HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-04; City Council; 14809; LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER GPA 97-02|ZC 97-02a aJ
L,
0 a
a cd
a
an
ad
aJa
(60 a
@)-I cn
QW
fi (6
am
c TI
Fiu
0
u\ -Jm la) $2
d 2
zaJ aJaJ 22 cd d -rl a. kO Ob hl
a1 sco
am 1
a. 00
u MZ fis -4 0 -4 d4J
*rl =t ad GO 2a e2
00 m \ e \ co .. 2 2 G 4 1 g 3 0
OI
?---
__s . hj(
DEPT.HD. &
((EITY OF CARLSBAD - AGE t@ UA BILL >
CITY ATw.G
DEPT. PLN Qg CITY MGR-~
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS- lv53 for Zone Change
and ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 98~& 3 8 APPROVING the Mitigated N
Declaration and the amendment of the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Chan
associated with a proposed new 86,320 square foot neighborhood shopping center
existing La Costa Plaza shopping center located at the northeast corner of El Camino R
La Costa Avenue. The project includes changes to the General Plan and Zoning F
expand the size of the commercial site and bring the various parcels into consistency i
Land Use Element of the General Plan. The reason for expanding the project sitc
northeast by approximately 1.27 acres is to accommodate the siting of a modern mar
store to economically revive the declining commercial property. The placement, on-s
modern markeffdrug store would not otherwise be possible due to the physical site COI created by the wide SDG&E power transmission easement that crosses the center oft
sDG&E will not allow any buildings to encroach into the 150 foot wide easemen
Expanding the eastern portion of the site ensures that the large marketldrug store is
furthest from El Camino Real which is designated as a scenic corridor roadway.
On June 17, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 (Opposed - Commissioner V
and Monroy) to approve the project's TentaZive Tract Map, Non-Residential
Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Special Use
Flood Plain, and Special Use Permit - El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. Tt
recommended that the City Council approve the project's Mitigated Negative De(
General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change. At the public hearing three citizens
favor of the project and four citizens spoke against the project. The primary objectio.
project included: (1) concerns about the traffic safety and congestion at the SUI
intersections; (2) pollution of Batiquitos Lagoon from the project's storm water runoff;
from parking lot cleaning and delivery trucks; (4) the potential for increased crime relat
24-hour operation of the gas station/mini-market; and, (5) the desire for a more upscale
or retail development at the site. To address some of these concerns the Planning Coi added two new conditions to the project that prohibit any parking lot cleaning from m
6:OO a.m., and require additional architectural enhancement of the building elevations
Camino Real.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The initial study (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project determined that
the environmental effects which are peculiar to the property or to this project are c
direct significant and adverse environmental impacts. The developer has agree
mitigation measures to the project to reduce those adverse effects to below i
significance in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental C
(CEQA). The project's direct significant effects include impacts to traffic circulat
AB# /q,@ 7 TITLE:
MTG. 8- v 4 9g
I
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
Y---- GPA 97-02lZC 97-02 -
PAGE 2 OF AGEND BI ILL NO. /vi 80 'i e
quality, aesthetics, and hazards. Furthermore, the project has been either desi
conditioned to incorporate all feasible and pertinent mitigation measures identified in M:
93-01. In consideration of the foregoing, on March 3, 1997 the Planning Director
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. On June 17, 1998 the
Commission reviewed the environmental documents, heard public testimony, and recon
that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone
southeast quadrant. The Developer is required to offset impacts to public facilities CI
this project, including the payment of public facility impact fees and traffic improvemei
adjacent public roadways and intersections. Modernizing the shopping center and it
the retail square footage will increase the site's property value and potentially incre
sales, both resulting in economic benefits to the City.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3. Location Map
4.
5.
6.
City Council Ordinance No. /VI- 455
City Council Resolution No. 9 8 -a90
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4308, 4309, and 431 0
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 17, 1998
Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 17, 1998.
1
/
/' 0 0
:/I
ORDINANCE NO. NS-455 /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e e
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of th
Carlsbad on the day of 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
RESOLUTION NO. 98-270
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS TO EXPAND THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING
COMMERCIAL SITE AND TO BRING THE VARIOUS PARCELS
INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP.
GPA 97-02, AND A ZONE CHANGE ZC 97-02 TO CHANGE
CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING
CENTER
CASE NO.: GPA 97-02l2C 97-02
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby re:
follows:
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly
public hearing to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment (1
02), and Zone Change (ZC 97-02), all relating to the La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shoppin!
Project. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission adopted Resolutions No. 430
and 431 0 recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, GPA 97-02,
97-02, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 4Ih
Auaust, 1998. held a public hearing to consider the Commission’s recommendations :
all persons interested in or opposed to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Genc
Amendment (GPA 97-02), and Zone Change (ZC 97-02), relating to the La Costa Luck
Shopping Center Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEARBY RESOLVED by the City Council o
of Carlsbad as follows:
I. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council adopts and incorporates the findings of Planning Cor
Resolutions No. 4308,4309, and 4310 in approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Plan Amendment (GPA 97-02), and Zone Change (ZC 97-02).
a) The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative DE
reflects the City Council’s independent judgment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e e
b) Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. Pui
Public Resources Code section 21 081.6(d), all the materials that constitute the admii
record in this proceeding are in the custody of and can be found in the offices of the C and the Director of Planning in the City of Carlsbad. The administrative record includf
not limited to: the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all public comments thereon
during the public review period and responses thereto, and the proceedings of the Commission and the City Council thereon.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall be effective thirty (.
following the adoption by the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of tt
Carlsbad on the 4th day of August 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: Mayor Lewis
Council Members Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin and Hall
(SEAL)
-2-
0 0
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE - ZC: 97-02
draft [XI final0
216-124-01, 02, 03, 18
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June
17, 1998, on file in the Planning Department.
EX 0 0
LA COSTA RESORTAND SPA
@
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON
SHOPPING CENTER
GPA 97-02IZC 97-02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0 EXH
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4308
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASENAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING
CENTER
CASE NO.: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-09PUD 97- 1 3/
SDP 97-07/CUP 97-03/ SUP 97-O2/SUP 97-03
WHEREAS, American Stores Properties Inc. “Developer”, has filed
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by American Stores P
Inc. and Leucadia County Water District, “Owner”, described as
Those portions of Lots 9,14, and 15 in Section 35, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June 17, 1998, on file in the
Planning Department.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of June, 191
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all i
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated March 22, 1998, "P
January 14, 1998 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following fin(
subject to the following condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacl
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monit
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMM
APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments tht
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project R
significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROV,
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declsu
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accord,
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guideline
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration rc
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
2.
3.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the La Cos
Savon Shopping Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progrr
June 17,1998.
...
...
**
-*a
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4308 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of June 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Monroy and Welshons
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
4f1 f) n
A' &J 'c, 9 ";,J (),+e yeQl G--vi&++ #e f
BAILEY NOgE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
4
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4308 -3-
0 0
- City of Ca-rlsbal
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: City of Carlsbad, California - Northeast comer of La Costa Avenue an
Camino Real, San Diego County.
Project Description: 1) Demolition and removal sf an existing 69.000k sq. fi. mixed
commercial retail, office, restaurant, and daycare center; (2) Construction of an approximately 86.:
sq. ft. neighborhood commercial shopping center to include a 61,025 lir sq. ft. combination market
store, 22,500+_ sq. ft. of general retail, and a 2,7325 sq. f3. gas station mini-market; (3) A .93 acre purchase of an adjacent parcel owned by the Leucadia County Water District and demolition
removal of an approximately 800,000 gallon reclaimed water reservoir on that .93 acre site; (4) A
acre purchase of adjacent property owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation; (5) Gradin, (7 to cr
an approximately 480 foot long and 7 to 9 foot high earthen mound immediately south of the San Ma
Creek floodway; (6) A General Plan Amendment to change 10.51 acres from (C) to (N). .93 acres 1
(U) to (N), .2 acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N); (7) a Zone Change to chi
11.44 acres from (C-2) to (C-1-Q) and .34 acres from (PC) to (C-1-Q); (8) A tentative map and I
residential planned development permit to subdivide the proposed 11-78 acre site into 8 lots: (9) Tr,
improvements to include a traffic signal at the La Costa Avenue driveway entrance. right turn lan
westbound approach to El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection, an advanced signal war
system for westbound La Costa Avenue, a widened existing driveway access to La Costa Avenue, a(
deceleration lane on the El Camino Real main driveway entrance, consolidation of driveways
placement of driveways further from the El Camino Real/La Costa intersection. and a new median
left turn to enter the site from El Camino Real; and, (1 0) Realignment of onsite drainage facilities ano
construction of an onsite drainage detention basin.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuar
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environme
Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declara
(declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued
the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Departm
2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Plc
submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you I.
any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: MARCH 22, 1998
CASE NO: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/SDP 97-07ICT 97-091SUP 97-031SUP 97-02ICUP
03IPS 97-321PUD 97- 13
CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 22, 1998
MlCHAEL J. HOBMILL=
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 0 (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-03ISUP 97-0YCUP 97-0
PS 97-WPUD 97-
DATE: JANUARY 14. 19‘
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
2. APPLICANT: AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES INC
3. - ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 348 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE. SA1
LAKE CITY, UT 841 11, (801) 536-3919
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MAY 2.1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (1) Demolition and removal of an existing 69,OOOk sq. ft. mir
use commercial retail, office, restaurant, and daycare center; (2) Construction of
approximately 86,2574 sq. ft. neighborhood commercial shopping center to include a 61-02!
sq. ft. combination market drug store, 22,500k sq. ft. of general retail, and a 2,732k sq. fi. ;
station mini-market; (3) A .93 acre land purchase of an adjacent parcel owned by the Leucai
County Water District and demolition and removal of an approximately 800.000 gall
reclaimed water reservoir on that .93 acre site; (4) A .34 acre purchase of adjacent prope
owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation; (5) Grading to create an approximately 480 fc
long and 7 to 9 foot high earthen mound immediately south of the San Marcos Creek floodw<
(6) A General Plan Amendment to change 10.5 1 acres from (C) to (N), .93 acres from (U) to c
.2 acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N); (7) a Zone Change to change 1 1
acres from (C-2) to (C-1-Q) and .34 acres from (PC) to (C-I-Q); (8) A tentative map and lit
residential planned development permit to subdivide the proposed 11.78 acre site into 8 lots;
Traffic improvements to include a traffic signal at the La Costa Avenue driveway entrance. ri
turn lane on westbound approach to El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection, an advanc
signal warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue, a widened existing driveway access
La Costa Avenue, added deceleration lane on the El Camino Real main driveway entrar
consolidation of driveways and placement of driveways further from the El Camino Real
(10) Realignment of onsite drainage facilities and the construction of an onsite drain
detention basin .
Costa intersection, and a new median with left turn to enter the site from El Camino Real; a
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proj
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Iml
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
'J Land Use and Planning, [x] Transportation/Circulation [7 Public Services
c] Population and Housing
Geological Problems
[XI Water IX1 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
(x1 Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation
[7 Biological Resources
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Utilities & Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tl
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitifatic
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the pro-ject. A NEGATIh
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and l
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment. but
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigatt
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to 1
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier. includix
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefor
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
[7
Ix] least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
0
FaLroary 18 , I m
Planner -La-& ig e . Date
3/w /q 0
Planning Director’s Signuure Date
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Article 5. Section 15063 requires that the CI
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significs
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. .
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact“ answers that i
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to.
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that 1
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopi
general standards and policies.
0
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporati
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact.‘ tc
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and 1
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce I
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant-
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significi
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyi
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applical
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigai
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed UF
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pr
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additio
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0
0
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requi.
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence t
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
0
4 Rev. 03128196
e a
If there are one or more potentially significant effects. the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. a1
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and includi
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EHR pursuant to applicable standards. a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is r
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect.
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significz
effect to below a level of significance.
0
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attenti
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determin
significant.
5 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than h
Significant Significant Significant Imp
lmpact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Ref. 1):
b) Conflict .with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Ref. 2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Ref. 1,2) .
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (Ref. 1.2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrmgement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Ref. 1,2)
0 B
O 0 0 E
0 0 0 lz
0 0 CI E
0 0 U €3
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Ref. 1,2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Ref, 1,2)
Displace existing housing, especialIy affordable
housing? (Ref. 1,2)
0 0 O Bl
0 0 w
0 0 w c)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Ref. 7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Ref. 7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Ref. 7)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Ref. 7)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Ref. 7)
f, Erosion. changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading. or fill? (Ref.
7) Subsidence of the land? (Ref. 7)
0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 (XI 0 0 €3 0
0 0 0 !XI 0 0 0 El 0 0 17 IXI
0 0 €30
0 0 CI Ix1 0 o 0 €x
0 0 !XI
0 0 0 Kl
9)
11) Expansive soils? (Ref. 7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Ref. 7)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runofr! (Ref. 5,6)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Ref. 5,6)
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Potentially Potentiall!. Less Than \O Significant Significant Significant 1mp:u
0 issues (and Supporting information Sources).
Impact Unless Impact Mitisation
Incorporated
17 Kl G
0 -0 0 Ixi
0 0 Ix1 0
0 DE4
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Ref. 6)
Changes in the amount of surface water in. any
water body? (Ref. 6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Ref. 6)
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
d)
e)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
0 0 1xI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Ref. 2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Ref. 2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (Ref. 2)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Ref. 2) .
[XI 0 0 0
0 0 0. IXI 0 0 0 IxI
0 0 0 w
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Ref.
2, 8)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Ref. 8)
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Ref. 8)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Ref. 8)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
0' 1x1 0 0 o 0 0 IXI
0 CI IXI
0 0 0 w
cl o 0 IXI o 0 0 w
0 0 cl IXI
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
g)
VI]. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
Endangered. threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Ref. 3,4)
Locally designated species (eg. heritage trees)?
(Ref. 5,4)
result in impacts to:
a) 0 o 0 El
cl 0 0 IXI b)
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0 Potentially I'otentiall! 1.w .I'h;un \c> Significant Significant Signiiicani Imp;
0 lssues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Impact Unless lmpacr
Mitigation
lncorporated
0 CI 0 lx
0 cl c1 lz
0 0 0 E
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Ref. 3,4)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Ref 3,4)
pool)? (Ref 3,4)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Ref. 2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (Ref. 7)
0 0 0 E
0 cl 0 B
0 cl 0 E
inefficient manner? (Ref. 2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Ref.
9,101
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Ref. 9. 10, 1 1, 12)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (ref. 2)
0 0' [x] C
o 0 0 (x
0 0 Ix
0 IXI 0 c
0 17 E
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) , Increases in existing noise levels?
b) 0 0 [x] C 0 0 0 E Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Ref. 2)
b) Police protection? (Ref. 2)
c) Schools? (Ref. 2)
d)
e)
cl 0 0 (xi o 0 0 (xi 0 cl 0 [xi cl 0 0 E
n 0 OE
Maintenance of public facilities. including roads?
(Ref. 2)
Other governmental services? (Ref. 2)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) cl 0 0 [x Power or natural gas? (Ref. 2)
8 Rev. 03128196
0 Potentially Potentiall) Less Than \o
Significant Significant Significant Impai
0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Impact. Unless Impaci
Mitigation
Incorporated o 0 0 w 0 0 0 w
0 0 ’[XI G 0 0 [XI G 0 n[xi 0 ON
0 0 0 [xi 0 0 [XI E 0 w 0
0 0 cl [XI 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 cl IXI
0 IXI
b) Communications systems? (Ref. 2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Ref. 2)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Ref. 2)
e) Storm water drainage? (Ref. 2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Ref. 2)
i? 0) Local or regional water supplies? (Ref, 2)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 0
0 0 0 (XI
CI 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 El
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? (Ref.
3,4)
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)? (Ref. 2)
[XI 0 0 0 b)
.
9 Rev. 03128196
0 Potentiall? Potentiall! LW Than \(
Significant Significant Sipificani imp,
0 issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
lmpact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
El 0 0 E c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CE(
process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negat
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are avaiia
for review. (Ref. 2 - On file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Dri
Carlsbad, CA 92009)
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above check
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursu,
to applicable legal standards! and state whether such effects were addressed
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (Overriding Findings
Consideration for cumulative regional air quality and circulation impacts)
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigati
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address si
specific conditions for the project.
b)
c)
10 Rev. 03128196
0 e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project site is designated in the Carlsbad General Plan (GP) as Community Commercial ((
Public Utility (U). TravelRecreational Tourist (TR), and Open Space (OS). The portion of 1
site designated (C) and (U) has a General Commercial (C-2) zoning designation. The project s
is 11.78 acres in size with a project proposal for approximately 86,OOOk sq. ft. of neighborho L
commercial land uses. Based on the GP Land Use Element's Community Commercial (C) 5
criteria of 10 to 30 acres and 100.000 to 300.000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area. the project 5
is qualified in the GP more as a Neighborhood Commercial (N) (3 to 10 acres & 30.000
100,000 sq. ft.) site rather than a (C) designated site. In addition. the (U) GP designation
currently inconsistent with the (C-2) zoning designation. The (U) GP designation is for pub
infrastructure land uses. The (C-2) zoning designation is not consistent because it all0
commercial land uses not infrastructure uses. Changing the entire site's GP designation to (
and the zoning designation to (C-1) would bring it into conformity with the GP's commerc
criteria and eliminates the inconsistency between the GP and zoning designations.
The (OS) designated portion of the site (.14 acres) is shown on the GP's Conceptual Open Spz
& Conservation Map as potentially constrained open space and not dedicated GP open spa1
The project's Vegetation Analysis and Wetland Determination prepared by Planning Systen
dated September 16, 1997 and updated December 18, 1997, indicates that this area of the site
not constrained and does not contain wetlands or other sensitive native habitat. Therefore. t
GP Amendment to redesignate this area to an (N) designation will not negatively impact t
Open Space and Conservation Element of the GP. The adjustment of constrained open sp~
boundaries does not require a General Plan Amendment or need to comply with the adjustme
procedures of the Open Space and Conservation Element if further detailed study shows it is n
constrained and the open space designation is shown on the General Plan Conceptual Op
Space & Conservation Map as potentially constrained (not dedicatediapproved) open space.
There are no agricultural resources on or adjacent to the project site. The surroundi
development consists of the Leucadia County Water District's wastewater pumping and stora
facility to the east. a neighborhood commercial shopping center located across La Costa Aven
to the south, El Camino Real to the west. and the La Costa Resort Hotel and golf course to t
north. The redevelopment and minor expansion of this existing commercial site is compatit
with the surrounding land uses and will not divide the physical arrangement of the surroundi
community .
