HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 70441
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO 1) ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF
TWO (2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (INCLUDING VONS AT 7710 EL
CAMINO REAL AND 7740 EL CAMINO REAL) TOTALING 45,830 SQUARE
FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING 123,822 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER
(LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER); AND 2) ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE AND TWO (2) MIXED-USE
BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 60 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL
UNITS AND A NET GAIN OF 3,078 SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL ON A
PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED 15.24-ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG
THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE
WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
CASE NO.: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
WHEREAS, Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified
application with the City ofCarlsbad regarding property described as
Parcels "B" and "D" of Parcel Map No. 10283, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on July 30,1980 as File No. 80-
240721 of official records
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 16, 2014, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering
any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
1 „
Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and
2 "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," and Addendum, Exhibit
"ADDM" attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
3 "
4
5
6
7
8
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for LA COSTA TOWNE
CENTER - SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01, the environmental
impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
APPROVING the project; and
g b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
10 Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
11
it reflects the independent Judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
12 Carlsbad; and
13 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
14
2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
15 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
1^ of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 7044
1
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
2
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
3 Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning
Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the
appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a
^ determination on the appeal prior to any Judicial review.
5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
-J the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 16, 2014, by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioners Anderson, L'Heureux, Scully, Segall
and Siekmann
9 "
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
NEIL BLACK, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
19 DON NEU
City Planner
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 7044
^ CARLSBAD
CITY OF
Community & Economic Development www.carisbadca.gov
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center
PROJEa NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
PROJECT LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real, south ofthe intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16, -17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to allow for the demolition of two commercial buildings totaling 45,830
square feet (SF) located within an existing 123,822 SF shopping center, also known as La Costa Towne Center,
and to allow for the construction of two mixed use buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, 12 of
which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing, and a single-story parking structure. Overall,
including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings, a net
gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study
identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
IXI Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have
been added to the project.
I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier
analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects
that remained to be addressed).
I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in
the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: April 16, 2014, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7044
ATTEST:
DON NEU
City Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8558 fax
<£ i^p-y CITY OF
CARLSBAD
Community 8c Economic Development www.carisbadca.gov
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
PROJEa NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
PROJEa LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real, south of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16, -17.
PROJEa DESCRIPTION: A request to allow for the demolition of two commercial buildings totaling 45,830
square feet (SF) located within an existing 123,822 SF shopping center, also known as La Costa Towne Center,
and to allow for the construction of two mixed use buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, 12 of
which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing, and a single-story parking structure. Overall,
including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings, a net
gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
Initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans
or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light
of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Commission.
AVAILABILITY: A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 and is
available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning-notices.aspx.
COMMENTS: Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in
reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding
that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe
that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why
they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Written
comments regarding the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration should be directed to Shannon Werneke,
Associate Planner, at the address listed below or via email to Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov. Comments
must be received within 20 days ofthe date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled.
Ifyou have any questions, please call Shannon Werneke in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4621.
I PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 24, 2013 - Januarv 12. 2011 Januarv 21, 2014
PUBLISH DATE December 24, 2013
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8558 fax
^^5^ CITY OF
initial Study » CARLSBAD
1. PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center
2. PROJEa NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
3. LEAD AGENCY: 4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
City of Carlsbad Excel La Costa, LLC
1635 Faraday Avenue William Stone, Geoff Sherman
Carlsbad, CA 92008 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92128
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad
(760) 602-4621, Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov
6. PROJECT LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real, south of the intersection of El Camino Real and
La Costa Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16, -17
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS)
8. ZONING: Neighborhood Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A request for a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 78-03(D)), Site Development Plan (SDP 13-
03), Special Use Permit (SUP 13-01), Nonresidential Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-02), and
Minor Subdivision (MS 13-01) to allow for the demolition of two commercial buildings totaling
45,830 square feet (SF) located within an existing 123,822 SF shopping center, also known as La
Costa Towne Center, and to allow for the construction of two mixed use buildings, including 60
multi-family residential units, a parking structure, and an expansion to the parking lot.
The existing shopping center is 15.24 acres (gross) in size and spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-
124-16, -17). APN 216-124-17 has frontage on La Costa Avenue to the north and El Camino Real to
the west. APN 216-124-16 has frontage along El Camino Real to the west. Two parcels, which are
separately owned and currently developed with office and commercial uses, are located in the
shopping center but are not a part of the proposed project (APNs 216-124-15, -25). The La Costa
Towne Center shopping center is anchored by a vacant Vons grocery store, as well as five one and
two-story multi-tenant retail and office buildings. The properties proposed to be redeveloped are
located outside of the boundaries of the coastal zone. The shopping center is located in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6, has a zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial with a
Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q) and a General Plan Land Use designation of Local Shopping
Center (L) and Open Space (OS).
The proposed project entails the demolition of the existing Vons building (31,070 SF) and an
additional building (14,760 SF), addressed as 7710 and 7740 El Camino Real, respectively. In place of
the existing 31,070 SF Vons building, which is located on the northern third of the shopping center, a
three-story, 95,078 SF mixed use building is proposed to be constructed. The first floor of the new
mixed use building, comprising 35,584 SF in area, is proposed to be occupied by retail uses. The 2"''
June 2013 -1- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
and 3'^'' floors of the mixed use building will be occupied by a total of 48 multi-family units (16, one
bedroom units, 6, two bedroom units, and 2, three bedroom units on each floor) ranging in size
from 700 to 1,391 SF, as well as a common recreation area on the 2"'' floor. At its closest point, the
building is proposed to be setback from El Camino Real approximately 36 feet. Two pedestrian
access points are proposed from El Camino Real to the proposed development. Including a
proposed architectural tower, the building will have a maximum height of 45 feet.
A second, two-story mixed use building is proposed to be constructed southeast ofthe existing Vons
building in an area which is currently occupied by surface parking and ornamental landscaping. The
building will have an overall floor area of 18,320 SF and a maximum height of approximately 42 feet
(including architectural tower). A total of 9,324 SF of retail area will occupy the bottom floor and
8,996 SF will occupy the second floor. A total of 12 multi-family units (8, one bedroom units and 4,
two bedroom units) ranging in size from 624 to 1,001 SF are proposed on the second floor. These 12
units are proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement for the mixed use development.
An open-air pedestrian bridge is proposed across the main driveway off of La Costa Avenue to link
the residential uses and allow the tenants to utilize the common recreation area and access the
parking. Overall, including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new
mixed use buildings, a net gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed. The proposed density for 60
residential units is 22.2 dwelling units per acre (10.83 net acres x 0.25 = 2.7 acres; 60 units/2.7 acres
= 22.2 dwelling units/acre).
Parking for the new retail and residential uses is proposed to be provided by a combination of
surface parking and a single-level parking structure, a portion of which is subterranean, with open
parking on top. Overall, a total of 470 parking spaces currently exist in the shopping center and a
total of 608 parking spaces are proposed. Therefore, a net gain of 138 parking spaces is proposed to
accommodate the additional retail area and new multi-family residential use. The parking structure
is proposed to be located adjacent to, as well as below, the proposed three-story mixed use
building. Access to the parking structure will be provided by a new driveway entry proposed off of
El Camino Real. In exchange, one driveway, which is located south of the new driveway and
adjacent to Building 7740 (to be demolished), will be removed and replaced with parking, pedestrian
access to the site from El Camino Real and landscaping. The front yard setback from El Camino Real
for the parking structure and additional parking lot will be 17.5 feet and 14.5 feet, respectively.
Grading for the proposed project includes a total of 54,600 cubic yards of cut for the development
of the parking garage, a portion of which is below grade. As no fill is required, a total of 54,600
cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the project site.
In order to allow separate ownership for the existing and proposed retail area, as well as the new
residential area, a three-lot vertical parcel map is proposed. Parcel 1, which will comprise the new
retail area, parking structure and surface parking is proposed to be 7.78 acres in size. Parcel 2, 7.44
acres in size, will include the existing retail/office area and surface parking. Parcel 3 is proposed to
allow for the new multi-family units to be separately owned. It is proposed as a vertical parcel,
above the retail area on Parcel 1, and is 1.37 acres in size.
The proposed applications are summarized below.
Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 78-03(D). The existing Site Development Plan for the
shopping center, SDP 78-03(C) is proposed to be amended to address the development proposal. A
November, 2013 Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
Site Development Plan is required for projects which are located in the Qualified Development
Overlay (Q) zone.
Site Development Plan. SDP 13-03. A Site Development Plan is required for the 12 inclusionary
housing units proposed on-site (i.e., 20% of residential units provided). Included as a component of
the Site Development Plan is a request to exceed the 35-foot-height limitation ofthe C-l zone and El
Camino Real Corridor Standards pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100. CMC Section 21.85.100 allows
modifications to standards for projects which incorporate inclusionary housing.
Special Use Permit. SUP 13-01. A Special Use Permit is required for projects which are located
adjacent to El Camino Real, which is designated as a scenic corridor. The proposed project is located
within Area 5 ofthe El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECR Standards). Area 5 ofthe
ECR Standards currently allow for a maximum height of 35 feet. As the project proposes a height up
to 45 feet, a deviation to the standards is required and will be processed as an offset pursuant to
CMC Section 21.85.100. No deviation is needed for the proposed front yard setback from El Camino
Real since a 10-foot front yard setback was approved as part of the original Site Development Plan.
Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, PUD 13-02. A Non-Residential Planned Development
Permit is proposed for the mixture of residential and commercial units and to allow for reciprocal
access and parking throughout the shopping center.
Minor Subdivision, MS 13-01. The shopping center currently spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-124-
16, -17). A Minor Subdivision is proposed to allow for the property to be subdivided into three
parcels. Included in this proposal, is a vertical parcel to allow for the multi-family residential uses
above the floor retail uses to be separately managed and owned.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The La Costa Towne Center Shopping Center is characterized as an infill lot located within Local
Facilities Management Zone 6, in the southeast quadrant of the city, approximately 2.5 miles from
the Pacific Ocean and outside ofthe boundaries ofthe coastal zone. The site is bounded by La Costa
Avenue, a secondary arterial road, as well as an office building to the north, two-story multi-family
units to the south, one and two-story single-family uses to the east, and El Camino Real, a prime
arterial road, to the west.
The existing shopping center is located approximately 15-20 feet above the elevation of El Camino
Real. While a majority of the developed area is flat, a large uphill perimeter slope is located along
the eastern quarter of the property. The slope ranges in elevation from a high point of 180' above
mean sea level (AMSL) to 80' AMSL at the base of the slope. Overhead power lines for SDG&E
traverse through a 50-foot-wide easement, which is located midway up the eastern slope. The uphill
perimeter slope is primarily landscaped with non-native, ornamental trees.
11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation
agreements): None
12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Not applicable
November, 2013 "O" Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
• Aesthetics
D Agriculture & Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
O Biological Resources
^ Cultural Resources
^ Geology/Soils
D Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IE! Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
D Land Use & Planning
D Mineral Resources
M Noise
D Population & Housing
D Public Services
• Recreation
n Transportation/Traffic
• Utilities & Service Systems
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by:
ShannoniWerneke, Associate Planner Date
November, 2013 -4-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03{D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PU D 13-02/MS 13-01
15. DETERMINATION! (to be completed by l.ead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial evaluation:
• I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
ISl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measures described
herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
• I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAa REPORT is required.
• I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant !mpact{s)'' on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant Impact 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration
is required, but It must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
• I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately In an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAa REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAa REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
Including revisions or mitigation measures that are Imposed upon the proposed project
Therefore, nothing further is required.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the
\vironmental determination. Indicated above, is hereby approved. ^RVfronmental aeter
/^-20-/J
DON NEU, City Planner Date
17. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This Is to certify that I have reviewed
the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the
project.
signature . Date
Nonnixr, 2019 -5- Initial Study
Project Name: La Costa Towne Center
Project No: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAaS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier
Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In
this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Initial Study
Project Name: La Costa Towne Center
Project No: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
1. AESTHETICS entially ilficant impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated sthan lificant Impact Impact Would the project: Z .5)
O. 1/) Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated S V) 0
z
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? • • •
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic
highway?
