Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009-08-18; City Council; 19935 Part 2; La Costa Town Square
EXHIBIT 5 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: July 15, 2009 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(RVLFMP 87-1UCVCT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01-03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08- 06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE - Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, three Carlsbad Tract Maps, Condominium Permit, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, two Site Development Plans, Variance and eight Conditional Use Permits for the development of a 83.07 acre site with a 284,400 square foot community shopping center, 55,000 square foot office project, 64 single family lot subdivision, and a multi-family residential site all located northerly and easterly of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the southeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6577 RECOMMENDING that the City Council CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report EIR 01-02, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6578, 6579, 6580, 6581, 6582, 6583, 6584, 6585, 6586, 6588, 6589, 6590, 6591, 6592, 6593, 6594, 6595, 6596, and 6597 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 01-02, Master Plan Amendment 149(R), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment 87-11(C), Carlsbad Tract Map 01-09, Carlsbad Tract Map 08-03, Carlsbad Tract Map 08-07, Condominium Permit 01-03, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit 08-09, Hillside Development Permit 01-05, Site Development Plan 01-04, Variance 08- 02, Conditional Use Permit 04-18, Conditional Use Permit 08-01, Conditional Use Permit 08-02, Conditional Use Permit 08-03, Conditional Use Permit 08-04, Conditional Use Permit 08-05, Conditional Use Permit 08-06, and Conditional Use Permit 08-07 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Number 6587 APPROVING Site Development Plan 01-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION This item was heard and public testimony was taken and closed on July 1, 2009. The Planning Commission continued the item due to the lateness of the hour to July 15, 2009. The staff report for the July 1, 2009 meeting is attached.o The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: July 1, 2009 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(RVLFMP 87-1KCVCT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01-03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08- 06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE - Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, three Carlsbad Tract Maps, Condominium Permit, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, two Site Development Plans, Variance and eight Conditional Use Permits for the development of a 83.07 acre site with a 284,400 square foot community shopping center, 55,000 square foot office project, 64 single family lot subdivision, and a multi-family residential site all located northerly and easterly of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in Jhe southeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6577 RECOMMENDING that the City Council CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report EIR 01-02, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6578, 6579, 6580, 6581, 6582, 6583, 6584, 6585, 6586, 6588, 6589, 6590, 6591, 6592, 6593, 6594, 6595, 6596, and 6597 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 01-02, Master Plan Amendment 149(R), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment 87-11(C), Carlsbad Tract Map 01-09, Carlsbad Tract Map 08-03, Carlsbad Tract Map 08-07, Condominium Permit 01-03, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit 08-09, Hillside Development Permit 01-05,, Site Development Plan 01-04, Variance 08- 02, Conditional Use Permit 04-18, Conditional Use Permit 08-01, Conditional Use Permit 08-02, Conditional Use Permit 08-03, Conditional Use Permit 08-04, Conditional Use Permit 08-05, Conditional Use Permit 08-06, and Conditional Use Permit 08-07 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Number 6587 APPROVING Site Development Plan 01-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION Aspen Properties has submitted an application for the development of a shopping center, office project, single family subdivision, and establishing a parcel for a multi-family residential use on EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 2 83.07 acres of land generally located northerly and easterly of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. An environmental impact report has been prepared which analyzes the potential impacts to the environment which may be caused by the development of the site. The environmental analysis identified that there are significant and immitigable impacts related to traffic, air quality and construction noise. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must therefore be adopted to approve the project. No other significant unmitigable environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR. The existing Commercial, Office, Residential Low Medium, and Open Space General Plan Land Use designations are being adjusted to accommodate the project and a new General Plan Land Use designation of Residential High density is proposed on the portion of the project located westerly of Rancho Santa Fe Road. There are no outstanding issues and therefore staff is recommending approval of the associated resolutions. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed La Costa Town Square project involves the construction and operation of a mixed- use center that includes a 284,400-square-foot community shopping center, two office buildings totaling approximately 55,000 square feet, 64 single-family detached residential units, and a multifamily residential site with up to 128 dwelling units, which* will require the approval of subsequent discretionary permits. The project site encompasses 83.07 acres. As shown on Minor Subdivision 04-08 (Exhibit MS 04-08) the site will be subdivided into four separate parcels including a 41.55 acre commercial parcel, which includes an open space buffer, a 7.17 acre office parcel, a 24.39 acre residential single family parcel, and a 9.96 acre multi-family parcel. The project site is owned by the La Costa Town Square LLC and was annexed to the City of Carlsbad in 1972. The La Costa Master Plan (MP 149), which consist of 2,399 acres, including this property, was