HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-08; City Council; 16923 part 6 of 6; Carlsbad OaksTable 4.D-14 (Continued)
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT INCREASE WITH RECOMMENDED SHORT-TERM ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Smet Segment
Future Average Functional Daily Roadway V/C
. Thibodo Road:
West of Sycamore Avenue 2D 14,500 24,000 0.60 A
Shadowridge Drive:
West of Sycamore Avenue 2D 19,600 24,000 0.82 D
SR-78 Freeway(.):
South Santa Fe Avenue to
Sycamore Avenue 6F 194,300 138,000
Sydre Avenue to
Mar Vista Avenue 6F 176,600 138,000
1.41 F*
1.28 F*
*Unacceptable Level of Service.
(a) L = Local Unimproved Shoulders OT Narrow Lanes U = UndividedRoadway D = DividedRoadway F = Freeway
(b) Estimated roadway capacity at LOS E.
Estimated daily capacity of the freeway is obtained from the County of Riverside. Caltrans District 11
performs operations analysis based upon peak hour capacity and does not have established daily
capacities for freeways. Freeway V/C analysis and LOS are presented as a general information
guideline for the City of Vista. Actual freeway operations analysis is performed by Caltrans
District 11.
Source: Kimley-Horn. 1992. .
The roadway geomehics recommended to address short-tern cumulative conditions
for each of these segments will need to be improved further to serve the buildout
traffic conditions. Widening South Santa Fe Avenue to its General Plan
Specification of six lanes of divided roadway will improve daily operating
conditions on this roadway to LOS B. Also, widening Sycamore Avenue to its
General Plan Configuration of six lanes of divided roadway southwest of
Shadowridge Drive will improve operating conditions on this segment to LOS C.
Each of these roadway segments are specifically identified as six-lane divided
roadways in the Circulation Section of the General Plan.
As previously discussed in this report, Sycamore Avenue from SR-78 to
Shadowridge Drive is designated as a six-lane divided roadway in the City's
General Plan. However, the General Plan also states that "The segment between
State Route 78 and Shadowridge Drive would still operate at LOS D with six
through lanes. Eight lanes would be necessary along this section to improve traffic
operations to LOS C."
Sycamore Avenue from Thibodo Road to Shadowridge Drive will operate at LOS D
-.with six lanes of divided roadway, and the segment from Thibodo Road/Plumosa
Avenue to SR-78 is projected to operate at LOS E with six lanes of divided
roadway. Widening this roadway to provide eight through lanes, as mentioned in
the City's General Plan, would improve the operation of both segments of
Sycamore Avenue to LOS B.
While the daily capacity analysis indicates that a pomon of Sycamore Avenue may
require eight lanes of divided roadway to serve projected buildout traffic, peak hour
intersection analysis is a better indication of projected operating conditions. Due to
the heavy amount of turning movements and interaction with the freeway ramps,
cross streets and driveways in this area, additional tuming lanes on the intersections
approaches may be more effective than through lanes along the entire length of the
roadway segment.
.
4.D-47
A 1 if H rn .. n
Each of the study area intersections were evaluated for buildout conditions. The
analysis assumed that the intersections would be improved consistent with the
recommended cumulative short-term roadway improvements.
The results of the buildout intersection analysis are summarized in Table 4.D-15.
Review of Table 4.D-15 reveals that under buildout conditions, the intersection of
Sycamore Avenue at Thibodo Roadmlumosa Avenue is projected to operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. The
intersection of South Santa Fe Avenue at Sycamore AvenueBuena Creek Road is
projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours.
The intersection of Sycamore Avenue at Thibodo RoadPlumosa Avenue could be
improved to acceptable levels if the recommended short-term cumulative lane
geometrics are improved further. Providing a second northbound left-turn lane
would improve the projected operation at this intersection to LOS D during both
peak hours.
-.
The intersection of South Santa Fe Avenue at Sycamore Avenu-uena Creek Road
will require significant improvements to the short-term cumulative geomemcs in
order to serve the projected buildout traffic. Needed improvements would be
provision of a second left-turn lane on the north, east, and westbound approaches,
and a right-tum lane on the westbound approach. This will improve the projected
operation to LOS E. In order to improve the buildout operation of this intersection
to LOS D or better, widening of Sycamore AvenueBuena Creek Road will be
required to provide three through lanes on the southbound approach. Provision of
three southbound through lanes in conjunction with the additional turning lanes
mentioned above would improve buildout operation to LOS D during both peak
hours.
It should be noted that with these improvements three through lanes will be required
on Sycamore Avenue from its intersection with South Santa Fe Avenue to south of
University Drive. Although the daily traffic volumes do not indicate a need for six
lanes on this roadway segment, due to traffic flow and safe lane transition
requirements, consideration should be given to providing three continuous through
Table 4.D-15
BUILD-OUT CONDITIONS WITH RECOMMENDED SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE ROADWAY GEOMETRICS
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour .Signalized Intersections ICU u3S ICU LOS
Sycamore Avenue at:
Shadowridge Drive 0.84 D Thibodo Road/Plumosa Avenue 0.91 E 1.02 0.84 D F University Drive/Lobelia Drive 0.52 A 0.48 A SR-78 Eastbound Ramps 0.87 D SR-78 Westbound Ramps 0.81 0.80 D C 0.69 B
South Santa Fe Avenue at:
Palmyra Drive Sycamore Avenuemuena Creik Road 1.16 F 1.10 F 0.74 C 0.84 D
~~~
Source: Kimley-Horn, 1992.
-.
.
4.D-49
lanes in each direction on Sycamore Avenue from South Santa Fe Avenue through
the intersection at University Drivebbelia Drive.
The operating LOS for each of the intersections requiring improvements to the
short-term cumulative geometrics, both with and without the improvements are
shown on Table 4.D-16. The ICU analysis worksheets are included in
Appendix D.
With the recommended intersection improvements noted above, all intersections
along Sycamore Avenue would operate at acceptable levels of service. The ultimate
recommended geometrics are consistent with geometrics for intersections along a
six-lane divided roadway. In each case, three through lanes and one or two
left-turn lanes will accommodate projected buildout traffic volumes.
Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that Sycamore Avenue can function
acceptably as a six-lane divided roadway from South Santa Fe Avenue to south of
Shadowridge under Build-out Conditions.
-. ~! ndition
The impact of proposed project on buildout traffic operation was evaluated by
adding the incremental increase in project-related traffic, over that already assumed
in the SANDAG model and determining the resulting levels of service (LOS).
Wherever the projected LOS is unacceptable due to the proposed project,
appropriate mitigations have been propsed.
The project site is entirely contained within two SANDAG Traffic Analysis Zones
(TAZ) for the SR-78 Corridor Study. They are Zone$lOl7 and 1019. TAZ 1017
contains project Planning Areas 1, 2, 3,4, 6,7, and 8, which is the portion of the
project site located west of Sycamore Avenue. TAZ 1019 contains Planning
Area 5, which is the portion of the project site located east of Sycamore Avenue.
Review of the SR-78 Comdor Traffic Model Output revealed that approximately
12,900 average daily trips were assumed for the project site (Table 4.D-17).
Review of Table 4.D-7 pfesented previously, reveals that the proposed
development of the project is projected to generate 38,570 cumulative trips, The
project-related traffic increase, then, would be 25,670 trips.
4.D-50
Table 4.D-16
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS BUILDOUT CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Recoded Shm-Term
With Cumulative Gemenics Recomaended Sha-Ta With Additional Buildout Cumulative Geome6ics ImprovementF
AM
peak Hour peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Peak Hour Peak Hour Ph4 AM PM
Intersection
Sycamore Avenue at
Thitdoplumosa 0.91 E 1.02 F 0.82 D 0.82 D
(Provide: 2 NB LT Lanes)
South Santa Fe Avenue at:
Sycamore Avenue/ Buena Creek Road 1.16 F 1.10 F 0.89 D 0.84 D
(Provide. 2 NB LT lanes 2 EB LT lanes -2wBLTlanes
3 SB through lanes) 1 WB RTlane
Source: Kimley-Horn, 1992.
The traffic increase for each of the Planning Areas was dismbuted to to the buildout
roadway system, adjusting for the recommended short-term cumulative
improvements and their impact on travel patterns. The resulting project-related
traffic increases to the buildout forecase are shown on Figure 4.D-10.
Buildout traffic volumes including the proposed project were developed by adding
the project-related traffic increases to the buildout traffic forecasts. Daily traffic
forecasts including the proposed project are shown on Figure 4.D-11.
Table 4.D-17
CALCULATIONS FOR PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC INCREASE
Total Project Daily Traffic Project-Related Generated Assumed for Project Traffic Daily Traffic Site in Traffic Model Increase
Planning Areas 1-4 and 6-8 34,148 12,000 22,148
-_ Planning Area 5 900
Total Project Site 38,570 12,900 25,670
Source: Kimley-Horn, Inc., 1992.
Analvsis of Roadwav ODeration for Buildout with Proiect-Related Traffic Increase
Roadway operation was reevaluated to account for the project-related traffic
increase, and the results are summarized in Table 4.D-18: Review of Table 4.D-18
reveals that with the project-related traffic increases, Sycamore Avenue is projected
to operate at LOS E from Thibcdo Road to Shadowridge Drive (assuming a Six-
lane divided roadway). From Shadowridge Drive to University DriveDbelia
Drive, Sycamore Avenue was assumed to be six lanes of divided roadway as
recommended in the previous section to serve the projected buildout traffic. The
portion of roadway from Shadowridge Drive to SR 78 was identified in the City's
General Plan as possibly needing eight lanes of divided roadway. With the addition
of project traffic, Sycamore Avenue from Shadowridge Drive to SR-78 would
operate at LOS C with eight lanes of divided roadway. Although the section of
4.D-52
SOURCE: Kimley-Horn, 1992 J
OGDEN FIGURE
Project-related Daily Traffic Increase to General Plan Buildout Traffic Projections E....
f
4.D-53
NOT TO SCALE .
LEGEND
XXXX - PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
30URCE: Kimlev-Horn. 1992 (ROUNDED TO NEAREST HUNOREOI
Projected Daily Traffic Volumes Assuming Buildout of
General Plan Including Project-related Traffic Increase
FIGURE I 14.D-11
Table 4.D-18
BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS INCLUDING PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC INCREASE WITH RECOMMENDED SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE AND BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Smt Segment
Future Average Functional WY Roadway VIC Classification(a) Traflic Capacity@) Ratio LOS
Sycamore Avenue:
to University Drive/ South Santa Fe Avenue
Lobelia Drive
University Drive&obelia Drive to SR 78
SR 78 to rhibodo Road/ Plurnosa Avenue
Thibcdo RoadPlumosa Avenue to Shadowridge Drive
South oFShadowridge Drive
University Drive:
West of Sycamore Avenue
South Santa Fe Avenue:
Palmyra Drive to Sycamore AvenuelSuena Creek Road
West of Sycamore Avenue/ Buena Creek Road
Lobelia Drive:
Sycamore Avenue to Planning Area 5 Access Driveway
East of Planning Area 5 Access Driveway
Thibodo Road:
West of Sycamore Avenue
6D(4
6D
6Dc)
6D
6D
6D
6D
6D
2u
2L
2D
36,100
52,300
57,800
54,300
49,000
39,200
40,500
43,600
8,100
5,500
15,500
57,000 0.63
57,000 0.92
57,000 1.01
57,000 0.95
57.000 0.86
57.000 0.69
57.000 0.7 1
57,000 0.76
16,200 0.50
7 .000 0.79
24,000 0.65
B
E*
F*
E*
D
B
C
C
A
C
A
4.D-55
Table 4.D-18 (Continued)
BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS INCLUDING PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC INCREASE WITH RECOMMENDED SHORT-TERM CUMULATIVE AND BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Fume Average Functional Daily Roadway V/C
Street Segment Classificatioda) Traffic Capacity@) Ratio LOS
Shadowridge Drive:
West of Sycamore Avenue 2D 20,600 24,000 0.86 D
SR 78 Freeway:(d)
South Santa Fe Avenue
to Sycamore Avenue
Sycamore Avenue to Mar Vista Avenue
6F 199,300 138,000 1.44 F*
6F 180,800 138,000 1.31 F*
Unacceptable Level of Service (see Intersection Analysis, page 4.D-57. Conditions are mitigated through
intersection improvements). -_
(1) Assumes implementation of recommended short-term curnularive and buildout roadway improvemenls.