• • •
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? • • •
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • • M •
a-b) No Impact. The project site is located on the east side of El Camino Real and south of the
intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The site is currently developed with an existing
123,822 SF shopping center which is situated approximately 15-20 feet above the elevation of El Camino
Real. Surrounding land uses include a shopping center and bank to the north, multi-family uses to the
south, single-family uses to the east, and El Camino Real to the west. As the project is surrounded on all
sides by development and is located adjacent to a major transportation corridor as well as transit stops,
it is considered to be an infill lot.
The proposal to demolish two existing buildings and construct two mixed use buildings as well as a
single level parking structure will not have any substantially adverse effects on public scenic vistas or
substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway as the project is not located
adjacent to a Scenic highway and the developed site does not have any scenic vistas. Therefore, no
impact is anticipated.
c) Less than Significant impact. The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings in that the property is currently developed with a
shopping center. Further, as the existing shopping center is currently underutilized and outdated in
design, the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings is expected to revitalize the shopping center
and improve the visual quality of the site.
While the proposed project is located adjacent to a designated scenic corridor. El Camino Real, and is
therefore subject to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor development and design standards, the
proposed mixed use buildings will not be located any closer to El Camino Real than what was previously
permitted (i.e., 10 feet) pursuant to the approved Site Development Plan (SDP 78-03C). In addition, the
project will incorporate extensive landscaping in the front yard setback to visually enhance its current
degraded appearance. Moreover, the request to exceed the allowable 35-foot height limitation
pursuant to CMC Section 21.26.030, can be permitted pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120(B) if
inclusionary housing is incorporated into the project design and findings can be made to support the
increase. Given the urban context ofthe surroundings land uses, the request to construct a three-story
mixed use building up to 45 feet in height will not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista ofthe site
nor will it degrade the visual quality of the site because of the existing vacant Vons building. With
exception to the deviation from the El Camino Real Corridor Standards required for the building height,
-7-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
compliance with the Municipal Code, will reduce the potential impacts to the site's visual character to a
less than significant level.
Short-term construction-related impacts would consist primarily of grading and building activities,
including the presence of construction equipment, truck traffic, construction debris, and temporary
safety signage. While views across the project site from surrounding areas as well as from El Camino
Real would be disrupted, no valuable aesthetic resources would be destroyed as a result of
construction-related activities. These short-term impacts (approximately 12 months) are temporary and
would cease upon project completion. Thus, the construction-related impacts to the site's visual
character would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The primary sources of exterior lighting in an urban setting are
typically associated with street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination through signage and
other lighting, security lighting and landscape lighting. Depending upon the location of the light source
and its proximity to adjacent light-sensitive uses, light introduction has the potential to be a nuisance,
thus affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky. Light spillage is typically
defined as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties. Perceived glare is the
unwanted and potentially objectionable result from looking directly into a light source of a luminary.
Sensitive land uses, such as the proposed multi-family residential uses and the adjacent multi-family and
single-family uses to the east and south, could be impacted by the light and glare from the proposed
project.
Existing lighting conditions at the La Costa Towne shopping center include parking lot, security,
landscaping and signage lighting. In addition, street lighting as well as vehicle headlights are present
along La Costa Avenue to the north and El Camino Real to the west.
The proposal to demolish two existing commercial buildings and construct two mixed use buildings as
well as a single level parking structure, will not have a significant impact on light and glare as the
shopping center currently exists in a developed, urban context, both on-site and offsite. The proposed
parking lots will be illuminated with standard parking lot lighting. While an increase in light will be
created by the project, the impacts will be minimal since the parking light fixtures and exterior building
light fixtures will be shielded and directed downward to reduce the impacts caused by glare. This will
limit any impacts to the adjacent single-family residential uses to the east, which are located
approximately 100 feet upslope form the proposed development as well as the new multi-family uses
proposed as a component of the mixed use project. Therefore, potential operational light and glare
impacts would be less than significant.
November, 2013 -8- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less tiian Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
• • • K
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? • • • K
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
• • • S
tn determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts
to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided In
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.)
a-c) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a shopping center, is located in an
urbanized area, and is zoned for commercial as well as mixed uses (C-l-Q). The proposed project will
not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural
use; does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts; and there
are no agricultural uses within the vicinity of the project site, nor is the project proposing any changes
which, due to its location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources are anticipated.
III. AIR QUALITY*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? • • • S
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? • • 13 •
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
• • Kl •
November, 2013 Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
III. AIR QUALITY*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • • •
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? • • •
* where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
a) No Impact. As discussed in the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated,
October, 2013), the project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin, which is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for the state standard for PMio, PM2.5,1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8-
Hour Standard for ozone. The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in
the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be
developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego
County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS)
developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG). The RAQS outlines the APCD's plans and regulatory control measures designed
to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated
on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009.
The APCD has also developed the SDAB's input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is
required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in
nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information
from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the
attainment demonstration for the air basin.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. In
addition, the project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed 60 dwelling units will be
deducted from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
Section 15125(d) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable
air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part ofthe RAQS. The RAQS
and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air
quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a
project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
November, 2013 -10-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality
plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
The TCMs adopted by SANDAG identified Job-housing balance, mixed use and transit corridor
development as criteria for indirect source control. As part of the Job-housing balance, SANDAG
indicated that land use policies and programs shall be established to attract appropriate employers to
residential areas and to encourage appropriate housing in and near industrial and business areas. Mixed
use development should be designed to maximize walking and minimize vehicle use by providing
housing, employment, education, shopping recreation and any support facilities within convenient
proximity.
The La Costa Towne Center project meets the criteria of the RAQS, SIP and SANDAG's Transportation
Control Measures as it provides mixed use (i.e., multi-family apartments and commercial uses) along a
major transportation corridor with bus stops located in close proximity to the site. The project is
designed to maximize walking and minimize vehicle use by providing housing in close proximity to
commercial uses in the shopping center as well as on the north side of La Costa Avenue. In addition,
bicycle parking as well as designated parking stalls for energy efficient vehicles are provided on site.
Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality plans and would not result
in a significant impact.
b) tess than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are
at Camp Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from
2009 through 2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1-
Hour ozone concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through
2011; the 8-Hour ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010
and the state standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PMio concentration exceeded the state
standard in 2009, but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PMio and the federal 24-Hour
PM2.5 standard was not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any
air quality standards have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011.
Short-term/construction impacts
The proposed project includes construction activities associated with demolition, grading, paving,
building construction, and architectural coating. The proposed project would be constructed over a
time frame of approximately 12 months and is anticipated to begin mid-year in 2014. Construction
activities would require the demolition of 45,830 SF and the export of approximately 54,600 cubic yards
of soil.
Table 4d of the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2013), provides
detailed emission estimates associated with the proposed project. Emitted pollutants would include
volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxide (SOx) as
well as particulate matter (PM) less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter. As part of the project design
features, it was assumed that standard dust control measures, such as watering the site three times
daily and using soil stabilizers on unpaved roads, and architectural coating that comply with the
SDAPCD, would be utilized during construction. As demonstrated in the table, emissions of criteria
pollutants during construction would not only be temporary but would also be less than significant.
November, 2013 -11- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during
construction.
Long-term/operational impacts
Operational impacts associated with the La Costa Towne Center project would include impacts
associated with vehicular traffic, as well as sources such as energy use, consumer product use, and
architectural coatings for maintenance purposes. Pursuant to the Traffic impact Analysis for the La
Costa Towne Center (Urban Systems Associates, May, 2013), the existing site generates 14,890 average
daily trips (ADT). According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, upon build-out, the project will generate
15,682 ADT for a net increase of 791 ADT.
Table 5 of the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2013) presents a
summary of the emissions calculated for the existing conditions and the proposed project. Because the
project involves renovation of an existing site, the project's operations will result in an incremental
change in emissions. Based on the estimates of the emissions associated with Project operations, the
emissions would decrease from existing levels and would, therefore, have a less than significant impact.
Projects involving traffic impacts may result in the formation of locally high concentrations of CO, known
as CO "hot spots." To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO
standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO "hot spots" was conducted. The Caltrans ITS
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans, 1998) were followed to determine
whether a CO "hot spot" is likely to form due to project-generated traffic. In accordance with the
Protocol, CO "hot spots" are typically evaluated when (a) the level of service (LOS) of an intersection or
roadway decreases to a LOS E or worse; (b) signalization and/or channelization is added to an
intersection; and (c) sensitive receptors such as residences, commercial developments, schools,
hospitals, etc. are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment. The Traffic
Impact Analysis evaluated whether or not there would be a decrease in the level of service at the
intersections affected by the Project. Based on the analysis, no intersections would experience a
degradation in LOS to LOS E or F due to project traffic. Accordingly, the project would not result in CO
"hot spots", and no significant impact would result.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The San Diego air basin is currently in a state of non-attainment
for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent an incremental
contribution to a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As
described above, however, emissions associated with nonattainment pollutants would be minimal and
below the screening-level thresholds. Given the limited emissions associated with the proposed project,
air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented.
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental contribution
to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Any project emitting toxic air contaminants (TAC) which has the
potential to directly impact a sensitive receptor located within one mile and results in a cancer risk
greater than 10 in one million would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact. Air quality
regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (preschool through 12^*^ grade), hospitals,
residential care facilities, or day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health
conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Residential land uses may also
be considered sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the site are the single-family
November, 2013 -12- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
residential uses located to the east and south and approximately 0.1 miles from the project. As
discussed above, as well as in the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October,
2013), the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In
addition, there are no other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the
project. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
e) tess than Significant impact. A project that proposes a use which would produce objectionable
odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of
offsite receptors.
The construction ofthe proposed project will generate exhaust from the operation of heavy-duty diesel
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable to some people. Odors are highest
near the source and would quickly dissipate offsite. Such exposure associated with the construction
activities for the proposed project would be short-term in nature as well as transient, and would cease
upon project completion. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not
considered substantial.
Land uses associated with odor complaints typically involve agricultural uses, wastewater treatment
facilities, food processing and chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills and fiberglass molding.
The proposed mixed use project would not generate objectionable odors during business operations. In
addition, the project would comply with city requirements applicable to maintenance of trash areas to
minimize potential odors. Therefore, significant impacts related to odors would not occur.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
• • • K
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or
wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
• • • S
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not
limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
• • • K
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
• • • K
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological • • • K
November 2013 -13-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
• • • K
a-f) No Impact. The project site, currently developed with an existing shopping center, is
substantially surrounded by urban land uses. Pursuant to the Biological Technical Report (Alden
Environmental, Inc., November, 2012), no candidate, sensitive or special status species are located on
the project site. In addition, no potential state or federal Jurisdictional features (i.e., wetland or riparian
areas) are located on-site.
While the project's eastern uphill slope has a General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS), the
parcel is not located within an existing Hardline or Standards Areas pursuant to the city's Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). In addition, there are no wildlife habitat linkages on the project site.
Therefore, the project does not conflict with any of the provisions outlined in the HMP. The proposed
mixed use project does not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as CMC Chapter 21.210. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated.
V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5? • • •
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? • m • •
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? • • •
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? • • • 13
a&d) No impact. Pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Assessment (ADR Environmental Group,
December, 2011), the existing shopping center was developed in 1981. Given the date of construction
(i.e., less than 50 years old), no historical resources exist on the property. In addition, no conditions
exist which would suggest that human remains are likely to be found on-site since the property has been
previously disturbed and is currently developed with a shopping center. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated. In the event that human remains are discovered, proper treatment would be required in
accordance with the applicable state laws.
