Loading...
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;