L = Local Unimproved (Shoulders M Nanow Lanes) U = Undivided Roadway
F = Freeway D = DividedRoadway
(b) Estimated roadway capacity at LOS E.
(d Recommended mitigation to serve buildout conditions.
(d) Estimated daily capacity of the freeway is obtained from the County of Riverside. Caltrans District 11
performs operations analysis based upon peak hour capacity and does not have established daily capacities for
freeways. Freeway V/C analysis and LOS are presenled as a general informational guideline for the City of Vista. Actual freeway operations analysis is performed by Caltrans District 11.
Source: Kimley-Horn 1992.
.
4.D-56
in the City's General Plan as needing eight lanes, the analysis indicates LOS E with
only six lanes. At eight lanes, this section would operate at LOS B. Due to the
heavy amount of turning movements and interaction with the freeway ramps, cross
streets and driveways in this area, the analysis will focus on whether or not the
traffic demand can be accommodated with turning lanes approaching the
intersections, rather than through lanes along the entire roadway. This will be
addressed in the intersection analysis section.
The section of Sycamore Avenue from South Santa Fe Avenue to University
Drivebbelia Drive was assumed to be widened to four lanes divided, as
recommended in the short-tem'cumulative and buildout analysis. The analysis
indicates that with the project-related traffic increase, this roadway section will
operate at LOS E with four lanes of divided roadway. Six lanes of divided
roadway would improve the operation to LOS B. However, as stated previously,
the operation of the intersections along this roadway, as shown in the intersection
analysis section, will provide a clearer indication of the geomemcs needed to serve
traffic demands.
Analvsis of Peak Hour Intersection Ooeration - Buildout With Proiect-Related Traffic IncreaSI;
"
Each of the intersections analyzed for buildout conditions were reevaluated with the
addition of project-related traffic.
The results of the intersection analysis under buildout conditions with project-
related aaffic increases are summarized in Table 4.D-19. Review of Table 4.D-19
reveals that the addition of project-related traffic increases, all study area
intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or
better) except for South Santa Fe Avenue at Sycamore AvenueDuena Creek Road,
which is projected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM
peak hour. The provision of a northbound right-turn lane and conversion of a
northbound through lane to a shared throughhight lane would improve the projected
AM peak hour operation to LOS D. The intersection improvements identified
above will mitigate the project impact. I
4.D-SI
Table 4.D-19
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION ANALYSIS BUILDOUT CONDITIONS INCLUDING PROJECT TRAFFIC WITH RECOMMENDED BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Sigmahi Intersections AM Peak Hour ICU m ICU LOS PM Peak Hour
Sycamore Avenue at
Shadowridge Drive Thibodo Road/plumosa Avenue University Drivebklia Drive SR-78 Eastbound Ramp SR-78 Westbound Ramps
South Santa Fe Avenue at:
Sycamore AvenueJBuena Creek Road Palmyra hive 0.92 0.76 E C 0.86 0.90 D D
Recommended Short-Term With
Buildout Geomeaics Oeomeuics With Additional Recommended Buildout
Project Mitigation
AM peak Hour PM peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection -. ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Sycamore Avenue/ Buena creek Road 0.92 E 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.78 C
(Provide: 1 NB RT lane and convut 1 NB through lane to a shared throughfnght lane)
Source: Kimley-Horn 1992.
4.0-58
divided roadway. It is concluded that Build-out Plus Project traffic levels on t f :: :, :, ~.:
Sycamore Avenue can be accommodated by a six-lane divided roadway, if the
recommended intersection geomemcs are implemented at the intersections along the
roadway.
The Anna Way connection from University Drive to existing Anna Lane contained
in the City's General Plan was described earlier in this report. Analysis of short-
term cumulative conditions indicated that this would not be needed. Analysis of
buildout conditions with and without the proposed project indicates that the
projected traffic could be served without this connection, if a11 recommended
roadway improvements are implemented. The traffic analysis indicated that
significant improvements would be needed prior to buildout at the intersection of
South Santa Fe Avenue at Sycamore AvenueDuena Creek Road whether or not the
proposed project is built, and if the proposed project is completed, six lanes of
-divided roadway will be needed to serve the projected traffic on Sycamore Avenue
from South Santa Fe Avenue to University DriveLobelia Drive.
V
The possible connection of Avocado Drive and University Drive was also discussed
previously in this report. Analysis of short-term cumulative conditions indicated
that this roadway link would not be needed. The analysis of buildout conditions
also indicates that this link would not be needed. Completing this roadway link
would allow traffic (including project traffic) to use Mar Vista Drive to access the
SR-78 freeway, or to use Avocado Drive to head north on South Santa Fe Avenue.
This connection might alleviate conditions on Sycamore Avenue from the SR-78
interchange to the intersection at South Santa Fe Avenue. However, Mar Vista
Drive and Avocado Drive would require significant improvements to serve the
additional traffic, particularly at the Mar Vista Drive/Avocado Drive/Presley Place
intersection. If improvements are not made to Avocado Drive and Mar Vista Drive,
this connection is likely to have a signlficant negative impact on traffic operations
and safety along these roadways.
4.D-59
ammarv of Buildout Condlnons W ith and Without Promsed Prow3 .. ..
A summary of roadway and intersection operating conditions for each of the
buildout analysis scenarios is provided on Tables 4.D-20 and 4.D-21, respectively.
Based on both the daily and the intersection analysis, it is concluded that six lanes
of divided roadway on South Santa Fe Avenue, from west of Sycamore Avenue to
Palmyra Avenue; and on Sycamore Avenue from South Santa Fe Avenue to south
of Shadowiidge would need to be in place in order to accommodate buildout (Post
2010) traffic levels at an acceptable level of service. Acceptable operations at all
intersections along these roadways can be achieved with the identified intersection
improvements at the intersections of Sycamore/South Santa Fe and Sycamore/
Thibodo.
Each of these improvements recommended can be accomplished within a six-lane
roadway standard, and are consistent with the Circulation Elements of the City of
Vista and the County of San Diego. Acceptable operations at intersections along
-these roadways can be achieved with lane configurations that are consistent with
six-lane standards.
With the addition of approved project traffic, the following intersection
improvement would be required in order to maintain an acceptable level of service:
At the intersection of Sycamore Avenue/South Santa Fe, provide a
northbound right-tum lane, and covert a northbound through lane to a
shared, through/right lane.
This intersection improvement will maintain acceptable operations and will mitigate
project impacts.
PUP -c il Servi
Proposition A (approved in November 1987) provides funding for the
implementation of rail service from Oceanside to Escondido. This proposed rail
service would provide an important alternative mode of transportation for i
4.D-61
", 8 9
B
nnmmn nu
commuters in the congested SR-78 corridor. In the vicinity of the North County
Square Project, the rail line would follow the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
(AT&SF) rail lines.
The proposed rail service is expected to generate ridership in the order of 10,ooO
passengers per day in the year 2010, in accordance with projections' prepared by
SANDAG. A substantial portion of these passengers would use the system during
peak periods. Without the rail system, these passengers would either drive their
own cars or ride with someone else in the SR-78 corridor. Since the SR-78
corridor is congested now and is expected to be congested in the future, any shifts
from the automobile to public transportation is considered to be a regionwide
beneficial impact.
Plans currently have identified seventeen station sites, including a station at
Sycamore Avenue within the project study area. The Sycamore Avenue Station
would be located north of South Santa Fe Avenue and east of Buena Creek Road in
unincorporated San Diego County, but is within the City of Vista's sphere of
influence. The proposed rail station would be located on the northeast comer of the
-intersection of South Santa Fe Avenue at Sycamore AvenueDuena Creek Road.
Approximately 300 parking spaces would be provided for commuters.
Implementation of the proposed rail service is expected to attract riders that would
otherwise be using the roadway system, and thus, improve operation of the SR-78
freeway and other roadways throughout the rail corridor. However, specific
reductions in traffic due to implementation of the rail line were not available for the
individual study area roadway segments. Therefore, future traffic volumes have
not been reduced to reflect the impacts of the rail line, and thus, represent a worst-
case analysis. Any benefits due to the rail line would be improvements to the
projected operating conditions presented in this report.
Although some project generated traffic might use the rail line as an alternative
mode of transportation, project-generated traffic was not adjusted to reflect any
impact of the rail line. Since the proposed Sycamore Avenue Rail Station is
one-half mile away from the pioject, it is not directly accessible to the project by
walking. Rail passengers would probably need bus or shuttle service from the
station to the project and back. Since no transit plan was available for review at the
4.D-64
time this report was prepared, no transit-related trip reductions were applied to the
analysis. Thus, the analysis represents a worst-case analysis of project traffic, and
any transit-related trip reduction would represent improvements to the projected
operating conditions presented in this document.
Significance of Impacts
Short-Term Cumulative Traffic
The project will cause or contribute to unacceptable conditions in the short term on a
number of roadway segments or intersections with the addition of project traffic to
the surrounding roadway system. In particular, the segment of Sycamore Avenue
from the County/City line to South Santa Fe Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue on either
side of Sycamore Avenue will experience degradation of level of service with the
addition of project traffic without the County planned improvement in place.
Likewise, the SR-78 interchange at Sycamore Avenue will worsen significantly as a
result of project traffic. As discussed earlier, improvements planned by the County
and the City/Caltrans at these locations will achieve acceptable levels of service for
-the short-term cumulative (with project) condition. However, these improvements
may not be completed prior to the implementation of the proposed project. The
improvements are needed to accommodate even existing levels of traffic. The
addition of related plus project traffic to Sycamore Avenue will exacerbate already
unacceptable conditions. The improvements and mitigation measures to be
implemented by the project applicant will provide improved operations on some
portions of the roadway system, and will facilitate implementation of County and
City/Caltrans planned improvements. Implementation of the mitigation measures
listed below will reduce the impacts, but not to a level of insignificance.
Jhiect Buildout Traffic
Traffic will increase substantially in the surrounding areas as a result of General
Plan buildout including the proposed project.
Improvement of Sycamore Avenue and South Santa Fe Avenue to six-lane divided
standards, per Circulation Plan designations, and implementation of intersection
improvements of Sycamore Avenue/South Santa Fe and Sycamore Avenufiibodo
4.D-65
will provide adequate roadway capacity to accommodate General Buildout traffic
levels.
Addition of project traffic will cause the need for additional intersection
improvement at Sycamore Avenue/South Santa Fe. Implementation of the
mitigation measures listed below will reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance.
Mitigation
Short-Term Cumulative Traffic Imuaa
Measures proposed by the Specific Plan that will serve to partially reduce impacts,
but not to a level of insignificance include:
D-1. University Drive shall be realigned to align with Lobelia Drive and
form a four-way intersection at Sycamore Avenue. University Drive
shall be improved to provide four to six lanes.
-
D-2. The four-way intersection of Sycamore Avenue and
University/Lobelia Drive shall be signalized.
D-3. The portion of Sycamore Avenue between SR-78 and the Vista city
limits shall be realigned and improved to provide six lanes of
roadway.
