HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4308I 9 e
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 I 27 ,
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4308
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE’
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORTNG AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASENAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING
CENTER
CASE NO.: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-09/PUD 97-1 31
SDP 97-07/CUP 97-031 SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03
WHEREAS, American Stores Properties Inc. “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by American Stores Pr
Inc. and Leucadia County Water District, “Owner”, described as
Those portions of Lots 9,14, and 15 in Section 35, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June 17, 1998, on file in the
Planning Department.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of June, 1991
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt
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, THFREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
II
e e
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the I
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated P
Declaration according to Exhibit ”ND” dated March 22, 1998, “PI1
January 14, 1998 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting P
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findi
subject to the following condition:
FindinEs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyn
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitol
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMME:
APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments therc
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wil
significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVA:
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declara
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordar
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning ICommission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration refl
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the La Costa
Savon Shopping Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progran
June 17,1998.
...
...
..
...
...
...
. ..
PC RES0 NO. 4308 -2-
0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the :
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of June 1998
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Monroy and Welshons
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
/> 0
i? .s #-\
-3 % 4 "% /\-! c?>4$. .:by> g :;f-l $,
BAILEY NOgE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\ 4
MICHAEL J. H&IL
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4308 -3-
e e
- City of Carlsba(
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: City of Carlsbad, California - Northeast comer of La Costa Avenue and
Camino Real, San Diego County.
Project Description: 1) Demolition and removal of an existing 69,000f sq. ft. mixed 1
commercial retail, office, restaurant, and daycare center; (2) Construction of an approximately 86.25
sq. ft. neighborhood commercial shopping center to include a 61,025 k sq. ft. combination market dr
store, 22,500+ sq. ft. of general retail, and a 2,732+ sq. ft. gas station mini-market; (3) A .93 acre la
purchase of an adjacent parcel owned by the Leucadia County Water District and demolition a
removal of an approximately 800,000 gallon reclaimed water reservoir on that .93 acre site; (4) A .
acre purchase of adjacent property owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation; (5) Grading to cre,
an approximately 480 foot long and 7 to 9 foot high earthen mound immediately south of the San Marc
Creek floodway; (6) A General Plan Amendment to change 10.51 acres from (C) to (N), .93 acres frc
(U) to (N), .2 acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N); (7) a Zone Change to chan
1 1.44 acres from (C-2) to (C- 1 -Q) and .34 acres from (PC) to (C-I-Q); (8) A tentative map and no
residential planned development permit to subdivide the proposed 11.78 acre site into 8 lots; (9) Trafi
improvements to include a traffic signal at the La Costa Avenue driveway entrance, right turn lane I
westbound approach to El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection, an advanced signal warnit
system for westbound La Costa Avenue, a widened existing driveway access to La Costa Avenue, addt
deceleration lane on the El Camino Real main driveway entrance, consolidation of driveways ar
placement of driveways further from the El Camino Real/La Costa intersection, and a new median wi.
left turn to enter the site from El Camino Real; and, (1 0) Realignment of onsite drainage facilities and tl
construction of an onsite drainage detention basin.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant I
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environment;
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaratic
(declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued fc
the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Departmen
2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Pleas
submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you hav
any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: MARCH 22, 1998
CASE NO: GPA 97-02lZC 97-02lSDP 97-07lCT 97-09lSUP 97-03lSUP 97-02KUP 97
03lPS 97-32lPUD 97- 13
CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 22, 1998
MICHAEL J. HOEMILLm
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Cartsblad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-089
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 97”02/ZC 97-02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-O9/SUP 97-O3/SUP 97-O2/CUP 97-0:
PS 97-32/PUD 97-1
DATE: JANUARY 14. 199
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
2. APPLICANT: AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES INC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 348 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE. SAL
LAKE CITY. UT 841 11, (801) 536-3919
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MAY 2, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (1) Demolition and removal of an existing 69,OOOk sq. ft. mixe
use commercial retail, office, restaurant, and daycare center; (2) Construction of a
approximately 86,257k sq. ft. neighborhood commercial shopping center to include a 61,025
sq. ft. combination mark,et drug store, 22,500k sq. ft. of general retail, and a 2,732k sq. ft. g:
station mini-market; (3) A .93 acre land purchase of an adjacent parcel owned by the Leucadi
County Water District and demolition and removal of an approximately 800,000 gallo
reclaimed water reservoir on that .93 acre site; (4) A .34 acre purchase of adjacent propert
owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation; (5) Grading to create an approximately 480 foc
long and 7 to 9 foot high. earthen mound immediately south of the San Marcos Creek floodwa!