A General Plan Amendment to change 10.51 acres from (C) to (N), -93 acres from (U) to (N),
acres from (T-R) to (N), and .14 acres from (OS) to (N) would change the physical proje
description of the GP on which a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepare
Since the GP changes would result in minor and insignificant changes to the impacts generatl
by the GP, this project is still relying on the findings of the MEIR for cumulative impacts
traffic and air quality (See XVI for discussion).
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project consists of the redevelopment and minor expansion of an existing neighborhoc
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 commercial shopping center. therefore. it would not induce substantial growth in the area
displace existing housing.
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
The site is currently developed with an existing shopping center, day care center. and reclain
water storage basin. The project‘s Preliminary Geotechcal Investigation prepared by GeoSo
Inc., dated February 6, 1997, indicates that the site is still suitable for commercial use and th
are no adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility, provided
recommendations in the geotechnical study are implemented. Chapter 15.16.090 of the Carlsl
Municipal Code requires the recommendations included in a project’s geotechnical investigat
to be incorporated into the project’s grading plans andor specifications. Therefore. separ
mitigation conditions are not required as part of the Negative Declaration.
IV. WATER
The project site is located adjacent to San Marcos Creek. The minor expansion of
neighborhood commercial land use. including an expanded parking area would result
somewhat more impervious surfaces and increased runoff from the site. Currently the existi
drainage from building roofs and paved surfaces on-site, either flows, directly into the drain;
system in El Camino Real and then into San Marcos Creek, or directly into San Marcos Crr
via concrete lined drainage channels. Urban runoff from the site is currently reaching San Marc
Creek without the benefit of on-site best management practices to reduce urban pollutants frc
the runoff water. To mitigate potential water quality impacts to beiow a level of significance s
project would incorporate drainage inlet pollutant filtration devices and an on-site drain:
desiltation basin along the northern property boundary adjacent to San Marcos Creek. as shol
on the site plan. Chapter 15.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that development utili
best management practices to prevent pollutants from entering storm water conveyance systei
by complying with all applicable provisions of local ordinances and the National Pollut;
Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges.
Parking lot owners and operators are required by local ordinance to clean their parking lots
thoroughly as is necessary to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm water conveyar
system to the maximum extent practical, but not less than once prior to each wet season.
There is no development proposed in the San Marcos Creek floodway, however, the existi
shopping center and the Leucadia County Water District Facility are located in the floodpli
adjoining the floodway. The project’s “HEC-2 Study” prepared by Dr. Howard H. Chang, dai
February 1997, and updated by a letter dated June 25, 1997 and December 11, 1997, indica1
that the proposed grading, filling, and redevelopment in the San Marcos Creek floodplain wot
not significantly impact the floodway or floodplain and would not result in additional expos1
to risk of on-site or off-site flooding from a 100 year flood. In addition, the project would r
significantly change the direction of surface water movement or ground water flow, ar
therefore, would not affect adjoining properties. All the project’s drainage would still flow no]
towards San Marcos Creek.
V. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updat
12 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mi
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide. react
organic gases. oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. and suspended particulates. These aerosols are
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are conside
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout. a vari
of mitigation measures are recommended in the GP Master EIR. These include: 1) provisic
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measu
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Denx
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including m
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design: and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable 1
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have been incorporated into the des
of the project.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is mark
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore.
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01. by C
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequi
projects covered by the General Plan‘s Final Master EIR, including this project. therefore.
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at
Planning Department.
The proposed neighborhood commercial land uses will not create significant objectionable od
and there are no sensitive receptors to pollutants in close proximity to the project site. The clos
residential land uses to the project site are located approximately 450 feet to the south.
VI.
The site is currently occupied by approximately 69,000+ sq. ft. of mostly vacant neighborho
commercial type land uses and a vacant former service station site. The project’s traffic stu
prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., dated April 25, 1997, indicates that, at full occupanc
the existing commercial development generated a baseline of approximately 10,200 avera
daily trips (ADT). The redevelopment of the existing commercial center and 1.27 acre expansi
of the site, including approximately 86.000+ sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial land uses anc
new gas station with 12 fueling stations. would generate approximately 12,132 ADT. To redt
the pro-ject’s direct traffic impacts to below a level of significance and to substantially imprc
the operation of the El Camino Real/La Costa intersection, the following traffic improveme
are incorporated into the design of the project:
1.
TRANS P ORTATI ONKIRCUL ATION
A raised median on El Camino Real along the project’s frontage to eliminate left-tui
exiting the site onto El Camino Real;
13 Rev. 02/28/96
e 0 2. A protected left-turn pocket on El Cardno Real for vehicles entering the site to masini
safety and traffic operations on El Camino Real and at the El Camino Real/La CC,
Avenue intersection;
3. Consolidated project access driveways away from the El Camino Real/La Costa Aver
intersection to eliminate an existing cut-through route through the project;
Signalized and widened project access on La Costa Avenue to provide efficient ingrc
and egress to both the project site and Plaza La Costa. An advanced warning system
westbound La Costa Avenue, 300 feet in advance of the new traffic signal:
Deceleration right-turn lanes on El Camino Real at the access driveways to enhance
safety and maximize through-put capacity on El Camino Real;
4.
5.
6. Installation of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach to the El Camino
Real/La Costa Avenue intersection.
El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are both part of the Regionally Significant Arterial systei
and the proposed project is expected to generate 212 net new PM peak hour trips: therefore.
Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis was conducted by the project‘s traff
engineer, in accordance with the 1994 Congestion Management Program Update. Because tk
redevelopment project would not add 50 or more net peak hour trips to either roadway in on
direction, further analysis of these roadways is not required by the CMP. In addition the pro-jec
would not add 150 or more net peak hour trips to any freeway system, which also exempts th
,project from more extensive CMP analysis.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project‘s Vegetation Analysis and Wetland Determination prepared by Planning Systems
dated September 16, 1997 and updated December 18, 1997, indicates that no significant adversc
direct or indirect biological impacts would occur to sensitive biological resources in the Sar
Marcos Creek or Batiquitos Lagoon area as result of the proposed project. The San Marco:
Creek, in this area of the drainage. has been channelized by past development, and the vegetatior,
that presently exists is significantly dominated by non-native, weedy species. The wetland
delineation line occurs no closer than 15 feet from the project’s northern property line. The
upland vegetation that occurs on-site is not considered sensitive.
The project has been designed to avoid encroachment into the exiting creek corridor wetlands,
therefore, no significant impacts would occur to sensitive bird species in the Batiquitos Lagoon
area, such as the California least tern, and species dependent on riparian habitat such as the Least
Bell’s vireo, and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The willow habitat adjacent to the
project’s northern property line is not extensive enough to support the foraging activities of these
bird species.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
No non-renewable resources has been identified with the site. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of non-renewable resources. The subject
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 site does not have any known mineral resources (natural gas, oil. coal. sand. or gravel) that WOI
be of future value to the region and the residents of the state.
IX. HAZARDS
Aside from the short-term air quality impacts and potential hazards associated with dust. vehil
emissions, and certain materials @aint, fuels. tools. and heavy machinery) .during constructi
activities, the proposed project would not result in a significant risk or hazard to employees a
customers of the shopping center.
In 1985 one 500-gallon waste oil, two 4,000-gallon, and two 6,000-gallon single-walled stt
underground storage tanks (UST’s) were removed fiom the ARCO service station located at tl
very southwest comer of the site. The UST’s were replaced with one 550-gallon waste oil ai
three 12.000-gallon gasoline double walled plastasteel UST’s in the same locations. Betwec
1988 and 1995, consultants for ARCO commissioned 31 boreholes and the installation of
groundwater monitoring wells on and off-site. Quarterly groundwater sampling has bet
performed at the site since 1991 and liquid-phase hydrocarbons have been detected in several (
the wells. In July 1995, ARCO’s consultant, SECOR, supervised the removal of one waste a
and three gasoline UST‘s (UST’s installed in 1985), and the demolition of the entire servic
station. In August 1995, six of the monitoring wells were destroyed prior to beginning remedi
excavation of the site. In November 1995, SECOR supervised the remedial excavation of ow
4,500 cubic yards (6.735 tons) of hydrocarbon contaminated soil from the site. In June 199t
SECOR supervised the drilling and installation of the 13th monitoring well (MW-13). To datc
there are 7 existing monitoring wells, and MW-13 is the only well being actively monitorec
Five of the remaining wells have been below required reporting limits for hydrocarbo
concentrations for a minimum of 15 quarters.
Since 1991 the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment an
Mitigation Division (SAM) has maintained an open Unauthorized Release File (Case ## H13502
001) on the site and has required mitigation and monitoring to bring the site into compliance witr
current health standards. In June 1997, SAM sent a letter to ARCO stating that the soil an(
ground water contamination detected within the property lines have been remediated to tht
satisfaction of SAM and no further site assessment or remediation is required for the area withir
the property boundaries of the ARCO site. However, SAM is unwilling to issue a “No Furthe
Action” letter, because there are still two areas outside of the former service station property
boundaries (lease lines) that have been affected by the hydrocarbon release that will require
additional site assessment activity. The two areas that remain in question are adjacent to soi’
sample S36-6.5 at the western sidewalk along El Camino Real, and soil sample S100-6 and MW-
13 near the driveway on the north side of the former ARCO site.
Monitoring Well 13 and the remaining contaminated soil would all be located within the 30 foot
landscaped parking and building setback along El Camino Real. The site is located in a non-
beneficial groundwater use area and hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater samples have
decreased over time due to natural degradation. As a result, project implementation would not
iinpact ARCO‘s ability to maintain MW- 13 at the request of SAM. To insure that the remaining
contaminated ground water and soil does not pose a significant impact to the environment and
the future use of the project site, the project will be conditioned by the City to comply with any
applicable assessment. remediation. and monitoring requirements of SAM, prior to issuance of a
grading permit for the project.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
X. NOISE
Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City‘s Construction Nc
Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipal Code). The project site and surrounding neighborhc
is currently impacted by traffic noise from two existing commercial centers. La Costa Avenue.
Camino Real and the intersection of the two roadways. The project will generate noise associa
with a neighborhood shopping center, including single-event noise from vehicles (car doc
horns), delivery trucks, car stereos, and loud voices, which is very similar to the noise cumen
created by the two existing commercial centers and the two major roadways in this area. T
closest residential land use is located over 450 feet to the south and approximately 165 feet
elevation above the project site. The proposed loading area for the market and the service stati
are both located at the north end of the project site. Given the existing high level of ambit
traffic noise in the area generated by the two roadways and existing commercial centers. t
incremental increase in single-event noise generated by the expansion of the commercial ceni
will not significantly increase existing noise levels in the area.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project is subject to all the conditions of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Manageme
Plan as well as the Citywide Faciiities Management Plan for 11 classes of public facilities ar
services. These plans projected facilities and service needs at buildout of the City. The
facilities include for: fire, police, school, roads, local government offices, parks, sewer, stor
drain, and sewer. The City’s Growth Management Plan requires a financing plan to be part (
the Local Facilities Management Plan to assure the provision of the listed facilities and servict
concurrent with their need. The applicant has submitted a Sewer Availability letter. date
February 12, 1997, from the Leucadia County Water District, stating that sewer service ci
reasonably be expected and available for the project.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The project will affect the existing routing of the storm drainage and gravity sewer systems of th
Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) due to the project’s purchase of the 0.93 acre para
currently owned by LCWD. As part of the agreement of the purchase, the project will reroute thl
existing storm drainage systems on the LCWD property and will provide easement anc
construction of a storm sewer system on the acquired shopping center property to route the flak
to the existing San Marcos Creek storm drain outfall. Another agreement of the parcel purchas
is to reroute the existing gravity sewer on LCWD property to a new manhole on the gravit
sewer discharging to the Leucadia Pump Station.
The reclaimed water emergency storage basin currently occupies the 0.93 acre LCWD purchast
parcel and will be demolished as part of this project. With the purchase of the parcel, the LCWL
will require an existing digester be converted to a temporary reclaimed water storage facility
The miscellaneous changes to piping and conversion of the digester will occur on LCWL
property. At a later date, an off-site reclaimed water storage facility will be constructed
Environmental impacts associated with the construction of the reclaimed water storage reservoii
will be addressed under a separate site-specific environmental document. The proposed changes
as outlined above will have less than significant impact on the existing conditions.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS
This project is located along the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor and is q\ \hg stme e\c\fi\\o\\
the roadway. The project would provide a 30 foot landscaped building and parking setb;
from El Camino Real. The 30 foot setback would have a combination of trees. shrubs. i
earthen berms to help visually screen parked cars and to visually soften the buildings when
project is viewed from the public roadways. The largest proposed structure is the marketidr
store building which would be located over 400 feet from El Camino Real and over 440 fi
from La Costa Avenue. The architecture and landscaping are both designed to provide a pleasi
aesthetic effect when viewed from El Camino Real, La Costa Avenue. and from within I
project site. The building facades along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue have be
enhanced to include recesses in the building walls and a variety of roof elements and offsettii
building planes. Project monument signs along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are limit!
to a height of 7 feet and can only be externally illuminated. Based on the above mentioned desij
elements and features the project would comply with the requirements of the El Caniino Re
Scenic Corridor Development Standards, and, therefore, minimize impacts to the scenic corrido
The large flat roof of the markeddrug store would be visible from residential dwellings that a
located southeast of the project and approximately 165 feet higher in elevation. To minimize tl
potential negative aesthetic impacts of the flat roof and associated roof equipment the project h:
been conditioned to use roof and screening materials and colors that minimize glare and tl-
reflection of light. The project is also required to adequately screen all roof equipment prior I
occupancy of the building.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The San Marcos Creek was channelized in this area and the site was mass-graded to create pad
for a gas station, shopping center, parking lot, daycare center, and the Leucadia County Wate
District’s facility. The project’s geotechnical investigation indicates that the majority of th
project site contains artificial fill and alluvium. Given the past grading and development of th
site, the presence of archaeological resources is not anticipated. The existing structures on thi
site date back to the 1960s or early 1970s and the site and surrounding area have no unique
ethnic, cultural, or physical presence (such as architecture) that the project would impact.
XV. RECREATIONAL
The project is not residential and will not directly generate a demand for community parks.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS,
CIRCULATION,
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and some intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard
and El Camino Real. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of
intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards
at buildout. The El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue intersection is included in this group of
17 Rev. 03/28/96
!@ 0 intersections projected to ail.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout. nunierc
mitigation measures have been recommended in the GP Master EIR. These include 1 ) measui
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need: 2) provisions to develc
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes. additional sidewalks. pedestri
linkages. and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies wh
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State High
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. T
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures would be incorporatc
into the design of the project.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of t’
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traff c. therefoi
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistei
with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl
certification of the GP Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. included
“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of cumulath
circulation impacts is required.
The El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will fail Growth Management intersectio
performance standards at buildout with or without the redevelopment of this neighborhoo
shopping center. This is due to regional through traffic and traffic generated by new residenti:
land uses in combination with the growth of the La Costa area and the City of Encinitas
Without redevelopment of the existing commercial center the intersection will still fail 2
buildout, and no intersection improvements would occur. The proposed GP Amendment woul
allow the site to be expanded in size by 1.27 acres, which indirectly leads to the potentiz
generation of 1,932 additional ADTs, however, the project Developer has been conditioned t
improve the intersection and mitigate all the direct project related circulation impacts to thc
intersection and surrounding roadways (Section VI) to a level of insignificant impact. Thr
project’s contribution to cumulative traffic impacts generated by the minor intensification of thi:
site may be minimized by the fact that the traffic operations in and around the site would br
improved and the provision of conveniently sited neighborhood shopping opportunities disperse(
throughout an area helps to reduce the distance and duration of the ADTs. Shortened shoppini
trip lengths incrementally reduces traffic congestion at other intersections and road segments and
helps reduce air pollution.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
(Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009; Phone (760) 438-1 161)
1.
2.
Curlsbud General Plan, City of Carlsbad. 1994.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Curlsbud General PIun
Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
18 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 3. Vegetation Analysis Wetland Determination for La Costa Plaza. Carlsbad Califoriuu
Planning Systems. September 16. 1997.
Supplement Vegetation AnalysidWetland Determination.for La Costa Pluza. Carlshud
California, Planning Systems. December 18, 1997.
“HEC-2 Study for La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center #I21 -283, Dr. Howard
Chang, February 1997 and “HEC-2 Study Update Letter”, Dr. Howard Chang. June 25
4.
5.
1997 and December 11,1997.
6.
7.
“Preliminary Drainage Studyfor LucQ Site ”, O’Day Consultants, Inc.. April 7. 1997.
“Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Luckyhav-on Drug/Grocery Stow
#121- 283, La Costa Area, Carlsbad, CA ”, GeoSoils, Inc., February 6, 1997.
“Final Report Carlsbad Lucky Store Trafic Study”, Fehr & Peers Associates. Inc.. Api
25. 1997.
“Letter Pom Leucadia County Water District concerning 800,000 gallon reclaimed
water reservoir ” Michael J. Bardin, Assistant General Manager, July 25. 1997.
“County of Sun Diego Department of Environmental Health Site Assessnient and
Mitigation Division, Hazardous Materials Cleanup Case File #HI3502 for ARCO
Fucility 81 939, 7654 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA ”, 1985 to Present.
i‘ Well Installation Report and Request,for Case Closure to SAM” SECOR. August 1.
1996.
“SAMLetter to ARCO” Mr. Nasser Sionit, Project Manager. SAM. June 18. 1997.
8.
9.
10.
1 1.
12.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
HAZARDS
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for areas of the project site which are impacted b
contamination, the developer shall comply with all applicable assessment, remediatioi
and monitoring requirements of the County of §an Diego Department of Environment;
Health Site Assessment and Mitigation Division.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
-. 7 Plans,
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards. th
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provide
by law, improvements shown on the site plan, in accordance with the following
a.
specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall b
A raised median on El Camino Real along the project’s frontage to eliminate lefi
turns exiting the site onto El Camino Real;
19 Rev. 03/28/96
0 * b. A protected left-turn pocket on El Camino Real for vehicles entering the site to
maximize safety and traffic operations on El Camino Real and at the El Caniinc
RealLa Costa Avenue intersection;
Consolidated project access driveways away from the El Camin0 Real/La COSQ
Avenue intersection to eliminate an existing cut-through route through the proje
Full traffic signal installation and widened project access on La Costa Avenue tc:
provide efficient ingress and egress to both the project site and Plaza La Costa.
Install an advanced warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue. 300 feet ir
advance of the new traffic signal;
Deceleration right-turn lanes on El Camino Real at the access driveways to
enhance safety and maximize through-put capacity on El Camino Real;
Installation of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach to the El
Camino RealLa Costa Avenue intersection.
c.
d.
e.
f.
WATER QUALITY
3. The developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutai
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide be
management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Managemei
Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharg
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Enginee
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants c
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work wit
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic an
hazardous waste products.
b. . Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil
antifreeze, solvents, paints. paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other sucl
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private. or into storm drair
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides
herbicides, insecticides. fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall mee
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respectivc
containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
c.