November, 2013 -14-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on review of the Map 5.8-2 of
the Final EIR for the General Plan Update, (March, 1994), the project site is not located in a known
archaeologically-sensitive area. In addition, as the project site has been previously graded for the
development of the existing shopping center, the probability that the demolition and construction
would impact any undocumented buried archaeological resource is moderately low. Notwithstanding
the above, given that excavation is required for the construction of the subterranean parking structure,
mitigation measures are proposed to address the potential impact to any archaeological resources that
may be discovered during construction. Compliance with mitigation measures CULTURAL-1 and
CULTURAL-2 would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
CULTURAL-1 - Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall
retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist
shall be on-site during ail grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise
agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor
has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural
resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by
the archaeological monitor If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the
authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are
documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or
grading, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate
area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the
finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may
include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation,
curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a
reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered
resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 ofthe CEQA Guidelines shall
be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall
be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program.
Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or
the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-
excavation agreement.
If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the discovery
shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County IVIedical Examiner
pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the IVIedical Examiner determine the
human remains to be Native American; the Native American l-leritage Commission shall be contacted
pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American IVIonitor
(pursuant to IVIitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage
Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may
recommend to the City ofCarlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may
include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated
with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for
salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities.
November, 2013 -15- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
CULTURAL-2 - Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall
retain the services of a Native American monitor The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for
tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of
Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered
during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has
been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a
pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and
the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the
contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on-
site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed
upon by the monitor and city staff.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated. Pursuant to the Geotechnical
Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore, July, 2012) prepared for the proposed project, the geologic setting on-site
consists of Quaternary-aged surficial deposits, underlain by Tertiary (Del Mar Formation) and
Cretaceous-age sedimentary rocks. Pursuant to Map 5.8-1 of the Final EiRfor the General Plan Update,
(March, 1994), the site is located in a potentially significant fossil area. In addition, it is noted that the
Del Mar Formation has produced a large number of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. As the project
grading has the potential to disturb undisturbed soils which may contain fossils, a mitigation measure is
proposed (PALEO-1) to reduce the potential impacts paleontological resources to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measure:
PALEO-1
A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a wall<over
survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact
fossil resources.
B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City Planner prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to
salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata,
it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens.
D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner during the grading process.
E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in
order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project
shall be resolved by the City Planner and the City Engineer.
November, 2013 -16- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
• • M •
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? • • •
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • • •
iv. Landslides? • • •
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • • •
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result ofthe project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
• • •
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 ofthe
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
• • •
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
• • • 13
a.i-a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project
(Ninyo & Moore, July, 2012), the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as
delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, nor are there any known major or active
faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site,
the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect
the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults, the nearest of which is the Rose Canyon
Fault Zone located 5 miles west of the site. Due to the relatively dense nature of on-site soils, the risk of
seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is not a significant concern. In addition, the proposed
project would be constructed in compliance with the California Building Code which includes specific
design measures which are intended to maximize structural stability in the event of an earthquake.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
a.iv) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation,
based on a review of geologic maps, there are no mapped landslides underlying the subject site;
however, the site is located in an area classified as marginally susceptible to landslides. In addition, as
noted in the report, a previous evaluation of the site in 1977 indicated that an ancient landslide was
present at the site based on the presence of claystone and siltstones with slickensided surfaces
November, 2013 -17-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
indicating shearing. Furthermore, a boring taken for the proposed project in the area proposed to be
developed with the two-story mixed use building (i.e., east side of shopping center) encountered
possible landslide deposits. To address the potential for slope instability in this area and to stabilize the
area proposed to be excavated, a series of tie back anchors are proposed, the details of which are
discussed in the Geotechnical Evaluation. In order to reduce the potential impacts associated with the
potential for landslides to a less than significant level, mitigation measure GEO-1 is proposed.
Mitigation Measure:
GEO-1. The project shall incorporate all engineering recommendations contained in the
Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated July 13, 2012, during grading,
construction and operations to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards at the project site. These
recommendations shall be stipulated in the construction contracts and specifications.
b) tess than Significant Impact. Grading and earthwork activities associated with the proposed
project, which includes the construction of a single-level parking structure, would expose soils to short-
term erosion by wind and water. All demolition and construction activities would be subject to
compliance with the California Building Code, the city's Excavation and Grading Ordinance, as well as the
recommendations of the Preliminary Stormwater Plan (Stevens Cresto Engineering, January, 2013). As
discussed in the Preliminary Stormwater Plan, the implementation of and standard city-required erosion
control techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce soil erosion impacts
associated with construction to a less than significant level
In addition, substantial soil erosion or loss of top soil is not expected to occur as a result of long-term
operations since a majority of the project site will be either be developed with the mixed use buildings
or repaved. Any pervious areas that are proposed would be landscaped, which would reduce any
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is generally underlain by
the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation, an exploratory boring also
encountered fill soils to depths up to 23 feet as well as possible landslide deposits which may extend to
depths of more than 36 feet below existing grade. As discussed above, to reduce the potential impacts
associated with the potential for landslides to a less than significant level, mitigation measure GEO-1 is
proposed. Based on the generally dense nature of the formation materials occurring below the
groundwater, the potential for liquefaction at the site is not significant.
Due to the presence of groundwater at a depth as shallow as 3.5 feet, groundwater seepage is expected
to be a constraint during construction of the subterranean parking garage. Compliance with mitigation
measure GEO-1 will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
d) Less than Significant with Mitigation incorporated. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation,
on-site soils have a medium potential for expansion. Accordingly, recommendations for deepened
foundations and supplemental recommendations for thickened slabs-on-grade with reinforcing are
described in the Geotechnical Evaluation. Compliance with mitigation measure GEO-1 will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
November, 2013 -18- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer
system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? • • •
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? • • •
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad has not adopted its own greenhouse (GHG)
thresholds of significance and is, therefore, following guidance provided from the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report, CEQA and Climate Change, dated January, 2008, for
interim screening criteria to determine when a GHG analysis would be required. Specifically, CAPCOA
proposed a 900-metric tons of CO2 e (i.e., equivalent) screening threshold to evaluate whether a project
requires further analysis. Projects with emissions above the 900 metric ton threshold are required to
evaluate whether emissions can be reduced to below "business as usual" levels. Based on a state-wide
goal to reduce GHG emissions and comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, a significance threshold of 28.35%
below "business as usual" conditions was used in the Global Climate Change Evaluation (Scientific
Resources Associated, October, 2012) prepared for the La Costa Towne Center project. "Business as
usual" is defined as the emissions that would have occurred in the absence of reductions mandated
under AB 32. Based on the latest guidelines and baseline emission calculations for energy efficiency,
"business as usual" is considered to be the equivalent of Title 24 as of 2005.
Pursuant to the Global Climate Change Evaluation (Evaluation), GHG emissions for the project (existing
and proposed) were estimated separately for five (5) categories: construction; energy use, including
electricity and natural gas usage; water consumption; solid waste handling; and transportation.
Existing Conditions
Taking into account the existing traffic counts pursuant to the Traffic impact Analysis (Urban Systems
Associates, 2012), as well as the fact that the existing buildings were constructed prior to the 2005 Title
24 standards. Table 4 of the Evaluation, estimates that the total existing operational CO2 equivalent
emissions are 12,506 metric tons per year.
Construction GHG Emissions
Construction GHG emissions include emissions from heavy construction equipment, truck traffic for the
export of material, and worker trips. Emissions were calculated utilizing the CalEEMod Model, which is
the newest land use emissions model for completed and proposed construction. Pursuant to Table 5 in
the Evaluation, construction CO2 equivalent emissions are estimated to be 1,103 metric tons. Lead
agencies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the City of San Diego, and the
County of San Diego, recommend that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year period to
account for the contribution of constructions emissions over a lifetime of the project. Amortizing
November, 2013 -19-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
emissions from construction of the proposed project over a 30-year period would result in an annual
contribution of 37 metric tons of CO2 e. These emissions are added to the operational emissions to
account for the contribution of construction to GHG emissions forthe lifetime ofthe project.
Operational GHG Emissions
The property owner/applicant. Excel La Costa LLC, proposes to renovate and expand the existing
shopping center with the addition of two mixed use buildings. Overall, a net gain off 3,078 SF of retail
space and 60 multi-family units are proposed. The results ofthe inventory for operational emissions for
business as usual for the proposed project are presented in the table below. These include GHG
emissions associated with the new buildings (natural gas, purchased electricity), water consumption
(energy embodied in potable water), solid waste management (including transport and landfill gas
generation), and vehicles.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO
Emission Source
Annual Emissions
(Metric tons/year) Emission Source
CO2 CH4 N2O C02e
Operational Emissions
Electricity Use 658 0.0274 0.0074 661
Natural Gas Use 44 0.0049 0.0001 44
Water Use 108 0.0045 0.0012 108
Solid Waste Management 49 --49
Vehicle Emissions 11,952 0.20 1.39 12,388
Amortized Construction Emissions 43 --37
Total 12,854 0.24 1.40 13,293
Global Warming Potential Factor 1 21 310
CO2 Equivalent Emissions 12,854 5 434 13,293
TOTAL CO2 Equivalent Emissions
13,293
Existing CO2 Equivalent Emissions
12,506
Net CO2 Equivalent Emissions
787
As demonstrated in the table above, the net emissions associated with the La Costa Towne Center
Project are below the 900 metric ton screening threshold under business as usual conditions. In
November, 2013 -20-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
addition, pursuant to Table 7 of the Global Climate Change Evaluation, with the implementation of GHG
reduction measures such as state and/or federally-mandated energy/fuel efficiency and mobile source
emission reductions, the proposed project will be more than 28.3% below "business as usual" levels.
Therefore, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment; nor will it conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project will be
consistent with the goals of AB 32, and would not result in a cumulatively significant global climate
change impact.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
• • • S
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
• Kl • •
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
• • • K
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
• • • K
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
• • • Kl
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
• • • K
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • • • K
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
• • K •
a) No Impact. The proposed mixed use project would not involve the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials; therefore, no impact is anticipated.
November, 2013 -21-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to the Phase I Environmental
Assessment prepared for the project (ADR Environmental Group, December, 2011), no indications of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mold or lead-based paint were detected. However, during an on-site
survey, suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were identified, including, but not limited to, vinyl
sheet flooring and tiles, mastic, gypsum wallboard. Joint compound, ceiling tiles, and roofing materials.
As a result, a follow-up Asbestos Survey Report was completed (ADR Environmental Group, December,
2012) which confirmed the presence of asbestos-containing materials. While no significant damage to
the materials was observed, because two buildings are proposed to be demolished, mitigation is
required. Compliance with mitigation measure HAZ-1 will reduce impacts associated with asbestos to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
HAZ-1. Prior to physical disturbance of any of the identified asbestos-containing materials, asbestos
abatement is required in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The
removal of asbestos-containing materials requires the use of appropriate engineering controls by a
contractor licensed by the California State Contractors License Board, and registered with the
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). Evidence that this measure has been
implemented shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the demolition or grading permit, whichever
occurs first.
c-f) No Impact. No existing or proposed schools are located within % mile of the project site. In
addition, the McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately three (3) miles north of the subject
shopping center. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan (ALUCP), the project is
located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Further, the project site is not
located in the vicinity of a private airstrip nor is it included on any lists as a hazardous materials site,
pursuant to the Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
g) No impact. The project site is located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is one of five primary
arterials designated in the General Plan as an emergency access or emergency evacuation route to move
people during emergencies. The City of Carlsbad's Fire Department will provide all basic fire and
emergency medical services to the project site. Specifically, the project will be served by Fire Station
Nos. 2 and 6. The developed site is within a five minute response time for these fire stations.