adopted in 1972 and has been periodically amended since its original adoption. The site is located within a portion of Village SE 8 (Residential) and Villages SE 13 (Commercial) and SE 14 (Office) of the La Costa Master Plan. The adjacent Villages of La Costa Master Plan, once a part of the La Costa Master Plan, has completed residential development adjacent to the project site and continues to develop northerly of the site. The City's General Plan has designated the property for development with a commercial center, offices, and residential uses since the early 1970s. In 1992, EIR 91-01 was certified for the Rancho Santa Fe Road realignment and mass grading project. Rancho Santa Fe Road was realigned from its previous alignment located immediately to the north of the proposed multi- family parcel to follow the alignment of the original roadway known as the "truck by-pass." The new alignment traverses through the existing Commercial and Office land use designations of the project site. Grading associated with the construction of the realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road resulted in the creation of a triangular lot (proposed Parcel 1 of MS 04-08) located between the old and new alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Some additional grading has occurred on other areas of the project site related to the construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road. There are 2:1 (horizontal and vertical) cut slopes with a maximum height of about 35 feet adjacent to La Costa Avenue along the southern and southwestern boundaries of the site. A rock/soil stockpile EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 3 generated by recent grading of Rancho Santa Fe Road is present in the central portion of the site. In addition, the northwestern part of the site is to be utilized as a borrow area for the proposed office development site. Vegetation in the undisturbed area of the site consists of a moderate to heavy growth of natural and normative grasses and brush. The La Costa Town Square project site is also included in the Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) for Properties in the Southeast Quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, California, which was finalized in 1995. This document was created to provide for the conservation of sensitive wildlife and habitat for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan, a large-scale residential development plan. The project's legislative applications include a Master Plan Amendment and a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements to modify the boundaries of the existing Local Commercial, Office, Open Space, and Residential Low- Medium Density land use designations and to add a new Residential High Density Land Use designation. A Master Plan Amendment and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (to Zone 11) are also proposed to reflect the land use changes. Discretionary applications include: Site Development Plans for the commercial and office developments; Tentative Tract Maps for the subdivision of the commercial portion into lot ownership (25 lots), the office portion into airspace ownership (60*condominium units), and for the 64 residential lot subdivision; Non-residential Planned Development and Condominium permits to accompany the tract maps; a Variance to allow for one monument sign per project entry whereas only one monument type sign is currently allowed per street frontage; a Hillside Development Permit as the site has steep slopes; and Conditional Use permits for two gas stations with car washes and six non-restaurant businesses with drive-thru facilities. The table below summarizes the proposed permits and final decision making authority. PROJECT APPLICATION(S) Environmental Review (Environmental Impact Report) GPA01-02 MP 149(R) LFMP87-11(C) HDP 01 -05 CT01-09(Comm) CT 08-03 (Res) CT 08-07 (Office) PUD 08-09 (Comm) CPO 1-03 (Office) SDP 01-03 (Office) SDPO 1-04 (Comm) ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS PLANNING COMMISSION RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA X RA CITY COUNCIL X X X X X X X X X X X EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 4 PROJECT APPLICATION(S) V 08-02 MS 04-08 Various CUPs ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS X PLANNING COMMISSION RA RA CITY COUNCIL X X RA = Recommended Approval X = Final City decision -making authority Site topography is characterized by hilly terrain, sloping in a generally southerly direction, dissected by several south-trending drainages. Overall topographic relief is approximately 135 feet across the site, with onsite elevations ranging from approximately 265 feet MSL located at the southern boundary of the property immediately to the east of the La Costa Avenue/Calle Timiteo intersection to 400+ feet MSL located along the northern property boundary east of the Ranch Santa Fe Road/Paseo Lupino intersection. In order to develop the site with commercial and office buildings, extensive grading is required to create large commercial development pads with shallow sloping areas for parking lots. The site cannot be graded as one pad and achieve the pad areas required to accommodate the proposed commercial/office development. Therefore the site grading utilizes a split pad design to create two development areas. The steep single family residential portion of the site is proposed to be stair step graded. As shown on La Costa Town Square Commercial, CT 01-09, Exhibit A - VV, the commercial site is accessed from two points off Rancho Santa Fe Road. One is an existing signalized intersection with Paseo Lupino and the other is a right turn in only located between La Costa Avenue and Paseo Lupino. Access to the commercial site from La Costa Avenue is at a new proposed signal located 500 feet east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and aligned with the eastern driveway of the existing retail center on the south side of La Costa Avenue. Access to the Office project is at a new signalized intersection at La Costa Avenue and Calle Timiteo. The single family residential development will have two points of access. One from La Costa Avenue located at an entry as planned and built (Paseo Tamarindo) with the development of the Villages of La Costa Oaks South (CT 99-04) residential project. The other is an extension of Sitio Lima, also planned and built as part of the Villages of La Costa project. The proposed multi-family site is accessed from Rancho Santa Fe Road via Paseo Lupino. The right-in only driveway off