AESTHETICS
4. Prior to issuance of the building permit the Developer shall submit a final roof plan and
color and materials board for all the project buildings for review and approval by the
Planning Director. To the extent feasible, all roof materials and colors shall minimize
glare and light reflection from the roof.
Rev. 03128196 20
0 0
j. All roof appurtenances. inchding air conditioners, shall to the extent feasible
architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjace
properties and streets, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director.
SEE ATTACHED MITIGATION MONITOFUNG PROGRAM
21 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AI
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date ~*H \\, \??e5 3 Signature
22 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl @ TlON MONITORING AND REPORTI 8 PROGRAM: Page 1 of
1
1
1
i/jl
C( E: m' 81 ~~
Sl 0 'i .- CI $
-1
Wk
ENVIRONMENTAL MIT a TlON MONITORING AND REPORT @! PROGRAM: Page 2 oi
.. m
C .- z a, I
r
.- - c. ~
W
ENVIRONMENTAL MI a TION MONITORING AND REPORT a PROGRAM: Page 3 oi
.. a
S
U 0
.-
2
IC
.- - - ;
w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4309
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM C TO N AND U
TO N, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASENAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING
CENTER
CASE NO: GPA 97-02
WHEREAS, American Stores Properties Inc., “Developer” ,has filed
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by American Stores P
Inc. and Leucadia County Water District, “Owner”,. described as
Those portions of Lots 9,14, and 15 in Section 35, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
Planning Department.
to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June 17, 1998, on file in the
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to amend the L
Element of the General Plan from C to N and U to N as shown on the General PI
Use Map as shown on Exhibit “GPA 97-02” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Gen
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 97-02”, attached hereto and made a part he
COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER, GPA 97-02 as provided in Go.
Code Section 65.350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; an(
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 17th, day of June 199
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A)
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Co
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA LUCKY
SHOPPING CENTER, GPA 97-02. Staff is authorized and directed tc
require Developer to make all necessary corrections and modificatic
GPA 97-02 document(s) necessary to make them internally consist€
conformity with final action on the project, based on the following fin
subject to the following condition:
Findings!
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, GPA 97-02, is in conform
the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the fact that;
a. A Community Commercial site should be 10 to 30 acres in size :
100,000 to 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area. Based on the 1
size of the project site and the 86,320 square foot size of the
shopping center, the project site is qualified more as a Neigl
Commercial site (3 to 10 acres & 30,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. of rei
rather than a Community Commercial site. Therefore, the Gent
Amendment from Community Commercial to Neighborhood Coi
would be consistent with the General Plan’s Land Use Element G
for Commercial Centers.
The Utility designated portion of the project site to be used for a p
the shopping center has a C-2 zoning designation. The Utility desig
for public infrastructure land uses, therefore, the C-2 zoning desig
not consistent because it allows commercial land uses which are inc
with public infrastructure land uses. The General Plan Amendm
Utility to Neighborhood Commercial and the Zone Change from C
would bring this portion of the site into conformity with the Gener
Land Use Element Guidelines for Commercial Centers and CI
required consistency between the General Plan and the zoning.
The Open Space designated portions of the site are shown on the
Plan’s Conceptual Open Space & Conservation Map as p~!
b.
c.
PC RES0 NO. 4309 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
constrained open space and are not shown as dedicated or approvec
Plan Open Space. The project's flood analysis and Vegetation Anr
Wetland Determination prepared by Planning Systems, dated Septc
1997, and updated December 18,1997, indicate that the Open Spac
the site are not constrained by the 100 year floodway and do nc
wetlands or other sensitive native habitat. Therefore, the adjustm
Open Space boundaries on the Land Use Element Map will not I
impact the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General PI
General Plan Amendment is not required at this point in tim
boundary adjustment.
Conditions:
1. Approval of GPA 97-02 is granted subject to the approval of ZC 97-02.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of June 195
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Monroy and Welshons
ABSENT: Commissioner Neilsen
ABSTAIN;
.<' P .%-. {Tfl
$;"*" .. a'- "1 &$ t (.%4LJ<eFz
*fA' -5
1-1 i' - -.,
% .a .$ '--Qu:; Fi" i -
f
BAILEY NeE, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4309 -3 -
0 0
PROPERTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA: 97-0
draft B final 0
LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA
216-124-01, 02, 03, 18
of California, according to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June
17, 1998, on file in the Planning Department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4310
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM PC TO C-1-Q, AND
C-2 TO C-1-Q FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LA COSTA
AVENUE AND EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING
CENTER
CASE NO: ZC 97-02
WHEREAS, American Stores Properties Inc., “Developer”, has filed
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by American Stores 1
Inc. and Leucadia County Water District, “Owner”, described as
Those portions of Lots 9,14, and 15 in Section 35, Township 82
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June 17, 1998, on file in the
Planning Department.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as
Exhibit “XX” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, LA COSTA LUCl
ON SHOPPING CENTER, ZC 97-02 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad 1
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of June, 19
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered ,
relating to the Zone Change; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cc
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LA COSTA LUCKY
SHOPPING CENTER, ZC 97-02, based on the following findings a
to the following condition:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change fiom PC to C-1-Q and fiom C-2 to C-1-Q is
with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that 1
appropriate zone to implement a Neighborhood Commercial Gene
designation.
That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Element.
2.
Conditions:
1. Approval of ZC 97-02 is granted subject to the approval of GPA 97-02.
...
...
...
...
...
**-
...
...
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 43 10 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of June 1998. by the follov
to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Monroy and Welshons
ABSENT: Commissioner Neilsen
ABSTAIN:
/I’ - /k/e3 -*,, 1 p \&&E -’? fl
BAILEY NO E, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
,l PC RES0 NO. 43 10 -3-
e EXHIB %e City of CARLSBAD Plannhg Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIOI
ItemNo. @
October 15, 1997 Application complete date:
Project Planner: Jeff Gibson 1 Project Engineer: Ken Quon
P.C. AGENDA OF: JUNE 17,1998
SUBJECT: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-09RUD 97-13/SDP 97-O7/CUP 97-03/SUP 9
O21SUP 97-03 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTE:
Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring a
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tri
Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Pk
Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit - Flood Plain, and Special Use Pem
- El Camino Real Scenic Corridor to allow for an approximately 86,320 squarc
foot neighborhood commercial shopping center on property located at ti
northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue within Local Faciliti
Management Zone 6 and outside the City's Coastal Zone.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4308, 4309 a1
43 10 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigatic
Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment GPA 97-02, and Zone Change 2
43 16 APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map CT 97-09, Non-Residential Planned Developme
Permit PUD 97-13, Site Development Plan SDP 97-07, Conditional Use Permit CUP 97-0
Special Use Permit SUP 97-02, and Special Use Permit SUP 97-03 based upon the findings ar
subject to the conditions contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposal is for the redevelopment and minor expansion of an existing neighborhoc
commercial shopping center (La Costa Plaza) located on an 1 1.78 acre site at the northeast corn1
of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The existing 69,000 square foot shopping center, tl:
Los Niiios Child Daycare Center and a Leucadia County Water District reclaimed watl
detention basin would be entirely demolished and replaced with a new approximately 86,3;
square foot neighborhood shopping center. The project includes changes to the General Plan an
Zone Maps to bring the various parcels into consistency with the Land Use Element of th
be made for the approvals being requested. In conclusion, staff believes that the project hE
addressed all issues and, therefore, warrants approval.
97-02 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 43 1 1, 43 12, 43 13, 43 14, 43 15 ~il
General Plan, The project also complies with City standards and all the necessary findings ca
{P
GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/C a -09PUD 97-1 3/SDP 97-O7/CUP 97-0 9 blJP 97-O2/SUP 97-03
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
June 17,1998
Page 2
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is located directly south of San Marcos Creek and west of the Leucadia Cow
Water District’s waste water facility. In addition a majority of the existing shopping center s
is located in the San Marcos Creek floodplain, however, there are no buildings or improvemei
located in the floodway. The existing shopping center’s service station was located at the strc
corner of the site until it was demolished in 1995. After the station was demolished and the fi
tanks were removed, the station owner also removed the soil that was contaminated by t
underground tanks. Since 1995, the station owner has been monitoring the quality of the sitc
groundwater under the review and supervision of the San Diego County Health Department.
The reason for expanding the project site to the northeast by approximately 1.27 acres is
accommodate the siting of a modern markeddrug store to economically revive the declini
commercial property. The onsite placement of a markeddrug store would not otherwise
possible due to the physical site constraints created by the wide SDG&E powerline easement tE
crosses the center of the site. SDG&E will not allow any buildings to encroach into the 150 fo
wide easement area. Expanding the eastern portion of the site ensures that the large markeddn
store is situated furthest from El Camino Real which is designated as a scenic corridor roadway
The proposed project would consist of the following feawres and improvements:
1. Demolition of the existing shopping center including the Los Niiios Child Day Ca
Center;
Construction of an approximately 61,025 k sq. ft. combination market/drug store;
Construction of approximately 22,500+ sq. ft. of commercial retail floor area and tl
potential relocation of the child day care center within a portion of this square footage;
Construction of an approximately 2,7325 sq. ft. gas station mini-market;
A .93 acre land purchase of an adjacent parcel owned by the Leucadia County Wat
District for the expansion of the shopping center and demolition and removal of i
approximately 800,000 gallon reclaimed water reservoir on that .93 acre site;
A .34 acre purchase of adjacent property owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporatic
for the expansion of the shopping center;
Grading to create an approximately 480 foot long and 7 to 9 foot high earthen mow
immediately south of the San Marcos Creek floodway to reduce potential flooding c
Leucadia County Water District property.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
GPA 97-021ZC 97-02/C I9 -09PUD 97-1 3/SDP 97-071CUP 97-0 9 SUP 97-O2/SUP 97-03
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
June 17, 1998
Page 3
8. Traffic improvements to include a traffic signal at the La Costa Avenue drivew
entrance, right turn lane on westbound approach to El Camino ReaILa Costa Aven
intersection, an advanced signal warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue,
widened existing driveway access to La Costa Avenue, added deceleration lane on the
Camino Real main driveway entrance, consolidation of driveways and placement
driveways further from the El Camino RealLa Costa intersection, and a new median w
left turn to enter the site from El Camino Real; and
Realignment of onsite drainage facilities and the construction of an onsite draina
detention basin.
9.
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
A.
B.
Carlsbad General Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial - (N);
Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.26); Qualifi
Development Overlay (Q) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.06); Nonresidential Plann
Development (Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.47); Conditional Uses (Municipal Co
Chapter 2 1.42); Floodplain Management Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.1 1 (
Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.40) and El Camino Re
Corridor Development Standards;
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20); and
Growth Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 21.90) and Local Faciliti
Management Zone 6.
C.
D.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendations for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the projecl
consistency with applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis sectic
discusses compliance with each of these regulatiodpolicies utilizing both text and tables.
A.
As described on the General Plan and Zone Change exhibits (attachments 13 and 14), the proje
site is designated in the Carlsbad General Plan (GP) as Community Commercial (C), Pub1
Utility (U), and Open Space (OS). The portions of the site designated C and U have a Gener
Commercial (C-2) zoning designation. The portions of the site designated OS have
Community Commercial (C-2) and Planned Community (PC) zoning designation as illustrated
Table 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would designate the enti
site Neighborhood Commercial (N) with the C-1 Zone and Q-Overlay Zone.
General Plan and Zone Change
APN
POR. 2 16- 123-06
2 16- 124-01,02,03,18
POR. 216-124-05
POR 21 6-124-1 9
EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED AREA
GENERAL GENERAL ZONE ZONE (ACRES
PLAN PLAN **os N P-c C-l/Q 0.14 c/**os N c-2 C-l/Q 10.51
U N c-2 C-l/Q 0.93 **os N PC C- 1 /Q 0.20
ELEMENT
Land Use
Housing
Public Safety
TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL PROPOSED USES & COMPLY:
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Site is designated for neighborhood Marketldrug store, gas Yes
commercial land use (N). station mini-market’ day
care, other support retail.
Potential Non-residential Project has been Yes
Affordable Housing Linkage Fee conditioned to pay fee if
and when approved.
Design all structures in accordance All buildings will meet Yes
with seismic design standards of the UBC and state seismic
UBC and State building codes.
requirements.
Provide adequate flood control All improvements are Yes
protection of property and minimize located outside of the
flood hazards. floodway and the linear
earthen berm will reduce
flooding of Leucadia
County Water District
property. Development in
the floodplain will not
increase existing flood
hazards in the area or
downstream.
ELEMENT
Open Space
&
Conservation
Circulation
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL PROPOSED USES & COMPLY:
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Minimize environmental impacts to The project will not Yes
sensitive resources within the City. impact native vegetation
or habitat value and the
Open Space boundary
adjustment is in
compliance with the GP
because the subject areas Yes
are not constrained. There
are no known
archaeological or
paleontological resources.
Project will conform to all
NPDES requirements,
including provision of a
depollutant basin and
Utilize Best Management Practices
for control of storm water and to
protect water quality.
drain filtration.
Require new development to Project will provide Yes
construct roadway and intersection
improvements needed to serve
proposed development. median, signalization,
intersection and roadway
improvements including
additional turn lanes,
deceleration lane,
advanced warning signals.
DEVELOPMENT STD
Parking: 1 parking space per
200 sq. ft. of gross floor area -
432 spaces
Height Limit: 35 feet
Architectural Features: 45 feet
PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES?
442 parking spaces Yes
Maximum is 33 feet-10 inches
with one architectural tower to
38 feet- 8 inches
Yes
Setbacks: (Minimum)
ECR - 30 feet
Front - 0 feet
Interior Side - 0 feet
Rear - 0 feet
Min. Lot Area: 7,500 sq. ft.
Yes
30 feet
30 feet
10 feet
25 feet
Lots range from 16,310 to Yes
284,714 sq. ft.
STANDARD
Factual Situation - Service
Station must be part of
shopping center.
Required architectural
compatibility with shopping
center .
Landscape plans including: six
foot perimeter landscaped
combination of trees, shrubs,
and flowers, irrigation; and,
maintenance responsibility.
planters; six-inch curbs; a
PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES?
Service Station is located on
the same site with a
markeudrug store.
Architecture and building Yes
materials match the proposed
shopping center buildings.
Project has a preliminary Yes
detailed landscape plan with
irrigation.
Yes
perimeter landscaping and
Six-foot high masonry wall
along residential/professional
zoned property
Exterior lighting shielded
from adjacent properties
Trash containers within 6 foot
high enclosure.
Displays and storage shall be
contained within main
structures
Public improvements for
convenience and safety.
All signs in conformance with
City’s sign ordinance.
The project is not adjacent to
residential or professional
zoned property.
Yes
Parking lot and wall lights are Yes
directed downward.
6 foot high enclosure with
trellis and materials to match
building.
The site Plan shows no
exterior storage areas on the
services station site.
Drainage improvements, and Yes
addition of right and left turn
lane, median, deceleration
lane, traffic signal.
One monument price sign and
3 identity wall signs.
Yes
Yes
Yes
STANDARD “AREA 5”
Design Theme - Old California/Hispanic
Signs:
Monument - 7 feet high X 12 feet long
Wall - Wood only
Building Height - 35 feet for
development within 400 feet of ECR
Grading - No cut or fill 10 feet from
original grade
Building Setback - 30 feet fiom ECR
PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIES?
Contemporary Spanish Yes
Two monument signs Yes
Internally illuminated **No
acrylic face
32 feet Yes
4 feet Yes
30 feet Yes
GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/C 14, -09PUD 97- 13/SDP 97-O7/CUP 97-0 9 /SUP 97-O2/SUP 97-03
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
June 17,1998
Page 11
C. Subdivision Ordinance
The project site would be subdivided into 8 lots ranging in size from 18,726 to 284,714 squ
feet. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing shopping center so th
are no major new sewer lines proposed to service the property. Water service is provided by
existing 12 inch waterline on El Camino Real. Drainage from the site is designed to
consistent with the existing drainage pattern. A portion of the site will drain to San Marc
Creek and a portion to an existing 27 inch storm drain on El Camino Real. Since the proj
would contain more paved areas, resulting in increased drainage flows, a detention basin
included with the proposed project that will even out the flows. With regard to surfi
pollutants, a condition of approval requires the project provide onsite pollutant mitigation to
surface runoff prior to reaching the public storm drain and San Marcos Creek. The prelimin:
geotechnical investigation performed by Geosoils, Inc. indicates that the site is suitable for i
cubic yards of fill material and there are no outstanding or major geotechnical issues associal
with this project.
To provide for the traffic and circulation impacts generated by the project, on and offs
improvements are provided, including a traffic signal at the project access driveway on La Co
Avenue and an advance signal warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue. In additic
there would be a dedicated right-turn lane on westbound La Costa Avenue, a deceleration lane
El Camino Real, and median improvements on El Camino Real with an opening for left tu^
into the project site. Consolidation of the existing shopping center driveways and relocation
the proposed new project driveways further from the El Camino Real and La Costa Aven
intersection will also improve traffic circulation around the intersection.
D. Growth Management Ordinance
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 in the southe
quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with t
adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
proposed project. The grading of the site would include the import of approximately 20,O
GPA 97-021ZC 97-021C I9 -09IPUD 97-1 31SDP 97-071CUP 97-0 9 S UP 97-021SUP 97-03 LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
June 17,1998
Page 12
TABLE 6 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA-Part 11) prepared in conjunction with this project determined that some
the environmental effects which are peculiar to the property or to this project are consider
direct significant and adverse impacts. The developer has agreed to add mitigation measures
the project to reduce those adverse effects to below a level of significance in accordance with t
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project’s dirt
significant effects include impacts to traffic circulation, water quality, aesthetics, and hazarc
The project site was massively graded in the 1960s and developed with the existing shoppi
center and Leucadia County Water District facility. The proposed development area supports I
significant habitat and no sensitive plant or animal species. No historical, archaeological,
paleontological resources are known to exist at the site, and due to the previous grading a~
development, none are anticipated to be discovered. The project would not increase floc
hazards in the area.
incorporate all feasible and pertinent mitigation measures identified in Master EIR 93-0 1.
consideration of the foregoing, on March 3, 1997 the Planning Director issued a Mitigatl
Negative Declaration for the proposed project. No comments were received. Please see tl
Environmental Assessment Form-Part I1 for a detailed description of the mitigation measures a~
the expanded justification for the recommendation to approve the Mitigated Negati
Declaration.
Furthermore, the project has been either designed or conditioned
GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/C 8 -09RUD 97-1 3/SDP 97-O7/CUP 97-0 9 SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
June 17,1998
Page 13
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Location Map
1 1. Background Data Sheet
12. Disclosure Statement
13.