Additional mitigation measures that will partially.reduce the impacts, but not to a
level of insignificance, include:
D-4. Lobelia Drive shall be improved to provide four travel lanes from
Sycamore Avenue to Planning Area 5 driveway, concurrent with
development of Planning Area 5.
D-5. The project applicant shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City
Manager, the contribution of its proportionate fair share towards the
cost of the planned improvement to South Santa Fe Avenue/Sycamore
4.D-66
Avenue within the jurisdiction of the County currently scheduled for
consmction in fiscal year 1994-1995. The proportionate contribution
shall be based upon the projected daily trips generated by the North
County Square project upon the affected road segment as a percentage
of the existing daily trips and those from other projects which shall
contribute to traffic along the roadway. The project applicant's
contribution may take the form of right-of-way, traffic impact fees or
other project-related traffic improvements which are in excess of its
anticipated haffic circulation impacts.
D-6. The project applicant shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City
Manager, the contribution of its proportionate fair share towards the
cost of the City/Caltrans planned improvements at the SR-
78/Sycamore Avenue interchange. The proportionate contribution
shall be based upon the projected daily trips generated by the North
County Square project upon the interchange as a percentage of the
existing daily trips and those from other projects which shall
contribute to interchange traffic. The project applicant's contribution
may take the form of right-of-way, trxffic impact fees or other project-
related traffic improvements which are in excess of its anticipated
traffic circulation impacts.
D-7. The City shall cooperate with the County and Caltrans in an effort to
achieve installation of the planned improvements to South Santa Fe
Avenue/Sycamore Avenue within the County jurisdiction and the SR-
78/Sycamore Avenue interchange in order to accomplish the earliest
feasible completion of those improvements.
Proiect Buildout Traffic ImpacQ
\
D-8. With the addition of project traffic, the following additional
intersection improvement will be required:
At the intersection of Sycamore Avenue/South Santa Fe,
provide a northbound right-turn lane and convert a
northbound through lane to a shared throughhight lane.
.
4.D-67
Mitigation Monitoring
4.D-68
CITY OF VISTA
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (PC 23-235 / 12-026 / 4-034 1 5-393)
June 26, 2001
\. PROJECT NAME: Home Depot
PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of S. Melrose Drive and Park Center Drive,
addressed as 2430 S. Melrose Drive
AIP OR LOT NO.: APN: 219-540-16, -17, and -18
PROJECT APPLICANT: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
3800 W. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92868
LEAD AGENCY/CONTACT: city Of Vista
Planning Division
600 Eucalyptus Avenue
P.O. Box 1988
Vista, California 92085
John Conley, Environmental Planner
..
This Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for a 30-day public review period from June 27,
2001 through July 27, 2001. Comments regarding this hiitigated Negative Declaration must be
made in writing to the City Planner, c/o Planning Division, P.O. BOX 1988, Vista, California, 92085.
All comments must be received in the Planning Division office by no !%ter than 5:30 p.m. on the last
day of the public review period. The Planning Division office is located at 600 Eucalyptus Avenue,
Vista.
A. PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION
Proiect Setting
The project site consists of approximately 14.1 acres located at the northeast corner of S. Melrose
Drive and Park Center Drive, addressed as 2430 S. Melrose Drive. The project site is currently
vacant, undeveloped land that has been previously graded. Surrounding land uses comprise
existing industrial development to the north, south, and east, and single-family residential uses
across S. Melrose Drive to the west. The General Plan land use designation on the subject
property is RLI (Research Light Industrial), which permits general industrial and manufacturing
uses, All properties surrounding the site to the north, east, and south are designated RLI in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235
Table AQ-1, Predicted Vehicular Trip Generated Emission Levels
Page 23
Overall Trio Emissions in Pounds /Day
Condition Examined ADT co NO, SO‘ F”,, voc
Automobiles
Proposed Proiect
9778 444.7 137.3 12.9 2.3 38.7
Trucks 200 35.1 60.7 1.5 8.3 2.1
Total 9978 479.8 198.0 14.4 10.6 40.8
Significance Threshold (SDAPCD) 550 250 250 100 250
Notes: . Based upon 1999 EMFAC 7F emission factors (San Diego Region). Autos = 6,000 Ibs. or less, Trucks = 6,001
~ ~~
Ibs. and up (diesel). Wintertime conditions (50‘ F factors). . Assumed average trip length of 12 miles. Median speed = 45 MPH.
Based on the anticipated tr&c levels from the proposed project, exceedance of federal and state air
quality thresholds would not occur. Furthermore, with implementation of all mitigation
requirements, the project would not generate excessive odors or emit other pollutants that may result
in a nuisance to surrounding properties. Therefore, impacts to air quality would be less than
significant and no additional mitigation measures are required.
TransDortation/Traffic
This section summarizes the Traffic Impact Analysis-Home Depot, prepared by URSBRW (2001),
a copy of which is on file and available for review at the City Planning Division office located at 600
Eucalyptus Avenue, Vista. The Truflic Impact Analysis addresses the existing roadway network,
project trip generation, near-term (Year 2002) buildout with and without the project, and cumulative
(Year 2015) buildout with and without the project.
Existing Roadwav Network
Several regionally and locally significant roadways traverse the project study area. A summary of
key roadway segments and intersections serving the project site is provided below.
North-South Segments
Sycamore Avenue - Sycamore Avenue is classified as a 6-lane major arterial north of SR-78 and a
4-lane major arterial between SR-78 and South Melrose Drive. Sycamore Avenue provides access
to business centers in the area and direct access to SR-78. West of South Melrose Drive, Sycamore
Avenue is a 2-lane collector providing access to residential properties.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 24
Business Park Drive - Business Park Drive is classified as a 2-lane collector north of Sycamore
Avenue, and a 4-lane secondary arterial south of Sycamore Avenue. This segment provides access
to business centers in the vicinity and Palomar Airport Road.
Melrose Drive - Melrose Drive is a 6-lane major arterial providing access to SR-78 and linking the
northern and southern areas of Vista. Melrose Drive currently terminates at the southerly City limits
south of Sycamore Avenue.
East- West Segments
State Route 78 - State Route 78 is a 6-lane east-west freeway that provides an important connection
in northern San Diego County between the Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 corridors. The freeway has
six interchanges within the City of Vista: Emerald Drive, Melrose Drive, Vista Village Drive,
Escondido Avenue, Mar Vista Drive, and Sycamore Avenue. Primary regional access to the project
site from SR-78 is provided via the Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue interchanges.
Park Center Drive - Park Center Drive is classified as a 4-lane secondary arterial with a posted speed
limit of 40 miles per hour between S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way. East of Oak Ridge Way,
Park Center Drive is a 2-lane minor arterial roadway. Park Center Drive provides direct access to
the proposed southern project driveway between S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way.
Oak Ridge Way - Oak Ridge Way is classified as 2-lane collector, providing access to various
industrial developments within the study area. Oak Ridge Way provides direct access to the
proposed northern project driveway east of S. Melrose Drive.
Intersections
Six key intersections were addressed in the project traffic report, which include:
S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue (all-way stop controlled intersection)
S. Melrose Drive/Oak Ridge Way (one-way stop controlled T-intersection)
S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive
Business Park Drive/Sycamore Avenue
Business Park Drive/Park Center Drive
Business Park Drive/Palomar Airport Road
The roadway configuration and intersection geometrics for all road segments and intersecfions
addressed above are provided in the Truflc hpaciAnu&sis (URSBRW, 2001).
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235
Existing Conditions
Roadway Segments
Page 25
The level of service (LOS) standards for roadway segments provide the basis to analyze arterial
roadway segment performance. The analysis of roadway segment LOS is based on the functional
classification of the roadway, the maximum capacity, roadway geometrics, and average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes. Segment LOS ranges on a scale from A to F, each grade representing the level of
traffic volume the road segment can accommodate. LOS D or better is normally considered
acceptable roadway capacity; however, signalized intersection analysis is generally a better
indication of roadway operations, as intersections control flow along the roadway segments.
Table T-1 presents the level of service (LOS) results for roadway segments within the project study
area under existing conditions. As indicated in the Table, all of the study area roadway segments
are currently operating at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) D or better, with the exception of the
segment of Business Park Drive between Park Center Drive and Palomar Airport Road.
Table T-1, Roadway Segment Level of Service Existing Conditions
Roadway Segment Classification ADT' LOS LOS
Thresholdz
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Major 17,800 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Major 14,560 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 4,540 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 1,850 45,000 A
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 4-Lane Major 20,600 36,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 4,580 13,500 A
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondary 20,430 22,500 D
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 24,700 22,500 E
Source: URSBRW 2001.
1. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
2. Based on LOS D Threshold
Intersections
The intersection analysis addresses the LOS at local intersections in terms of delay, or more
specifically, in terms of average delay per vehicle. Delay is measured during the AM and PM
peak travel hours to provide a worst case analysis. The LOS standards range from A to F, A
representing minimal delay (i.e., less than 10 seconds) and F representing excessively high delay
(i.e., greater than 80 seconds). For the purposes of this analysis, LOS D or better (Le., less than
55 seconds) is considered to be the maximum acceptable level of service. If an intersection
currently operates at LOS E or F, the addition of more than 2 seconds of delay is considered
unacceptable.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 26
Table T-2 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under existing conditions. As indicated in the Table, the S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue and
Business Park Drive/Palomar Airport Road intersections currently operate at LOS F during the
AM and PM peak hours, which is unacceptable based on accepted traffic standards.
Table T-2, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS
S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue (all-way stop controlled) 69.0 F 17.6 F
S. Melrose Drive/Oak Ridge Way (one-way stop controlled r) 8.9 A 10.5 B
S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive 12.2 B 28.4 C
Business Park Drive/Park Center Drive 38.8 D 24.5 C
Business Park Drive/Sycamore Avenue 38.1 D 25.9 C
Business Park Drive/Palomar Airport Road 258.5 F 126.7 F
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
Proposed Proiect
The proposed project consists of a 139,368-square foot home improvement and garden center and
a 7,150-square foot commercial building located at the northeast comer of S. Melrose Drive and Park
Center Drive. The proposed project would take access from driveways on Park Center Drive and
Oak Ridge Way.
For the purposes of this analysis, two traffic scenarios are analyzed: Scenario 1 consists of the
proposed Home Depot (as identified above) with normal commercial uses occupying the 7,150-
square foot commercial building on-site; Scenario 2 consists of the Home Depot with fast food
restaurant uses occupying the 7,150-square foot commercial building on-site. Each of these
scenarios are analyzed herein. Analysis of both scenarios is provided due to the potential for fast
food uses in the separate commercial building to generate a higher traffic volume than normal
commercial uses.
Project Trip Generation
The trip generation estimates for the two project scenarios were developed using the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) Trip Generation Manual. Daily, as well as AM and PM
peak hour trips were estimated, which are included below in Tables T-3 and T-4. As identified in
Table T-3, Scenario 1 (with commercial use) would generate approximately 6,243 average daily trips
including 285 AM peak hour trips and 526 PM peak hour trips. Scenario 2 (with fast food use)
would generate approximately 9,978 average daily trips including 476 AM peak hour trips and 676
PM peak hour trips (URSBRW 2001).
Based on engineering estimates, construction of the proposed project would involve export of
approximately 25,000 cubic yards of fill material. Using an average of approximately 10 cubic yards
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 27
per truckload, the project would potentially require up to 2,500 construction truck trips during
grading of the site.
Table T-3, Scenario 1 Project Trip Generation - Home Depot and Commercial Retail Use
Units ~~il~ ~~i~ ~~il~ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Rate Trips % Trips 70 Trips
Home Depot 115,058 SF 40/1,000 SF 4,602 5 230 8 368
Outdoor Garden Center 24,310 SF 40/1,000 SF 972 3 29 IO 98
Commercial Retail 7,150 SF 120/1,000 SF 858 4 34 10 86
Commercial Retail
Pass-By Trip Reduction -189 -8 -26
TOTAL 6,243 285 526
Source: URSIBRW 200 I.