(6) A General Plan Amendment to change 10.5 1 acres from (C) to (N), .93 acres from (U) to (N
.2 acres from (T-R) to (Pi), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N); (7) a Zone Change to change 1 1.4
acres from (C-2) to (C-1-Q) and .34 acres from (PC) to (C-1-Q); (8) A tentative map and no1
residential planned development permit to subdivide the proposed 11.78 acre site into 8 lots; (!
Traffic improvements to include a traffic signal at the La Costa Avenue driveway entrance, rig1
turn lane on westbound approach to El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection, an advance
signal warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue, a widened existing driveway access I
La Costa Avenue, added deceleration lane on the El Camino Real main driveway entrancl
consolidation of driveways and placement of driveways further from the El Camino Real/L
Costa intersection, and a new median with left turn to enter the site from El Camino Real; an(
(10) Realignment of onsite drainage facilities and the construction of an onsite drainag
detention basin .
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORSPOTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0
0 Land Use and Planning, [XI Transportation/Circulation [7 Public Services
Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
[XI Water Hazards [7 Cultural Resources
(XI Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation
[XI Mandatory Findings of Significance
2 Rev. 03/28/96
a - .DETERMINATION. 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tk
environment, and a NElGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVj
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[XI I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(sj on the environment, but a
least one potentially significant effect 1 j has been adequately analyzed in an earlie
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio~
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigatec
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to bl
addressed.
I find that although .the proposed project could have a significant effect on thc
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentiallq
significant effects (aj 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 Comp1.iance has been prepared.
K 4- /9iL)- . February IS , I m
Date
3/w }q 8
Planning Director's Sign'tdure Date
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACE e
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit:
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significan
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followin
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with infomation tl
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatiw
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that arc
adequately supported hy an ‘information source cited in the parentheses following eacl
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatiol
sources show that the i:mpact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. il
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, o
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that thc
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptec
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatior
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact” to i
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and thc
City must describe the: mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tht
effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significani
effect on the environment, but a 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, ilncluding 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 d0cumen.t is required (Prior Compliance).
0 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.
0 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing 2
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. ar
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includin
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hi
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. ar
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th2
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, (
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significar
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of th
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio:
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine1
significant.
5 Rev. 03/28/96
a rn
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. 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
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impac Impact
0 €3!
0 IXI
0 [XI
0 w
El
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Ref. 1,2) 0 0 w
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 [XI
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Ref. 1,2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Ref. 1,2) 0 0 0 w
111.
IV.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Ref. 7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Ref. 7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Ref. 7)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Ref. 7)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Ref.
(Ref. 7.)
7)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Ref. 7)
h) Expansive soils? (Ref. 7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Ref. 7)
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)
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0.
0
0
o 0
0 0
0
El
0 €3 0 [XI El 0
cl [XI 0 0 IXI
[XI 0 0 [XI 0 1xI
0 [XI
0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
0
0
0
cl
cl 0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Ref. 2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
dj Create objectionable odors? (Ref. 2) ,
existing or projected air quality violation? (Ref. 2) w
0
0
cause any change in climate? (Ref. 2) 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Ref.
2,s)
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?
17.
0
0
0
0 0
0
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, 0
insects, animals, and birds? (Ref. 3,4)
(Ref. 3,4) 0 b) Locally designated species (eg. heritage trees)?
7
a Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[XI
0
0
0
0 o I7
0
0 cl
[XI
0
cl
0
cl 0
0
0
0
Less Than ho
Significant impact Impact
o 17
[XI
IXI 0
0 w
0 w w 0 0 w
0 0
0 [XI o w
El
0 0 o w
cl w o w
0 w 0 IXI
17 [XI
o w
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (eg marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Ref 3,4)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Ref. 3,4) 0
pool)? (Ref. 3,4) 0
e Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
CI o w
0 0 Ixi
0 0 Ixl
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
(Ref. 2) 0 0 cl [XI
inefficient manner? (Ref. 2) ON
mineral resource that would be of future value to 0 0 0 [XI
the region and the residents of the State? (Ref. 7)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited 0 0 [XI 0
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Ref.