Additionally, the City of Carlsbad's Fire Department has agreements with other agencies, such as the
County of San Diego, to provide additional services, including hazardous materials incident response. In
the event of a large scale incident, the City of Carlsbad will activate its Emergency Operations Center
(EOC) and provide details to residents. The proposed mixed use project will not impact the ability to
provide emergency services to the project site, nor will it physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
h) Less than Significant impact. The subject parcel is located in a developed area and the project
is considered as infill development. A west-facing manufactured slope, ranging in elevation from 45' to
180' MSL and primarily vegetated with eucalyptus trees, is located along the eastern boundary of the
site. The at-grade porches proposed in association with two-story mixed use building are located
approximately 10 feet from the base of the slope. While the City is considered a medium fire hazard
area (Public Safety Element, General Plan), given the sparse vegetation located on the slope, the Fire
Department has indicated that a Fire Protection/Suppression Plan will not be required for the project.
However, fire sprinklers will be required. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
November, 2013 -22- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a E
* 5 p .a»
a. Wl
"8 ts 1 it witn irporat It Imp! ithar I'lficai . Inco Q JZ ** lificai Les! Sigr **
is 1 ao vi
• 13
a E
o z
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? • •
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local ground
water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
• • •
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river,
in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
• • •
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
• • K •
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
• • 13 •
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? • • •
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood delineation map?
• • •
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows? • • •
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
• • •
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • • •
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and
local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23,
specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP),
and the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). The WQCP contains specific
objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which includes the requirement to comply with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Construction activities as well as post-development activities for this project are covered under state-
wide construction permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ issued by the State Water Resource Control Board
November, 2013 -23-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
Permit and regional Order No. R9-2013-0001 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board's San Diego region.
As the project qualifies as a Priority Development Project, a Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan
(Stevens Cresto Engineering, January, 2013) has been prepared for the project which addresses what
treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be constructed to treat the post-development runoff
from the project. The Plan addresses how pollutants from this project will be reduced, captured,
filtered, and/or treated prior to discharge from the project site. In addition, as a standard condition for
this project, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required to control the quality of
storm water runoff, erosion, and sediment during construction.
Through the implementation of the recommendations of the above-noted reports, the project will not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Any impacts to water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements are therefore considered to be less than significant.
b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be
served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impact is
anticipated.
c-f) Less than Significant impact. Pursuant to the Preliminary Drainage Study (Stevens Cresto
Engineering, January, 2013) prepared for the project, storm water runoff generated by the existing
shopping center is collected within an existing storm drain located on-site and is conveyed to one of
three public 24" RCP pipes crossing El Camino Real. As part of the proposed project, a new storm drain
will be constructed to support the improvements. All three existing pipes discharge, within
approximately 750 feet of each other, into Encinas Creek, located west of El Camino Real. Encinas Creek
crosses La Costa Avenue to the north and ultimately flows into Batiquitos Lagoon, which is
approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the project site. Construction of the new storm drain will
necessitate a minor redistribution of area between the localized basins. Per the Preliminary Drainage
Study, this is not considered a diversion of runoff since all project outfalls discharge to the same
location.
As a Priority Project, and per Carlsbad's SUSWMP, the project is subject to hydromodification criteria as
detailed in the San Diego County's Hydromodification Plan, dated March 25, 2011. As a result, the
project will be designed to match pre-project runoff flow rates for storms up to a 10-year design storm.
Since the La Costa Towne Center project proposes to redevelop a portion ofthe existing shopping center
which is already paved, the net impact to the total impervious surface at the project will be negligible.
Per the pre-project and post-project runoff calculations identified in the Preliminary Drainage Study, the
average runoff coefficient will not change. Total peak runoff will increase, however, due to the inclusion
of a new storm drain within the project site, and the corresponding decrease in time of concentration.
With the incorporation of Low Impact Development (LIDs) features and hydromodification BMPs, the
increase in runoff will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, pursuant to the
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, the incorporation of bioretention basins, higher rate filters,
and underground detention, will not only treat the water but will also reduce the rate of runoff leaving
the site. Through these efforts, the project will not violate any water quality standards, or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality; will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns causing
substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding; and will not significantly impact the capacity of storm water
drainage systems. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
November, 2013 -24- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
g-J) No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area. In addition,
pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam
Failure Inundation. Tsunami, and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps (September 1992), based on the distance
between the site and large, open bodies of water, as well as the elevation of the site with respect to the
sea level (45-60 feet above mean sea level), the possibility of tsunami or mudflow is considered to be
low. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? • • •
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
• • •
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? • • • Kl
a) Wo impact. The proposal to renovate an existing shopping center, including the demolition of
two existing commercial/retail buildings and the construction of two mixed use buildings, would be
compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project
would not physically divide an established community; no impact is anticipated.
b) Less than Significant impact. The subject 15.24-acre property is zoned Neighborhood
Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q) and has a General Plan Land Use designation
of Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS). The property is also located adjacent to El Camino
Real, which is identified as a scenic corridor. The proposal to renovate the shopping center, including
the demolition of two commercial buildings and the construction of two mixed use buildings, is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Housing Element (Programs 2.1 and 2.3) of the General Plan
in that mixed use is highly encouraged in shopping centers. In addition, the proposed density for 60
residential units is 22.2 dwelling units per acre (10.83 net acres x 0.25 = 2.7 acres; 60 units/2.7 acres =
22.2 dwelling units/acre), which meets the minimum standard of 20 units per acre set forth in the
Housing Element. The proposed uses are also consistent with the C-l zone in that the residential
component of a mixed use project as well as retail uses are permitted by right in the C-l zone.
The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately three (3) miles north of the subject shopping
center. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan (ALUCP), the project is located
outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Therefore, the proposed project is not
subject to the ALUCP.
Entitlements required forthe proposed project include the following:
November, 2013 -25-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
Site Development Plan Amendment. SDP 78-03(D). A Site Development Plan is required for projects
which are located in the Qualified Development Overlay (Q) zone. The existing Site Development
Plan for the shopping center, SDP 78-03(C), is proposed to be amended to address the development
proposal. Including the architectural projections, the maximum height proposed for the three-story
mixed use building is 45 feet. Parking for the new retail and residential uses is proposed to be
provided by a combination of surface parking and a single-level parking structure with open parking
on top. Overall, a total of 470 parking spaces currently exist in the shopping center and a total of
608 parking spaces are proposed. Therefore, a net gain of 138 parking spaces is proposed to
accommodate the additional retail area and new multi-family residential use.
Site Development Plan. SDP 13-03. A Site Development Plan is required for the proposed
inclusionary housing units. Included as a component ofthe Site Development Plan for inclusionary
housing, is a request to exceed the 35-foot-height limitation pursuant to the C-l zone and the El
Camino Real Corridor Standards, as well as encroach within the required front yard setback.
Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100, modifications to the height and setbacks can be permitted to
offset the cost of affordable housing.
Special Use Permit. SUP 13-01. The proposed project is located within Area 5 ofthe El Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards (ECR Standards). Area 5 of the ECR Development Standards
currently allow for a maximum height of 35 feet and front yard setback of 40 feet. As the project
proposes a height up to 45 feet and front yard setback as close as 14.5 feet, a deviation to the
standards is required. The original Site Development Plan for the shopping center established a 10-
foot-wide front yard setback. As discussed above, because inclusionary housing is being provided
on-site, modifications to the developments standards can be permitted as an offset.
Non-Residential Planned Development Permit. PUD 13-02. A Non-Residential Planned Development
Permit is proposed for the mixture of residential and commercial units and to allow for reciprocal
access and parking throughout the shopping center.
Minor Subdivision. MS 13-01. The shopping center currently spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-124-
16, -17) totaling 15.24 acres (gross). In order to allow separate ownership for the existing and
proposed retail area as well as the new residential area, a three-lot vertical parcel map is proposed.
Parcel 1, which will comprise the new retail area, parking structure and surface parking is proposed
to be 7.78 acres in size. Parcel 2, 7.44 acres in size, will include the existing retail/office area and
surface parking. Parcel 3 is proposed to allow for the new multi-family units to be separately
managed and owned. It is proposed as a vertical parcel, above the retail area on Parcel 1, and is
1.37 acres in size. Pursuant to the C-l zone, there are no minimum standards with respect to lot
size or width.
In addition to the above-noted permits, an allocation from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) is
being requested for the proposed 60 multi-family residential units. In order to receive an allocation, the
project must be consistent with City Council Policy No. 43 and the following findings must be made: (1)
the project location and density shall be compatible with the existing adjacent residential
neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses; (2) the project location and density shall be in
accordance the applicable provisions ofthe General Plan and any other applicable planning document;
and (3) the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for projects
that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range. The proposed
mixed use project meets these findings; therefore, an allocation from the EDUB can be supported.
November, 2013 -26- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
In summary, with the approval of deviations to the ECR Development Standards and a modification to
the height and setbacks as allowed for an affordable housing project, the proposed mixed use project is
consistent with the goals and policies ofthe General Plan and the standards ofthe C-l zone and the El
Camino Real Corridor.
c) Wo impact. As discussed in Section IV above. Biological Resources, the project does not conflict
with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact is
assessed.
ts ts («
a E
<U
^ n
8
n
a E
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
>• ~
= c
C C n ts XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ntia ifica tha ifica lnc( tha ifica ni
a.
E
Would the project: Pete Signi Less Signi Mit. Less Signi o z
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the • • •
State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific • • •
plan, or other land use plan?
a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within
the City are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no
mineral resource impacts will occur as a result of any project (MEiR 93-01, page 5.13-1).
XII. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated sthan lificant Impact Impact Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Les: Sigi o z
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
Standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance
or applicable standards of other agencies?
• • •
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne
vibration or groundbourne noise levels? • • •
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • •
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • •
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
• • • 13
November, 2013 -27-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Impact with orated Impact XII. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Less than Significant Mit. Incorp Less than Significant No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to • • •
excessive noise levels?
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation incorporated. The project site is located adjacent to El
Camino Real as well as La Costa Avenue, two heavily-traveled corridors in the city. To analyze the
proposed project's compatibility with the City's Noise Guidelines Manual (2013), an Exterior Noise
Analysis Report (Report) was prepared by dBF Associates, Inc. (June, 2013). Pursuant to the Noise
Guidelines Manual, the following thresholds shall be applied to assess impacts:
Interior Noise
Residential: 45 dBA Leg
Commercial: 55 dBA Leq
Exterior Noise:
Residential (if outdoor recreation/amenities required): 60 dBA
Commercial: 65-70 dBA Leq
Existing/Baseline Condition
Pursuant to the Report, the ambient noise at the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic on El
Camino Real and, secondarily, from traffic on La Costa Avenue. Existing on-site activity consists of
occasional low-speed vehicular traffic to and from the onsite businesses. Gathering or other activity at
outdoor areas is very limited. Short-term sound measurements were conducted at the afternoon peak
period to quantify the existing on-site acoustical baseline due to vehicle traffic and to calibrate the noise
model. The measurement results are summarized in Table 2 of the Report. A review of the table
indicates that measured sound level ranges from approximately 54 dBA Leq (upper parking lot/location
of two-story mixed use building) to 71 dBA Leq (El Camino Real).
Construction/Short-Term Impacts
Construction of the project would generate a temporary increase in noise in the project area. The
increase in noise level would be primarily experienced closest to the noise source. The magnitude ofthe
impact would depend on the type of construction activity, noise level generated by various pieces of
construction equipment, duration ofthe construction phase, and distance between the noise source and
receiver.
Construction activity and delivery of construction materials and equipment would be limited to non-
holidays, between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
on Saturday. This project would utilize conventional construction techniques and equipment. Standard
equipment such as scrapers, graders, backhoes, rollers, loaders, tractors, cranes, and miscellaneous
trucks would be used for construction of a majority of the project facilities. Sound levels of typical
construction equipment range from approximately 65 dBA to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 1971).