Table T-4. Scenario 2 Proiect Trio Generation -Home Deuot and Fast Food Use
~~il~ ~~i~ ~~il~ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips % Trips % Trips Land Use Units
Home Depot 115,058 SF 40/1,000 SF 4,602 5 230 8 368
Outdoor Garden Center 24,310 SF 40/1,000 SF 972 3 29 IO 98
Fast Food 7,150 SF 700/1,000 SF 5,005 5 250 7 350
Fast Food Pass-By Trip
Reduction -601 -30 -140
TOTAL 9,978 476 676
Source: URS/BRW 2001.
Project Trip Distribution
Project trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway network based upon assumed origin-
destination patterns and the nature of the proposed land uses. The assumed trip generation patterns
associated with the proposed project are provided in the Trafic Impact Analysis (URS/BRW 2001).
Construction Traffic
The proposed project would require approximately 2,500 construction truck trips for grading
purposes during the construction period. This volume of trips on the local roadways would
potentially result in significant traffic impacts, dependent upon the planned haul route and time of
day trips are occurring. However, as identified in the City’s Grading Ordinance (Development Code
Section 17.56.070.b. 13), “if the grading project includes the movement of earth material to or from
the site, in an amount considered substantial by the City Engineer, the permittee shall submit a haul
route for review and approval by the engineering department. The City Engineer may require
alternate routes or special requirements in consideration of the possible impact on the adjacent
community environment or effect on the public right-of-way itself, which the City Engineer shall.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23435 Page 28
prescribe as a condition of the grading permit. The haul route shall be approved prior to issuance of
a grading permit.”
In order to ensure construction traffic does not conflict with peak hour traffic and that an acceptable
route and schedule are adhered to during construction, the following mitigation measure is required:
3. The applicant shall prepare a haul route plan in accordance with the Chapter 17.56 of the
Development Code for submittal to the City Engineer. The haul route plan shall include
all proposed haul routes, the anticipated time of operation, the party responsible for any
required clean up, and all proposed traffic control activities. The haul route plan shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permit.
Review and approval of a proposed haul route and construction schedule would minimize potential
traffic impacts associated with project-related construction activities. Daily trips to and from the site
for construction personnel would be minimal in comparison to anticipated project traffic and,
therefore, would be less. than significant. No other construction-related traffic impacts are
anticipated.
Year 2002 Cumulative Base Traffic Conditions
This section provides a description of estimated year 2002 traffic conditions both with and without
the proposed project. Scenarios analyzed include the 2002 cumulative base conditions and the 2002
cumulative conditions with Scenarios 1 and 2 of the proposed project. Road improvements are
planned at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue prior to 2002, which include
installation of a traffic signal, restriping the existing westbound through-right shared lane to a
through only lane, and construction of an additional westbound left turn lane. No other road
improvements are planned in the project study area prior to 2002.
Near-Term Cumulative Projects
There are eight (8) projects anticipated for development by the end of 2002 that could impact the
study area traffic network. These cumulative projects are included in the “base” scenario to provide
an accurate background for comparing traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The
location and size of each cumulative project is included in the Trujj’ic Impact Analysis. Based on
the square footage and land use types proposed, the cumulative projects would add approximately
2,819 average daily trips (ADT) to the existing roadway network (URSBRW 2001).
Roadway Segments
Table T-5 presents the level of service @OS) results for roadway segments within the project study
area under near-term Year 2002 cumulative base conditions.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 29
Table T-5, Roadway Segment Level of Service - Year 2002 Cumulative Base Conditions
Roadway Segment Classification ADT' LOS LOS
Threshold'
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Major 18,240 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Major 14,730 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 4,710 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 1,850 45,000 A
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 4-Lane Major 21,820 36,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 4,750 13,500 A
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondary 20,890 22,500 D
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 25,380 22,500 F
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
3. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
4. Based on LOS D Threshold
As indicated in the Table, the segment of Business Park Drive between Park Center Drive and
Palomar Airport Road would operate at LOS F under Year 2002 cumulative base conditions, which
is below accepted traffic standards for roadway segment capacity.
Intersections
Table T-6 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under near-term Year 2002 cumulative base conditions.
Table T-6, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - 2002 Cumulative Base Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS
S. Melrose DrivelSycamore Avenue 32.1 C 27.4 C
S. Melrnse Drive/Oak Ridge Way (one-way stop controlled T) 8.9 A 10.5 B
S. Melrose Drivelpark Center Drive 12.4 B 48.2 D
Business Park Drivelpark Center Drive 42.1 D 25.3 C
Business Park Drive/Sycamore Avenue 40.9 D 28.3 C
Business Park Drivepalomar Airport Road 266.6 F 129.7 F
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
As indicated in the Table T-6, the AM and PM peak hour level of service at the intersection of S.
Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue would improve from LOS F (under existing conditions) to
acceptable LOS C under Year 2002 base conditions due to installation of a traffic signal. The
intersection of Business Park Drive and Palomar Airport Road would continue to operate at
unacceptable LOS F. All other study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better under the
Year 2002 cumulative base scenario.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 30
Year 2002 Cumulative With Project Conditions
Traffic improvements planned to occur with construction of the proposed project include installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way, and constmction of
a left turn pocket into the southern project access driveway from eastbound Park Center Drive. The
Year 2002 Cumulative With Project scenario analyzes the Year 2002 base conditions with the
addition of project traffic under both Scenarios 1 and 2, and assumes the identified traffic
improvements are complete.
Roadway Segments
Table T-7 presents the level of service @OS) results for roadway segments within the project study
area under near-term Year 2002 cumulative with project conditions, Scenario 1 (Home Depot and
Commercial Retail Use).
Table T-7, Roadway Segment Level of Service - Year 2002 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial Retail Use)
Roadway Segment Classification ADT' LQS LQS
Threshold'
~
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Major 20,920 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Major 18,790 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 5,340 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 1,900 45,000 A
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 4-Lane Major 23,350 36,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 6,940 13,500 A
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondary 21,150 22,500 D
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 27,250 22,500 F
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
5. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
6. Based on LOS D Threshold
As indicated in Table T-7, the segment of Business Park Drive between Park Center Drive and
Palomar Airport Road would continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of Scenario 1 project
traffic, which is below accepted traffic standards for roadway segment capacity. However, despite
the unacceptable level of service on this segment, signalized intersection analysis is generally a
better indication of roadway operations, as intersections control flow along the roadway segments.
Since the intersection levels of service at intersections serving this road segment would be
acceptable with implementation of all mitigation requirements (as identified below), impacts to this
segment would be less than significant. All other roadway segments in the project study area
would operate at acceptable LOS D or better under the near-term Year 2002 Cumulative With
Project Scenario 1 conditions.
Table T-8 presents the level of service (LOS) results for roadway segments within the project
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 31
study area under near-term Year 2002 curnulative with project conditions, Scenario 2 (Home
Depot and Fast Food Use).
Table T-8, Roadway Segment Level of Service - Year 2002 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food Use)
Roadway Segment Classification ADTI LOS LOS
Threshold'
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Major 22,410 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Major 21,220 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 5,710 45,000 A
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. &Lane Major 1,900 45,000 A
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 4-Lane Major 24,310 36,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 8,240 13,500 A
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondary 21,390 22,500 D
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 28,370 22,500 F
Source: URSIBRW 2001.
7. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
8. Based on LOS D Threshold
~~~~
As indicated in Table T-8, the segment of Business Park Drive between Park Center Drive and
Palomar Airport Road would continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of Scenario 2 project
traffic, which is below accepted traffic standards for roadway segment capacity. However, similar
to Scenario 1, since the intersection levels of service at intersections serving this road segment
would be acceptable with implementation of all mitigation requirements (as identified below),
impacts to this segment would be less than significant. All other roadway segments in the project
study area would operate at acceptable LOS D or better under the near-term Year 2002 Cumulative
With Project Scenario 2 conditions.
Intersections
Table T-9 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under near-term Year 2002 cumulative project conditions, Scenario 1 (Home Depot and
Commercial Retail Use). In addition to the six study area intersections, the cumulative with project
analysis also includes the proposed project driveway intersections at Park Center Drive and Oak
Ridge Way.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 32
Table T-9, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - 2002 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial Retail Use)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Avg.Delay LOS Avs.Delav LOS
S. Melrose DriveISycamore Avenue
S. Melrose Driveloak Ridge Way
S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive
Business Park Drivelpark Center Drive
Business Park Drivelsycamore Avenue
Business Park DrivelPalomar Airport Road
-
34.2 C 28.8 C
10.1 B 26.1 C
12.6 B 52.9 D
55.4 E 29.5 C
43.1 D 31.6 C
273.3 F 144.3 F
Project Driveway at Oak Ridge Way (One Way Stop-Control) 10.7 B 12.6 B
Project Driveway at Park Center Drive (One Way Stop-Control) 10.1 B 12.9 B
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
As indicated in Table T-9, two study area intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F
with the addition of Scenario 1 project traffic, consisting of Business Park DrivdPalomar Airport
Road and Business Park Drive/Park Center Drive. The addition of traffic created by development
of Scenario 1 would cause a degradation of LOS at both of these intersections, which would be
considered significant. Therefore, in order to effectively mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts at
these intersections to less than significant, the following mitigation measures are required:
4. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of an additional right turn lane and
conversion of the existing through-right shared lane to a through only lane on the
eastbound approach at the Park Center DriveBusiness Park Drive intersection. The
minimum length of the additional eastbound right turn lane is 325 feet. Improvement
plans for the required street improvements shall be approved and bonded prior to issuance
of any building permit. The required improvements shall he installed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer prior to release of power (electric or gas) for any building.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of an additional through lane on
westbound Palomar Airport Road at the Business Park Drive intersection. This
improvement requires construction of a 400-foot approach lane on the east leg of the
intersection and a 1,200-foot receiving lane on the west leg of the intersection.
Improvement plans for the required street improvements shall he approved and bonded
prior to issuance of any building permit. The required improvements shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to release of power (electric or gas) for any
building.
Furthermore, in order to ensure installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of S. Melrose
Driveloak Ridge Way with construction of the project, the following additional mitigation
measure is required:
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 33
6. The applicant shall be responsible for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way. Improvement plans for the required signalization
shall be approved and bonded prior to issuance of any building permit. The required
improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to release
of power (electric or gas) for any building.
Table T-10 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under near-term Year 2002 cumulative with project conditions, Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast
Food Use).
Table T-10, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - 2002 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food Use)
AM Peak Hour 1" Peak Hour
Intersection Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS
S. Melrose DrivelSycamore Avenue
S. Melrose Drive/Oak Ridge Way
S. Melrose Drivelpark Center Drive
Business Park Drivepark Center Drive
Business Park DrivelSycamore Avenue
Business Park Drivepalomar Airport Road
36.0 D 29.3 C
12.4 E 26.7 C
12.7 B 20.4 C
67.0 E 31.0 C
35.4 D 33.0 C
277.6 F 148.6 F
Project Driveway at Oak Ridge Way (One Way Stop-Control) 11.9 B 14.2 C
Project Driveway at Park Center Drive (One Way Stop-Control) 10.7 B 13.8 B
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
As indicated in Table T-10, the same two study area intersections would operate at unacceptable
LOS E or F with the addition of Scenario 2 project traffic (as compared to Scenario 1), consisting
of Business Park Drive/Palomar Airport Road and Business Park Drive/Park Center Drive. The
addition of traffic created by development of Scenario 2 would cause a degradation of LOS at both
of these intersections, which would be considered significant. In order to effectively mitigate the
anticipated traffic impacts at these intersections to less than significant, the same mitigation
measures identified under Scenario 1 would be required, but mitigation measure No.3 would be
modified to provide an additional right tum lane. Therefore, with implementation of Scenario 2, the
following mitigation measure would be required, which would replace mitigation measure No. 3
above:
7. With incorporation of a fast food use in the separate commercial building, the applicant
shall be responsible for construction of two additional right turn lanes and conversion of
the existing through-right shared lane to a through only lane on the eastbound approach
at the Park Center DrivelBusiness Park Drive intersection. The minimum length of the
additional eastbound right turn lanes is 300 feet. Improvement plans for the required street
improvements shall be approved and bonded prior to issuance of any building permit. The
required improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 34
release of power (electric or gas) for any building. This mitigation assumes that
construction of the extension of S. Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar
Airport Road is not complete; however, if this road improvement is complete prior to
occupancy of the separate commercial building, this specific mitigation would not be
required.