9,101 b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? 17 0 0 [XI
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (2) 0 0 0 El
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Ref. 9, 10, 11, 12) c3 El 0
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (ref. 2) 0 0 0 [XI
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o w 0 0 0 0 [XI
X1. 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?
e) Other governmental services? (Ref. 2)
(Ref. 2)
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 IXI 0 0 El 0 o w 0 cl [XI
0 0
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) 0 0 0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact.
b) Communications systems? (Ref. 2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Ref. 2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Ref. 2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Ref. 2)
0 0
0 o n
facilities? (Ref. 2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Ref. 2)
U 0
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?
0 0 0
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
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
o 0 0 0 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
potential impact area? 0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
0
0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0
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? [XI
(“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)
9
0 Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 El
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 [XI 0 [x]
[XI
[XI ci
[XI 0 [XI
0 [XI IXI 0
[XI
0 [x] o w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
lncorporated
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0 0 IXI
XVII . EARLIER ANALYSES .
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQl
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativl
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify thl
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl
for review. (Ref. 2 - On file in the Planning Department , 2075 Las Palmas Drivc
Carlsbad, CA 92009)
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli:
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuar
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (Overriding Findings c
Consideration for cumulative regional air quality and circulation impacts)
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated c
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 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 thc
site designated (C) and ,(U) has a General Commercial (C-2) zoning designation. The project sitc
is 11.78 acres in size with a project proposal for approximately 86,000f sq. ft. of neighborhooc
commercial land uses. Based on the GP Land Use Element’s Community Commercial (C) sitc
criteria of 10 to 30 acres and 100,000 to 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area, the project sitc
is qualified in the GP more as a Neighborhood Commercial (N) (3 to 10 acres & 30.000 tc
100,000 sq. ft.) site rather than a (C) designated site. In addition, the (U) GP designation i:
currently inconsistent with the (C-2) zoning designation. The (U) GP designation is for publi,
infrastructure land uses. The (C-2) zoning designation is not consistent because it allow
commercial land uses not infrastructure uses. Changing the entire site’s GP designation to (N
and the zoning designation to (C-1) would bring it into conformity with the GP’s commercia
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 Spac
& Conservation Map as potentially constrained open space and not dedicated GP open space
The project’s Vegetation Analysis and Wetland Determination prepared by Planning System:
dated September 16, 1997 and updated December 18, 1997, indicates that this area of the site i
not constrained and does not contain wetlands or other sensitive native habitat. Therefore, th
GP Amendment to redesignate this area to an (N) designation will not negatively impact th
Open Space and Conservation Element of the GP. The adjustment of constrained open spac
boundaries does not require a General Plan Amendment or need to comply with the adjustmer
procedures of the Open Space and Conservation Element if further detailed study shows it is nc
constrained and the open space designation is shown on the General Plan Conceptual Ope
Space & Conservation Map as potentially constrained (not dedicated/approved) open space.
There are no agricultural resources on or adjacent to the project site. The surroundin
development consists of the Leucadia County Water District’s wastewater pumping and storag
facility to the east, a neighborhood commercial shopping center located across La Costa Avenu
to the south, El Camino Real to the west, and the La Costa Resort Hotel and golf course to th
north. The redevelopment and minor expansion of this existing commercial site is compatibl
with the surrounding land uses and will not divide the physical arrangement of the surroundin
community.
A General Plan Amendment to change 10.51 acres from (C) to (N), .93 acres from (U) to (N), .
acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N) would change the physical projec
description of the GP on which a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was preparec
Since the GP changes would result in minor and insignificant changes to the impacts generate
by the GP, this project is still relying on the findings of the MEIR for cumulative impacts t
traffic and air quality (See XVI for discussion).
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project consists of the redevelopment and minor expansion of an existing neighborhoo
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 @ commercial shopping center, therefore, it would not induce substantial growth in the area o
displace existing housing.