November, 2013 -28-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
Acoustical calculations were performed to estimate noise from construction activity. Noise sources
associated with grading, the loudest of the construction activities, are shown in Table 4. The closest
residence is located approximately 175 feet east of construction activity on the project site. It was
assumed that one bulldozer, one scraper, one backhoe, one water truck, and one roller would operate
continuously throughout the site. A combined point source level of 91 dBA at 50 feet would attenuate
to approximately 80 dBA at the closest residence. The average sound levels (CNEL) would be expected to
be less than estimated because of downtime that typically occurs during construction. Construction
activity would occur during allowable times, in compliance with Section 8.48.010 of the City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code. As noise impacts associated with construction are temporary in nature, no potentially
significant noise impact related to construction would occur.
Future Condition- Traffic and Project-Generated Noise
The future noise environment will be driven by the amount of vehicular traffic on El Camino Real and La
Costa Avenue. Table 3 of the Report, summarizes the SANDAG forecasts for the future ADTs (Years 2030
and 2050). Incorporating the project traffic counts into the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), as well as other
features, such as topography, buildings onsite as well as offsite, and roadway alignments, calculations
show that future exterior traffic noise levels at the proposed outdoor usable spaces and building facades
(Figure 3 of the Report) would range from below 60 dBA CNEL (east elevation of Building 7714) to
approximately 74 dBA CNEL (west elevation of Building 7710). The following outdoor use areas would
be exposed to unmitigated future traffic noise levels over 60 dBA CNEL: the proposed private balconies
on the west side of Building 7710, on the second and third floors directly facing El Camino Real; and the
common patios on the second and third floors of the north side of Building 7710. However, because
these areas are considered amenities and are not required to be provided on-site, no mitigation is
required. All other proposed outdoor common and private usable areas would be exposed to future
traffic noise levels under 60 dBA CNEL without mitigation.
Project-generated noise sources include loading activity at the dock on the northeast corner of Building
7710, HVAC units on the rooftop of Building 7710 and Building 7714, and the cooling tower between
Building 7710 and Building 7714. Loading dock activity would primarily consist of tractor-trailer and
smaller box trucks. The project is expected to generate an average volume of no more than five hourly
trucks during daytime hours (7 AM - 7 PM), two hourly trucks during evening hours (7 PM - 10 PM), and
one hourly truck during nighttime hours (10 PM - 7 AM). Sound level measurements of delivery trucks,
including tractor-trailers and smaller box trucks, have been conducted at existing similar commercial
facilities. A typical maximum delivery hour, which includes one 18-wheeler, two bread trucks, and two
refrigerated trucks with the compressors running, generates an average noise level of approximately 66
dBA at 25 feet over a one-hour duration.
Building 7710 would have 26 HVAC units in the eastern roof well, 26 units in the western roof well, and
6 units in the central roof well. Building 7714 would have 6 units in the northeastern roof well and 6
units in the southeastern roof well. The units are projected to produce a sound power level of
approximately 72 dBA. One cooling tower would be located in a mechanical plant area built into the
hillside between Building 7710 and Building 7714. The mechanical plant area is surrounded by a
retaining wall approximately 16 feet in height to the east, down-sloping retaining walls on the north and
south, and a 12-foot-high barrier to the west. The cooling tower would produce a sound power level of
approximately 94 dBA at 100% fan speed. At 80% fan speed, which is common during off-peak hours
such as nighttime, the sound power level is approximately 91 dBA.
November, 2013 -29- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
Excluding the ambient noise (i.e., existing traffic), the operation ofthe project-generated noise sources
would produce noise levels up to approximately 45 dBA CNEL at the eastern project property line, near
the center ofthe western property line ofthe single-family residence at 7623 Rustico Drive, as shown in
Table 5 of the Report. Because this measurement is less than 60 dBA and the existing ambient noise
exceeds the project-generated noise, no impact is anticipated to the adjacent residential properties to
the east.
The project-generated noise sources would also produce noise levels at various points on the project
site ranging from below 60 dBA CNEL to approximately 65 dBA CNEL at the third floor of Building 7710.
The implementation of the project with respect to noise is not expected to appreciably alter the use of
the outdoor areas on the project site. As discussed above, because the communal outdoor space
proposed in conjunction with the residential component is not required, no mitigation is required.
However, because future traffic noise levels would exceed 60 dBA CNEL at some of the residential
building facades and 65 dBA CNEL at some of the commercial building facades, an interior noise analysis
evaluating proposed exterior wall construction, windows, and doors would be required once building
plans are finalized to ensure that the interior noise levels meet the California Code of Regulations, Title
24: Noise Insulation Standard, as well as the city's Noise Guidelines Manual requirement, which requires
a noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less for residential land uses and 55 dBA CNEL or less for commercial
land uses. Compliance with mitigation measure NOISE-1 will reduce impacts associated with interior
noise to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure:
NOISE-1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent with City
standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the proposed building
design will limit interior noise for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55
dBA. The building plans shall incorporate the recommendations in the report to satisfy the
requirements.
b&d) Less than Significant impact. The anticipated grading operations associated with the proposed
project will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundbourne vibration and ambient noise
levels. Following the completion of demolition, grading, and construction activities, ambient noise level
and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels. Therefore, impacts are considered to be
less than significant.
c) No Impact.
e-f) No Impact. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately three (3) miles north ofthe
subject shopping center. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan (ALUCP), the
project is located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Further, the project site
is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
November, 2013 -30- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated sthan lificant Impact Impact Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Les Sigi o z
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
• • m •
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • 13
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • •
a) Less than Significant impact. The 15.24-acre infill site, currently developed with a shopping
center and substantially surrounded by urban uses, is located within the boundaries of Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 6. The project proposes to replace two existing commercial buildings
with two new mixed use buildings. In addition to 60 multi-family units (i.e., apartments), a net gain of
3,078 SF of retail space is proposed to be added to the shopping center. Based upon the SANDAG's
average of 2.76 people per household, the residential component of the project is expected to provide
housing for approximately 166 people.
The Zone 6 LFMP was prepared pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program, as outlined in
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the underlying Zoning and General Plan Land
Use designations, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with
neighborhood commercial uses. While mixed use projects with a residential component are permitted
by right in the C-l zone, because there are no residential units currently allocated to be developed at
the site, an allocation from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) is required. As of October 31,
2013, the current city-wide balance of available residential units is 2,144. In order to receive an
allocation from the EDUB, the project must be consistent with City Council Policy No. 43 and the
following findings must be made: (1) the project location and density shall be compatible with the
existing adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses; (2) the project
location and density shall be in accordance the applicable provisions of the General Plan and any other
applicable planning document; and (3) the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan
Land Use Element for projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable
density range. The proposed mixed use project meets these findings; therefore, an allocation from the
EDUB can be supported.
As discussed in Section XIV below (Public Services), implementation of the project would not adversely
impact planned or current levels of service for public facilities such as sewer, water, open space, parks,
libraries, fire, and police. In addition, no road extensions are proposed in association with the project
that may induce the potential for induce growth. Furthermore, because the neighborhood that the infill
site is located within is already developed with existing uses, it is unlikely that the project will induce
substantial growth. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse
impact to population or growth patterns in the area. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
November, 2013 -31-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
b-c) No Impact. The subject site is currently developed with a shopping center. No residential uses
are located on-site. Thus, implementation of the proposed mixed use project would not displace
housing nor substantial numbers of people. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need
for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any ofthe public services:
i. Fire protection? • • •
ii. Police protection? • • • 13
iii. Schools? • • •
iv. Parks? • • •
v. Other public facilities? • • •
a.i-a.v) No impact. The La Costa Towne Center project is proposed on a property which is currently
developed with a shopping center. While the public service demands for the proposed 60 residential
units and minor increase in commercial square footage (3,078 SF) will increase, it will not significantly
affect the provision and/or availability of public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks, etc.). Furthermore, the proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service
level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. As a result, no impact is
assessed to public services.
XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated?
• • •
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
• • •
November, 2013 -32-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
a-b) No Impact. The project site is located within Park District No. 4, which is within the Southeast
Quadrant of the city. As part of the City's Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance
standard for parks was adopted. Specifically, the performance standard requires that three acres of
Community Park and Special Use Area be provided per 1,000 people within each district. Consequently,
all development (i.e., commercial and residential) within the Zone 6 LFMP is conditioned to pay a park-
in-lieu fee to satisfy the performance standard established by the GMP. Furthermore, other than the
possibility of a small private gym for the residents of the multi-family component, the project does not
include any public recreational facilities, nor does it require the construction or expansion of existing
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, no
impact is assessed.
XVl.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC itially ncant Impact than Ficantwith Incorporated than Ficant Impact No Impact Would the project: Potei signii Less! Signh MitI Lessi 5ignii No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance ofthe circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
• • •
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
• • a
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
• • •
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
• • • 13
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • • Kl
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
• • •
a) Less than Significant Impact. Pursuant to the city's Growth Management Program (GMP)
circulation standards, no road segment or intersection in the zone or any road segment or intersection
outside of the zone which is impacted by development within the zone, shall be projected to exceed a
level of service (LOS) "D" during peak hours. To analyze the proposed project's compatibility with the
GMP threshold, a Traffic Impact Analysis (Analysis) was prepared by Urban Systems Associates (May,
2013).
November, 2013 -33-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
The proposed project has frontage on El Camino Real to the west and La Costa Avenue to the north. A
total of three driveways within the shopping center are located off of El Camino Real and one driveway
is located off of La Costa Avenue. Pursuant to the Analysis, the proposed mixed use project will generate
791 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 46 AM and 75 PM peak hour trips.
Existing Condition
As summarized in the Analysis, all affected street segments and intersections are currently
operating acceptably at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
As summarized in the Analysis (Tables 5-1 and 5-2), all affected street segments and intersections
incorporating the traffic generated by the proposed project will operate acceptably at LOS "D" or
better. Project impacts are considered less than significant. No affected street segment or
intersection mitigation is needed in Year 2013.
NEAR TERM WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
As summarized in the Analysis (Tables 6-1 through 6-4), all affected street segments and
intersections incorporating the traffic generated by the proposed project will operate acceptably at
LOS "D" or better. Project impacts are considered less than significant. No street segment or
intersection mitigation is needed.
YEAR 2030 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
As summarized in the Analysis (Tables 7-1 through 7-4), the study area street segments and
intersections are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better with project traffic added in Year 2030.
Project impacts are considered less than significant. No street segment or intersection mitigation
will be needed.
In summary, while the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the
street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative
development in the City of Carlsbad. As substantiated in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed
project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project with respect to traffic
are less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) No impact. In 2009, the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an "opt out"
option defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant
to development in the City of Carlsbad.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. In addition, the
project site is located outside of the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Therefore, it would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in
substantial safety risks. No impact is assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed in
compliance with City standards and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed
project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards
due to an incompatible use. No impact is assessed.
November, 2013 -34- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
e) No impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of
the Fire and Police Departments. No impact is assessed.
f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 250 feet south of the signalized
intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Existing bike lanes as well as public transportation
routes (North County Transit District) located on the east side of El Camino Real will not be affected by
the proposed project. In addition, bike racks as well as parking stalls for hybrid vehicles have been
incorporated into the project design. The proposed project would also provide multi-family housing and
employment opportunities in a location proximate to alternate transit options. Therefore, no impact is
assessed.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? • • • Kl
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
• • • Kl
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
• • • K
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
• • • K
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
• • • K
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • • • 13
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? • • • [3
a-g) No Impact. The subject properties are located within the boundaries of Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 6. The proposed mixed use project is also located with the service
boundaries ofthe Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the Leucadia Wastewater District. Adequate
capacity exists to serve the proposed project, including the proposed residential units, which will be
required to be withdrawn from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. In addition, the proposed project
will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. One new
private storm drain is proposed in association with the mixed use project. No new water or wastewater
treatment facilities are proposed or required. All proposed public facilities, including water.