Table T-1 1 presents the LOS at the Business Park Drivepalomar Airport Road and Business Park
Drive/Park Center Drive intersections both before and after implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures.
Table T-1 1, Mitigated Intersection Level of Service - 2002 Cumulative With Project Conditions
Before Mitigation
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
After Mitigation
Intersection Avg.
Delay
Avg.
Delay
Avg.
Delay
Avg.
Delay LOS
Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial Retail)
Business Park Dr.lPark Center Dr. 55.4 E 29.5 C 50.6 D 28.5 C
Business Park Dr./Palomar Airport Rd. 273.3 F 144.3 F 47.6 D 39.4 D
Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food)
Business Park Dr./Park Center Dr. 68.0 E 32.7 C 39.6 D 29.7 C
Business Park Dr./Palornar Airport Rd. 258.7 F 152.8 F 48.5 D 40.2 D
Source: URSIBRW, 2001
As indicated in Table T-11, all intersections within the project study area would operate at
acceptable LOS D or better with incorporation of the mitigation requirements under both Scenarios
1 and 2. Therefore, traEc impacts under the near-term Year 2002 cumulative with project conditions
would be less than significant.
Year 2015 Cumulative Base Traffic Conditions
This section provides a description of estimated Year 2015 traffic conditions both with and without
the proposed Home Depot project. Scenarios analyzed include the 2015 cumulative base conditions
and the 2015 cumulative conditions with Scenarios 1 and 2 of the proposed project.
The Year 2015 cumulative base conditions were developed based on the SANDAG Series 8
Regional Forecast Traffic Volumes, which projects regional and local traffic volumes based on
planned land use patterns. The 2015 estimates also assume buildout of roadway widths and/or
improvements in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Specific
improvements planned to occur prior to 201 5 include the following:
. Extension of a 6-lane prime arterial roadway on S. Melrose Drive between the southern City
. Extension of a 4-lane collector roadway on Faraday Road between El Camino Real and S.
limits and Palomar Airport Road
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235
Melrose Drive
Page 35
Roadway Segments
Table T-12 presents the level of service (LOS) results for roadway segments within the project study
area under Year 2015 cumulative base conditions.
Table T-12, Roadway Segment Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative Base Conditions
Roadway Segment Classification ADT' LOS LOS
Thresholda
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Prime 44,000 54,000 C
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Prime 60,000 54,000 E
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Prime 60,000 54,000 E
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Prime 50,000 54,000 D
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 6-Lane Major 28,000 45,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 10,000 13,500 B
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondary 32,000 22,500 F
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 30,000 22,500 F
Source: URSlBRW 2001.
9. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
10. Based on LOS D Threshold
As indicated in Table T-12, four roadway segments would operate at LOS F under Year 2015
cumulative base conditions, which is below accepted traffic standards for roadway segment capacity.
The four segments are S. Melrose Drive between Sycamore Avenue and Park Center Drive (2
segments) and Business Park Drive between Sycamore Avenue and Palomar Airport Road (2
segments).
Intersections
Table T-13 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under cumulative (Year 2015) base conditions. In addition to the six study area intersections
analyzed under the near-term condition, the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport
Road is also included since the extension of S. Melrose Drive would create a four-way intersection
with direct access to the project site on S. Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 36
Table T-13, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative Base Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS
S. Melrose Drivelsycamore Avenue 75.1 E 74.1 E
S. Melrose Driveloak Ridge Way (one-way stop controlled T) Overflow F 996.0 F
S. Melrose Drivelpark Center Drive 82.2 F 43.4 D
S. Melrose DrivelPalomar Airport Road
Business Park Drivelpark Center Drive
Business Park DriveiSycamore Avenue
146.3 F 187.9 F
18.0 B 19.5 B
24.1 C 26.8 C
Business Park DrivelPalomar Airport Road 52.3 D 300.0 F
Source: URSlBRW 2001
As indicated in the Table, five of the seven intersections analyzed in the project study area would
operate at unacceptable LOS E or F under the Year 2015 Cumulative Base conditions. Those
intersections that are forecast to operate at unacceptable levels in the Year 2015 Cumulative Base
conditions are S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue, S. Melrose Drive/Oak Ridge Way, S. Melrose
DrivePark Center Drive, S. Melrose DrivePalomar Airport Road, and Business Park DrivePalomar
Airport Road. It should be noted that the 2015 Cumulative Base conditions assume no traffic signal
at the S. Melrose Drive/Oak Ridge Way intersection.
Year 201 5 Cumulative With Proiect Conditions
Traffic improvements planned to occur with construction of the proposed project include installation
of a traffic signal at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way, and construction of
a left turn pocket into the southern project access driveway from eastbound Park Center Drive,
similar to assumptions made under the near-term condition. The Year 201 5 Cumulative With Project
scenario analyzes the 2015 base conditions with the addition ofproject traffic under Scenarios 1 and
2, and assumes the identified traffic improvements are complete.
Roadway Segments
Table T-14 presents the level of service COS) results for roadway segments within the project study
area under Year 2015 cumulative with project conditions, Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial
Retail Use).
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 31
Table T-14, Roadway Segment Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial Retail Use)
Roadway Segment Classification ADT' LOS LOS
Threshold'
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Major 44,560 54,000 C
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Major 62,500 54,000 F
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 60,630 54,000 F
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 52,190 54,000 D
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 4-Lane Major 28,940 45,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 10,300 13,500 B
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondaly 32,300 22,500 F
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 30,000 22,500 F
Source: URS/BRW 2001.
11. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
12. Based on LOS D Threshold
As indicated in Table T-14, the segment of S. Melrose Drive between Sycamore Avenue and Park
Center.Drive, and the segment of Business Park Drive between Sycamore Avenue and Palomar
Airport Road would continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of project traffic, which is
below accepted traffic standards for roadway segment capacity. However, the proposed project
would not significantly contribute to segment failures on Business Park Drive in the future, as a
redistribution of traffic from the proposed project is anticipated with the extensions of S. Melrose
Drive and Faraday Road. Despite the unacceptable levels of service on the S. Melrose Drive
segments, signalized intersection analysis is generally a better indication of roadway operations,
as intersections control flow along the roadway segments. Since the intersection levels of service
at intersections serving these road segments would be acceptable with incorporation of all
mitigation requirements (as identified below), impacts to these segments of would be less than
significant. All other roadway segments in the project study area would operate at acceptable LOS
D or better under the Year 2015 Cumulative With Project Scenario 1 conditions.
Table T-15 presents the level of service (LOS) results for roadway segments within the project study
area under Year 2015 cumulative with project conditions, Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food
Use).
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 38
Table T-15, Roadway Segment Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food Use)
Roadway Segment Classification ADT' LOS LOS
Threshold'
S. Melrose Dr. north of Sycamore Ave. 6-Lane Major 46,500 54,000 C
S. Melrose Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Oak Ridge Way 6-Lane Major 63,990 54,000 F
S. Melrose Dr. between Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 61,000 54,000 F
S. Melrose Dr. south of Park Center Dr. 6-Lane Major 53,490 54,000 D
Sycamore Ave. between S. Melrose Dr. and Business Park Dr. 4-Lane Major 29,500 45,000 A
Park Center Dr. east of Oak Ridge Way 2-Lane Minor 10,500 13,500 B
Business Park Dr. between Sycamore Ave. and Park Center Dr. 4-Lane Secondary 32,500 22,500 F
Business Park Dr. between Park Center Dr. and Palomar Airport Rd. 4-Lane Secondary 30,000 22,500 F
Source: URS/BRW 2001.
13. ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volume
14. Based on LOS D Threshold
As indicated in Table T-15, the segment of S. Melrose Drive between Sycamore Avenue and Park
Center Drive, and the segment of Business Park Drive between Sycamore Avenue and Palomar
Airport Road would continue to operate at LOS F with the addition of project traffic, similar to
Scenario 1. However, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to segment failures
on Business Park Drive in the future, as a redistribution of traffic from the proposed project is
anticipated with the extensions of S. Melrose Drive and Faraday Road. Similar to Scenario 1,
since the intersection levels of service at intersections serving these road segments would be
acceptable (as identified below), impacts to these segments would be less than significant. All
other roadway segments in the project study area would operate at acceptable LOS D or better
under the Year 2015 Cumulative With Project Scenario 2 conditions.
Zntersections
Table T-16 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under Year 2015 cumulative with project conditions, Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial
Retail Use).
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 39
Table T-16, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 1 (Home Depot and Commercial Retail Use)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS
S. Melrose DrivelSycamore Avenue
S. Melrose Driveloak Ridge Way
S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive
S. Melrose DrivelPalomar Airport Drive
Business Park Drivelpark Center Drive
Business Park DrivelSycamore Avenue
80.9 F 84.3 F
8.6 A 13.6 B
88.6 F 55.6 E
128.9 F 202.1 F
17.3 B 20.4 C
24.2 C 26.8 C
Business Park DriveRalomar Airport Road 38.2 D 244.1 F
Project Driveway at Oak Ridge Way (One Way Stop-Control) 10.5 B 12.1 B
Project Driveway at Park Center Drive (One Way Stopcontrol) 9.8 A 17.0 C
Source: URSIBRW 2001.
As indicated in the Table, four study area intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F
with the addition of Scenario 1 project traffic. Those intersections that are forecast to operate at
unacceptable levels in the Year 2015 Cumulative With Project conditions under Scenario 1 are S.
Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue, S. Melrose Drivelpark Center Drive, S. Melrose Drivemalomar
Airport Road, and Business Park DriveRalomar Airport Road. The intersection of S. Melrose
Drive/Oak Ridge Way would operate at an acceptable LOS under the With Project condition as a
result of signalization. The addition of traffic created by development of the proposed project would
result in additional delay at three of the four identified intersections, which would be considered
significant. The affected intersections are S. Melrose Drive/Sycarnore Avenue, S. Melrose
Drivemark Center Drive, and S. Melrose Drivemalomar Airport Road. Thus, in order to effectively
mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts at these intersections to less than significant, the following
mitigation measures are required:
8. The applicant shall be responsible for restriping the through-right shared lane to create
separate through and right-turn lanes at the eastbound approach of the S. Melrose
Drive/Sycamore Avenue intersection. Improvement plans for the required street
improvements shall be approved and bonded prior to issuance of any building permit. The
required improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
release of power (electric or gas) for any building.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~. ~~ ~ ~
9. The applicant shall be responsible for costs required to modify the signal phasing at the
intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue to provide overlap right-turn phasing
for northbound, eastbound, and westbound traffic. The phasing plan shall require
prohibition of U-turns at the southbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches. Bonds
shall be posted for the signal modification prior to issuance of any building permit. The
required signal modifications shall be funded and installed prior to release of power
(electric or gas) for any building.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23435 Page 40
10. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of all street improvements required to
provide two dedicated left lanes, two through lanes, and one dedicated right lane at the
eastbound and westbound approaches of S. Melrose Drivemark Center Drivemanday
Road. All turn lanes shall be a minimum of 250 feet in length. Improvement plans for the
required street improvements shall be approved and bonded prior to issuance of any
building permit. The required improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to release of power (electric or gas) for any building.