14.
15. Reduced Exhibits
16.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4308 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4309 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 10 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 12 (PUD)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 13 (SDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 14 (CUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 15 (SUP - Floodplain)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 16 (SUP - Scenic Corridor)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 43 1 1 (CT)
General Plan (GP 97-02) Exhibit
Zone Change (ZC 97-02) Exhibit
Exhibits "A"-" Y " dated June 17, 1998
JG:kc
BACKGROUND DATA SHEE P
CASE NO: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-09PUD 97- 13/SDP 97-O7/CUP 97-O3/SUP 97-02/Sl
CASE NAME: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
APPLICANT: AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES INC.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Moni
Reporting; Program, General Plan Amendment. Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residenti:
Development Permit, Site Development Plan. Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit - Flood
Special Use Permit - El Camino Real Scenic Corridor to allow for an approximately 86,320 s(
neighborhood commercial shopping center on property located at the northeast corner of El Caminc
La Costa Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and outside the City’s Coastal Zone.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Those portions of Lots 9, 14, and 15 in Section 35, Township 12 Sod
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June 17, 1998, on file in the Planning Department.
APN: 216-124-01,02,03,05,18,19, & 216-123-06 Acres: 11.78 Proposed No. of Lots: 8
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: 0-S/C/U/T-R
Density Allowed: N/A
Existing Zone: P-C/C-2
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requiremen
Density Proposed: N/A
Proposed Zone: C-1
Zoning Land Use
Site PC/C-2 COMMERCIAL & PUBLIC UTILITY (OS/C/U/T-R)
North PC OPEN SPACE (OS)
South C-1-Q COMMERCIAL (C)
East c-2 PUBLIC UTILITY (U)
West P-C OPEN SPACE (OS)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: ENCINITAS Water District: CARLSBAD Sewer District: LEUCADIA COUNTY
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): NIA
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: MARCH 3. 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
H
(7 0 Other,N/A
Negative Declaration, issued MARCH 22, 1997
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated N/A
-
AMENDED
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests 011 all applications wllicli will reqi
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Conimlttef
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project can]
be reviewed until this information IS completed. Please print.
*
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, frater
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, c
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant‘s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financ
interest in tlie application. If tlie applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include t
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF 1\
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NO‘
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include t
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached
necessary.)
Person Corp/Part s Address
Title
Address
OWNER mot the owner’s agent) see "ate below
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons llaving an!, owners11
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the IegaI ownership (i.
corporation or partnership, include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning mol
than 10% of tlie shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARE!
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclj
owned corporation. include the names. titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separai
page may be attached if necessary.)
I’erson Corp/Part American Stores Properties,
Title f
i. 3
p~i?I>~iSliijj, teiia;-itS iii ~~iniz~ii, non-pfrt, corpcrztio!:, ptc.). If t!ip ownership inr,lgdes
Title / Title 565 K nott A venue Address Address Buena Park, CA 90620
The original Disclosure Statement is amended to delete La Costa Shopping Cent Inc. and La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation and insert in their places Americ
Stores Properties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of American Stores.
-
2075 Las Palmas Dr - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-089~
l.xJi\-i-Kuri I u I ;;LUIZATION OR TRUST
11 organiz3tioii (y ;I trus~. ]j
nnines and addresses of AN\' person serving as an officer or director 01' the non-1
orpiization or as trustee or beneficia-\. of thc.
Non ProfitiTrust &on Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address
4 .d pursuant to (1 ) or (2) above is a non
J.
If an? person id
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit). I
Boards. Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past twelve ( 12) months?
[? Yes Iy( No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE! Attach a;rld;tIonal sheets if necessary.
1 certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
SPI Entitlement Mgr.
Signature of ownerldate Signature of applicanddate
Kareem Ali - ASP1 Entitlement Mgr.
Print or type name of owner/date By : ..- Print or type name of applicant
Signature of Owlier/appi;cant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of
n-
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALLAppLICl
APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMIlTEE
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CIn COUNCIL 0
(Please Prinr)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Afnenian Shoe& ?ro~f-hk~ I nL
kreed Ai-, 2 5 E.'tizmAs Q0Af)I Px\+i.Cle nleKr DIU1 s11M -.~&x a? QsD[ (-
bS&S bm- MP. -
aj y.7 Assac,r4trs
&pn4 ?- Pa . a,yO?o
2. Owner
List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property ir
LJMW Sh,,,C;&
\46D (M-4 5m Ave.
LCWP : TIM hrhew\
PPN L SbArl, cff .4t& &th7 burnhaw Co
e/, ?e& '13p;+hf 4 '
4~~0 lFkeccihrr= DQL~
SODfEm Cfi 2 12
~COSTR .L'..+& &A
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the
and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the Corporation or l
any partnership interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant 10 (1 j or (2) above is a non-profit or,oanization or a tNSt, names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organiza
as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
L)ISCLOS.FRM ' 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2
-__ __-___. - .-__ 2075 La>; PalrTl;Ir> I3)rive - Carlsbad. CaIlfornla 92009-1 5-76 - ((1 19) .138-1 161
e 0
Disclosure Statement
5. Have you had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of
Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s) Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, soclal club, fraternal or@
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, aty and county, cq rnunmpallty, distnc
political subdivision or any other group or combination actlng as a unit.”
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
See Attached -
Signature a€ @ner/ciate)
I (1 z -4 &rnTWEc)-r @ &, (-- I- - I ‘h :i 3, ’ \7 < I//
PriZ or tjrpi name OT owner Prik or type name of applicant t
DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 . PAGE 101
0 0
Owner's Information for Items 5) and 24) of City of Carlsbad Land Use Review
Application
Owner: La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation, a California corporation
c/o Pete Bethea, John Burnham & Company
4520 Executive Drive Suite 1 11, San Diego, CA 92121 Mailing Address:
Telephone: (619) 558-5630
mer and that all of the above lnformation is true and correct to thc
.-? .> %,--I - 1
SiiaMe Date Signature Date
24) In the process of reviewing this application it may be necessary for members of city sta
planning commissioners, design review board member or city council members to inspl
and enter-the property that is the subject of this application. INJe consent to entry for tL
fiurpose. /
1' 1 ; '3 I I <7
'\ ; 5- 7 - - -- p, -,/. ,,
f- -1 1 \J 1- 'i ~ -
Date Signature Date Signature
0 0
Owner’s Information for Items 5) and 24) of City of Carlsbad Land Use Review
Application
Owner Name: , Leucadia County Water District, a political subdivision
Mailing Address:
Telephone: (619) 753-0155
1960 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92009
I certify that I am the legal owner and that all of the above information is true and correct to tht
best of my knowledge.
Signature Date
<&& f-yLGM ?hy/v
Date
24) In the process of reviewing this application it may be necessary for members of city std
planning commissioners, design review board member or city council members to inspe
and enter the property that is the subject of this application. UWe consent to entry for tl
purpose.
1
&A /,
Signature Date
4s p%-/q7
Signature ,i
NOTE: The ultimate approval by LCWD requires resolution of
utility and facility relocation, easement, and land
ownership issues,
ATTACHMENT 12
0 0
LA COSTA RESORTAND SPA
EXISTING PROPOSED m OS N 1=1 c,os N mu N lzzizl OS N
@
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON
SHOPPING CENTER
GPA 97-02
0 ATTACHMENT 14 0
EXISTING PROPOSED m P-c C-I-Q
I--'1 c-2 C-I-Q
Kq c-2 C-1-Q
M P-c C-1-Q @
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON
SHOPPING CENTER
ZC 97-02
r-1 ''R~-~@-?~ I b ,-e- 23.y";; 1 r* ; iq !dl Ki ~ --- e. --e -- - --->- r-uw-9 ng ~vvkammvwmQ11)3~m '3NI SXV13OSSV - ,. Am04 urn.* S8Z-tZU WAVWAYWn GIZ ;l 1*.*
- .- --- -- - .- .- ...... ~ - - -.. . .. - .. ._~_. ,.. . -. . . . __. . . ~
V3 wd rl
q
4
r
-
I
=- .I-,=
153 W OlGTvI Lb-6-6 1-1613\613\19~15\1
-I- 011 nn-,arr,
I I- mbncunn 00000- IIIIII bbbbbh
:I%#! 5 is*
Lr !:$a; a -$ "f 1
0
r-
m -9
g ig!:
?E5355 qig
i.% 1 t
mt.Y)NY)C) LL j is:
IIIIII 0, 00000~
mmmmmm t
vmvmmn
- ,:i7 r.r.r.r.r.r.
-
:
pil&" g$Q; &e. a % 1
%*,,,*e a
r
sl
CClL 7 P$ aea3 k d 8 aa i ' !z 1~Q1SB~abZIE~~a:~~~~~~~~~
n u -1> u I
41 pie D I: 9,
eBPBBPPrePP$ePere~WeeaReeeePae
-k
3 L jg qd?F
. . . . . . . . . ..
mblQNmlQ 00000- IIIIII bbbbbb mmmmmm
‘nannn +.nz>zz umummn
~... - ----
I
A -_-.___ __
----
0 e
Q
8, i
*I
pcz+
'Lf $
8
;
1 k igi <#pSI 1'' 0";
s
Is *
-I s 3 tl
$
0 0
.' r
U 9 5 Y B 0 a
I *i i@ c U$ j,?*ZZzi <Q .LE;
11 0"; I
I.
Ib! "( 2
SI
21 21 P'
41 0
Ki
2
5a
v)
6
$1
P> i
- .. ,j ~. . .: 5 3 :. l q -;$
2 $j 'PP?&a!i !?s:&*8zz8
e
s
5 4 $6 - !:=
$! $:e pz;: ......
"7 - 2 ijragla:$$
x ::):m<mz@! - ...._ ...... ..-. ...
IO.
...... E VI - __
!j Pk-. ._ . .
.I +; I$ 22 -z+ ... :+g i -I!$ pc2 i 1; 0 f
a! yI
<,'
2 8
0 0 14
2 E
Li
In
9
i
-I W
!i
0 e
I- s
P s
h ? e m + fur
2
5
a
0 0
.)) I o
Ly 2
$
0
- .-- __ -
& f -. I- -
, .-.- ;'if---; I h-.. ---. IF-
tg
;LC--- (I) L au
i, :
-4 _. . ,/ .r'L..- r 3 !: -- !=L, ..
7
E5 v) :L:i i+, p-:: ---- 3 YS i3 (OW
7i
.. I j .i'c
]E 1/ 5
W 2
n-
s 45
2$ 1 =:
, E2 s: 2: d4 t m8 si
?
---.- e-.- UII -- 0069-018 WlL) 8-&-E - V3 *UJlBd 81
I- - .-- ----I-
0 u- low rn ‘@YW ewiodmwa3 P
9cez8V3~Pw3~ 5
m8d UdU8 MaN bi
a JoWWm-pCIolCuOESW ., 7f -&jnbold 03UV
y f4
1;
-
0
-- 5 d
_* I----
-____ & f
OO6E-OfO WlL) OOOL- ---.- I-.- Wd WOW JOOld @e 'eA!yl OaYOdJeaUe3 p
bu!ieeuW~ P ub!oea * bu!)eyJa~ I!ejeu 'V3 'PWWW
L6- I- - .-I __ --._ -- 0 JNI -0 p
~Pljku3~ssPPtloyw.31333N E
A\ 77 =&&Nd 03tjV AJ!I~B.J wdwe M~N bi
E i$.
gi i -5
0069-0L9 WLL) 9901-E UE3 PUE 'Bpi9 JO!JeJXs a L..IIyI.L9 =g am - --. .-..-.- YID. * I$ ioold p~ 'err!ia eJU!OdJe+Ue3 p
Bu!Jeeu!BW P uB!sea * Bu!)ey~sly I!e)eu =NI an-o -- 5%- 90826 'V3 'PSqSlJW 'p8Otl ooeoav -rewe3 0ruddoqs.o luau ouyue3 13 3% z f Ah
,y -&%oJd 03UV AIymd wdwe MeN ri ,$ i
5 3
*E :$
f ;$
ai- I
i
3
=h s
Q 19 - 4 -E
5:
I
i ill 1 iiii
Eli
h: $;$s e~8~i6~~,~~g $3 -' q Bb qg el! gz
ISBQg& 1 ! ?ggStpdq I h+Ip, UhIB I 0 !h!Maiili 6
l, IF SF fr
s 08OQQQOQ~~~
b
'13 - '*-I '64-6 *-lm\du\Is*Is\O":
-L.. "-.cOD1(U-oll
0 EXHIBI' 0
4. GPA 97-OuZC 97-OZCT 97491PUD 97-131SDP 97-071CUP W-O3/SUP W-OZISUP 97-03 - CI
COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaratio
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Zone Changc
Tentative Tract Map, Non-residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plar
Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit - Flood Plain, and Special Use Permit - El Camin\
Real Scenic Corridor to allow for an approximately 86,320 square-foot neighborhood comrnerci;
shopping center on property located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Cost,
Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and outside the City's Coastal Zone.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced this item and stated that it contains a number c applications that would allow a redevelopment of the commercial site located at El Camino Real and L
Costa Avenue. The project is titled La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center. Mr. Wayne further state,.
that Associate Planner, Jeff Gibson, will give the staff report.
Project Planner. Jeff Gibson, presented the staff report and, with the aide of a series of slides, describe(
the project as follows: The proposal is for the redevelopment and minor expansion of an existin(
neighborhood shopping center called La Costa Plaza. The shopping center is located on an 11 acre sitt
at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The existing 69,000 square foo
shopping center, the Los Nifios Day Care Center, and a reclaimed water detention basin will essentially bt
demolished and replaced with a new 86.000 square foot neighborhood shopping center. The proposec
entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Subdivision Map Non-residential Plannec
Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and two Special Use Permits. The
changes to the General Plan and Zone Maps account for the 1.7 acre expansion at the site and to brins
the various parcels involved, into consistency with the Land Use element of the General Plan. The projec
will be subdivided into eight lots with common parking and landscaped areas. The Conditional Use Permi
is required for the shopping center's proposed gas stationlrnini-mart and the Special Use Permits arc
required because of the site's location to the San Marcos Creek flood plain and it's proximity to the E
apparent by the photographs, and it's sign will be removed and replaced with a monument style sign tha'
will not exceed seven feet in height, as required by the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Developmen.
Standards. There are many vacant shops and buildings, in the center, in an advanced state 0'
deterioration due to the deferral of maintenance by the former property owner. No buildings 01
obstructions are permitted within the utility easement area for the power lines which constrains the
property and requires the buildings being places close to the public streets or to the Leucadia Count)
Water District facility which is located directly east of the existing shopping center. Building F, within the
proposed shopping center, has been designed to accommodate the relocation of Los Niiios Day Care
Center. However, Los Niiios recently decided to relocate their day care facility to the Community Center
in La Costa Valley. The Chabad House is also a part of this property but will not be affected by the
project. The Leucadia County Water District facility is located directly east.of the property. The district is
offering to sell approximately one acre of their land, to the project owner, which includes a large detentior
basin that will be removed. Lucky Sav-on will be located in the far northeast corner of the site. The
closest homes are located south of La Costa Avenue, on a ridge and are approximately 170 feet higher in
elevation than the propct site. The proposed 480 foot long berm will provide flood protection for the La
Costa IkmYs maintenance and storage yard and the Water District's facility.
The proposed gas stationlmini-mart will be located in the far northern portion of the site. The primary
entV from El Camin0 Real is non-loaded and leads to the center portion of the site. There will be a right-in
and right-out driveway on the north side of the gas station. The main driveway (which is the existing main
driveway) is also non-loaded and leads to the center of the site. Uses for the west facing and north facing
buildings have not Yet been designated but it is quite likely that there will be a restaurant(s), a video store,
MINUTES
Camin0 Real Scenic Corridor. The La Costa Plaza has been in existence for quite some time, as is
PLAN N IN G CO MMl SSl 0 I@ June 17, 1998 e Page
etc., to support neighborhood services. A pedestrian courtyard is proposed-for the corner area, i
trellises and planters. The area originally designed to house Los Niiios will now be developed ’
Building G and become additional support retail. Some of the improvements that will be provided ai
signal at the driveway entrance on La Costa Avenue, the widening of La Costa Avenue (on the eastbo
side) to allow for a right turn lane, and the widening of El Camino Real (between La Costa Avenue and
primary El Camino Real entrance) to allow for the construction of a deceleration lane. It is also propo
to construct a solid median (there is currently no median) and to provide a left turn pocket on El Can
Real, to allow southbound traffic to access the El Camino Real entrance.
Commissioner Welshons asked how gas station patrons will exit the center if they wish to travel eitt
southbound or westbound from that location.
Mr. Gibson replied that a patron would be forced to drive along any one of three or four lanes, within
shopping center, and exit by the main driveway on La Costa Avenue.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that in studying the plans, she was able to locate only one to1
non-loaded drive lane and asked Mr. Gibson to explain the other “non-loaded” drive lanes.
Mr. Gibson explained that from the signalized main driveway into the site, the side of the drive lane clos
to the Lucky market will be non-loaded. The lane (east / west) at the north side of the site is fully n
loaded, the center lane (east / west) is fully non-loaded, the lane (east / west) at the south side of the :
will be non-loaded on the store front side, and the lane (north / south) will be fully non-loaded from
northern boundary to the point where Building C begins, south of the center drive lane.
Commissioner Welshons, stated that there is no way to completely avoid pedestrian traffic wl
attempting to exit the site at the main (La Costa Avenue) intersection, unless the parking spaces on
north side of the east / west drive lane (south side of site) are eliminated.
Mr. Gibson concurred with the Commissioner’s statement.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be a pedestrian crossing at the new intersection between 1
Lucky shopping center and the Von’s shopping center across the street.
Mr. Gibson deferred the question to Mr. Wojcik who replied that there will be a pedestrian crossing at t
intersection.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Gibson to explain how that traffic signal is going to work - mean
that when cars exiting the Von’s center and turning westbound on La Costa Avenue and cars are exit
the Lucky center and turning eastbound on La Costa Avenue, will there be separate left turn lanes (M
left turn arrows) for both driveways. Commissioner Welshons further stated that in all the plans, there E
no diagrams that show how that signal will actually operate, only that left turns will be allowed.