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
The site is currently developed with an existing shopping center, day care center, and reclaimel
water storage basin. The project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoSoil:
Inc., dated February 6, 1997, indicates that the site is still suitable for commercial use and ther
are no adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility, provided th
recommendations in the geotechnical study are implemented. Chapter 15.16.090 of the Carlsba
Municipal Code requires the recommendations included in a project’s geotechnical investigatio
to be incorporated into the project‘s grading plans and/or specifications. Therefore. separat
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 th
neighborhood commercial land use, including an expanded parking area would result i:
somewhat more impervious surfaces and increased runoff from the site. Currently the existin:
drainage from building roofs and paved surfaces on-site, either flows, directly into the drainag
system in El Camino Real and then into San Marcos Creek, or directly into San Marcos Cree.
via concrete lined drainage channels. Urban runoff from the site is currently reaching San Marco
Creek without the benefit of on-site best management practices to reduce urban pollutants fror
the runoff water. To mitigate potential water quality impacts to below a level of significance th
project would incorporate drainage inlet pollutant filtration devices and an on-site drainag
desiltation basin along the northern property boundary adjacent to San Marcos Creek, as show:
on the site plan. Chapter 15.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that development utiliz
best management practices to prevent pollutants from entering storm water conveyance system
by complying with all applicable provisions of local ordinances and the National Pollutar
Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges.
Parking lot owners and operators are required by local ordinance to clean their parking lots a
thoroughly as is necessary to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm water conveyanc
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 existin!
shopping center and the Leucadia County Water District Facility are located in the floodplail
adjoining the floodway. The project’s “HEC-2 Study” prepared by Dr. Howard H. Chang, datec
February 1997, and updated by a letter dated June 25, 1997 and December 11, 1997, indicate
that the proposed grading, filling, and redevelopment in the San Marcos Creek floodplain woulc
not significantly impact the floodway or floodplain and would not result in additional exposurt
to risk of on-site or off-site flooding fiom a 100 year flood. In addition, the project would no
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 nortl
towards San Marcos Creek.
V. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update1
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of c.arbon monoxide, reactiv
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are th
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since th
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed. in th
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 variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the GP Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Deman
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and :
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have been incorporated into the desig
of the project.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tk
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Ci1
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequel
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at tf
Planning Department.
The proposed neighborhood commercial land uses will not create significant objectionable odol
and there are no sensitive receptors to pollutants in close proximity to the project site. The close,
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,OOOk sq. ft. of mostly vacant neighborhoc
commercial type land uses and a vacant former service station site. The project’s traffic stud
prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., dated April 25, 1997, indicates that, at full occupanc:
the existing commercial development generated a baseline of approximately 10,200 averag
daily trips (ADT). The redevelopment of the existing commercial center and 1.27 acre expansic
of the site, including approximately 86,000+ sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial land uses and
new gas station with 12 fueling stations, would generate approximately 12,132 ADT. To reduc
the project’s direct traffic impacts to below a level of significance and to substantially impro]
the operation of the El Camino Real/La Costa intersection, the following traffic improvemen
are incorporated into the design of the project:
1. A raised median on El Camino Real along the project’s frontage to eliminate left-turr
exiting the site onto El Camino Real;
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
2. A protected left-turn pocket on El Camino Real for vehicles entering the site to maximi2
safety and traffic operations on El Camino Real and at the El Camino Real/La Cost
Avenue intersection;
3. Consolidated project access driveways away from the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenu
intersection to eliminate an existing cut-through route through the project;
4. Signalized and widened project access on La Costa Avenue to provide efficient ingre:
and egress to both the project site and Plaza La Costa. An advanced warning system fc
westbound La Costa Avenue, 300 feet in advance of the new traffic signal:
5. Deceleration right-tum 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 syster
and the proposed project is expected to generate 212 net new PM peak hour trips; therefore,
Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis was conducted by the project’s traffi
engineer, in accordance with the 1994 Congestion Management Program Update. Because th
redevelopment project would not add 50 or more net peak hour trips to either roadway in on
direction, further analysis of these roadways is not required by the CMP. In addition the projec
would not add 150 or more net peak hour trips to any freeway system, which also exempts th
-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 advers
direct or indirect biological impacts would occur to sensitive biological resources in the Sa
Marcos Creek or Batiquitos Lagoon area as result of the proposed project. The San Marco
Creek, in this area of the drainage, has been channelized by past development, and the vegetatio.
that presently exists is significantly dominated by non-native, weedy species. The wetlanl
delineation line occurs no closer than 15 feet from the project’s northern property line. Th
upland vegetation that occurs on-site is not considered sensitive.
