connectivity between PPAs nor the preservation of 50% of the CSS habitat in PPI jeopardized by the project. Moreover, this project provides mitigation in the form of of mitigation because it will preserve two acres of CSS habitat in PPA2 for every one disturbed by the project. Prior to completion of the subregional NCCP/Carlsbad H interim take (4(d) rule) approval through obtaining a 4d permit issued by the Carlsbad Council and reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Dept. of Fish Game must be secured for losses of coastal sage scrub habitat. The proposed loss o acres does not exceed the City’s 5% allocation (165.70 acres of CSS) of which 20.48 : have been allocated. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL, RESOURCES The La Costa Village project is surrounded by development, and according to the MEIF mineral or agricultural resources are located in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation suc compliance with the Building Code, Title 20, and Chapter 17 of the Carlsbad Munic Code specified by the Electricity and Natural Gas Section 5.12.1 of the Master EIR ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures which will avoid the proj use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful manner. 16 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 9. HAZARDS The commercial uses proposed by the project include a gas station; therefore, hazar substances will be present on the site. State, County, and City regulations governin1 storage and dispensing of fuel reduce the associated impacts to an insignificant level. 10. NOISE The commercial project site is located at the intersection of a prime arterial roadw; which future noise levels are projected to be 65-70 dBA. The MEIR Land Use Compati’ Chart, which provides guidelines for acceptable noise exposures for proposed land indicated that commercial uses are conditionally acceptable in areas exposed to noise 1 between 65 and 70 dBA. Compliance with building code requirements will redw interior noise levels to within an acceptable level (60-65 dBA). 11-12. PUBLIC SERVICES The project is located within the Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Zone. Applic public facilities to serve projects in the area through buildout have been identified b: plan and financing of the required public facilities is in place to ensure construction 7 ’ needed. The project will be conditioned to require compliance with the Zone 11 L ensuring that public facilities necessary to serve the project are provided. 13. AESTHETICS The project site is located at the intersection of two circulation arterial roadways, Ra Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. Rancho Santa Fe Road is designated as a comm scenic corridor requiring compliance with the City’s Scenic Corridor Guidelines which rei special landscape treatment and encourage landscape setbacks. The site is designed 8’ - 12’ lower than the roadway and landscaping in accordance with the Scenic Cor Guidelines within and along the right of way will screen the project’s parking lot Rancho Santa Fe Road. Additionally, architectural features including arches, colc roofline variation, and paned windows visually enhance the project and avoid signil aesthetic impacts. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES No cultural resources are recorded at the 6 acre site which is surrounded by roadway existing or approved development. 15. RECREATION The commercial project will serve residents of surrounding neighborhoods and genera additional demand for recreational facilities. The site is currently vacant, and altl Stagecoach Park is nearby, the project will have no direct impact on that facility. 17 Rev. 3/28/5 e e MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Biology As discussed in the Biological Section of this EIA, the project is conditioned to require mitig; at a 2:l ratio for impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. The proposed mitigation will 2 significantly impacting biological resources. Cumulative Impacts See discussion under lICirculation/T.rafficll above. Alternatives Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a signif adverse impact on the 'environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those ad7 impacts. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with signif adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen impacts. A "significant effect" is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Mitig measures required as conditions of project approval will reduce the identified potentially signif impacts to insignificant levels; therefore, no discussion of alternatives is necessary. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Depart located at 2075 Las Palmas, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161). 1. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update", prepared by the C. Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6, 1994. 2. "La Costa Master Plan", MP 149(0), approved September 4, 1990. 3. "Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Grading", prepared by Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. and certified April 3, 1992. 4. "1995 Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program" prepared by JHK Associates. 5. "Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rancho La Costa Plaza" dated August 1987 "Supplemental Slope Stability Analysis for Rancho La Costa Plaza" dated August prepared by Geocon, Inc. 6. "Biological Resources Survey" prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services ( November 30, 1995. 7. "Drainage Report for Rancho La Costa Plaza Commercial Center, SE-15", prepared by Engineering Company dated November 1, 1988, Revised February 9, 1989. 8. "City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan", dated July 1995. 18 Rev. 312815 a 0 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. 1.7 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat will be directly impacted by this project. pair of California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica) was observed on the proF therefore, the impacted CSS habitat is regarded as high quality. Pursuant to the Int Take provisions of the 4d Rule for the California gnatcatcher, the project shall be reql to mitigate this take of 1.7 acres of CSS by acquiring for preservation comparable ql habitat at a 2:l ratio. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever c( first, the applicant shall mitigate this impact by purchasing for preservation 3.4 acrl comparable quality CSS habitat within the high quality coastal sage scrub area found i Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank upon approval by the US. Fish and Wild Life Se (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad. 2. The final grading plan for the project shall incorporate the recommendations of the "Soi Geologic Investigation for Rancho La Costa Plaza" dated August 1987 and "Supplem Slope Stability Analysis for Rancho La Costa Plaza" dated August 1988, prepared by Gec Inc. to mitigate the geologic problems identified by these documents. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 19 Rev. 3/28/5 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASU AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. *ln,? I, WL Date 20 Rev. 3/28/!