Mr. Wojcik responded by stating that that is a detail that is taken care of in the timing and design of 1
signal and he cannot give Commissioner Welshons a definitive answer to her question.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that left turn lanes and arrows are a critical factor, especially a!
relates to the timing of the intersection at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, and the coordination
the timing between the two signals. She pointed out that the traffic report states that the shopping cen
intersection signal will be timed with half the time allowed for the other signal in question and asked i
Wojcik to explain what the half time means.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the green time at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue signal cycle will be 1
seconds while the other intersection will operate on a cycle of 60 seconds green time, which is one half
the time allotted for the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue signal. This will allow the traffic, leaving t
shopping center intersection, 60 seconds to make their turn onto La Costa Avenue and get into the que
lanes to get ready for the next green light. Those that come to the shopping center intersection beyo
MlNUTl
PLAN N I NG COMMl SSI 0 Ne June 17, 1998 0 Pagc
that 60 second time, will then queue up at the entrance signal. Mr. Wojcik added that the project's tr;
engineer was present and could probably offer a little more detail.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if a further delay would result if there are left turn arrows at
shopping center intersection.
Mr. Wojcik replied that he could not anSwer that question as it is beyond his realm Of expertise.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wojcik what the intersection spacing is and what is the City standa
Mr. Wojcik replied that the intersection spacing is approximately 360 feet and the City standard is 600
on La Costa Avenue for a signal.
Since there is only 360 feet between the signals, Commissioner Welshons then asked why a 1
signalized intersection can't be built, on El Camino Real, across the street from the gas station whic
over 500 feet away from the existing intersection.
Mr. Wojcik explained that El Camino Real is a primary arterial while La Costa Avenue is a seconc.
arterial and does not require the same spacing.
Commissioner Welshons asked what the distance is to the (proposed) signal south of La Costa Avenue
Mr. Wojcik stated that he does not recall the distance between those two intersections,
In a hypothetical situation in which he was in a hurry to get out to 1-5, Cornmissioner Welshons asked
Wojcik what route he would take upon leaving the gas station.
Assuming that he was familiar with the shopping center, Mr. Wojcik replied that he would use the dr
aisles in the shopping center to the intersection at the main entrance at La Costa Avenue.
If he was not familiar with the shopping center, Commissioner Welshons then asked Mr. Wojcik if he wo
consider the idea of making a right turn onto El Camino Real and proceed north to the next intersect
and make a U-turn.
Mr. Wojcik responded by stating that U-turns are not allowed at that intersection and the possi
intersection where U-turns are allowed is Arenal.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Wojcik thinks drivers will drive that far north to make a legal U-tun
Mr. Wojcik replied that all the medians will be in, so if they choose to make a U-turn rather than use I
signal at the main entrance, they will have to go all the way to Arenal.
Commissioner Welshons then suggested that they could also choose to turn into the La Costa Res
entrance, make a quick U-turn, and exit by making a left turn.
Mr. Wojcik stated that that would be a safe maneuver although not a practical one.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there will be room to put a left turn pocket (northbound) in the exist
median at Costa Dei Mar.
Mr. Wojcik replied that there is room for a left turn pocket.
If the Commission determines there is enough of a nexus based on the traffic generated by this projt
and to ease congestion at that proposed signalized intersection on La Costa Avenue, Commissior
Welshons asked if a left hand turn pocket can be put in there.
MlNUTl
PLAN N I NG COMMISSION 0 June 17, 1998 0 Page
Mr. Wojcik replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Welshons asked, “how many stacking of cars can be achieved since both left hand I pockets back up to each other - meaning the left hand turn queuing lane to go southbound on El Can
and the left hand queuing lane to turn into the project. You’ve said that that is about 360 feet.”
Mr. Wojcik replied that five cars eastbound to northbound and approximately eight to nine cars westbot
to southbound.
Commissioner Welshons stated that while she sat out at the site today (Wednesday, June 17, 1998) i
counted cars, she realized that the proposal on the project is to adjust and give 100 feet queuing to
new intersection eastbound left turn lane and reduce the number of feet to the westbound left turn lar
She stated that she counted eleven cars (total) that could fit in that distance, eight in the left lane to
south on El Camino Real and three could fit into the left lane to enter the proposed center. She poin
out that based on a maximum of twenty feet per car length, there is far less than the 360 foot distancL
which to place the left turn pockets.
Commissioner Compas asked what percent of the total traffic will use each of the entrances into 1
proposed shopping center.
Mr. Wojcik deferred that question to the applicant’s traffic engineer and Commissioner Compas elected
wait until the engineer testified.
Commissioner Heineman asked how the delivery trucks (tractorhrailer rigs) will be able to maneuver ii
the loading dock area.
Referring to one of the exhibits, Mr. Wojcik indicated the most logical route into the center and explain
how the drivers will maneuver into the loading dock area.
Regarding the location of the gas station and the possible environmental impacts, Commissior
Welshons asked for a history of gas station tank leakage within the City, specifically cases where the
appeared to be no problem only to find out later that there was significant leakage.
Mr. Wojcik prefaced his answer by pointing out that modern designs of storage tanks have change
specifically to eliminate the possibility of leakage. Consequently, he continued, it would be unfair to jud!
response to Commissioner Welshons inquiry, Mr. Wojcik stated that although he cannot give speci
numbers, there have been a noticeable number of stations that have had leaks,
Mr. Gibson also indicated that there was a leak at the old station on this site and there is one at the statii
at Andersen’s Inn (Pea Soup Andersen’s), that is currently being attended to.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she understands that the leakage from Andersen’s, which h
seeped under 1-5 to the west side of the freeway and is being vented off or burned off in some fashion.
Mr. Gibson replied that they do not burn it off but instead, recover it and haul it away.
Commissioner Welshons then asked Mr. Wojcik if he knows how long the new tank technology has bet
tested.
Mr. Wojcik replied that he has no knowledge of the length of time of testing.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that when the old tank technology was new, everyone felt confide
that the tanks would not leak.
newly designed tanks with the old style tanks used in well established older stations in Carlsbad.
Commissioner Welshons asked what the hours of operation, for the gas station, will be.
MINUTE
PLAN N I N G COMMISSION 0 June 17, 1998 0 Page
Mr. Gibson replied that the City has placed no restrictions on the hours of operation so if they choost do so, they can operate 24 hourg per day.
Commissioner Welshons asked if it would be practical to require No Parking in the immediate vicini!
the landscape berm.
Mr. Wojcik replied that it is certainly something that could be looked into although staff has not specific
considered it. He went on to state that the owner of the station will have to determine whether or not a
Parking area would be a detriment.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Wojcik to explain why the plans show only six pumps, yet there
twelve pumps approved.
Mr. Wojcik explained that the six pumps shown in the plans are actually double pumps.
In Resolution No. 4316, Commissioner Welshons asked why there is a sign deviation regarding 5
illumination.
Mr. Gibson replied that the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission make the findings as I:
of the El Camino Real Development Standards to allow the deviation from the requirement in the Corric
Standards for wooden signs only. They are asking for a deviation to allow for interior lighting.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the Von's Center, immediately south, has that same type of variance.
Mr. Gibson replied that the Von's Center has internally illuminated signs but he is not aware of i
variances.
Commissioner Welshons then asked if the Von's Center at Alga Road/Aviara Parkway have the sa
internally illuminated signs and Mr. Gibson replied affirmatively and added that, to his knowledge, thert
Corridor.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that in Resolution No. 431 1, there is a condition regarding the schl
fees which states that the fees have to be paid to the Carlsbad Unified School District. She then indicai
that, if true, the Encinitas School District will be very unhappy and suggested that the error be corrected
Mr. Gibson agreed that an error had been made and that it would be corrected.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that Lot No: 8, in the proposed project, has been excluded frl
many of the conditions and asked if there is any possibility that there could be an intensification
development on that lot.
Mr. Gibson explained that Lot No. 8 contains the Chabad House and the reason for the exclusion
because the City excluded a restriction on a restaurant and restricted the use of the health club. AI!
houses of worship are excluded. He added that the site is so small that restrictions are not applicable.
Commissioner Welshons asked if staff foresees that outdoor tables and seating would impact any of 1
no variance there either. Essentially, he added, there are many, many non-conforming signs in 1
pedestrian walkways if a food court were eventually installed in or near the pedestrian entryway.
Mr. Gibson replied that the proposal is to have tables and seating in a common area, not to be privatiz
by adjacent retails spaces.
Regarding the Conditional Use Permit for the gas station, Commissioner Welshons stated that she w
unable to find an expiration date for the CUP and asked what that date will be.
MlNUTl
PLANNING COMMISSION 0 June 17, 1998 e Page
Mr. Gibson replied that there is no time duration associated with that CUP and the permit will be car
with the lot.
Commissioner Welshons then asked what will trigger the end of that CUP.
Mr, Gibson replied that there is a requirement in the Conditional Use Permits Section that gas stations required to be associated with certain types of uses and one of the uses is a commercial shopping cen
which this obviously satisfies. If, however, a shopping center closes, gas stations on a separate lot \
separate ownership can remain as long as the zoning (C-1) and designation (Neighborhood Commerc
does not change.
Chairperson Noble asked the applicant if he agrees to have this item heard by the six Commission
present or would he,prefer to postpone this hearing until there is a full Commission present. Mr. Tuc
agreed to having this item heard with the six Commissioners present.
Applicant, Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Properties (Developers), 1 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, C
representing the owner, American Stores Properties. Mr. Tucker gave a history of how and why 1
property was acquired by American Stores Properties and how it was determined (through studies) t
this would be an appropriate site for a Lucky Sav-on project, in spite of the utility and water easements
well as other constraints. Mr. Tucker also stated that the traffic signal at the main entrance to the cer
was incorporated into the original plans because they could see that it would be virtually impossible fc
customer to leave the center, eastbound, without it.
deceleration lane on El Camino Real. Regarding the right turn lane on La Costa Avenue to northbouncr
Camino Real, Mr. Tucker explained that it was included in the conditions for Los Niftos Day Care Cer;
and because it addresses a regional traffic issue, American Stores included it in their plans. Mr. Tucl
also stated that they sent out mailings to approximately 1600 La Costa residents, explaining the proje
and thus far have received very few comments (either positive or negative) on the project. He also sta
that his company gave a party (forum) to which 25 people were invited and only 20% attended.
Rabbi Jerome Eilfort, 2029 Caracol Court, Carlsbad, Rabbi of the Chabad House, spoke in favor of
project. Rabbi Eilfort testified that the redevelopment of this area will be a plus for everyone in the ai
and most of the people he has spoken with have asked him to convey their support as well. Rabbi Eill
stated that the existing buildings are 70% vacant and are in terrible disrepair and he has seen wild anim
on the site. He voiced his overall concern regarding the safety of the members of his synagogue as v
as the safety of the remaining tenants and visitors, and urged the Commission to support this project.
Commissioner Welshons asked how the members of Chabad House get to the site, how many membc
there are, and are there any plans for expansion.
Rabbi Eilfort replied that there are about 75 families, some of which drive, some of which walk and tht
are no current plans for expansion.
Stewart Miller, 2814 Luciernaga Street, Carlsbad, stated that this development is very likely to shec
great deal of light on this community, in that a gas station and a marketldrug store is needed for the e
developing area. He stressed upon the fact. that, not only will an improvement such as this one be gc
for the immediate community, it will be good for the entire city.
William Franenhofer, 6831 Caminito SueRo. Carlsbad, agreed with Rabbi Eilfort’s description of the :
and also concurred with his concerns regarding its current overall safety. Also regarding safety, k
Franenhofer stated that he is anxious to see a signal (as proposed) installed easterly of El Camino Real
the entrance to the proposed shopping center.
Ruth Solorio, 2563 Navarra Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she drives on La Costa Avenue, every day, a
can testify to the traffic as it exists today, which is horrendous. As for the current appearance of 1
existing buildings on the site, she stated that the tenants were not been allowed to renew their leases a
Also designed into the original plans, is
MiNUT
PLAN N I N G COM M l SSl 0 I@ June 17,1998 0 Pagc
had no other choice but to move out. Ms. Solorio further stated that, in her opinion. that shopping ce
was intentionally allowed to deteriorate to make way for redevelopment or a larger expansion project.
Regarding traffic, Ms. Solorio pointed out that, although it doesn’t show on the diagram, there is a ci
immediately east of the proposed new signal which she feels will only add to the many problems La Cc
Avenue already has. With the installation of the proposed signal, Ms. Solorio stated that she is sure tt,
will be many fatalities associated with it. Also, Ms. Solorio questioned the wisdom of a gas station i
how patrons will be expected to exit the station. She stated that, in her opinion, people who are unfam
with the area will not be concerned about whether U-turns on El Camino are allowed or not, and will m;
U-turns anyway. She urged the Commission to reconsider the traffic impacts and the placement of
structures proposed for this project.
Ms. Solorio pointed out that Mr. Tucker had said that he had gone to the community before the prop1
was purchased, by sending out flyers, However, she continued, she cannot dispute that flyers were I
out but stated that she had not received one. In addition, Ms. Solorio questioned who was invited to
party Mr. Tucker spoke about. She went on to state that, in her mind, when one gives a community pi (forum), one invites more than 25 guests. She suggested that another forum be held, with many m
invited to attend, in order to get proper feedback.
Ms. Solorio also stated her disagreement with the plans for a gas station and mini-mart, citing the r~
mart as a magnet for robberies and other such illegal or unwanted activities.
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Solorio if it is only the mini-mart she is opposed to or is her opposii
also for the gas station and if she could be a little more specific about her concerns.
Ms. Solorio stated that she is most concerned about the traffic leaving the market and the post office.
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Solorio if her concern is essentially with the design of the project rat1
than the contents of the project and she replied affirmatively.
Craig Munson, 7051 Via Cabafia, Carlsbad, stated that in deference to the Rabbi, he would rather w
through the center in its present condition, rather than have it redeveloped as proposed. He stated t
his main concern, however, is the traffic on La Costa Avenue and with the gas station and mini-mart.
further stated that he is quite disappointed in the caliber of design of this project. Mr. Munson suggest
that more thought and imagination should be applied and a more creative design developed for this Ian He further suggested something a little more unique, similar to Del Mar Plaza. Mr. Munson ai
suggested that this project will be little more than an ordinary strip mall with a grocery store. He went
to state that this project is really not needed but if it is going to proceed, he urged the Commission to g8
it very careful thought and consideration before making any decisions.
Chairperson Noble pointed out to Mr. Munson .that regardless of how many cars are at the gas static
they will exit the station one at a time and not all at once.
Mr. Munson responded by using the example of the Chevron Station at La Costa Avenue and 1-5 and t
congestion and traffic accidents that it caused before all the signals were installed.
Chairperson Noble stated that he, too, visited the proposed project site twice during the past week and
certain that traffic signal, turn lanes, and turn pockets, etc., will make an enormous positive improvemenl
Rich Barnes. 7623 Rustic0 Drive, Carlsbad, stated that his home overlooks the proposed project site a
that he has several concerns. The first is regarding the traffic flow and he questions the advisability
installing a signal at the proposed main entrance to the shopping center. The alternative, he suggested,
to have a Signal north of La costa Avenue on El Camino Real as was suggested by Commission
Welshons which, in his opinion, will probably save a few lives. Mr. Barnes also voiced his conce
regarding noise generated from normal traffic, delivery trucks and parking lot cleaning equipment, ai
asked if those activities could be regulated to allow residential neighbors some peace and quiet during tl
MlNUTf
PLAN N I NG COMMl SSl ON 0 June 17, 1998 0 Page
night. He testified that on several occasions he has called the Von's market (directly below his home) i
asked them to curtail the noise in the middle of the night. Their response, he continued, was to tell t
that there is no noise ordinance in the City of Carlsbad and they will take deliveries and clean their lot i
time they wish to do SO. Mr. Barnes presented a series of photographs to the Commissioners, shob
the view of the proposed project site from his home.
With regard to hours of operation, Mr. Barnes asked why the Lucky Sav-on, as well as the gas station ;
mini-mart, must be open 24 hours a day and pointed out that extended hours of operation also add to '
noise level.
Mr. Barnes stated that since he has met with Mr. Tucker and found that the lighting will all be direc
downward, he has no concerns with the lighting.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Barnes to suggest what the delivery, cleaning, etc., hours should be.
Mr. Barnes replied that store hours should be from 7:OO a.m. to Midnight and that cleaning and deliv
hours should be the same.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Barnes if he has any concerns regarding the roof equipment that \
be placed on the buildings.
Mr. Barnes replied that Mr. Tucker has shown him samples of the roof material that will be used and th
are acceptable. He further stated that he is also satisfied that the roof equipment will be adequatl
screened.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Barnes how many of the residents in his area were sent notices
have met with Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Barnes replied that, as far as he knows, he is the only one.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. & Mrs. Barnes had received a notice, in the mail, of this meeting a
Mr. Barnes replied affirmatively.
Marie Kirsten, Caminito Monarca Road, Carlsbad, stated that her biggest concern with this project is ti
gas station, its proximity to the Batiquitos Lagoon and how it is going to affect both the creek and t~
lagoon. She also asked if the reason for wanting a gas station is that there was one there before ai
someone thinks there should be another. Ms. Kirsten further stated that, in her opinion, there are enoul
gas station's in areas nearby and there is no need for one in this project. In addition, Ms. Kirsten voicl
her opposition to a mini-mart, stating that there is no need for one. She agreed that some of the projc
looks good and is probably acceptable but asked the Commission to give this project a great deal
consideration before recommending approval to the City Council. Ms. Kirsten suggested that, in place
a gas station and mini-mart, the City might consider a performing arts facility or some other use' that
more upscale. She also reminded the Commission that there is another gas station and strip mall going
on La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Rd., and asked why there needs to be another one at tt
location.
Mr. Tucker responded to previous testimony as follows: As the traffic COnSUltant Will agree, the rn;
reason that this intersection is a problem is because of all of the residential development, east of
Camino Real. The traffic report shows that in the year 2015, the La Costa/El Camino Real intersection \li
fail at the same rate'whether or not this project is built. The reason this project is not very important in tl
overall scheme of things is because it does not generate very much traffic. To the developer's knowledg
the City of Carlsbad has not approved a Neighborhood Center in the last ten years. Neighborhoc
Centers are collectors for people already in the area and do not attract many from the outside
Community Centers, on the other hand, attract many people from many areas and therefore genera
considerably more traffic.
MINUTE
PLANNING COM M lSSl ON e June 17, 1998 0 Page
In response to the testimony regarding the reasons the previous owner had for not maintaining ‘
property, it should be understood that he could have re-tenanted and the center still would have fai
because there is no anchor business there and there would be no traffic improvements.
maintenance times. Also, it is more than 800 feet from Mr. Barnes’ house to the market building bu
only 600 feet from the south boundary of the project. The loading dock will be on the north side of t.
market building with a down ramp to the dock which will further deflect sounds from the market. 7
prevailing wind is out of the west and blows due east allowing most of the noise to be carried past ’
Barnes’ home, which is located more to the south of the project. American Markets must be competit
In terms of hours of operation, there is probably some flexibility on delivery times. as well as outs
with other markets and have the flexibility to adjust their hours accordingly.