The project has been designed to avoid encroachment into the exiting creek corridor wetland:
therefore, no significant impacts would occur to sensitive bird species in the Batiquitos Lagool
area, such as the California least tern, and species dependent on riparian habitat such as the Leas
Bell’s vireo, and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The willow habitat adjacent to thc
project’s northern property line is not extensive enough to support the foraging activities of thesc
bird species.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
No non-renewable resources has been identified with the site. Therefore, implementation of thi
proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of non-renewable resources. The subjec
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 site does not have any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil, coal, sand, or gravel) that woul,
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, vehicl
emissions, and certain materials (paint, fuels, tools, and heavy machinery) during constructio
activities, the proposed project would not result.in a significant risk or hazard to employees an
customers of the shopping center.
In 1985 one 500-gallon waste oil, two 4,000-gallon, and two 6,000-gallon single-walled stee
underground storage tanks (UST’s) were removed from the ARCO service station located at th
very southwest corner of the site. The UST’s were replaced with one 550-gallon waste oil anr
three 12,000-gallon gasoline double walled plastasteel UST’s in the same locations. Betweel
1988 and 1995, consultants for ARCO commissioned 31 boreholes and the installation of 1:
groundwater monitoring wells on and off-site. Quarterly groundwater sampling has bee:
performed at the site since 1991 and liquid-phase hydrocarbons have been detected in several o
the wells. In July 1995, ARCO’s consultant, SECOR, supervised the removal of one waste oj
and three gasoline UST’s (UST’s installed in 19S5), and the demolition of the entire servic
station. In August 1995, six of the monitoring wells were destroyed prior to beginning remedia
excavation of the site. In November 1995, SECOR supervised the remedial excavation of ove
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 hydrocarbor
concentrations for a minimum of 15 quarters.
Since 1991 the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment an(
Mitigation Division (SAM) has maintained an open Unauthorized Release File (Case # H13502
001) on the site and has required mitigation and monitoring to bring the site into compliance wit1
current health standards. In June 1997, SAM sent a letter to ARCO stating that the soil anc
ground water contamination detected within the property lines have been remediated to tht
satisfaction of SAM and no further site assessment or remediation is required for the area withir
the property boundaries of the ARCO site. However, SAM is unwilling to issue a “No Furthe]
Action” letter, because there are still two areas outside of the former service station propertJ
boundaries (lease lines) that have been affected by the hydrocarbon release that will requirt
additional site assessment activity. The two areas that remain in question are adjacent to soi
sample S36-6.5 at the western sidewalk along El Camino Real, and soil sample S100-6 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 foo
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 no1
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 anq
applicable assessment, remediation, and monitoring requirements of SAM, prior to issuance of E
grading permit for the project.
15 Rev. 03128196
e 0 X. NOISE
Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City’s Construction Nois
Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code). The project site and surrounding neighborhoo
is currently impacted by traffic noise from two existing commercial centers, La Costa Avenue, E
Camino Real and the intersection of the two roadways. The project will generate noise associate
with a neighborhood shopping center, including single-event noise from vehicles (car door,
horns), delivery trucks, car stereos, and loud voices, which is very similar to the noise current1
created by the two existing commercial centers and the two major roadways in this area. TI
closest residential land use is located over 450 feet to the south and approximately 165 feet i
elevation above the project site. The proposed loading area for the market and the service static
are both located at the north end of the project site. Given the existing high level of ambier
traffic noise in the area generated by the two roadways and existing commercial centers, th
incremental increase in single-event noise generated by the expansion of the commercial centc
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 Managemer
Plan as well as the Citywide Facilities Management Plan for 11 classes of public facilities an
services. These plans projected facilities and service needs at buildout of the City. Thes
facilities include for: fire, police, school, roads, local government offices, parks, sewer, ston
drain, and sewer. The City’s Growth Management Plan requires a financing plan to be part (
the Local Facilities Management Plan to assure the provision of the listed facilities and servicc
concurrent with their need. The applicant has submitted a Sewer Availability letter, date.