November, 2013 -35-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
wastewater, and drainage facilities, have been designed to accommodate the proposed project. In
addition, the proposed project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs and the project will comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe
major periods of California history or prehistory?
• K • •
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects?)
• • K •
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
• K • •
a) tess than Significant impact with Mitigation incorporated. The proposed mixed use project is
located within an existing shopping center. As such, the project site does not contain any sensitive fish
or wildlife species and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare
or endangered plant or animal species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species and will not threaten to eliminate or reduce the number of endangered plant and animal
species. In addition, the two buildings proposed to be demolished are not considered to be important
examples of California history. However, given the potential for cultural or paleontological resources to
be discovered during grading operations, mitigation measures have been included to reduce any
potential impacts to pre-historical resources to a less than significant level.
b) tess than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects
regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are
incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including
storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management
standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of
the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The
City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards,
traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards,
ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
November, 2013 -36-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described
above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. However, the air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the
development is implemented.
In addition, while the incremental increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly
noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic in the short-term as
well as build-out in the City of Carlsbad. Further, the project is consistent with the City's growth
projections in that the proposed 60 dwelling units are available and will be withdrawn from the City's
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank; therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation
system are less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project. City standards and regulations
will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable
impacts.
c) tess than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As outlined in the Geology/Soils,
Hazards/Hazardous Materials, and Noise sections of this document, mitigation measures are required to
reduce environmental impacts which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly, to a less than significant level. In addition to the mitigation measures, the project
will be designed to comply with all applicable Federal, State, Regional and City regulations, which will
ensure that development ofthe site will not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly
or indirectly.
November, 2013 -37- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
XVIX. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01),
City ofCarlsbad Planning Division, March, 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March, 1994, as updated.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as
updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, November, 2004.
5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), amended December 1, 2011.
6. City ofCarlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, July, 2013.
7. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam Failure
Inundation, Tsunami, and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps, September, 1992.
8. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, May 17, 2013
9. Exterior Noise Analysis Report, prepared by dBF Associates, Inc., June 3, 2013
10. Global Climate Change Evaluation, prepared by Scientific Resources Associated, October 10, 2012
-38- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
11. Biological Technical Report, prepared by Alden Environmental, Inc., November 28, 2012
12. Asbestos Survey Report, prepared by ADR Environmental Group, December 28, 2012
13. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by ADR Environmental Group, December 19, 2011
14. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc., January 7,
2013
15. Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc., January 7, 2013
16. Air Quality Technical Report, prepared by Scientific Resources Associated, October 10, 2012
17. Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Ninyo & Moore, July 13, 2012.
-39- Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
CULTURAL-1. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall
retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall
be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed
upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been
retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is
uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the
find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological
monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily
halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If
archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shall
direct the contractor to avoid all work in the Immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the
archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action.
The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation,
excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project
Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including
salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 ofthe CEQA
Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A
report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery
program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository
standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in
the pre-excavation agreement.
If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area ofthe discovery shall
cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to
California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains
to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation
Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the
site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the
project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor
shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming
construction activities.
CULTURAL-2. Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall
retain the services of a Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal
observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American
human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground
disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to
the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement
shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native
American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the
requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching,
and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff.
-40-Initial Study
La Costa Towne Center
SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
PALEO-1
A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover
survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact
fossil resources.
B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City Planner prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage
exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may
be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens.
D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner during the grading process.
E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in
order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall
be resolved by the City Planner and the City Engineer.
GEO-1. The project shall incorporate all engineering recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated July 13, 2012, during grading, construction and operations
to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards at the project site. These recommendations shall be
stipulated in the construction contracts and specifications.
HAZ-1. Prior to physical disturbance of any of the identified asbestos-containing materials, asbestos
abatement is required in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The removal of
asbestos-containing materials requires the use of appropriate engineering controls by a contractor
licensed by the California State Contractors License Board, and registered with the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). Evidence that this measure has been implemented shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of the demolition or grading permit, whichever occurs first.
NOISE-1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent with City standards
shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the proposed building design will limit
interior noise for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55 dBA. The building
plans shall incorporate the recommendations in the report to satisfy the requirements.
-41- Initial Study
EXHIBIT "ADDM"
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
SDP 78-03{D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-03/PUD 13-03/MS 13-03
The purpose of this Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe revisions to
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the La Costa Towne Center
project, and to state the determination that this revision does not create any new significant
environmental effects, that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration is not required.
The revision contained in this addendum revises Mitigation Measure Nos. CULTURAL-1 AND
CULTURAL-2 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The revised mitigation
measure shall apply as follows:
CULTURAL 1- Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities.
The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other
ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city
staff The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered
during tho course of tho project construction, ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of
the find shall bc redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the
archaeological monitor, if cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist, in
consultation with a Native American monitor, shall have the authority to temporarily halt
or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed.
If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the
archaeological monitor, in consultation with a Native American monitor, shall direct the
contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow
the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate
course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to
avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or
other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of
time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources.
Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall
be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A
report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data
recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current
professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate
Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement.
If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the
discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County
Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the
Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native
EXHIBIT "ADDM'
American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure
CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect
the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City
ofCarlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may
include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable
period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction
activities. In addition, if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American
remains shall be kept in situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were
found until an analysis is done on-site, in consultation with a Luiseno Native American
monitor
CULTURAL-2 Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project
developer shall retain the services of a Luiseno Native American monitor. The purpose of
this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including
formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial,
ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance
activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to
the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre-
excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe
and the developer The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading
meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native
American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-
disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff, if cultural
resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily halt or redirect arading/trenchinQ while the cultural resources are
documented and assessed. If the resource cannot be avoided, the Native American tribe
shall be consulted reaardina the testing, cataioaing, drafting and finalization of the
recovery of any resources.
This revision is not considered substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects
associated with the project, or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA, and a
subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
3-ZO-/V
Date: Don Neu
City Planner
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CITY OF
CARLSBAD
PROJEa NAME: La Costa Towne Center
PROJEa NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
APPROVAL DATE/RESOLUTION NUMBER(S):
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure
has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6).
MITIGATION MEASURE c o S
11
ll
s c-o
o JC : vt
^ E
X Q.
§1
I
IB E a cc
CULTURAL-
1
Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-
disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during
all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless
otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall
verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource
is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-
disturbing activities in the vicinity ofthe find shall be redirected until the
nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological
monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall
have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while
the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological
resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the
archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the
immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the
archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine
an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may
include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation,
excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate
Project/on-going
during grading
operations
PLN Yes-
note
req. on
grading
plans
Explanation of Headings
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure Is shown on plans, this column will be Initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been Implemented, this column will be Initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other Information.
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 4
PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center
PROJECT NUMBER: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
as c
X
o
o
s
II
11
o c 3 o
c o
I
ll
3! I
ra E « se
measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of
time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of
discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered
artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report
shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring
and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with
accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the
collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s),
as specified in the pre-excavation agreement.
If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the
immediate area of the discovery shall cease immediately, and the
Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner
pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the
Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American;
the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American
Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation
with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of
the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to
the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or
disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific
removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall
provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human
remains before resuming construction activities.
CULTURAL-
2
Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project
developer shall retain the services of a Native American monitor. The
purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of
trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment
of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural
Project/on-going
during grading
operations
PLN Yes-
note
req. on
grading
plans
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 of 4
PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center
PROJECT NUMBER: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
MITIGAHON MEASURE
I
•c 8 c o
S
M C
c m
8 I I ^
s c o c
i
o
-° i
X a.'
S 1
ra
« as
items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities.
The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained
prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the
monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the
appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native
American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the
contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native
American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and
other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the
monitor and city staff^
PALEO-1 A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be
retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the
grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil
resources.
B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City
Planner prior to issuance of a grading permit.
C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic
inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the
small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it
may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing
through fine screens.
D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner
during the grading process.
E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the
area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if
necessary, salvage artifacts.
F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum.
G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading
activities of the project shall be resolved by the City Planner and the
City Engineer.
Project/on-going
during grading
operations
PLN Yes-
note
req. on
grading
plans
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 of4
PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center
PROJECT NUMBER: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks GEO-1 The project shall incorporate all engineering recommendations
contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore,
dated July 13, 2012, during grading, construction and operations to
reduce any potential geotechnical hazards at the project site. These
recommendations shall be stipulated in the construction contracts and
specifications.
Project/on-going
during grading/
construction
operations
ENG Yes
HAZ-1 Prior to physical disturbance of any of the identified asbestos-containing
materials, asbestos abatement is required in accordance with applicable
federal, state and local regulations. The removal of asbestos-containing
materials requires the use of appropriate engineering controls by a
contractor licensed by the California State Contractors License Board,
and registered with the California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (DOSH). Evidence that this measure has been implemented shall
be submitted prior to the issuance of the demolition or grading permit,
whichever occurs first.
Project/on-going
during demolition
PLN
BLDG
No
NOISE-1 Prior to issuance ofthe building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent
with City standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to
demonstrate that the proposed building design will limit interior noise
for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55
dBA. The building plans shall incorporate the recommendations in the
report to satisfy the requirements.
Project PLN
BLDG
Yes
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 of 4
u
SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Shannon Werneke
1889 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081
760-724-8505 • FAX 760-724-2172
www.slrmissionindians.org
January 21, 2014
City Planner
Planning Division
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
RE: COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
(SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01)
Dear Ms. Werneke:
We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"), have received and reviewed the
City of Carlsbad's ("City's") Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
("MND") and all of its supporting documentation as it pertains specifically to the protection and
preservation of Native American cultural resources that may be located within the parameters of
the La Costa Towne Center Project's ("Project's") property boundaries. After our review, the
Tribe believes that with the incorporation of additional measures of mitigation for cultural
resources as proposed in this comment letter, the Project should be allowed to proceed as
proposed.
As you are aware, we are a San Diego County Tribe whose traditional territory includes the
current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido, as well as the
unincorporated communities of northern San Diego County, such as, but not limited to,
Fallbrook and Bonsall. The Tribe is resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural,
archaeological and historical sites within all these jurisdictions.
It is the Tribe's understanding that the Project will consist of the demolition and excavation
of two (2) existing structures established within the Project's boundaries and allow for the
construction of two (2) mixed used buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, 12 of
which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing and a single-story parking structure,
which is partially subterranean. The Tribe further understands that the Project is located on the
east side of El Camino Real, south of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa A venue,
addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16-17 ("Project Site"). As the City is
aware through previous government-to-government consultations, this area is of significant
SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 1
() 0
cultural importance to the Tribe and the Luisefio people due to its close proximity to known
cultural resource sites and/or sacred places.
As stated earlier, the Tribe has reviewed the associated environmental documents for this
Project, including but not limited to the MND Initial Study Checklist for Cultural Resources
(Section V) and Mitigation Measures Cultural-! and Cultural-2. Although the majority of the
Tribe's concerns are addressed within the MND, several concerns still remain for the Tribe that
the Tribe would like the City to address.
I. THE PRESENCE OF A LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR
DURING ALL EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IS JUSTIFIED,
AND AS SUCH, LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS
SHOULD BE CONTRACTED WITH DURING THIS PROJECT.