Craig Yamasaki, 4 Centerpointe, La Palma, CA., Site Acquisition Manager for Arc0 Products Compa
stated that he agrees with Commissioner Welshons that there was a time when the “all’s well” attiti
regarding sealed wall tanks was true. That time has passed and was prior to the advent of environmer
awareness. One of the ways that those $7,000,000 mistakes can be avoided, is to evaluate them with
discipline of a company that makes its living by purging something through a nine inch hole in the grou
that they can make money off of. One of the precautions ARCO takes is to provide dual walled, fibergk
tanks with leak detectors and the technology to become aware of the slightest breach in a tank wall. T
ARCO station in the City of Big Bear Lake is representative of the types of facilities that are now bel
developed. That station is less than 150 feet from Big Bear Lake. They will address the environmer
issues very thoroughly in their efforts to avoid a recurrence of history in Carlsbad.
Regarding traffic and lighting, Mr. Yamasaki stated that they will be happy to stipulate to light’
restrictions. He explained their current methods of lighting and made assurances that no more th
1/100th of a candle foot of light will be radiate outside the station’s boundaries.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Yamasaki if a fuel leak has to pass through both walls of the ta
before a breach is detected.
Mr. Yamasaki replied that the detection system is inclusive of the lines going from the tanks to the pur
areas and is a completely self-contained system.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Yamasaki how a tank can be repaired if there is a breach of the inr
wall and not the outer wall and how do they know where the breach is located.
Mr. Yamasaki replied that the tank is drained, removed, and replaced and, while they know the wall(s) hi
been breached, they do not know the exact location of the breach until the tank is removed from tl
ground. Mr. Yamasaki added that ARCO has had dual wailed facilities for eight or nine years now, and
his knowledge none of them have ever had a breach. As for the life of a dual walled, fiberglass tank, tl
manufacturer suggests that they have a 99 year life but ARCO would schedule a replacement long befo
the end of a projected life span.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Yamasaki how the leak system is calibrated.
Mr. Yamasaki replied that the system does.not require calibration and explained that the leak detectic
system is based on a vapor line detection with sensors in place throughout the tanks.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Yamasaki how often the sensors are checked to see that they a
working properly.
Mr. Yamasaki responded by stating that he does not have the answer to that question but stated that t
would be happy to research the question and follow-up with staff.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Yamasaki if ARCO could live with a condition to limit the operations I
the AM-PM, from 6:OO a.m. to 11:OO p.m.
MINUTE
PLAN N I N G C 0 M M I SS IO # Page
Mr. Yamasaki replied that, regretfully, they could not and explained that an-ARCOIAM-PM is a 24 h
facility because studies have shown that a 24 hour facitity at this site is appropriate.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Yamasaki if ARC0 has other fac es in other areas where there
restricted hours of operation.
Mr. Yamasaki replied that each and every one of the facilities that he has had any association with, in
past fourteen years, has been a 24 hour operation. ARCO’s company stores are all 24 hour facilities, z
although he is not personally aware of them, there may be franchised StQres that have \imikd operation
June 17, 1998 0
Co-applicant, Dorion Fortney, Fortney Associates, 6052 North 16th Street, Phoenix, AZ., represenl
American Stores stated that delivery hours really should not be of major concern as the delivery area I
been studied and located on the far side of the building, and along with extensive screening i
landscaping, will allow very little (if any) noise emissions. A right to enjoy a 24 hour operatior something they would very much appreciate having. They have 24 hour operations in several locatic
but only where it is appropriate, and the hours of the store are in response to the neighborhoods. If, a
the store is opened, they find that it cannot support a 24 hour operation, they will cut back the ho
accordingly. Also, even if the store is closed to customers, it continues to function round-the-clock bI
minor loading, stocking, cleaning and maintenance.
Supermarket deliveries and loading, primarily, takes place during the morning hours and generally no’
the late hours of the night. The support retail stores will have front door deliveries during the day, us
small trucks. With regard to the pharmacy hours, American Markets recognize the need for 24 hi
pharmacies and would prefer to offer them to the communities which house their stores. Mr. Fortr
concluded by stating that the Lucky Sav-on will employ local residents and will be very mindful of secur
maintenance, etc., since they are in this for the long term.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Fortney who will be responsible for the maintenance and the hours
maintenance and cleaning throughout the center.
Mr. Fortney replied that there will be General Maintenance Agreement on the shopping center and, mc
after most of the cars are gone and yet not at a time when people are sleeping. So, they walk a fine I1
and find an optimum time that ultimately satisfies the neighborhood, which is usually between 1O:OO p.
and Midnight.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Lucky could live with a condition limiting the hours for maintenance 2
sweeping.
Mr. Fortney replied that Lucky would like to be able to maintain their store in a fashion similar to their otl
stores and that he will have to find out how they do that. He added that he cannot say yes to a two hc
time window without first consulting with store representatives.
Commissioner Compas asked if they could accept a condition that simply restricts them from sweepi
and maintenance past the hour of Midnight.
Mr. Fortney replied that such a restriction would not be unreasonable.
Traffic Engineer, Matthew Manarez, 3685 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Suite 301, Lafayette, CA., stated tt
he is the responsible party for the traffic study that was prepared for this project. In addition, he fun1
stated that he has no monetary interest in this project and does not stand to gain (or lose) anythii
regardless of whether or not this project is developed. Mr. Manarez’s presentation is as follows: Based (
previous experience, this is a unique site, in that it has existing amenities that other developers fis
against developing. Those amenities include the deceleration and right turn lanes and the traffic sign2
The proposed site is infinitely better than the existing one, from a transportation and safety standpoin
Several issues are better: Le., the right turn lane at La Costa Avenue which will serve in excess of 200
300 vehicles that routinely makes right turns at that intersection at peak hours; the deceleration lane on
MINUTI
likely, Lucky will have control over that. As for the hours, they have to find a time when they can swe
PLAN N I NG COM M I SSI 0 r@ June 17, 1998 0 Pagt
Camino Real removes vehicles from the main traffic flow and allows them to safely turn into the ce
without obstructing the normal traffic flow. Another positive addition to the site will be sidewalks that
increase the pedestrian amenities and safety.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Manarez if he would locate the proposed signal at the driveway 01
Costa Avenue, even if there was no driveway and shopping center across the street.
Mr. Manarez replied that he would put that signal in that particular place because it can’t be moved cI
to El Camino Real and by moving it further east on La Costa Avenue, would actually move the signal
the existing horizontal curve rather than beyond it. That would be a more unsatisfactory situation from
standpoint of vehicles negotiating through the intersection with as much safety as possible at
signalized intersection.
Commissioner Welshons asked if Mr. Manarez knows what the situation will be with cars exiting
proposed center at that intersection, as well as cars exiting the Von’s center across the street, with SI
going east and some going west.
Mr. Manarez replied that the intersection will probably be refined as the design stage gets underw
However, he stated that he has always conceived of it as being a single phase with movements cor
out of both driveways at the same time.
In order for that to work, Commissioner Welshons asked if the Von’s side will have to be improved in o
to provide a three lane driveway identical to the one proposed.
Based on what he has seen during his visits to the site, Mr. Manarez replied that he doesn’t think that
be necessary.
Commissioner Welshons then asked for Mr. Manarez’s opinion regarding the installation of a traffic si!
at the entrance on El Camino Real.
From an overall transportation and safety standpoint, Mr. Manarez replied that he would strongly sug!
that a signal not be placed at that entrance and pointed out that with the current level of traffic usin!
Camino Real (not to mention the level of traffic that is projected to use El Camino Real in the future), tt
will be an array of capacity problems. One problem will be that there will be two very closely spa
signals that will likely have vehicle queues that will interfere with each other.
Commissioner Welshons then asked why Mr. Manarez thinks that there won’t be those kinds of queues
La Costa Avenue, backing up both on the east side of the signal as well as stacking up all the way tc
Camino Real.
The reason, Mr. Manarez replied, is because there will be much less volume on La Costa Avenue than
El Camino Real and therefore traffic volumes will be accomodated on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Manz
also stated that an in-depth study, using state-of-the-art simulation, was done and the result was that
key to making the two intersections work together, is correct timing.
Referring to her previously mentioned amateur traffic study, Commissioner Welshons stated that
counted eight cars that could stack traveling westbound on La Costa Avenue to turn southbound a
Camino Real and three cars that could stack to turn left into the proposed center, for a total of eleven c
In addition, there is a proposal to increase the left turn stacking of cars (one to be 100 feet and the ot
to be 185 feet). She continued by giving a hypothetical example of two through-lanes of traffic, going fr
50 miles per hour into a 35 miles per hour zone without any speed reduction warning, with the entranct
Von’s having no deceleration lane, creating a stacking of approximately five cars to turn left into
shopping center. If there is any spill, the spill will be in the #I (fast) lane and traffic in the through-lane
end up in the left turn queueing lane and unable to travel straight through the intersection eastbound i
traffic would be blocked completely, all the way back to El Camino Real.
MlNUl
PLAN N I NG COM MI SS IO # June 17, 1998 a Pagc
Mr. Manarez agreed with the Commissioner's reasoning, and pointed out that he took a look at that 3
issue and a 100 foot storage capacity for the left turn bay entering the project site which does pro
adequate storage for the queue lines expected at that intersection. This was based on the param6
identified in the traffic study. In other words, based on the analysis that was undertaken, there IS suffic
capacity in the left turn bay to minimize to less than 5% of the time of ever having a vehicle stick out
the travel lane.
Regarding the synchronization of the two signals, Cornmissioner Compas asked what happens to
timing when a pedestrian pushes the button to change the signal to cross the street, and that it seem
him that both the light at the proposed intersection and the one at El Camino Real would be thrown of
quite a bit.
Mr. Manarez replied that the timing would be thrown off but would recycle itself. He went on to exy
that after the button is pushed, the light will turn green for the traffic as well as the pedestrian walk light
Commissioner Compas further questioned what will happen at the El Camino Real signal.
Mr. Manarez replied that not very much would happen because there is so much green time allocate
for a cycle or two, every several cycles, really won't impact the cycles very much.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Manarez to indicate what percentage of the traffic will be entering
center at each of the three driveways.
Mr. Manarez, beginning with the northernmost driveway, indicated that about 5% (34 vehicles) of
traffic would enter at the right in-right out driveway, 20% (132 vehicles) of the vehicles will exit and at
45% (278 vehicles) will enter via the center driveway, and about 75% (450 vehicles) will exit and at
50% will enter (340 vehicles) via the signalized intersection on La Costa Avenue.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Manarez if he envisions traffic, from the south, entering the shop1
center from La Costa Avenue rather than by the two-way driveway on El Camino Real.
In a worst case scenario, Mr. Manarez indicated that 50% of the vehicles will enter from the La Cc
Avenue driveway and it has been his assumption that 75% of those leaving the center will exit via the
Costa Avenue signal and make a left turn at El Camino Real to travel south. He added that a cer
percentage of the people will make a U-turn somewhere north of the center which, in turn, will lessen
El Camino Real (due to the high.volume), that having to throw off the cycling up at the project intersec
number of left turns at one of the critical locations.
Commissioner Compas asked if Mr. Manarez has any statistics regarding the percentage of patrons wt
will come from the north, south, and east, respectively.
Commissioner Welshons, referring to the 75% exiting the La Costa Avenue intersection, suggested th;
there is no arrow, and there is no center (straight through) lane, the traffic has to wait to turn left or
straight across and will hold up the rest of the traffic trying to exit.
Mr. Manarez responded by stating that the'reason why that is not so much of a problem is the fact tl
based on the proportion of the vehicles that will turn left versus right (out of each of the driveways), t
will not conflict with one another.
Chairperson Noble stated that since staff has already stated that the signals and intersections cannot
designed until the project is further along, and suggested that the issues be addressed.
Commissioner Compas asked if there would be any advantage to putting a U-turn pocket at Costa
Mar to relieve the high volume of cars exiting onto La Costa Avenue.
MINU7
PLANNING COMMlSSlO N@ June 17, 1998 8 Page
Mr. Manarez replied that there would probably be no advantage because most people will look for the t
way to minimize their travel time and to go north to make the U-turn will not be advantageous to ther
terms of time and distance.
Commissioner Welshons suggested that people leaving the gas station and intending to travel westbo
to 1-5 might find it faster to go north to Costa Del Mar and make the U-turn, rather than havin!
maneuver their way through two signals.
Mr. Manarez stated that without having done travel time runs, he cannot give a solid responst
Commissioner Welshons scenario, except to say that he truly believes that such a maneuver w(
actually extend the travel time rather than shorten it. He also added that if a person really wanted to m
a U-turn, they would be better off going all the way to Arenal. Also the proportion of people that r
choose to do that is very low. Even if the percentage is as high as 50%, that would represent only
between La Costa Avenue and Arenal, would appear to be out of balance with the level of traffic
would use it.
Commissioner Compas asked if there will be some relief to La Costa Avenue when the extensior
Leucadia Boulevard is completed and connected to El Camino Real.
Mr. Manarez replied that he thinks it will make a significant difference, based on traffic projections wl
they have obtained from SANDAG.
Commissioner Monroy, going on the assumption that the project is approved and a signal light installed
La Costa Avenue, and assuming that the conditions at that intersection, a year or two later, are founc
be unsafe, asked if that light can be removed. He added that there is no condition in the Resolution(s) 1
would allow the City to do that and that he is of the opinion that the City should have that option.
Mr. Manarez replied that it has been his experience, in other cities, that the City does have the authorit:
remove a traffic signal almost at-will.
Mr. Wojcik stated that if that signal were to be removed, the traffic study shows that the project acces!
the La Costa Avenue intersection will fail. With the signal in, the worst level of service at buildout will
Level of Service (LOS) B.
Commissioner Monroy asked if the applicant would accept a condition allowing the City to remove
signal if it should prove to be unsafe.
Mr. Rudolf interjected and stated that the Condition of Approval states that the applicant must constr
and install this light and dedicate it to the City. Once that is done, the signal belongs to the City and
City can do anything it wishes with it, including removing it, in an effort to keep things safe. He added t
it would be unfair to condition the project, after the City finds it has made a planning mistake, to reqi
that the applicant buy back the signal.
Mr. Manarez stated that the present situation is that there is an uncontrolled driveway access on La Co:
with traffic travelling at higher than allowed speeds, and a downhill grade, and those are going to e:
whether or not there is a signal there. Acc/dents on the other hand are different. With the uncontrol
driveway, the majority of the accidents will be “broadsides” and will be the most severe. With the sigr
the majority of accidents tend to be “rear end” types of accidents and essentially are of far less severi
He added that, in his opinion, it will be safer with a traffic signal than without one.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
Referring to Resolution No. 4311, Condition No. 23, Line 6.5, Mr. Tucker asked that the words . . .
owner’s association and corresponding. . . be deleted, and explained that there is no own€
association. Also, in Line No. 8.5, delete the words . . . the Department of Real Estate and. . ., anc
Line No. 12, substitute the words . . . common area manager. . . for. . . owner’s association.
vehicles leaving the gas station and travelling north to make the U-turn. To create another left q
MINUT
PLAN N I N G C 0 M M I SS IO I$ June 17, 1998 0 Pag
Referring to Resolution No. 4315, Condition No. 3, Mr. Tucker requested that the entire conditio1
modified to read: The berm to be located on the La Costa Resort and Spa Corporation site sha
landscaped with native vegetation and irrigated, temporarily, until the native vegetation is
healthy and thriving condition.
Commission Welshons asked that language be included in that condition to include native trees
shrubs and not just hydroseeding.
Mr. Gibson stated that staff would prefer to keep the condition, as written and mostly intact, and ent
new condition to read; The flood control berm located on the La Costa Resort and Spa Corpora
site shall be landscaped with a combination of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
landscaping shall be initially irrigated by the developer and maintained in a healthy and thrir
condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris, by the property owner, thereafter.
Mr. Tucker agreed to the condition as proposed by staff.
In an effort to clarify the issue regarding run-off into the creek and lagoon, Mr. Gibson stated that the
(as it is today) has run-off that flows off that parking lot into San Marcos Creek with no urban pollu
mitigation whatsoever. The site proposal for the new shopping center is required to provide NP[
standards and on-site detention is proposed along with fossil filter pollutant mitigation. In essence, the
will be brought up to a higher standard than it has had in the past.
For clarification, Commissioner Monroy asked Mr. Rudolf to repeat his statement regarding the removi
a traffic signal.
Mr. Rudolf replied that, essentially, generally the city IS immune with regard to design of intersecti
where accidents occur. That immunity is based upon a design having been approved by or createc
sound engineering principles and approved by the City Engineer, Traffic Engineer, or City Council, ,
knowing and intelligent way. If, despite all the advise to the contrary, that removing this light is incred
stupid and is going to result in horrible accidents, the City decides to remove the light, it is his opinion <
the City would lose its immunity and be found liable. Mr. Rudolf added that he cannot imagine that
City would ever make such a decision. He cautioned that the idea of removing a signal because some
doesn't like it would be foolish. Instead, he advised that the City should have a study by people who m
a living by deciding what is safe and not safe, listen to what they say, and follow their direction unl
there is an monumental reason not to follow their advice.
Commissioner Monroy voiced his concern about the flow of traffic at the site entrance and its even
failure. Also, if this second light is a variance and a study is made and it says it is alright to remov'
Commission Monroy asked if the light can then be removed without liability.
Commissioner Compas stated that the current state of the site is deplorable and should be redevelop(
He added that the proposal may not be one that he would prefer, but it is O.K. He further stated
concern regarding traffic flow and that he is relying on the information given by the Traffic Enginer
conditions along with the condition restricting outdoor cleaning and maintenance to the hours betwc
600 a.m. and Midnight.
Commissioner Welshons stated that she too is worried about the traffic. However, she is in agreerr
with Commission Compas that the site needs to be redeveloped, and the proposed project is i
attractive and would be a definite improvement. Commissioner Welshons continued by stating that :
believes it would be a major mistake to put a signal at the La Costa Avenue driveway to the site and wo
prefer a full intersection, with signal, on El Camino Real at the driveway on the south side of the (
station. She also stated that she would prefer both driveways on La Costa Avenue to be right-in and ric
out only with a median in the center of the street. Commissioner Welshons also voiced her disagreem
with Mr. Manarez, regarding the left turn pocket at Costa Del Mar, and stated that she feels it would b
MINUT
Commissioner Cornpas stated that he will support the project, with the recommended changes to
PLAN N I N G COMMISSION e June 17,1998 0 Page
good compromise solution for westbound traffic leaving the gas station and there is nexus for it. She i
disagreed with the proposed internally illuminated signage and pointed out that people find their v around with wooden signs such as those at the Von’s Plaza. Regarding the gas station. she feels that ( is really not needed and that it‘s proposed location is a risk for the San Marcos Creek. She also sta
that there should be a cap on the hours of operation. Commissioner Welshons also stated that she dl
not feel that another supermarket is needed and suggested that it would be nice to have a specialty st1
such as a Draegers or Andronicos from the San Francisco Bay Area. Commissioner Welshons a
voiced her disagreement with an earlier statement that, “this is an exercise in futility”. and stated that
Commission (at this 11th hour) can make changes. Also, she continued, if the Commission can’t m:
changes to make things better, then perhaps they should vote by telephone. Commissioner Welshc
suggested that the change in the name of the School District be made to Resolution No. 431 1, Finding I
10(b). Commissioner Welshons also made the following suggestions; I) The buildings facing the west 2
south (on El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, respectively) need more enhancements, since it i:
scenic corridor, and suggested some type of windows rather than blank walls with arches; 2) Tt
circulation lane, directly in front of building C, should not have parking on the north side of that lane. i
should be a non-loaded driveway so as to ease the congestion with vehicles exiting the site.