11. The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share of funding toward future
intersection improvements at the intersection of S. Melrose DrivePalomar Airport Road
in order to provide an adequate level of service at this intersection, as determined by the
City of Carlsbad. The fair share contribution shall be based on the project’s contribution
to traffic at this intersection as identified in the project Trafficimpact Analysis prepared
by URSBRW, Inc. dated April 4,2001. The fair share contribution, as determined by the
City Engineer, shall be posted with the City of Vista prior to issuance of any building
permit.
Table T-17 presents the LOS during the peak hour at intersections within the project study area
under Year 2015 cumulative with project conditions, Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food
Use).
Table T-17, Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative With Project Conditions,
Scenario 2 (Home Depot and Fast Food Use)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Avg. Delay LOS Avg.Delay LOS
S. Melrose DrivelSycamore Avenue
S. Melrose Driveloak Ridge Way
S. Melrose Drivelpark Center Drive
S. Melrose DrivelPalomar Airport Drive
Business Park Drivelpark Center Drive
Business Park DrivelSycamore Avenue
Business Park DrivelPalomar Airport Road
84.6 F 87.2 F
11.9 B 16.9 B
95.1 F 60.7 E
131.7 F 208.0 F
17.5 B 20.4 C
24.2 C 26.9 C
38.2 D 243.5 F
Project Driveway at Oak Ridge Way (One Way Stop-Control) 11.3 B 13.1 B
Proiect Driveway at Park Center Drive (One Way Stop-Control) 10.4 B 19.3 C
~~
Source: URS/BRW 2001.
As indicated in the Table, four study area intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or
F with the addition of Scenario 2 project traffic, similar to Scenario 1. Those intersections that are
forecast to operate at unacceptable levels in the Year 2015 Cumulative With Project conditions
under Scenario 2 are S. Melrose DrivelSycamore Avenue, S. Melrose Drivelpark Center Drive,
S. Melrose DrivelPalomar Airport Road, and Business Park DrivelPalomar Airport Road. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23435 Page 41
intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Oak Ridge Way would operate at an acceptable LOS under the
With Project condition as a result of signalization. The addition of traffic created by development
of the proposed project would result in additional delay at three of the four identified intersections,
which would be considered significant. The affected intersections are S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore
Avenue, S. Melrose Drivemark Center Drive, and S. Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road,
Mitigation measures required to effectively mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts at these
intersections to less than significant would be identical to the Scenario 1 mitigation requirements;
therefore, no additional mitigation measures are recommended for implementation of Scenario 2
under the Year 2015 cumulative with project conditions.
Table T-18 presents the LOS at the three affected intersections both before and after implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures.
Table T-18, Mitigated Intersection Level of Service - 2015 Cumulative With Project Conditions
Before Mitigation After Mitigation
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection Avg.
Delay
Avg.
Delay Delay
Avg.
Delay
Avg. LOS
S. Melrose Dr./Sycamore Ave. 80.9 F 84.3 F 51.7 D 40.3 D
S. Melrose Dr./Park Center Dr. 88.6 F 55.6 F 42.8 D 44.1 D
S. Melrose Dr./Palomar Airport Rd. 128.9 F 202.1 F 41.8 D 53.8 D
Source: URSIBRW, 2001
As indicated above, three of the four intersections within the project study area would operate at
acceptable LOS D or better with incorporation of the mitigation requirements. The intersection
at Business Park DrivelPalomar Airport Road would continue to operate at LOS F in the PM peak
hour under the Year 2015 With Project scenario; however, traffic from the proposed project would
contribute less than 2 seconds of delay at this intersection. Therefore, in accordance with the
City’s significance criteria for intersection impacts, the project’s impact at Business Park
Drivemalomar Airport Road under the Year 2015 Cumulative With Project conditions would be
less than significant.
Based on the findings of the project Traffic Impact Analysis (URSIBRW, 2001) all potentially
significant traffic impacts would he reduced to less than significant with incorporation of the
identified mitigation requirements. Therefore, impacts to transportation and circulation would be
less than significant. No additional traffic mitigation measures are recommended.
Biological Resources
The project site has been disturbed as a result of development in the area and previous grading on
the subject property. Based on a survey of the property, no sensitive habitat is located on the site,
and the property is predominantly vegetated with non-native grasses and exotic plant species. None
of the vegetation on the site is rare, endangered, or threatened according to field observations and
no sensitive wildlife species exist on the property, which is surrounded hy existing industrial,
residential and associated urban uses. Furthermore, the proposed project would include erosion and
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 42
water quality control measures to minimize potential impacts to biological resources downstream
of the property within the tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek. No biological resource impacts are
anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended,
Mineral Resources
The California Department of Mines and Geology does not identify the project site as an area with
high potentia! for aggregate or mineral resources. In addition, project implementation would not
result in the loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource. No long-term
impacts to mineral resources are anticipated from project implementation and no mitigation
measures are recommended.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section is based on the findings of an Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Vista
Business Park Specijic Plan Supplemental EIR (City of Vista, 1992), which is on file and may be
reviewed at the City Planning Division office, located at 600 Eucalyptus Avenue, Vista.
Based on review of historical information, the property remained vacant and undeveloped until
1988-89 when it was initially graded. Subsequent minor grading occurred on the property in 1990
and in 2000 to reflect the current site condition. Based on a survey of the site, no obvious visual
evidence of the presence or release of potentially hazardous materials was identified on the
property. Furthermore, based on a review of regulatory agency records (including the San Diego
County Hazardous Materials Management Division, the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
EPA, Cal-EPA, the State Office of Planning and Research, and the Vista Fire Department), no
potentially hazardous conditions have been identified on the site. Therefore, based on the findings
of the Environmental Site Assessment, no potentially hazardous substances have been identified
on the property as a result of historic use of the site or uses in the vicinity of the site.
Development of the proposed project would not involve the use of explosives or acutely hazardous
materials. Minor hazardous substances, such as fossil fuels, cleaning products, and
pesticidesiherbicides would potentially be used on-site for construction of the project and
maintenance of the facility. In addition, the proposed Home Depot would potentially store and sell
household hazardous substances for residential and/or commercial use; however, use of these
materials within applicable regulatory guidelines would not pose a significant risk associated with
a release of hazardous materials. Furthermore, any facility that transports, handles, stores, or
disposes of hazardous materials and wastes requires compliance with local, state, and federal
permitting procedures prior to operation. The proposed Home Depot facility would be subject to all
applicable permitting requirements, as determined by the County Department of Environmental
Health, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and the Vista Fire Department.
Compliance with all permitting requirements for hazardous materials and wastes would minimize
any potential risk associated with a release of such materials. Therefore, based on the findings of
the Environmental Site Assessment and the permit requirements for the proposed use, significant
impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are not anticipated.
Mitigated Negative Declaration PC23-235 Page 43
Noise
This section summarizes a site-specific acoustical study prepared for the proposed project, entitled
Acoustical Site Evaluation Study-Home Depot, prepared by Investigative Science and Engineering
(ISE 2001). A copy of this report is on tile and available for review at the Planning Division
office located at 600 Eucalyptus Avenue, Vista.
Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project are related to proposed construction
activities, traffic adjacent to the project site, and on-site activities associated with the proposed
use. The applicable significance criteria for each of these issues are summarized below.
ADDlicable Threshold Criteria
Construction noise is governed by the City’s Noise Element, which limits construction activities
to Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:OO a.m. and 7:OO p.m. The maximum
permissible level for construction activities is 75 a-weighted decibels (dBA) measured over 8 hours
of continuous construction. This level is measured at or within the property lines of any property
that is developed and used either in part or wholly for residential purposes.
Noise associated with traffic and/or other off-site noise generators is covered under the City’s Noise
Element, which identifies exterior noise levels that are acceptable for various land uses. Commercial
development would be subject to a maximum 75 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
impact threshold and nearby residential development would be subject to a maximum 65 dBA CNEL
impact threshold.
On-site activities would be subject to the property line noise limits established in the City’s Noise
Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the City’s Municipal Code), which are based on the zoning designation
on the site. The property line standard for cases in which the zoning differs between land uses is the
arithmetic mean of the two standards.
The project site would typically fall under the industrial property line noise limits (Le., M-1, I-P, and
all areas of Specific Plan 20) and would have a property line standard of 70 dBA. However, in
addition to the property line standards identified in the Municipal Code, the site is located within the
Vista Business Park Specific Plan, which includes additional noise standards that apply to the subject
property. The Specific Plan (Section G6) states the following:
“Noise created by or resulting from any industrial operation shall not exceed the
noise level standards contained in Table 8.32.040 of the City of Vista Municipal
Code level on or beyond the boundary of the property on which the sound is
produced. Additionally, the one-hour average sound level limit measured at the
residential property line abutting the business park boundary shall be 60 decibels
from 790 a.m. to 1O:OO p.m. and 50 decibels from 1O:OO p.m. to 790 a.m., except
that in the event the industrial operation produces noise which contains a steady,
audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as
hammering or riveting, the one-hour average sound level limit shall be reduced by
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This Space Reserved for Filing Stamp
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 Proof of Publication of:
the printer of
North County Times CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and T
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have be OFPUBLICHEARING
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation
the Superior Court of the County of San Dieg
State of California, for the County of San Dieg
that the notice of which the annexed is a print,
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), h
been published in each regular and entire issue
said newspaper and not in any supplement there
on the following dates, to-wit:
(3 I .pp&x
(9 2lfi7-
,’ l
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury th
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos, California
This 4th day of October, 2002
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 to consider a request for approval of an amendment to
Specific Plan 200(A); approval of a certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and
adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 97-05), Zone
Change (ZC 97-05), an approval of a Specific Plan for the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park
and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (Zone 16) for the development of an
industrial park that will include 23 industrial lots, 3 open space lots, and one passive recreation
lot located north of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and the City’s eastern
boundary in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 16. Public Works projects
that are associated with the Carlsbad Oaks North project include the extension of Faraday
Avenue, the extension of El Fuerte Street, and Reaches A through D of the South Agua
Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI) and more particularly described as:
That portion of Lot “B of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County
thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map
Diego County, November 16, 1896.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 4, 2002. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and/or Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment,
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 98-08/SP 21 1/SP 200(B)/GPA 97-051ZC 97-05/LFMP 16(A)
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLISH: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
I I I I II u
CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH
SPECIFIC PLAN
SP 21 IISP 20O(B)/LFMP 16(A)
EIR 98-081GPA 97-051ZC 97-051
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 to consider a request for approval of an amendment to
Specific Plan 2OO(A); approval of a certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and
adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 97-05), Zone
Change (ZC 97-05), an approval of a Specific Plan for the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park
and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (Zone 16) for the development of an
industrial park that will include 23 industrial lots, 3 open space lots, and one passive recreation
lot located north of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and the City's eastern
boundary in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 16. Public Works projects
that are associated with the Carlsbad Oaks North project include the extension of Faraday
Avenue, the extension of El Fuerte Street, and Reaches A through D of the South Agua
Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI) and more particularly described as:
That portion of Lot "B" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County
thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map
Diego County, November.16, 1896.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 4, 2002. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and/or Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment,
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008 at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 98-08/SP 21 1/SP 200(B)/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-0ULFMP 16(A)
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLISH: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
r
CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH
SPECIFIC PLAN
SP 21 IISP 200(B)ILFMP 16(A)
EIR 98-08lGPA 97-051ZC 97-051
\ +&k@ NOTICE OF PU IC HEARIN
NOTICE IS HEREBY
Council of the City of
certification of a
itigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval
Local Facilities Management Plan Amendmen elopment of an industrial park that will
include 23 industrial lots, 3 open space lots,
more particularly described as:
Diego County, November 16, 1896.