February 12, 1997, from the Leucadia County Water District, stating that sewer service ca
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 th
. Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) due to the project’s purchase of the 0.93 acre para
currently owned by LCWD. As part of the agreement of the purchase, the project will reroute th
existing storm drainage systems on the LCWD property and will provide easement an
construction of a storm sewer system on the acquired shopping center property to route the flo~
to the existing San Marcos Creek storm drain outfall. Another agreement of the parcel purchas
is to reroute the existing gravity sewer on LCWD property to a new manhole on the gravit
sewer discharging to the Leucadia Pump Station.
The reclaimed water emergency storage basin currently occupies the 0.93 acre LCWD purchasl
parcel and will be demolished as part of this project. With the purchase of the parcel, the LCW
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 LCWI
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 reservoi
will be addressed under a separate site-specific environmental document. The proposed change
as outlined above will have less than significant impact on the existing conditions.
16 Rev. 03128196
0 XIII. AESTHETICS e
This project is located along the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor and is at the same elevation a
the roadway. The project would provide a 30 foot landscaped building and parking setbac
from El Camino Real. The 30 foot setback would have a combination of trees. shrubs. an
earthen berms to help visually screen parked cars and to visually soften the buildings when th
project is viewed from the public roadways. The largest proposed structure is the market/dru
store building which would be located over 400 feet from El Camino Real and over 440 fet
from La Costa Avenue. The architecture and landscaping are both designed to provide a pleasin,
aesthetic effect when viewed from El Camino Real, La Costa Avenue, and from within th
project site. The building facades along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue have bee
enhanced to include recesses in the building walls and a variety of roof elements and offsettin
building planes. Project monument signs along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are limite
to a height of 7 feet and can only be externally illuminated. Based on the above mentioned desig
elements and features the project would comply with the requirements of the El Camino Res
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 ar
located southeast of the project and approximately 165 feet higher in elevation. To minimize th
potential negative aesthetic impacts of the flat roof and associated roof equipment the project ha
been conditioned to use roof and screening materials and colors that minimize glare and thl
reflection of light. The project is also required to adequately screen all roof equipment prior tc
occupancy of the building.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The San Marcos Creek was channelized in this area and the site was mass-graded to create pad
for a gas station, shopping center, parking lot, daycare center, and the Leucadia County Wate
District’s facility. The project’s geotechnical investigation indicates that the majority of th
project site contains artificial fill and alluvium. Given the past grading and development of th
site, the presence of archaeological resources is not anticipated. The existing structures on thc
site date back to the 1960s or early 1970s and the site and surrounding area have no uniquc
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 updatec
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequatc
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severel)
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thest
generally include all freeway interchange areas and some intersections along Carlsbad Boulevarc
and El Camino Real. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number 0:
intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standard:
at buildout. The El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue intersection is included in this group 0:
17 Rev. 03/28/96
e intersections projected to fail. e
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerou
mitigation measures have been recommended in the GP Master EIR. These include 1) measure
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develo
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestria
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies whe
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. Tk
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures would be incorporate
into the design of the project.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of th
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor<
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consister
with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because th
certification of the GP Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of cumulativl
circulation impacts is required.
The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will fail Growth Management intersectio~
performance standards at buildout with or without the redevelopment of this neighborhooc
shopping center. This is due to regional through traffic and traffic generated by new residentia
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 a
buildout, and no intersection improvements would occur. The proposed GP Amendment woulc
allow the site to be expanded in size by 1.27 acres, which indirectly leads to the potentia
generation of 1,932 additional ADTs, however, the project Developer has been conditioned tc
improve the intersection and mitigate all the direct project related circulation impacts to tht
intersection and surrounding roadways (Section VI) to a level of insignificant impact. Tht
project’s contribution to cumulative traffic impacts generated by the minor intensification of thi:
site may be minimized by the fact that the traffic operations in and around the site would bt
improved and the provision of conveniently sited neighborhood shopping opportunities disperse(
throughout an area helps to reduce the distance and duration of the ADTs. Shortened shoppinl
trip lengths incrementally reduces traffic congestion at other intersections and road segments an(
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) 438-1 161)
1. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1994.