Commissioner Monroy voiced his concern with the traffic signal and the traffic and without studies a
reports to review, he stated that he cannot support the project.
Commissioner Savary stated her support for the project. She also stated that she thinks there proba
Commissioner Heineman stated that this project is a reasonable solution to a very tough site and desr
the fears of some of the other Commissioners, he feels this is probably the best traffic solution availat
and will support the project.
Chairperson Noble, for the record, stated that he did not say that the Commission cannot make change
What he did say was, the Commission cannot diagram a traffic signal and turning lanes because tho
issues do not come before the Cornmission. He went on to state that everything that was talked about
a recent meeting with Mr. Tucker, has been stated at this meeting. Chairperson Noble further stated tt
he feels this proposed project is a good one and regardless of the traffic fears, feels that it definitely will
an improvement over what is currently on the site. He suggested, however, that a sign be erected on
Costa Avenue, some distance from the driveway entrance to the center, warning of a reduction in ti
speed limit and a traffic signal ahead. Chairperson Noble also stated his support for the project.
will be a traffic problem but feels certain that the City should begin now, to mitigate for it.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Plannir
Commission Resolutions No. 4308, 4309, and 431 0, recommending approval
Program, General Plan Amendment GPA 97-02, and Zone Change ZC 97-C
and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 431 1, 4312, 4313, 4314, 431
and 4316, approving the Tentative Tract Map CT 97-09, Non-Residential Plannc
Development Permit PUD 97-1 3, Site Development Plan SDP 97-07, Condition
Use Permit CUP 97-03, Special Use Permit SUP 97-02, and Special Use Pern
SUP 97-03, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions containc
therein, including the proposed changes to Condition No. 23 in Resolution N
4311, Finding No. 10(b) in Resolution No. 4311, and Paragraph 3 in Resolutic
No. 4315, and the addition of a condition to specify that cleaning will not be dor
between the hours of Midnight and 6:OO a.m.
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti1
MINUTE
PLANNING COMMlSSlO hu June I?, 1998 e Page
.. MOTIONS FOR AMENDMENTS:
Amendment #1:
ACTION: Commissioner Welshons moved for an amendment to cap the hours of opera
of the gas station to the hours between 6:OO a.m. and 11:OO p.m.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
A mend men t #2:
ACTION: Commissioner Welshons moved for an amendment to require the east/w
circulation aisle, in front of Building C, be a no-load aisle.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Amendment #3:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, for an amendmeni
require that the backs of the buildings that face El Camino Real (a SCE
corridor) be further visually enhanced to the Planning Director's discretion.
Mr. Rudolf advised that the applicant should be allowed to respond to the motion, since the propos
enhancements have not been discussed prior to this motion.
Mr. Tucker stated that they have articulated the back sides of those buildings quite a bit more than wha
shown in the plans. He asked that the Commissioners keep in mind that it is the back of the building.
added that they are putting in a 30 foot buffer that is part of the El Camino Real Scenic Corric
requirement and the buffer is three feet high and there will be vegetation and trees on top of the buffc
Because of the site constraints, and the nature of the project, Mr. Tucker stated that they would
opposed to any further enhancements to the buildings in the form of glazing but they may be willing to Ic
at the possibility of added a little more landscaping-. He added that he is not sure what more can be dol
regarding articulation, that would make any sense.
Commissioner Welshons stated that the back of the Von's store, on El Camino Real, looks like a wal
prison and she does not want the buildings in this project to look like another walled community.
Mr. Tucker replied that he feels that the landscaping will certainly soften the appearance of those wall
He also asked the Commission to remember that they don't want the back sides of those buildings to la
like store fronts, as that will only serve to confuse the public.
Commissioner Welshons agreed that her suggestion for enhancements is quite vague, but, she trusts t
Planning Department to make the proper decisions. She also stated that it doesn't matter if t
enhancements are accomplished by color, landscaping, etc.
With the understanding that they will not have to make major changes or major enhancements, Mr. Tucl
agreed to Commissioner Welshons amendment.
Mr. Yamasaki, also stated that because the gas station and mini-mart will be facing El Camino Real, I
would be willing to accept the same amendment, although he is not sure what can or will be done but v
stipulate to 24" box trees along El Camino Real.
Chairperson Noble re-opened Public Testimony. Seeing no one wishing to testify, Chairperson Not
closed Public Testimony.
MINUTI
PLANNING COMMlSSl a . June 17, 1998 0 Pa:
VOTE: 6-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons. and Compas
Amendment ##4:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons for an amendment to require that the bacr
the buildings that face La Costa Avenue be further visually enhanced to
Planning Director’s discretion.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Vote on Main Motion:
VOTE: 4-2
AYES:
NOES: Monroy, Welshons
ABSTAIN : None
Noble, Heineman, Savary, and Cornpas
Chairperson Noble announced that the Commission’s action on this item is not final and will be forwai
to the City Council for its consideration.
0 0
(Form A)
-
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached arc the materials necessary for you to notice @
GPA 97-O2/ZC 97-02 - Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center %
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of First AvaLlable H .
Thank you.
July 9, 1998 - Assistant City Man-- 8 Date
-
/
0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GPA 97-021ZC 97-02 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a publi
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:O p.m., on Tuesday, August 4, 1998, to consider approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration an
Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, t
allow for an approximately 86,320 square foot neighborhood commercial shopping center o
property generally located at the northeast comer of El Camino Real and La Costa Avent
within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 and outside of the City’s Coastal Zone, and mol
particularly described as:
Those portions of Lots 9, 14 and 15 in Section 35, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to CT 94-09, Exhibit “A”,
dated June 17,1998, on file in the Planning Department.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers wil
any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be describc
and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decisio:
Copies of the staff report will be available on or after Thursday, July 3 1, 1998.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jeff Gibson, in the Plannir
Department, at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change in court, you may be limited
raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in th
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, 1
prior to, the public hearing. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Gener
Plan Amendment and Zone Change, if approved, is established by state law andor city ordinanc
and is very short.
APPLICANT: American Stores Properties, In@.
PUBLISH:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
July 24,1998 - North County Times
0 0
LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA
@
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON
SHOPPING CENTER
GPA 97-02lZC 97-02
ENCINITAS UNION S( SD COUNTY PLANNING CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE STE B 101 SO SANTA FE RI
5201 RUFFIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92( CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
0 0
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA WATER DIST CITY OF ENCINITAS
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 921
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG
STE 50 STE B STE 800
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92
I. P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC,
URBAN STUDIES
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO STATE ul SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SAN DIEGO CA 92.
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
(ABOVE ADDRESS -
Council Notices 0.
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY MUNICIPAL WATER D
DEPT SERVICES
PROJECT PLANNER
JEFF GIBSON
e 0
FOR K TOGETHER THEODORE C & HELEN EDER J BYRNE & ASSOCIJ
PO BOX 510466 875 COMSTOCK AVE 8B 3767 FOREST LN 11
SAINT LOUIS M 63151-0466 LOS ANGELES C 90024-7508 DALLAS TX 75244-
I
STUART R AMOS ROSE M OSHAUGHNESSY MARLENE PERRY
2003 COSTA DEL MAR RD 6 PO BOX 671 2003 COSTA DEL M1 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6803 MENLO PARK CA 94026-0671 CARLSBAD CA 920(
SHELDON E STUNKEL MIKE & SHIRLEY KOJAIAN ETHEL T TIMAN
4601 W CHARLESTON BLVD 3251 W SHORE DR 5601 N HACIENDA I LAS VEGAS NV 89102-1548 ORCHARD LAKE 48324-2370 TUCSON AZ 85718-
DEBELLIS RAY BAUMRIND SAMUEL H & EILEEI’
44 QUAIL HOLLOW DR 1000 QUAYSIDE TER 1211 2003 COSTA DEL MZ HENDERSON Nv 89014-2143 MIAMI FL 33138-2218 CARLSBAD CA 920(
JOSEPH LOIS G DOROTHY M FISHBEIN JAMES L & MARY LI
PO BOX 425 10445 WILSHIRE BLVD 602 7214 E CAMINO VAI JACKSON MS 39205-0425 LOS ANGELES C 90024-4660 TUCSON AZ 85715-
VANTON RITA T KLEINEF3” HERBERT & RITA RI 70570 BOOTHILL RD 242 N LAYTON DR 100 DOUGLAS RD RANCHO MIRAGE 92270-3444 LOS ANGELES C 90049-2021 FAR HILLS NJ 075
HERBERT & RIT HAROLD R STERN JOANNE 2003 COSTA GAETA DEL MAR RD 6 3 100 DOUG S NJ 07931-2512 CARLSBAD 7682 EL CAMINO CA 920( RI
HORWIN BEVERLY 121 S BEVERLY 1983 HILLS DR 90212-3002 CAR 7682 I,””-/ EL NO 92009-7904 REAL 108 ;/ HILLS 90:
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6814
HAROLD R STE HORWIN 1993
HAROLD R ST ELKINS SANDRA R STANLEY J & RITA 7682 EL IN0 REAL 108 2470 S YOSEMITE DR 280 EUCALYPTUS AT AD CA 92009-7904 PALM SPRINGS 92264-9475 BURLINGAME CA 94(
ANGEL0 J KOKAS PAUL A DOBLE JACK & LYNNE SILT
PO BOX 1098 11111 BISCAYNE B1
J
2003 COSTA DEL MAR RD 6
CARLSBAD CA 92009-6815 DANVILLE CA 94526-1098 MIAMI FL 33181-:
0 e
CONTINUING LIF
FUL / 800 MORN1
CONTINUING LIFE COMMUNI BARRATT AMERICAN INC
800 MDRNINGi3IDE DR 2035 CORTE DEL NOGAL 16
FULLERTON CA 92835-3508 CARLSBAD CA 92009-1444
LA COSTA HOT
2100 cos CAR / CA 920(
CONTINUING LIF LA COSTA HOT SPA CO
800 MOR IDE DR 2100 COS DEL MAR RD mm ON CA 92835-3508 C CA 92009-6823
ROBERT L CIS AL & CHRIS CRAIG PO BOX PO BOX 1332 HO OOD CA 90078-2262 HOLLYWOOD CA 90(
VARIABLE ANNUITY
2929 ALLEN PKY FI
c ROBERT L CISSNA PO BOX 2262 HOLLYWOOD CA 90078-2262
KARRI PO BOX GROGGINS 37000
KARRI p; GROGGI
SAN FRANCISCO 94137-0001 SAN CISCO 94137-0001 HOUSTON TX 77015
LA COSTA HOTE
2100 cos
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3311 CAR CA 920C
600 W BROADWAY 2600 F VARIABLE LA COSTA SHOPPING CENTE
EDWARD A & A MURPHY CHALFIN MYRON I CHARLES P MEADE
2003 COSTA DEL MAR RD 6 PO BOX 7103 2550 PACIFIC COA: CARLSBAD CA 92009-6802 RANCHO SANTA 92067-7103 TORRANCE CA 905(
STEVE GIKAS EMANClEL CRYSTAL JERELL INC
23163 JACK TONE RD PO BOX 23309 1365 REGAL ROW RIPON CA 95366-9638 JACKSON MS 39225-3309 DALLAS TX 75247-
EMANUEL CRYST RECTOR MARY A IRVING & HANNA HP PO BOX 2 2003 COSTA DEL MAR RD 6 211 S SPALDING DE JAC n CARLSBAD CA 92009-6802 BEVERLY HILLS 902
VANTON CHARLES A NESTOR JOSEPH FETTER
70570 BO 2003 COSTA DEL MAR RD 6 20245 W 12 MILE F
RANC a IRAGE 92270-3444 CARLSBAD CA 92009-6802 SOUTHFIELD MI 48C
FOR K TOG MARYA" K SHANNOF
MARYA" 2003 COSTA K SHANNON DEL MAR RD 6 2 2003 COSTA DEL MF CARLSBAD CA 92009-6803 LOUIS M 63151-0466 CARLSBAD CA 920C
0 0
C SUDLER UASHEM NARAGHI EVELYN T PETERS 81 LOWERY LN PO BOX 7 421 BIRCHWOOD RD MENDHAM NJ 07945-3404 ESCALON CA 95320-0007 HINSDALE IL 605
LA COSTA HOTEL & SPA CO MARK V ANDREWS RICHARD & KARIN
2100 COSTA DEL MAR RD 2572 BASIL LN 7623 RUSTICO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009-6823 LOS ANGELES C 90077-2004 CARLSBAD CA 920
I
KENNETH G KADANSKY KENNETH G JOSEPH C & THERE 7720 EL CAMINO REAL C IN0 REAL C 4338 ALTURA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009-8509 CA 92009-8509 ALBUQUERQUE N 87
MICHAEL A NATOLA SHAMSEDIN TABATABAI SHAPIRO 3116 VERDE AVE 3326 CAB0 WAY 2012 SUBIDA TER CARLSBAD CA 92009-7530 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7851 CARLSBAD CA 920
MARLIN E & SHARON GHER MASSIH AHRANJANI ROGER M VANDERHO
2014 SUBIDA TER 2016 SUBIDA TER 2008 SALIENTE WA CARLSBAD CA 92009-7924 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7924 CARLSBAD CA 920
ROBERT W RICHARD BROWN FREDERICK H WALTER J DZANDZA 2006 SALIENTE WAY 2004 SALIENTE WAY 2002 SALIENTE WA CARLSBAD CA 92009-7920 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7920 CARLSBAD CA 920
RUTH SOLOW MARIE KERSTEN
2563 NAVARRA DR 7787 CAMINITO MONA REBECCA W REYNOLDS
7627 RUSTICO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 9200 CARLSBAD CA 92009-7919
*** 79 Printed *** MR KAREEM ALI DORIAN F FORTNEY P
ENTITLEMENT COORDINATOR FORTNEY ASSOCIATES
6565 KNOTT AVE PHOENIX AZ 8501E
BUENA PARK CA 90620
AMERICAN STORES PROP INC 6052 N 16th ST
TIM JOCHEM MIKE BARDIN LANCE CARNELL LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DIST LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DIST 2311 MARC!& PLACE
1960 LA COSTA AVE 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 920C
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ELLEN AMANO ARLENE RIANDA 7718 PLACID0 DR 1931 ESTRELLA DEMAR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, thai
Planning Commission of the City of Cartsbad will hold a public hearing at the Coi
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m.
Wednesday, June 17, 1998, to consider a request for a Mitigated Negative Declarz
located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue within L
particularly described as:
Facilities Management Zone 6 and outside the City’s Coastal Zone and n
Those portions of Lots 9,14, and 15 in Section 35, Township 12
South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to CT 97-09, Exhibit “A”, dated June 17, 1998, on file in the
Planning Department.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after June 11, 15
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (7
438-1 161, extension 4455.
The time
g if approvec
established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, fl w in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues yo1
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in wrii
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:
.. Change,
.. P? I rn v S r,
GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/mv- 7-
-3
LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER CASE NAME:
PUBLISH: JUNE4, 1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carisbad, CA 92009-1 576 0 (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-OE
PERMIT
Site Development Plan
Conditional Use Permit
Special Use Permit
Special Use Permit
Tract Map
Planned Development Permit
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PLANNING CITY
COMMISSION COUNCIL
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
0 0
REVIEW OF ZONE CHANGE AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. Consistency with the General Plan
2. Compatibility with surrounding existing an(
future land uses
3. Impact on public facilities and services
4. Impact on general public welfare and safety
.. 0 0
,
CONDITIONS ON ZONE CHANGE OR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Not a common practice
Should not be in direct conflict with a permit or
permit condition approved by the Planninj
Commission for which the Commission had fina
approval authority and the approval or condition wa
not appealed
Would more appropriately be applied to the Zon
Change rather than the General Plan Amendment
Would be better if the applicant voluntarily accepted o
agreed to the condition
Within the above parameters, the City Council doe
have authority to apply additional project conditions a
part of its consideration of a Zone Change and Gener;
Amendment
. lW
w
-
Carib-
wy plead $’
mati-
m and
IVesti-
solves my in bough 1 face m the :nuing
Ver for se in-
ustice
tjack line’s 1 &d Wnsi-
sues
mage lbje & eim atthe ly and
image boost
)f the ailers have
IS and hdto
atmo-
mP il
tef3 bY We based
n any
d 5.2
justed Corn- day. nce it 63
IT’S A BEGINNIN
Arc0 AM/PM:
Retail project in
North Long Beach
to combine police
and mini-mart.
By Natalie Shore
Staff writer
Gas, snacks and safety - it’s a
unique combination of a new gas station and a police storefront that is about to be built at the northwest corner of Long Beach Boulevard and Victoria Street.
But to the people of North Long Beach, the project repre- sents a whole lot more. “You’ll
see a business where there was blight,” said resident Arthur
Jarrett, a member of the Coo-
sociation. “It’s a start.”
The new gas station, an Arc0
*/PM franchisef is the first Officials conduct a ceremonial groundbreaking Tuesday for a new Arc0 AM/ new retai1 construction project that will include a police storefront at the corner of Victoria Street and Long Bei in North Long Beach in recent in North Long Beach, David Wate memory. It will fill a key corner north of where the San Diego (405) Freeway crosses Long will improve this area,“ said 9th the gas statiodpolice storefront Police Lt. Phil
Beach Boulevard md a strip of District city Councilman Jerry wifi be completed within 90 days location increase
land that has been vacant for Schultz. “Ws the linchpin in this after construction begins. ence in the arc
Although the project sits with- farthest away frc nearly a decade. area for redevelopment.”