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:
PUBLISH: Thursday, September 19, 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you,
Council of the City of Carlsbad will
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, C
consider a request for certification of
the Candidate Findings of Fact, Stat
and Reporting Program; approval of
i n the P -C
of Faraday Avenue, the extension of El Fuerte Street, and Reaches A through D of the South
Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI) and more particularly described as:
That portion of Lot “B of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map
thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, November 16, 1896.
Those persons wishing to speak
hearing. Copies of the staff rep0
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and/or Local Facilities
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 98-08/SP 21 1/SP 200(B)/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-05/LFMP 16(
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLISH: [DATE] Sqt lq
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Srpooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516P
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DlST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
DEB SCHMIDT
UNIT 3E
620 N SOLANA CR
SOLANA BEACH CA 90275-2352
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlENGlNEERlNG
DEPT
DAVE HOGAN
PO BOX 7745
SAN DIEGO CA 92167-0745
BOB LADWIG
STE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
9/12/2002 a AWRY” Address Labels
HOLLY SPRINGS LTD
ATTN LUCIA SIPPEL
PO BOX 2484
CARLSBAD CA 920 I8
RANCHO CARLSBAD HOA
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
ATTN RUSS KOHL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROBERT PATRICK KELLY
2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WELAND FAMILY TRUST
5380 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MESA SHOPPING CENTER LLC ET AL
C/O ELLIOT FEUERSTEIN
MlRA MESA SHOPPING CENTER WEST
8294 MlRA MESA BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO CA 92126
TIMOTHY AND BETTY BARLOM'
CARLSBAD CA 92008
3004 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
BERANCE HOLDING, INC. (LUBLINER)
11377 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD
BANNING AND CAROL CANTARlNl
PO BOX 587
LOS ANGELES CA 90064 CARLSBAD CA 92018
MRS. KATO
KATO FAMILY TRUST
3250 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MANDANA CAL COMPANY
ATTN ALI SHASHANI
POBOX 18197
IRVINE CA 92623
DOTTIE HAGAMAN
HAGAMAN FAMILY TRUST
5320 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HAROLD AND PEARL GRIBBLE
3130 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RUSSELL AND MARY GROSSE
5850 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CHASE COMAN
5855 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
HOPE WRISLEY
WRISLEY FAMILY TRUST
2080 BASSWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MABEL BARBER TRUST
2416 SONORA COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
WILLIAM AND LISA GROSSE
5870 SUNNY CREEK ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ATTN KIM MCKEE
4449 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
ATER DISTRICT
CARL CA 92008
PAUL K. TCHANG TRUST
3573 KENYON STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 921 IO
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
REGENTS - UCSD RYLAND HOMES TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK
GILMAN DRIVE ATLA JOLLA VILLAGEDRIVE SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO CA 92122 5740 FLEET STREET
ATTN CHRIS DAHRLING
SUITE I13
CARLSBAD CA 92008 2006 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VlXA INVESTMENTS, LLC CANAM PROPERTIES LLC RANCHO CARLSBAD PARTNERS
C/O FINANCIAL ASSET MGMT FOUNDATION ATTN WILLIAM PARK C/O CARLSBERG MGMT COMPANY ATTN BILL GEARY C/O XAVIER SUSTAETA
PO BOX 91 77 SUITE 300
1338 WESTBROADWAY VANCOUVER BC CANADA VbHIH2
SUITE 100 6171 WESTCENTURY BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90045
LA JOLLA CA 92037
CHUCK RABEL
DDH ENTERPRISES INC
2220 OAK RIDGE WAY
VISTA CA 92083
JANET CHRISTIANSEN
ASYMTEK
2762 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GERALYNDEUTSCH
5016 NIGHTHAWK WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
JAMIE PORTER
2753 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAVID RESETCO
5142 FROST AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
PO BOX 13172
CARLSBAD CA 92013
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
2730 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SANDAG LAND USE COMMISSION
401 B STREET
SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
FRANK FONTINESSI
OMWD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
VICKI FAUST
VISTA CA 92083
2361 BROOKHAVEN PASS
ANNETTE BROOME
1662 MOUNTAIN PASS CIRCLE
VISTA CA 92083
THE WOMAN’S CLUB OF VISTA
PO BOX 91
VISTA CA 92085-0091
/
GARY S HILL
3289 DONNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CA DEPT OF FISH AND GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
RWQCB
SUITE 100
9174 SKYPARK COURT
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-4340
CA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
PO BOX 1390
SAN DIEGO CA 92112-1390
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 SOUTH WLCAN AVENUE
ENCINITAS CA 92024-3633
ELLEN BORCHARDT
1670 MOUNTAIN PASS CIRCLE
VISTA CA 92083
HEATHER BOST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
721 6 DURANGO CIRCLE
DR JACK PAXTON
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
1615 LA TIERRA LANE
SUSAN L LAWSON
EAST OF JAVA
3231 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
MIRIAM NICHOLS
2380 ALTA VISTA DRIVE
VISTA CA 92084
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SUITE A300
16885 WEST BERNARD0 DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92127-2107
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RECORDS
PO BOX 121750
SAN DIEGO, CA 921 12
SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
9150 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1096
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
1 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
JOHN CONLEY
CITY OF VISTA PLANNING DIVISION
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085-1988
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085-1988
CHANDRA WALLER
COUNTY DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUITE B MS 0650 5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92 123
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ROOM 121
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
4677 OVERLAND AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1233
SHARON SOUTH
ENCINITAS USD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
101 SOUTH RANCH SANTA FE ROAD
CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
PO BOX 85405 MS S-5
2829 JUAN STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
CA RESOURCES AGENCIES
SUITE I3 11
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ARCHEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
POBOXA81106
SAN DIEGO CA 92138
FLOYD BEST
MCCLELLAN PALOMAR AIRPORT
2198 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT
201 VALLECITOS DE OR0
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE CMS
ROOM 364
9 15 CAPITOL MALL
SACRAMENTO CA 958 14
CARLSBAD WATER DISTRICT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
5950 EL CAMINO REAL
LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
1960 LA COSTA AVENUE
THE COAST NEWS
PO BOX 232550
ENCINITAS CA 92023-2550
MICHAEL WILLIAMS
C/O SEMPRA ENERGY
8335 CENTURY PARK COURT CPI ID
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SAN LUIS BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS
I 889 smsm DRIVE
BUENA VISTA AUDUBON SOCIETY
PO BOX 416
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
PO BOX 841
JULIAN CA 92036
VISTA CA 92083
CARLSBAD USD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
801 PINE AVENUE
ISABELLE KAY
UCSD NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM
9500 GILMAN DRIVE
LA JOLLA CA 92093
RALPH AND MEREDITH WHITAKER
5090 CORINTHIA WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
LIZ KRUIDENIER
3005 CADENCIA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
INEZ YODER
WATER SHED STUDY CENTER
PMB 270 7720 B EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MARY AUGUSTINE
2393 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
FOUNDATION
4615 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DEPT OF TRANS AERO PROGRAM
MS 40 ROOM 3300 1120 N STREET
PO BOX 942874
SACRAMENTO CA 94274-0001
SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
1 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
DR JOSHUA KOHN
UCSD NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM
9500 GILMAN DRIVE
LA JOLLA CA 92093
MADELAIN N BLANKENSHIP
1681 DAWSONDRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
BILL AND ELAINA BLANKENSHIP
1681 DAWSON DRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HS DISTRICT
710 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
DAVE HOGAN
JOE HOFFMAN
7724 PALACIO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOAN MARTINEZ
2395 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
BOB RALL
103 1 MARINE VIEW DRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
MAUD SCHAEFER
2620 EAST NILES AVENUE
FRESNO CA 93720
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
1722 SOUTH COAST HIGHWAY
SCOTT WASON
VISTA CA 92083
891 MIMOSA AVENUE
SCOTT KENNEDY
7753 CAMINO ENCANOT VIOZ
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SERENA ST ONGE
VISTA CA 92083
2345 BROOKHAVEN PASS
MARK DIRHL
2369 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
MIKE HOWES
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
SUITE 150 5900 PASTEUR COURT
CARLSBAD CA 9200s
DIANE NYGAARD
5020 NIGHTHAWK
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
MARK READ
VISTA CA 92083
2285 BROOKHAVEN PASS
TA"Y LYTTLETON
CARLSBAD MACHINING &DESIGN
SUITE 109 5933 SEA LION PLACE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JIM AND PATTI HOLDEN
2341 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
Smooth Feed SheetsT"
J%K PARK CENTER PROPERTIES
1395 PARK CENTER DRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
TEMPO RESEARCH COW
1221 LIBERTY \Y.AJ'
VISTA C.4 92063
VISTA SOUTH MELROSE LP
475 WEST BRADLEY AVENUE
EL CAJON CA 92020
RACEWAY PROPERTIES LLC
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
12672 CAMINITO RADIANTE
L&M PROPERTIES LLC
2640 BUSIXESS PARE; DRIVE
VISTA CA 92083
HEWSON K- VISTA LLC
4636 EAST LTIVERSITY DRIVE
SUITE 265
PHOENIX AZ 85034
TECHBILT CONSTRUCTION CORP
3575 KENYON STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 921 IO
WESTERK SALT CO
SUITE 300
7220 TRADE STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
DR BROTHERS REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENTS
GARDEN GROVE CA 92843
10781 FORBES AVENUE
CARDS LIMITED LIABILITY CO
5909 SEA OTTER PLACE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HG FENTON CO
7588 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
COCC ASSOCIATES LTD
SUITE 140
5414 OBERLIN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
CANOGA-RINCON LOKER INDUST
2121 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
SUITE 100
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARTER GOLF INC
2765 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SUN CONTRACTING CORP
PO BOX 80036
SAN DIEGO CA 92138
JOSEPH A AND TINA M LEGGIO
2772 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EFBP ASSOCIATES
SUITE 140
5414 OBERLIN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
KINGS BAY INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENTS
2774 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FREDERICK S BROWN
1932 KELLOGG AVENUE
CANSBAD CA 92008
KELLER FAMILY TRUST
2768 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
HhY TRUST
2776 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NEIL AND ANNA MINT2 TRUST HARRIS FAMILY TRUST
7129 ROCKROSE TERRACE PO BOX 975 1
CANSBAD CA 92009 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
CIP LTD L?