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Higllwa
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
e e 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 1 1,1997.
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 Traflc Study”, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Apri
25, 1997.
9. “Letter @om 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 #HI3502 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 b
contamination, the developer shall comply with all applicable assessment, remediati01
and monitoring requirements of the County of San Diego Department of Environment:
Health Site Assessment and Mitigation Division.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
2. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall b
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, th
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provide
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 lefi
turns exiting the site onto El Camino Real;
19 Rev. 03128196
a a 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 projec
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 RealLa Costa Avenue intersection.
WATER QUALITY
3. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Polluta
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide be:
management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Manageme1
Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharg
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Enginee
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants c
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work wit
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic an
hazardous waste products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oi
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other suc
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drai
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicide!
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall met
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respectiv
containers.
c. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutant
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 th'
Planning Director. To the extent feasible, all roof materials and colors shall minimiz
glare and light reflection from the roof.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
5. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall to the extent feasible bc
architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacen
properties and streets, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director.
SEE ATTACHED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
21 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES ANI
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
ww+ \\, \45pps Date 5 Signature
22 Rev. 03128/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl a ION MONITORING AND REPORTINb Q ROGRAM: Page 1 of I
0 r
izm
L
nm as
Q? am
mY
at-
om bk a3 a? nm c3?
En
z5
cot-
E5 w
am .. t-
:= 3% 2:
iiG WQ,
I
E w I- z w 0
c3 z n n 0 I co z
>
co
-
9
a
22 0 3 1 2
4
2
%
co 0 0
lii 3
I- o
0 E a
6
6
..
W a
W Z z 5? t a z 0 0
a3 a 0.l
T
b
a, S
7 3
7
w I- s
P -1
0 Ix a a Q
S%> mcQ .G - E .- -ma, - -5 0
0 OQ
b .E + + 22:
.G g ?
8 €5 p 5 3
m!= .E .F a, r .Y E LE2 p c '7 -2u Fa2 gLUl
Q 2 .g
m2 E pm
'3 .- u -2 n a .-
om
a,sm us
5 me
om3 ss- .- a, u uqj s€ 2 0 0
0 O-9 sa $
ob€ .G 0 a,
2mE a, .u .- 3'ETn
m.Fmq 2 g.s-
$5 3:
E $2 s
.- 0 Eo
.- ms .z$gz - con0
-!!Qmm &.E to a, .se EEz3
gam$ .z F $E
a, g E.2 0.5 != 5 c !=.!22 '3 a, mu
2s E;;;
€2 8
O3Q -
Q'E 2
.I-,
QE .& 0" L
*x != 000
5 5;
-
0
SQ
rc
3 .- .Y a3
a,"acu
sa, QS
+moa, m Om
!=a,
SC30
- ou Ulo - a,:ga3
a,!=m- r a).-= 1-2Srn
d a,
8 a,
c
- 5
.- E
c a, a, Q
In
r m
? 3 In m E c 0
m U
.- 4-4
.- 1 .- E
S a: 2
S C
n
C a:
._ +
+
- i
- E
-c
'c ._
a . ,
P
4. 0 _
E tii
.5 : u '; 1: .c
K( .- - 0 '3
mn - 5;
x: WI-
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl 8 H ION MONITORING AND REPORTINb a ROGRAM: Page 2 of:
U
Y a-
cu
- s
._ 2
C a:
2
(I: (I: x E _ (I:
(I: E
C ._ + (I: C ._ + .- E
C c 2 II
C C
(I:
._ +
+
a
- E
- E
-c
B a . /
$
c - I
s.! j[
11
.- 0 'i
St
v-
C(
c mC =I
i;
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI a ION MONITORING AND REPORTI dB ROGRAM: Page 3 of:
u a,
C a,
*
- E
._ 2
C a, a, a
VI
c m
F
m
2
K 0
(0 U
.- c
._ c ._ E
K m s
K C ._ e
c c
- E
- E
T:
L .-
5
$
E
* 0 -
irji
z .I m'
sc
2:
'c .- ;i
c. mn - 3;