The project is also the first of Due to begin actual Con&uc- in city Redevelopment Agency quarters, Schult
its kind in Long Beach in that it tion in the next two weeks, the territory, no public funds were until now, tht will have a small police station project represents a $2.5 million used or special variances re- attached to it. Police will OCCUPY investment in North Long quested to lure the Arc0 AM/PM. substation was i
anofficeareaatthenorthendof Beach, said franchise owner C. The police station was added at De1 Am an’
the structure where they can fhmuel Bhk The amount in- after neighborhood groups bodevards. write repod, connect with dudes the Price of the hd and voiced concerns that the AhWM In addition to i
headquarters via computer and iy res.urant, ne monitor the gas station and the equipment, he Sad id& and busink surrounding neighborhood. to convince an Ir
second such AMPM with a though the 32,000-square-foot JamesHankla,whoattendedthe to the area, sai
police component in the Los project will occupy only one acre. gfoundbreaking. Beach resident 1 Angeleshng Beach area. The founder of Bikes
first one is located in Gardena. gram that teach
A ceremonial groundbreaking repair, care for I
held Tuesday drew more than 50 cles. “Our wholc
people to the site. “The project talking about it
NORTH LONG BEACH -
lidge Triangle Neighborhood As-
the cost of Police FOmPuters and
Blick added that he had to buy
planned to carry wine and beer.
‘“his is another outstanding
example ofthe city’s partnership
The new gas station is the the entire three-acre site, even with ha,’’ said City Manager
He’s looking to lease or sell the remainder of the site to another business~ preferably a restau-
rant? he said-
If all goes according to plan,
&though the new poiice store-
front wiu not be staffed 24 hours a day, police on all shifts will use the storefront to conduct regular police business, said Long Beach
JERRY L. SHULTZ
COUNCILMAN NINTH DIS
e e
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT OFFICE
NORTH LONG BEACH FAClLlTlE
HOUGHTON PARK
6335 MYRTLE AVENUI
LONG BEACH, CA 908(
CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
333 WEST OCEAN BOULEVARD
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
562-570-4524 562-570-61 37
July 29, 1998
The Honorable Bud Lewis
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
% City Manager Ray Patchett
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Recently, we celebrated the ground breaking for a new ARCO AM/PM in North Long Beach. 1
Councilmanic District, it will serve a more positive purpose as well.
When ARCO came to me with their proposal, I suggested that they include a portion of the stor
for use by the Long Beach Police Department They agreed and as a result, their new store will
have facilities for the police to stop in and write reports, make phone calls and most important, 1
an added police presence in the neighborhood.
The project was also-presented to the Executive Committee of the North Long Beach
Neighborhood Association who voted to support the project.
As I stated before, I am excited about this project and would invite you, should you have any
questions, to contact my office at 562-570-6137 I will be most happy to speak with you.
- am excited about this project because it will not only place a much needed retail business in my
Councilman, 9th District
JS:lam
cc Sam Blick, 21 st Century Oil
rnlp. VI Iu;c)I 4?03br w C312-,-'.J w- e- . ~ __ . . 1_ . LYI..--' --. .. _I __ -~
,a
JERRV L. SHULTZ
DISlWGT OFFICE:
HOUGHTON PARK 6335 M-€ AVENUE LQNG BEACH. CA 0O6O5
COUNCILMAN NINTH oisruic OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
333 WG6T OOCAN BOULE\IARD
NORFH LONG BEPCY FAClLInES CE
LOW BEACH, CALIFORNIA sa802
%iM7&6137 562.670-4924
July 29, 1998
The Honorable Bud Lewis
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
% City Manager Ray Patchetr
12QO Cadsbibad Village Drive Cartsbad, California 92008
AGENDA OTEM ti do
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Recently, we cekbrated the ground breaking for a new ARCO AWM in North Long Beach. T - am excited about this project because ir wit1 not only place a much needed retail business in my
Councilmanic District, it will $ewe a more positive purpose as well.
Whcn ARCO came to me with their proposal, I suggested that they include a portion of the store
fur use by the Long Beach Policc Department. They asreed and as a resuft, their new store will
haw fadities for the police 10 stop in and write reports, make phone calls and uiost important, be
an added potice presence in the neighborhood.
The project was also'presented to the Executive Committee of the North Long Beach
Neighhorhood Association who voted to supporc rhe project,
As 1 stated before, 1 atn excited about this projwt and wnuld inviie you, should you have any
7. 1 will be must happy to speak with you.
Cauncilman, 9th District
JS:lam
CC: Sam Blick, 2 I st Century Oil -
L
FAG1 0 P, i, .z
I.# I 6. I "V
*> .
VG'N%U -. QEAn. A
JAMS.?; W CnAClN. b%,v-cpw 41 EEFtUPP3 ~ivo~ma
W~WN z, wwcrcao. h.Y~~ *e<
WEN OWPI. Ccunchr
9164 ltbsr *W#C97*rC* , $&X,ZU. U(ISlJrhU 90F4.'-37?P I' IiqQ, i!7.!
MAY v. rtm. csm LOlr@hX'O F. YWA**A. CrW n*-- UnOHUL Q. uh)lsDeLL. w-wr AugU613.1Y98
~48A E. KRlrYfTZ. C+Amnr
City of Carlibad
1200 Catfhd Vitlage Drivt
CaWrd, CA 9ZMP
subjwt; ARCO -4.Y-PM in &e City of Qsrdcra
bcndcmrn;
Mr. Craig Ymssnki of ARCO Producb Ccripany I1ps uskd mt to vile a lcmt rcjiardir.g our
everimice with he ARCO A3A-P.M minizitin ditd ARCO Roducx Compaiy 51 our commuaitv
As the CommLvliry Dcx+clopmrnt Dimto: for rhe City of Oerdcna. it was rr.y 2vnnsib::iv b
~vcf~ee ?he tnniug entidsrnrnt proocss, issue pcmlts far rht devc,lc;pmn; znd rnwiTor for
complianoc with the couditiatu of appwal.
The iccat~on wlecrcd prc?antn2 soal*cral cbrlllyngcrl hiom a planning standpoirA The sire is located
sdjwmt to a Tillows Wsrlanb kcat4 in ow city, whkk is an iwnant and scnsi;ive hsbirar erca id
OUT cvmmmity. Thntfcre, in ddirbn IW rht: zona! zomwity concemp about rhc locarion of this
~c of fic!Ny with re$atd P pbtmtbl fot unme md G&:K 'SSG~S .ccl.s~n& TO B 24 how opemion!
thcrc me conecms &aut othet isjucs such as parmC0l ad7erst hpscts from noise, light and the
~mscnce of pesoline relsted produrns on the willows habta!.
Mr. Y8rnas;lk acd hrs staff wnt U pt d'fmts to maXc sure tlial thGsc isguts were zddrcsocd. .Mt
\"88nBSdCi pcrsdly worked with %e com~ii!ty lo uderstarrd and try to a.ddh6s tkjT conr;CmnB 31
The rima the CntitlCmC~tS were bin3 emsided They d&mned the p&q lot lighting to avoid an;)
OE S*C kizk unci gl8rS. Th=y rnatsllcd a we of rhe a:! *par movey systeih and gasoimlr tank
~)%IwTI. The combination of lhtir 4~curity camera syst-. land opmhonal ?oiicitr h.s been qutc
:Bcctf~e in datemng otino and 7rcsenrmg B :mk.ivr image. To thrr who dr.vc! by l>r use tht
facihW, i? prcs@nt? thz image'of a c1can am3 de f3C&\v. They a!?;L- dcvcl~pcb a police "drop-in WWkJrOaon" Equipped 4% tdepnanes, c-'ornp;lrm and &K equipment -m? video tape criruc au:y.;is
equipment for ue by bed b* nzforemtn! cffi:m. \rh!c% zt Is my uridelxtxlding ~ZE been vq helpful to our safety pcnxmnel.
Oar avetpII experience wth Mr. Yarnrs2l;i and ARCO Prodrlclr Company hss been qwe posltiLr. Sin* tht tiare. Mr. Yamssaki and ARC0 ka-c wnriniizd to bc TSpQliSiW to this deprrmcnt and
have mmnmined %ha sire con$izfQIi wirh Their commstmed and rbe coditi?,ns impost?. ~n the 5itc.
ney arc a.pp~o8chirrg ~hs 3'' ycar Since opec'lnp -ire faciiiv artk we 'nave hcd r.0 prob!cms or
GVmpbiaIS. None Of the C@RCml exprehftd nava =om to p-6.
'
("v-4
W.MWM+~~LO):~.C. sox wma wciNA. acuDavi4 ruar bm S~Z +ala I\:.P.O*
.I.*- --
~ -- - -- FAG
‘ . % ’ JJL-31-98 FRI 12133 ENFI ?OTO!:CE DEFT FWI NCI. 31R96B ?. G“t
The Htkorabls Mayor and city Council Membsrs
July 29, 1998
Page 2 ....
The W-PM Mini Markel with he palm Ydt6pin’’ stahon, hnn beeh a wolcornc addhon
to Our communily. and i8 a good example Of ARCO’P co?lmi!rnor?t Io prGutdo bblUtions to maintaln Wety and deter vimne,
The AM-PM Mini Market hua been operationai for more than B year, and there &as
been ne virne or loitering repfled at this feellity. The presem of law enforcerncnt officscs and ARCO’s wime defenent program Mtto its’ extensiue interior ant! exierior
video Ww.d!anCS and flct policy of ‘nQ leitering’’ end ’ne selling of dcohol and tobeam pmduds to minod. has been very affective. ARCO’s operation standxd is of
the hlghest order and rmalns a hjghfy regarded msatrcc? in the Cardma Fdca DapaYtment end our community.
PlMae WNWt rrl8 difeCtlY 8t (310) 217-9832. if you wish further inferm3tiun in triis ‘BgMd.
Qm,
QJ@4$5z-* BevldM. organ
1718 WEST t62ND STREET ! GARDENA. CALIFBRNBA 90247-3732 1 (310) 2
,9 * ‘&MA. mwn July 29, 1998
REF: 98-181 rfA~tittg &&.yty Cyef oPBoi
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
The City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARCO AM-PM Mini Market, Artesia BoulevardNermdnt%venue, Garden& CA
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Craig Yamasaki, ARCO Site Acquisition Manager, has asked to me to recount 01
experiences with the ARCO AM-PM Mini Market in the City of Gardena. ARCO fir!
approached us more than three years ago with their development proposal. Th
proposed ARCO site at Artesia Boulevard and Vermont Avenue is the gateway to 01
city and is in close proximity to several densely populated residential neighborhood!
The area residents, along with Gardena’s community planning staff, expressed growin
concerns of safety, crime, and loitering problems.
Mr. Yamasaki and ARCO were very responsive and worked with residents, sta
members, and members from our department in addressing these concerns. ARC1
devised a unique solution to these issues of potential loitering and the attraction of
“bad element” to the area.
ARCO created their first police “drop-in” station. A small office was added to the Ah
PFvl Mini rvlarket with SI private entrance fmn the exterior and interior access throuy
the manager’s office. Two-way-mirrored windows overlooking the entrance and th
pump islands were installed for increased visibility. Workspaces were equipped with
telephone, a computer/printer, and multiplexing video analysis equipment that allou
officers to view and analyze crime scene videotapes and print freeze-frame picture
from the crime scene videotape for fast reproduction and distribution. Multiplexin
equipment of this type is very expensive and had not been within our budget.
This drop-in station is not a police substation, but the workspace, along with the offic
equipment and video tape analysis equipment has been very useful to the Garden
Police Department, and is a convenient place to file reports and conduct polic
business for officers in the field. This facility is also frequented by officers from the LC
Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Department.
Please address all communications to the Chief of Police.
.L 0 0
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
July 29, 1998
Page 2
The AM-PM Mini Market with the police “drop-in” station, has been a welcome additio
to our Community, and is a good example of ARCO’s commitment to provide solutiar to maintain safety and deter crime.
The AM-PM Mini Market has been operational for more than a year, and there ha
been no crime or loitering reported at this facility. The presence of law enforcemer officers and ARCG’s crime deterrent program with its’ ex2ensive interior and exteric
video surveillance and strict policy of “no loitering” and “no selling of alcohol an
tobacco products to minors”, has been very effective. ARCO’s operation standard is (
the highest order and remains a highly regarded resource to the Gardena Polic
Department and our community.
Please contact me directly at (310) 217-9602, if you wish further information in thi
regard.
S i nce rely,
OJ&-&-- David M. Morgan
-
Office (626) 41
Fax (626) 4d
Lead I
Kathe
Isek Calendal Linda T
Law Offices of NED GOOD
Ned Good 8 Mark West Frederic Grannis = Mary Kim
SENT BY FAX (760) 7204461 TIME SENT~;/S~ BY f?~ PAGE
July 31, 1998 AGENDAITEM# 20
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis c: Mayor
Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
1200 Carisbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re:
Dear Mayor Lewis:
1 have been a part time resident of your City for several years. I am a home owner at
7177 Aviara Point Drive in Carlsbad.
Carlsbad is a wonderful City. Let's keep it that way. The proposed development will
depreciate the area rather than enhance it. Be patient. There are better uses for the
property than another gas station, market, and drug store. God isn't making any more
land. Let's not waste it. The local environment is worth preserving.
Please vote no - not another gas station, not another market, not another drug store a
this contemplated location.
Thanks.
Best regards.
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Development at El Camino Raal and La Costa Ave.
cc: Mr. Andrew Gerhard Sent by Fax (760) 436-7945
5C\Good\Residence\Carlsbad\Fax\Mayor
70 South Lake Aienue 9 Suite 600 n Pasadena, CA 91 101 -2601
E- Mai I: nedgood I aw@aol . co rn
TOTf
-
AGENDA ITEM #
cx Mayor a%y Council city Rlanaer
city Goem City Attorney July 27, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (760) 720-9461
AND CERTl FI ED MA1 L/RETU RN RECEl PT REQUESTED
The kjOGGi.Zbk ClZUds A. “!%dl1 kvVk
Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE;
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I have been a resident of Rancho La Costa for twenty-five years and have been
operating my business in the area for the same amount of time, so therefore, I have
considerable interest in the development of the areas surrounding my home. In the
past, I have been notified by mail regarding the development of other areas in the
vicinity. However, I have recently been informed, not by the City of Carlsbad, of a
city council meeting on August 4th in which the use of the land where La Costa Plaz
is currently situated will be discussed.
I was greatly disturbed as to why I, or any of my neighbors, was not notified by mail
of this meeting? Why were we not informed of the meeting before the Planning
Commission regarding this property which I understand has already taken place? Is
the City trying to slip something through?
What I had heard was that another market, drug store and gas station are being
contemplated. I find that incredible considering the number of markets in the
immediate area. It is also surprising to have a gas station in such an environmental’
sensitive area as the lagoon and San Marcos Creek. In my opinion, the current
commercial code needs re-evaluation, if this sort of development is allowed.
Development at El Camino Real and La Costa Ave.
Plaza de La Costa Real 3 i740 El Czmino Real, Suite K 0 Xancho La Cwta, CA 92009
(760) 43@181 0 (760) 436-7943 (facsimile) 0 iai ‘V‘egas (702) 898-4595 LJ
. 0 0
The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis
July 27, 1998
Page 2
As a taxpayer and long-time resident of Carlsbad, I hope you will give this matter
extensive consideration, Postponement of discussion at this time would be highly
advisable until proper notification of residents in the area to this objectionable
development.
Very truly yours,
AHG:ig
C: Jeff Goodsen
Carlsbad Planning Department
Total Pages (2)
k.,
e
ELAINE CRYSTAL
0
2003 Costa Del Mar
Chateau 657
Carlsbad CA 9200
AGENDA !$EM # 1-0743 Fax: (760) 931-9073 ., July 27, 1998 c: M;ayo~
Mayor Claude A. “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am the owner of two chateaus in La Costa immediately adjacent to the property that is up fc
consideration by you on August 4‘h at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Camino Real. I was out of tk
state at the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission in June and wish to make known rr
thoughts on the proposed development at this time.
My husband and I have a permanent home in Jackson, Mississippi; but we have made a substanti
investment in the condominiums we own at La Costa and anticipate spending a majority of our time he1
as he retires. I have been on the Planning Board in Jackson and served as its Chairman for seven yea
so I appreciate the importance of your decisions in the area of planning and zoning as it regards ci
development.
I have visited the Planning Department of the City and am familiar with the proposed development. In n
opinion the development does not enhance the City of Carlsbad nor is it needed in that particular locatio
There is a shopping center directly south across the street on Camino Real that badly needs rehabilitatic
and could be used for similar purposes. At the same time, there is crying need for an upscale shoppir
area in that part of Carlsbad.
With the assets of La Costa and the Four Seasons Hotel and the many tourists that they attract, as wc
as the residential development taking place, the opportunities and need for such a development
obvious. At the present time, shopping excursions to Del Mar, La Jolla and downtown San Diego tal
destinations by Carlsbad residents seeking fine shopping and dining opportunities while tax dollars a
lost in Carlsbad. If you wish to insure the continued success of The Four Seasons and La Costa at
encourage other fine developments, then it is important to take these factors into your consideration.
I appreciate the constraints of the property but know that these can be largely overcome to allow f
additional small scale retail and restaurant development in the only area that is within walking distance
major tourist attractions. “Big box” retail and certainly gas station development are not appropriate for tt
area and certainly already available in Carlsbad and Encinitas at this time. Your commercial codes ne(
to be expanded to insure quality development, in my opinion.
If there is additional opportunity to meet with you or hear your deliberations on this matter, I can
reached at 931-0743 for most of August or can be located at 601-969-6910, ext. 225.
Thank you for your considerations of this important matter for the future of Carlsbad.
Sinc ely,
place as part of the planned activities for tour groups and Hwy 5 is further clogged with traffic to tho!
dbv Elaine Crystal
cc: Jeff Goodsen
Carlsbad Planning Department
PROOF OF PUBLI~ION
(2010 8 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171 349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 1721 71 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
July 24, 1998
i
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this %&hx 5th day san Marcos
of Arm. 1998
~
,/ -
7 /' ,' '-, -~ .j
-_-----_____________--_----- /
This space er the County Clerks Filin!
Proof of Publication of
Notict3 t3g pubme !&+%%q
---d--_I-_______ k _____
.. - ---- - p .__.,.." -_. --. -/----
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING GPA 97-02RC 97-02
LA COSTA LUCKY SAU-ON SHOPPING Cf
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a publi
City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 690 P.m..
August 4, 1998, to consider approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, to allow for an appro%
square foot neighborhood commercial shopping center on propedy generally located at corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zon
the City's Coastal Zone, and more particularly described as:
Those portions of Lots 9,14 and 15 in SECtiOn35, Township 12 South. Range 4 west.
n the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according I(
, dated June 17. 1998, on file in the Planning Depadment.
Persons are cordially invited lo attend the public hearing and provide the decision makc
written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described ar recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copie: will be available on or after Thursday, July 30, 1998.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jeff Gibson, in the Plan1
(760) 438-1161, extension 4455.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change in court, you may be '
only those issues raised by you or someone else at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered lo the City of
Carlsbad City Clerks Office at, or prior to, the
public hearing. The time within which you may
judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance and is very shod.
APPLICANT. American Stores Properties, Inc.
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
,*