475 WEST BRADLEY AVENUE
EL CAJON CA 92020
KXISER ELECTRO OPTICS INC CARLSBAD OAKS LTD LP
2"? LOKER AVENJE WEST 475 WEST BRADLEY AVENUE
C.XRLSBAD CA 92008 EL CAJON CA 92020
LEAFS INVESTMENTS LP
1333 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH
SAX DIEGO CA 92108
MAhDANA CAL CO
PO BOX 18197
IRVINE CA 92623
CARLSBAD OAKS YORTH
P-IRTSERS LP
7."- KENYOS STREET
S:\S DIEGO C.4 921 10
5555 OVERLAND AVENUE
COLYTY OF SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTN Use ternmate io- 5ic~:
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CITY OF VISTA CHRISTTTE L COOLEY
CALIFORNIA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVEhTE 2300 EASTBROOK RO.AD
9500 GILMAN DRIVE VISTA CA 92085 VISTA CA 920S3
LA JOLLA CA 92093
MANUAL A AND MIRIAM C TIVAR RlCHARD E AND MARIA A RIGGIK LON E SELLERS . ". ~
2304 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
KATHLEEN M HUTTON
2316 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
2308 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
23 11 EASTBROOK RO.AD
VISTA CA 92053
JASON A AND ELEANORA BRITTON MILMI E TOBIAS
2320 EASTBROOK ROAD 2324 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
JOHNNY G AND ROSEMARIE P CHARLES S AND DENISE BASSETT ALISON HOWARD
AGOOT 2332 EASTBROOK ROAD 2336 EASTBROOK ROAD
97E SOUTH SHORE COURT VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
BREMERTON WA 98312
KENDALL AND IRENE DUNWIDDIE SUSAN J AND RANDAL J
2340 EASTBROOK ROAD MCARTHLX
VISTA CA 92083 2344 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
KENXETH P .4ND REBECCA L
DURHAM
2301 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
ALLEN J MONTAND
SUITE 101
765 1 FRONT STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
ORLANDO G AND ELIZABETH M JEFFREY H AND MOLLY C SMITH
GWSAYKO 2289 EASTBROOK ROAD
2293 EASTBROOK ROAD VISTA C.4 92083
VISTA CA 92083
CHRISTOPHER AND JEW BERGAN RONALD K AND LESLIE A SANDERS KE,WETH L AND NANCY L NOBLE
2285 EASTBROOK ROAD 2277 REFLECTION CIRCLE 2273 REFLECTION CIRCLE
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
P.ATRICK J AND MARA CARNEY RUTH h4 SHEEHAN
2248 BAXTER CANYON ROAD 4629 CORDOBA WAY
VIST.4 CA 92083 OCEANSIDE CA 92056
D.4NIEL L AND LON L ROGERS DANIEL J WASKIEWICZ
X60 EASTER CANYON ROAD 2264 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
\'KT.\ C.4 92083 VISTA CA 92083
J.4SET L .4SD DALE .A WILKISSOS
--. . B.4STER C;\?lYON R0.U MICHAEL S SMITH
2257 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 \wr.a c.4 92083
?,<:
TODD T WELKE
2256 BAXTER CAhTON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
ORSOLA BARRETT
2249 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
ROBERT AND JEANNE HOATH
2261 BAXlER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
JOHN L ZATORSKI JAMES A AND KRISTEN DELISEO
2265 BAXTER CAhYOh' ROAD 2269 BAX'TER CAh?'ON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
MICHAEL D AND MARY A
POTTOWF
2277 BAXTER CANYON ROAD 228 1 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
DONALD AND DARLEEN LEWIS
TRUST
M.4RK AND NATALIE CASILLAS THOMAS M AND KAREN J PAGE
233 1 EASTBROOK ROAD 2394 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 920836 VISTA CA 92083
CHARLES W AND LINDA M RUSSELL KATRINA L KEOGH
972 KNOWLES AVENUE 2386 BROOKHAVEN PASS
CARLSBAD CA 92008 VISTA CA 92083
JOHN VIERECK
2378 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
SCOTT KOEERNER
2366 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
PAUL AND ANA GAUCHE
2354 BROOKHAVEN PASS
L'ISTA CA 92083
GREGG MORGAN
2395 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
FRITZ G BERGER
2374 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
HAN K AND KWANG S LEE
VISTA CA 92083
2362 BROOKHAVEN PASS
DANCANDARLENEDCARTER
2399 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
KENSTRUE TRUST
2393 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
D.ARRYL A GARRISON PATERSON FAMILY TRUST
1389 BROOKHAVEN P.ISS 2385 BROOKHAVEN PASS
\.ISTA CA 92083 . VISTA CA 92083
S'rEPHES .ASD LL-CIES BOCCH.ARD
-.~ BROOt;H.AVES PASS
FEY L CHAU
\-IST.A c.4 420s.:
2373 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VIST.4 C.4 92083
,."
DION J AND ROSIE E B.4RRIOS
VISTA CA 920Si
2273 BASTER C.ASYOS RO.AL)
JACOB AND JElYIFER R4SIIREZ
23 19 EASTBROOK ROAD
VISTA C.4 92083
JEREMY A AND JE3XIFER L BESOS
2392 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
LEE E AND ANITA M AHUMADA
2383 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 920x3
ROBERT A AND MARIE A BEHNKE
2370 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
DEANNA I WRIGHT
2358 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
JENNIFER BOATRIGHT
2397 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
GARY D AND RAE MERRITT
2391 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
ELAINE M AhD RANDY R CONWAY
2381 BROOKHAVEN PASS
V!STA CA 92083
MARK T DIEHL
2369 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTh5 bs? lernptate ic- 5::
JOHN WAND MARIASOL B COPE
2365 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
JOSEPH L AND LAURA C BEILKE
2353 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
2341 BROOKHAVEN PASS
LESLIE A MARTIN
VISTA CA 92083
ELIZABETH J BACK0
2335 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
JOANN DIEHL
2329 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
CHRISTOPHER C AND LOUISA N
LARSEN
2319 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
STEPHEN M GEARY
307 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
10RRES TRUST
2297 BROOKHAVEN PASS
L'IST.4 CA 92083
\VILLIAM C STAIRS
1? IO BROOKHAVEN PASS
\-IST.4 CA 92083
JI>.l\fY ASD KIKL' C.AYTOS
?.:2 BROOKH.4VES PASS
\'IST.4 C.4 92083
GREGORY A HERNANDEZ JR
2361 BROOKH.4VEN PASS
VIST.4 CA 92083 VISTA C.4 920S.2
,*-- LEON B AND LAURA C BRILLOS
-33 i BROOKH.A\'ES P.ASS
DANIEL E AND TERESA A JONES CRAIG H IiEST
2349 BROOKHAVEX PASS 2345 BROOKHAVEX PASS
VISTA CA 92083 VIST.4 CA 920S3
TIMOTHY AND EILEEN B MCNARY DIANE M FASTACONE
VISTA CA 92083
2339 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA C.4 92083
2337 BROOKHAVEN PASS
MARK K AND MICHELE A REYES
2333 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
RICHARD AND JUDY MADDOX
2321 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
THOMAS P IUNELL.4
2315 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
PATRICK B AND LORI J BALL
2303 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
JASON R AND ERIN M SLATTUM
2302 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
LEON AND KATHRW
ASCHBRENNER
23 14 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
\'ICTOR &I AND IRMA G FLORES
VISTA CA 92083
2326 BROOKHAVEX PASS
RICHARD L AND CAROL A BRASCH
2331 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
CHRISTOPHER M AND ALISON N
ODEN
2323 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
TONY A AND JENNIFER D
FRECHETTE
23 11 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
JOANNE C WALKER
2299 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
MARKIS R AND JULIE A JASKULA
2306 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
ERIK AND STEPHANIE TROGDEN
23 18 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
MARK ASD GABRIELLA GOMEZ
2330 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
Laser 5160@
Spooth Feed SheetsTM USE template ic-
CARL AND TINA BAKER
2334 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
PETER S AND NANCY BLOY
2346 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
WADE M AND EILEEN R MAURER
2241 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
JOHN J AND HELEN MOUh'TAm
VISTA CA 92083
2225 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
LEONARD A AND VALERIE S
OCHOA
2213 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
\'ISTA CA 92083
MICHAEL J AND JOAN B HOPPE
2222 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083
COLIN L AND JANE C ROSS
2260 REFLECTION CIRCLE
VISTA CA 92083
JOSEPH E AND CHRITIEN M DORSEY
2338 BROOKHAVEX PASS
JEFFREY A AND CHRISTLG I
VISTA CA 92083
MACHLER
2342 BROOKHA\'ES P.ASS
VIST.4 C.4 920S3
JOSELITO E SISON
2350 BROOKHAVEN PASS
VISTA CA 92083
RICHARD K .4ND SARAH P .A\lES
2215 B.4XTER CASYOS RO.-\D
VISTA C.4 920S3
BRIAN D AND LAURA J LAVIK HONG T TRUONG
2233 BAXTER CANYON ROAD 2229 BASTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
BUN E AND LISA SHAW CRAIG N Ah?) MICHELE A KATCHER
2221 BAXTER CANYON ROAD 22 17 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
HIEP P NGWEN HERBERT K WALPUSKl TRUST
2209 BAXTER CANYON ROAD 22 18 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
MMG S QIN GAIUS L AND JUNE C CADAMG
2230 BAXTER CASYON ROAD 2240 BAXTER CANYON ROAD
VISTA CA 92083 VISTA CA 92083
laser 516@
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], 2002, to
consider a request for certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and adoption of
the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program; approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Carlsbad Oaks
North Specific Plan, and Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for the
development of an industrial park that will include 23 industrial lots, 3 open space lots, and one
passive recreation lot located north of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and the
City’s e astern boundary i n the P-C Zone a nd L oca1 Facilities Management Zone 1 6. Public
Works projects that are associated with the Carlsbad Oaks North project include the extension
of Faraday Avenue, the extension of El Fuerte Street, and Reaches A through D of the South
Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI) and more particularly described as:
That portion of Lot “B” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map
thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, November 16, 1896.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and/or Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment,
If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIR 98-08/SP 21 1/SP 200(B)/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-0WLFMP 16(A)
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH
SPECIFIC PLAN
SP 21 l/SP 200(B)/LFMP 16(A)
EIR 98-08/GPA 97-05lZC 97-05/
U
.. c
Q)
v) 0 L - z
0 c, cn J=: 0 aa U 0 E 0 S .- E
w 8
Q 0 r E S
m aa 2 I
0 N C 0
u) S
Q) x W
.I
c,
L m . * 9
cn cn € 3
v)
E 0 a v) 0 U m 9
v) - L
yl
Q) c
r 0 N
Q) 3 E
Q) h
c 8 .I c,
L m
3
U C m E 0 2: m
Q)
v) E
0
.I c, c,
.I
e
ln 0 N 0 N
S 0
U aa v) 8
0 0 N s 0 0
A
0
(v
0 N
tn aa C
n e n
E e
LL mlml L
v) .I is) tn 6
E a
P) 0
L
k
c, C
0 S c
L
Q) S
N 0
0 W I- z
v) a
e 0 'CI m 'CI C m
L
iz
e
c, C I
Q) E Q)
u) Q)
II
- aa E C 0
n n Y
Y cn v aa S 0
3 Q
.I .cI
.I L U
cn
Q) d a aa ?
3i
5h v S
yl 0
I
Q) > Q)
ml
A
Q c .I
A A
cn m
C a
A
E P
C
W C
(II
E
(II
0 b
Irt:
Q)
Q) u,
Q) m W .I &
C 0
(II
W
.I c,
k
.I
I
rc 0
u)
C
n
0 v)
Ocv mo
0 N Io
0 e L
s E 0 I
e (II
‘4
Q) > .I 6 aa
.O (I)
L
I s
w aa aa L 3i aa
s E
e
0
(II
I
I
h
(II W m
u, s
0
0 cy
r
I E aa 3 L iz
4 aa 3 S
a
E i3 x t 0 z
c
Q)
Y L
0 C
.I
.I a L E 111 L E 0
111 I
e
0 - W s e 0
- W Q) C C
Q)
CI 5
Q) Q
E 5 Q)
Q) Q
v) Q) E 111 - 0 .).I > x- .- m
.cI :s 0
Q L 'El 111 2
E 0.
w- L Ib ie 0 E
Q) J u,
W I
PL 'El (8
p1 0
n (FI
v) *
5 cn S 0
rn II
L
h
U (FI n
.cI (FI
v) 5 rc 0
5 in * 0
>r Y * 0 z 0 .I c
0 W
Q) > cn c om .I - .m Q) L E"
(FI
v) K
0
c) v
(FI > Q)
L
-
* Q)
v) S S
v)
n
v) 0 0 L
P) C m-
S 0 m > .I L
> .I L v) 0 0 L s
C
(FI
v)
m- L L m W n
Q) :
i! L
I
A
Q) > * 0 00 r- >r U S
(FI v)
A
. 0 cn
A
v
0
C 0
t) cn
s
111
I
I
-.&
I
a 0
(u
w CY 3 13
LL H
m
“””
..
I ,
"+-
1