As discussed in our previous communications, the Tribe is in agreement with the City
that Luisefio Native American monitors should be utilized during ground and/or earth disturbing
activities for this Project. As stated earlier, the Tribe has reviewed the MND for this Project, as
well as conducted our own research of the Tribe's Sacred Land Files, and has spoken with our
Tribal Elders regarding the significance of the Project Site. Several significant and sacred Native
American sites are known to be within a mile radius of this Project Site, therefore it is possible
that during excavation activities subsurface resources may be discovered at the Project Site.
Hence, the Tribe supports the MND's Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures Cultural ("CUL-
2") in requiring the presence of a Luisefio Native American monitor.
In addition, the Tribe respectfully requests that the following language of CUL-l and 2 be
modified and/or amended prior to the adoption of this MND. Currently, the CUL-l states, "If
cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt
or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed." The
Tribe suggests that the sentence and/or mitigation measure in CUL-l be clarified, and/or restated
in CUL-2, that both the archaeological monitor and/or the Native American monitor may halt
ground disturbing activities if a cultural resource and/or archaeological artifact deposit or cultural
feature is discovered ... " It is imperative that Native American monitors share in the
responsibility of temporarily halting ground disturbing activities when a cultural resource or
archaeological resource are discovered in order for the resource to be properly identified and not
destroyed by heavy machinery. Therefore, the Tribe respectfully requests that the language
authorizing the temporary halting of ground disturbing activities be modified as herein stated.
II. SLR STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AND REQUESTS THAT
ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF MITIGATION BE ADOPTED BY
THE CITY IN ORDER TO LESSEN ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE
IMPACT TO OUR KNOWN NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL
RESOURCES.
Furthermore, the Tribe strongly recommends and requests that additional measures of
mitigation be adopted by the City in order to lessen any additional negative impact to our known
Native American cultural resources.
SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 2
0
A. The Tribe Must Be Consulted If A Significant Cultural Resource And/or Unique
Archaeological Resource Is Discovered During Ground Disturbing Activities.
If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed
during ground disturbing activities for this Project, the Tribe respectfully requests that they be
notified and consulted with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those
resources. The Tribe's preference will always be for avoidance and that the resource be protected
and preserved in perpetuity. If however, relocation and/or a data recovery plan is authorized by
the City as the Lead Agency, the Tribe respectfully requests that as a condition of any
authorization, the Tribe be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any such
recovery. These resources are evidence of our ancestors' lost history and, as such, we must have
a voice and be a part of how those resources are treated and preserved for future generations.
Moreover, when cultural resources are discovered during the Project, if the archaeologist
collects such resources, a Luisefio Native American monitor must be present during any testing
or cataloging of those resources. Additionally, if the archaeologist does not collect the cultural
resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luisefio Native
American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the Tribe
for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe's cultural and spiritual
traditions. Currently the MND is silent in regards to "what" is to happen to those items not
collected, yet documented by the project archaeologist for SCIC purposes. Therefore, it is the
Tribe's recommendation that these items be given to the Tribe so that they may be repatriated at
the site on a later date.
B. When Suspected Native American Remains Are Unearthed, Those Remains
Should Remain In Situ And Protected Until The Most Likely Descendant Can Be
Determined By The Native American Heritage Commission.
CUL-I (second paragraph) addresses the possibility of the discovery of Native American
Human Remains. If Native American remains and/or associated burial goods are unearthed
during the Project, and prior to a Most Likely Descendant being determined by the Native
American Heritage Commission, it is the Tribe's request that the ancestral remains be kept in situ
(in place), or in a secure location in close proximity to their discovery and that a forensic
anthropologist perform their analysis of the remains on-site in the presence of a Luisefio Native
American monitor. Any transportation of the ancestral remains would be considered by the Tribe
as disrespectful and undignified treatment. Therefore, the Tribe requests that in addition to the
strict adherence to the protocol stated in the California He.alth and Safety Code Section 7050.5
and California Public Resource Code Section 5097.98, the Final MND reflect that if Native
American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a
secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and that the analysis of the remains
occur only on-site in the presence of a Luisefio Native American monitor.
C. Only "Clean Fill" Should Be Utilized During This Project
SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 3
CJ
LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER-SDP 78-03(0)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01
February 13, 2014
Pa e 2
If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the
discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical
Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medico/ Examiner
determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission
shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native
American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native
American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American
remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for
treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave
goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall
provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming
construction activities. In addition, if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American
remains shall be kept in situ. or in a secure location in close proximitv to where thev were found
until an analysis is done on-site, in consultation with a Luiseno Notive American monitor.
CUL-Z Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall
retain the services of a Luiseno Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to
allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the
treatment of Native American human remains and buriol, ceremonial, or cultural items that may
be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native
American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to
implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the
appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall
attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program.
The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-
disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. If cultural
resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the author/tv to temporarily
halt or redirect qradlng/trench/nq while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If
the resource cannot be avoided. the Native American tribe shall be consulted regarding the testing,
cataloging. drafting and finalization of the recovery of any resources.
We thank you for the time to provide us comments on the La Costa Towne Center project and hope that
-·;,e have addressed all of your concerns. Should you have any additional questions, please contact me at
(760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely, ~w~
SHANNON WERNEKE
Associate Planner
SW:sm
Cc: Mr. Geoff Sherman, Excel La Costa, LLC, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92128
Mr. Richard Benson, Benson & Bohl Architects, 3900 5th Avenue, Sulte 200, San Diego, CA 92103
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File
//-\ ' , \_.1
Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND
January 21,2014
Page 2 of3
0
The Project will lead to significant impacts to commtmity character, aesthetics,
and land use.
• The Project is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Con·idor Development
Standards. The Project violates applicable standards for building height and
street setback. See MND at 26.
• There is insufficient evidence to support a deviation from the El Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards.
• Additionally, deviations are not supported by the Municipal Code. Section
21.85.100 requires an affordable housing agreement, yet there is no indication
of such agreement. Section 21.85.120 requires the Project to be in conformity
with "adopted goals and policies of the city," yet the Project is inconsistent
with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
• The MND discusses ''modifications ... to offset the cost of affordable
housing," yet there is no evidence such modifications are necessary or what
costs need to be offset. See Pacific Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149
Cal.App.3d 168, 178.
• The MND fails to analyze applicable standards for park and recreation
facilities. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the General
Plan Parks and Recreation Element each contain standards, yet, as the MND
acknowledges, "the project does not include any public recreational facilities."
MND at 33. The City is not currently meeting the applicable standards for
park and recreation facilities in the Southeast Quadrant. As such, the addition
of the Project's population will only increase the burden on already failing
park and recreation facilities.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality.
• The MND attempts to separate air emissions into four phases. MND at 23.
However, it fails to account for the fact that such phases can, indeed are likely
to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions.
• The MND averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. MND
at 20. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not
averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School
Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th
1013, 1049.
The Project will lead to significant impacts to noise.
• The analysis discusses potential impacts to nearby residences but fails to
address the fact that the applicable noise standards apply to the property line.
See Noise Report at 17. While the MND and Noise Report discuss
,, #~
~cARLSBAD
(
() (J
( ' . -
Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov
February 26, 2014
Mr. Everett Delano
Delanp & Delano
220 W. Grand Avenue
Escondido, CA 92025
SUBJECT: SD.P 78-03{0)/SDP 13-03/SUP 1~·01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 -RESPONSE TO COMMENTS,
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
Dear Mr. Delano,
Thank you for your comment letter dated January 21, 2014, submitted on behalf of North County
Advocates, responding to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa·
'Towne Center project.·
The following provides a list of your comments (in italic) and staffs response to the assertions made in
your letter.
1. Comment: The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"}, Public Resources Code § 21000 et
seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial
evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may
occur. Pub. Res. Code§ 21080(d); No 0/1, Inc. v. City atLas Angeles (1975} 13 Cal.3d. 68. ift.here is
"substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the
agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside
because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a "manner required by law;''
Friends of "B" Street v. Citv of Hayward (1980} 106.Cai.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should
prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant Impacts.
Response: The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified potentially significant
impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to
by the applicant prior to the release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for public review,
would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §
21080(C)(2)]. With the Implementation of the mitigation measures, the project will have no
significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is not required. ·
2. Comment: The MND adopts an incorrect baseline for much of its discussion, reasoning that the
"existing" environment includes occupancy of the vacant Vans store. See Traffic Report at 4-1.
However, CEQA specifically provides that an agency must consider the existing conditions. See
Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Qua/itv Management Dist. (2010) 48
Cal.4'h 310, 322 (describing analysis that used the maximum permitted operational levels as a
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
0
. ( ( .
SOP 78-03(0)/SDP 13-03/SUP -13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 -RESPONSE "rO COMMENTS, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
February 26, 2014
Pa e2
baseline as "illusory" comparisons that 'can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts
and subvert the full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with
CEQA's intent"). As the MND acknowledges, the Von's store is vacant. See MND at 1. As such, the
existing on-the-ground conditions do not include the use of the store. This assumption invalidates
the MND's analysis of traffic, air quality, greenhouse g~s emissions and noise. impacts.
Response: As noted In the comment, the "Von's store" was vacant at the time existing counts
were conducted.for the traffic analysis (TIA). No artificial adjustment was made to the existing
condition as studied in the TIA. The comment incorrectly refers to page 4-1 of the traffic study and
implies that an adjustment was made to the existing conditions of the TIA to include the vacant
Vans store. Page 4-1 of the TIA discusses the project trip generation and is used for "with project"
conditions and not for establishment of the existing condition. Contrary to what the comment
implies, the existing baseline condition was indeed based on the existing counts as discussed on
page 3-1 of the TIA. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15125, "Environmental Setting"
which states that "an EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of the project, as they existed at the time of the notice of preparation is published, or If no
notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced." For the La
Costa Towne Center traffic study and associated environmental analysis, existing traffic counts
were obtained consistent with CEQA Guidelines and formed the basis for the environmental setting
in the MND. This is typical for all projects in the San Diego region. As stated in the SANTEC/ITE
publication, Guidelines for Traffic impact Studies (TIS) on the San Diego Region, the existing
condition should be established in the following manner: "document existing traffic volumes and
peak-hour levels of service in the study area. The existing deficiencies and potential mitigation
should be identified.'' The TIA did precisely this.
The use of existing traffic counts for traffic studies and CEQA analysis is well established and is a
correct method for establishing baseline conditions. Typically, existing traffic counts are taken mid-
week both over a 24-hour period and during peak hour conditions in the AM and PM time frames.
This is done to establish "average" conditions as used In the term "average daily traffic" which is
utilized in the TIA. The existing baseline is intended to represent the typical condition experienced
by the community. As such, a certain amount of vacancy would be expected and likely. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) statistics show that a shopping center can have rather
extreme hourly, daily and monthly variations in traffic with January through April showing lower
than normal traffic compared to the monthly average and December showing a much higher than
· normal amount of traffic compared to the monthly average. With these· statistics in mind, the
month of August and the day of the week of Wednesday were selected to conduct existing counts.
Counts were taken during non-holiday weeks representing normal conditions with no· precipitation.
According to ITE statistics, both the month and day of the week used are the most represent?tive
of "average" conditions for a shopping center. Although the Von's store was closed at the time of
the counts, the potential difference in traffic Is well within the average.41% monthly and 34;6%
daily variation for a shopping center. Therefore, ·existing counts appropriately represented the
typical condition at the time the NOP was prepared and environmental analysis commenced
consistent with CEQA. Thus, the. baseline utilized for the subject MND is correct; therefore, the
conclusions reached with respect to the traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emission and noise
analyses are valid.
.<
•.
C)
( (
SDP 78-03(0)/SDP 13-03/SOP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 -RESPONSf TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
February 26, 2014
Pa e3
3. Comment: The project will lead to significant impacts to community character, aesthetics, and land
us~.
Response: As detailed In the staff responses below, as well as In the MND, there are no significant
Impacts associated with community character, aesthetics or land use.
a. Comment: The Project Is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards. The project violates applicable standards for building height and street setback.
See MND dt 26 ..
Response: As discussed on page 26 of the MND, the shopping center was developed through
a Site Development Plan wherein a 10-foot-wide front yard setback was established.
Pursuant to Section VI of the Development Standards, Exceptions, "The standards established
here shall also not effect areas with building permits or valid site plan approvals from the
City." Thus, the originally-approved Site Development Plan, which allowed for a 10-foot-wlde
setback, supersedes the El Camino Real Corridor Standards. The proposed project does not
encroach any closer than that which was originally permitted. In addition, as further
discussed on page 26 of the MND, pursuant to CMC Section 21.85,100, modification to
standards such as height can be permitted to offset the cost of affordable housing. Pursuant
to CMC Section 21.85.140, such modifications are subject to approval. by the City Council
through an affordable housing agreement. The requirement for an affordable housing
agreement will be Included as a standard condition for the Site Development Plan for the
request to construct 12 incluslonary rental units on-site.
b. Comment: There is insufficient evidence to support a deviation from the El Camino Real
Corridor Development Standards.
Response: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120(B), a site development plan for affordable
housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the
underlining zone or elsewhere provided that the project is In conformity with the general
plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. As discussed in the MND (pages 25·27), the
proposed project Is consistent with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the
city. In addition, any modifications to the standards requested through the Site Development
Plan for the lnclusionary housing project may supersede the El Camino Real Corridor
Development Sta'ndards. Therefore, a deviation to the El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards can be supported.
c. Comment: Additionally, deviations ore not supported by the Municipal Code. Section
21.85.100 requires an affordable housing agreement, yet there is no indication of such
agreement. Section 21.85.120 requires the Project to be in conformity with the "adopted
goals of the city, u yet the project is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Corridor
Development Standards.
Response: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.140(A), the approval and execution of an
affordable housing agreement shall take place prior to. final map approval and shall be
recorded upon final map recordation. Further, the affordable housing agreement shall
stipulate any approved offsets by the city. In addition, pursuant to CMC Section
21.53.120(B), a site development plan for affordable housing projects may allow less
restrictive development standards than specified in the underlining zone or elsewhere
SOP 78-03(0)/SDP 13-03isu/i:!-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01-RESPONS/ii:J COMMENTS, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
February 26, 2014
Pa e4
provided that the project is In conformity with the general plan and adopted policies and
goals of the city_ As dlscussed'in the MND (pages 25-27), the proposed project Is consistent
with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. The requirement for an
affordable housing agreement will be included as a standard condition for the Site
Development Plan for the request to construct 12 inclusionary rental units on-site.
d. Comment: The MND discusses "modifications ... to offset the cost of affordable housing," yet
there Is no evidence such modifications are necessary or what costs need to be offset. See
Pacific Corp. v. Citv o(Camorlflo (1983} 149 Ca/.App.3d 168, 178.
Response: As discussed in the MND, the current height limit in the C-1 zone and El Camino
Real Corridor Standards is 35 feet. A modification to the height standards is necessary as the
project proposes a height up to 45 feet to accommodate the mixed use project. The
applicant has indicated that the construction of the affordable housing will cost
approximately $1,299,720 (20 subterranean parking stalls, $84/SF) Due to the parking and
minimum density (20 du/ac) requirements, as well as the existing site layout of the shopping
center, an increase in height (I.e., to accommodate a 2"' and 3'' floor residential above
ground floor retail use) is required to justify the .cost of con~tructing 12 inclusionary units,
which will be rent-restricted. As mixed use is an encouraged use and the proposed increase
in height will offset the ~ost of the inclusionary housing, staff is supportive of the request. As
indicated above, the offset will be required to be specified in the affordable housing
agreement whlth is subject to approval by the City Council.
e. Comment: The MND falls to analyze applicable standards for park and recreation facilities.
The Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plans and the General Plan Parks and Recreation
Element each contain standards, yet, as the MND acknowledges, "the project does not
include any public recreation facilities." MND at 33. The City Is not currently meeting the
applicable standards for park and recreation facilities in the Southeast Quadrant. As such,
the addition of the Project's population will only Increase the burden o.n already foiling park
and recreption facilities.
Response: The proposed project is not required to provide public recreation facilities on~site. As
stated on page· 32 of the MND, the proposed project will be subject to the conditions and facility
service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. As such, a
standard condition will be applied to the project which requires the payment of park-in-lieu fees as
required pursuant to CMC Chapter 20.44. The fee will be collected prior to i~uance of the building
permit. In addition, pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report for July 1, 2012-
June 30, 2013 (please see link below), the city is currently meeting the applicable standards for
park and recreation facilities in th~ Southeast Quadrant.
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/GMMonitoringR.eport.pdf
Therefore, as concluded in the MND (page 32), no impact is assessed with respect to public
services.
0
SDP 78-03(0)/SDP l3-03Al:Jii 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13:01 -RESPON\{ TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
February 26, 2014 '
Pa es
4. Comment: The project will lead to significant impacts to air quality. The MND attempts to
separate air emissions Into four phases. MND at 23. However, it falls to account for the fact that
such phases can, Indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing amounts of emissions at any given
time.
Response: The potential impacts to air quality are discussed on pages 1Q-13 of the MND. Pursuant
to the Air Quality Technical Report prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (October, 2013), the
analysis of construction emissions conducted for the project was based on the schedule of
construction for the proposed project. The phasing information that was provided by the project
applicant indicated that development would occur sequentially; no overlap of construction phases
would occur because existing leases would require that construction be conducted sequentially.
The construction for each phase provides for access and new Improvements for the tenants. The
work on each phase must be complete for each segment prior to commencing the next phase.
The analysis of construction Impacts was conducted using the CaiEEMod Model, which is the
current air quality tool for land use projects. The CaiEEMod Model calculates maximum daily
emissions for each phase, which is presented in the Air Quality Technical Report. Thus the
CaiEEMod Model calculates the effect of combining construction activities such as building
construction, paving, and architectural coatings to estimate maximum· daily construction for each
construction phase. The CaiEEMod Model does envision a maximum daily construction scenario
where both demolition and grading, which have the most use of construction equipment and
therefore the highest emissions, would occur simultaneously. Therefore, the analysis presented in
the Air Quality Technical Report provides a conservative estimate of maximum daily emissions
during construction. As identiflea in the MND, impacts to air quality are less than significant.
5. Comment: The project will lead to significant' impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The MND
averages construction emissions over the life of the project. MND at 20. Such emissions should be
calculated os they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for
Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Ca/.App.4th 1013,
1049.
Response: Table 5 of the Global Climate Change' Evaluation prepared by Scientific Resources
Associated (SRA, October, 2012) presents a summary .of the total greenhouse gas emissions
anticipated from construction of the project. These emissions are calculated "as they will actually
occur." Pursuant to SRA, It Is standard and accepted practice throughout the state of California to
amortize construction emissions over the lifetime of the project. As stated in the £valuation,
amortizing construction emissions over the lifetime of the project takes into account their
contribution to annualized greenhouse gas emissions. The significance threshold is based on
annualized emisSions over the lifetime of the project. Furthermore, as stated in the Evaluation on
Page 23, amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year period is standard practice based on
written guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the City of San Diego, and
the County of San Diego. As identified In the MND, impacts associated with greenhouse gas
emissions are less than significant.
0 0
( (
SOP 78-03{0)/SDP 13-03/SUP '13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 -RESPONSE 'r(i COrylMENTS, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
February 26, 2014
Pa e6
6. Comment: The project will lead to significant Impacts to noise.
a. Comment: The analysis discusses potential impacts to nearby residences but fails to address
the fact that the applicable noise standards apply to the property line. See Noise Report at
17. While the MND and Noise Report discuss construction noise, they fail to account for the
fact that grading will occur within feet of the property line. The Project's Demolition Plan, for
example, notes construction noise as close as 8.8 feet from the property line, a location that
includes a public sidewalk. The Noise Report acknowledges sound levels of "typical
construction equipment" can be as high as 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source." Noise Report
at 13. Obviously, since the equipment will be considerably closer, the noise will by
considerably greater.
Response: The city does not limit construction noise levels at property lines, residences, or
public property as the impacts are temporary in nature {see page 29 of MND). The proposed
demolition and new construction are located a minimum linear distance of 175 feet as well as
85 feet downslope from the adjacent residential properties to the east {i.e., homes are
located at an elevation of 165' above mean sea level and proposed building 7714 is located at
80' above mean sea level). As discussed on pages 28-29 of the MND, the project will be
required to adhere to the standard construction hours pursuant to Section 8.48.010 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Specifically, construction activity and delivery of construction
materials and equipment would be limited to non-holidays, between 7:00a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. In addition,
should any issues arise, the building official, city engineer, or other official designated by the
city manager may shorten the hours of construction. Further, pursuant to CMC Section
8.48.030, signs are required to be posted at the jobsite entrance indicating the hours of work
as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Therefore, as concluded in the MND, the Impacts with
respect to temporary noise are not significant.
b. Comment: Furthermore, noise mitigation is insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and
Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cai.AppA'• 1323, 1341 ("there is no
evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be
effectively monitored and vigorously enforced").
Response: It is standard and acceptable practice to include mitigation measures with specific
performance standards {I.e., compliance with interior noise thresholds). See Save Cuyama
Valley v. County of Santa Barbara {2013) 213 Cai.App4th 1059, Endangered Habitats League
v. County of Orange {2005) 131 Cai.App4th, 777, 993, and Preserve Wild Santee v. City of
Santee {20l2) 210 Cai.App4th 260.
With respect to the proposed project, the following mitigation measure is required to reduce
noise impacts to a less than significant level:
Prior to issuance of the building permit, an aco·ustical analysis consistent with City
standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the
proposed building design will limit Interior noise for the residential/and uses to 45 dBA
and commercial land uses to 55 dBA. The building plans shall Incorporate the
recommendations in the report to satisfy the requirements.
0
(
' ' SDP 78·03{D)/SDP 13-03/SOP. 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 -RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER
February 26, 2014
Pa e7
Specific enforceable performance standards with a timing mechanism are included in the
above-noted mitigation measure. As indicated above, staff will be verifying that the building
plans incorporate the required materials and details recommended in the noise analysis to
attenuate the interior noise to 45 dBA for the residential land uses and 55 dBA for the
commercial land uses. Once the building plans are approved and the buildings are
constructed, the building inspectors will verify In the field that the construction conforms to
the approved building plans. The verification on the building plans as well as the inspection
ensures that the mitigation measure is enforced. Therefore, the noise mitigation is sufficient.
7. Comment: Additionally, the MND Inappropriately defers mitigation. Sacramento Old City Assn. v.
City Council (1991} 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011, 1029. For example, the MND punts the preparation of an
interior noise analysis. MND at 30. In Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond
{2010} 184 Cai.App.4'• 70, the court observed:
Numerous cases· illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after
completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and
Informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on
judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment.
Response: Pursuant to Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange {2005) 131 Ca1App4th,
777, 993, if mitigation is feasible but impractical at the time of initial project approval, it may be
sufficient to specify performance criteria and make further approvals contingent on finding a way
to meet them. As discussed in No. 6 above, the project specifies performance criteria to be
confirmed at the time construction plans are submitted as well as a timing mechanism for
enforcement of the mitigation measure, which is prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Thank you for providing comments on the La Costa Towne Center project, Should you have any
additional questions, please contact the project planner, Shannon Werneke, at {760) 602-4621 or by
email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
~;vt
DON NEU, AICP
City Planner
DN:SW:bd.
c: Mr. Geoff Sherman, Excel La Costa, LLC, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Ste. 300, San Diego, CA 92128
Mr. Richard Benson, Benson & Bohl Architects, 3900 5th Avenue, Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 92103
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Debbie Fountain, Housing & Neighborhood Services Director
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner
File Copy
Data Entry