of Rancho Santa Fe Road provides access to the center of the commercial project. The driveway leads to a commercial themed main street and then to a central pedestrian plaza which is the focal point of the center. To the east of the plaza are the proposed grocery, drug store, and other inline retail shops. To the west of the plaza are retail shops and a major retail department store. The two major fields of parking are located in the center of the project and separated by the main street. Multi-tenant and single tenant pads are dispersed around the perimeter of the project. At the corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue, an enhanced pedestrian entry with extensive landscaping, monument walls, entry tower and water features leads to an outdoor plaza formed by potential restaurant buildings. Two gas stations with car washes are proposed, one at each entrance off of Rancho Santa Fe Road. A 3.7 acre Open Space buffer is provided between the Residential Low Medium and Commercial EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 5 area. The buffer is provided to separate incompatible land uses (residential to office and commercial) and will be landscaped and contain bioswales for water quality purposes. Pedestrian access ways are provided throughout the center. A pedestrian pathway is provided from the cul-de-sac of the proposed adjacent residential neighborhood to the east and from La Costa Avenue. Pedestrian access ways are also provided along the vehicular access points and bus stop along Rancho Santa Fe Road. The pedestrian system provides landscaped sidewalks along the vehicular circulation way and through the center of the site. Pedestrian access is also provided from the Office site via an elevator/stair tower and pedestrian bridge which would lead to the central plaza. The central plaza provides a public gathering area for the development. The plaza includes a clock tower, water feature, landscaped planters, trees in grated planters and seat walls. The residential parcel includes 68 lots on 24.39 gross acres, including 64 single-family lots (Lots 1-64) and four open space lots (Lots 65-68). The single family lot sizes range from 7,500 square feet up to 27,265 square feet. The four open space lots on the residential parcel range from 12,310 square feet up to 62,810 square feet and total 3.5 acres and are located along Rancho Santa Fe Road, along the southeastern border of the project boundary (including an existing waterline easement), at the northerly end of the project boundary adjacent to Sitio Lima (including a waterline easement), and along La Costa Avenue (which contains a drainage easement). Access to the residential homes will be provided from an entrance on La Costa Avenue with a connection to existing Sitio Lima. A separate tentative tract map (CT 08-03) is proposed for the subdivision of this parcel. This parcel is proposed to be developed with single family residences in its entirety prior to or concurrent with the first phase of commercial parcel development. No subsequent discretionary permits are required for the development of these residential lots. The open space buffer for the commercial parcel discussed above will create privacy for the residences from surrounding roadways and commercial and office uses. The architectural theme of the commercial center is Mediterranean/Tuscan. The buildings are finished with a smooth stucco coating with a stone or stucco wainscot. Roof designs include both flat and pitched roofs in an alternating manner to provide vertical building relief. The hipped and gable pitched roofs have a clay colored barrel tile covering and decorative cement plaster parapet detail. The flat roofed buildings include a decorative cornice trim. The building elevations are enhanced with both square or arched window surrounds and decorative cast columns. The building facades also vary in depth from each other by 1 foot to 4.5 feet to provide a variety of building planes to add interest and depth to the building elevations. The corners of many of the buildings have a larger architectural corner feature which projects further from the primary building and provides a taller architectural element to add vertical relief. These elements are in the form of taller tiled roof elements, flat roofed square tower elements, or tower elements with a domed roof. The building colors are earth tone colors accented with stone tile, stone veneers, ceramic accent tiles, and accent colored fabric awnings. The Office buildings follow the Mediterranean architectural theme of the commercial project. The two story buildings have both pitched roofs with barrel tile roofing and flat roof elements with decorative cement plaster parapet details. The walls are stucco coated and painted earth tone colors similar to the commercial project. The buildings have entries which project from the EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 6 building with tall glazed entry features. Other architectural elements include arched building features supported by cast columns on the lower floor and window surrounds on the lower and upper floors. The buildings have a variety of building articulation which enhances the aesthetics of the buildings. Both the buildings have mechanical equipment enclosures on the ground. The project site is bounded by the old Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment and single family homes to the north and northwest, La Costa Avenue, a commercial shopping center, and apartments to the south and southwest, and existing single family homes to the east as part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan project. IV. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed within the following section of this staff report: A. General Plan Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Element - Local Commercial, Office, Open Space, and Residential High and Low - Medium Density Land Use Designations; B. La Costa Master Plan (MP 149(R); C. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 11; D. Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code; E. Non-Residential Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.47 of the Municipal Code; F. Hillside Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.95 of the Municipal Code; G. Qualified Development Overlay Zone, Chapter 21.06 of the Municipal Code; H. Variance, Chapter 21.50 of the Municipal Code; I. Conditional Use Permits, Chapter 21.42 of the Municipal Code; and J. Villages of La Costa Habitat Conservation Plan. The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The General Plan Amendment (GPA) will reconfigure the existing land use designations located southerly of the new alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road (i.e.; Local Commercial (L), Office (O), Residential Low-Medium (RLM), and Open Space (OS)) and within the project boundary to reflect the design of the proposed project. The project proposes to add a new Residential High density land use designation to the 9.96 acre triangular shaped property located to the north of the new alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road (Lot 1 of MS 04-08). The proposed land use change is primarily a result of the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The realignment divided the property into two separate portions and divides the existing Office and Commercial General Plan Land Use designations. The new northerly triangular portion, located between the old and new alignments of Rancho Santa Fe Road, and currently designated Commercial, Office, and Residential Low-Medium and Open Space will be re-designated to Residential High density EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 7 and Open Space. This 9.96 acre site has been identified in the proposed Housing Element as a Residential High density site, which has been recently recommended for approval by the Housing Commission. Table 1 below shows the extent of change in acreage of the existing and proposed Land Use designations (which may not be the same as the identified parcel sizes). The acreages used in the table are from the Zone 11 LFMP, as the older La Costa Master Plan acreages are not consistent and vary from the LFMP. TABLE 1 LAND USE DESIGNATION Office Local Commercial Residential Low-Medium Residential High density Open Space Residential Medium High Totals* EXISTING ACRES (PER LFMP*) OF LAND USE 9.1 34.6 31.1 0 7.6 1 83.4* PROPOSED ACRES OF LAND USE 7.17 37.88 24.36 8.06 5.6 0 83.07 *Acreages are based on digitized land use maps and are not, as accurate as parcel based information. The Open Space designated portion of the project site as shown on the La Costa Master Plan, General Plan Land Use Map and the Open Space and Conservation Map is located between the Residential Low-Medium and Commercial Land Uses. The purpose of the Open Space is to provide a buffer between the residential and commercial land uses. The La Costa Master Plan identifies approximately 4.4 acres of Open Space for this area whereas the LFMP identifies the same Open Space area as 7.6 acres. 5.6 acres of Open Space will be provided with this project. The purpose of the Open Space is to provide an adequate buffer between incompatible land uses and is only represented on the Open Space map for diagrammatical purposes and does not have a specific acreage. Both the Master Plan and LFMP have provided acreages which have been derived from estimates or through the digitizing of the Open Space Map to create a theoretical acreage to represent the buffer. Pursuant to Open Space Planning and Protection Implementation Policy C.20 of the Open Space and Conservation Element, when adjusting boundaries of any Open Space as shown on the "Official Open Space and Conservation Map ("Map")," the proposed open space is to be equal to or greater in area than the area depicted on the "Map." The Open Space buffer proposed with this General Plan Amendment (5.6 acres) is however adequate in size and shape to provide an effective buffer between the Commercial, Office and Residential uses and there is no need to make up for the perceived loss in Open Space acreage as the original Open Space area was never clearly defined or quantified. Additional open space is also being provided between the existing residential located along Paseo Lupino and the proposed Multi-family site in the form of project open space. The once proposed "collector" roadway (Paseo Lupino to Old Rancho Santa Fe EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 PageS Road) will not be vacated and the right-of-way will remain until the site design of the multi- family site is completed. The proposed amendment to change the land use designation of a 9.96 acre site from Local Shopping Center, Office, and Residential Low-Medium to Residential High Density is for the purpose of developing a residential project to provide a variety of housing types at a density which will provide more affordable housing opportunities. The Residential High Density designated site is in close proximity to adequate and convenient commercial services and a major transportation corridor. The site is compatible with adjacent and existing single family residential land uses in that adequate horizontal separation (100 foot minimum) in the form of open space, old street rights of way and vertical separation (ranges from 60 feet below to 14 feet above the subject site) is provided. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to offset the 110 unit net allocation to this property so that the approval will not result in exceeding the Southeast quadrant dwelling unit limit. Rancho Santa Fe Road is adequate in size and capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the Residential High Land Use designation and bus stops along Rancho Santa Fe Road provide opportunities for public transportation. The La Costa Master Plan (last amended in 2006 for Fire Station 6) was found to comply with applicable General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. This project is in conformance with the Master Plan and therefore is also in compliance with the General1 Plan. The project complies with Elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table 2 below. TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT Land Use Land Use Land Use USE, CLASSIFI- CATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM Site is designated for: Commercial, Office, and RLM at 3.2 du/ac. A City that provides for conveniently located shopping centers. Provide for a variety of housing types and density ranges. PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS The project proposes the development of Commercial, Office, Multi-family High density (see discussion above), and Single-family residential at 2.25 du/ac. Provides local commercial coverage in the south eastern portion of the City. Provides single and multi-family housing opportunities. COMPLY Yes Yes Yes EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 9 TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFI- CATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY Land Use Locate Multi-family uses near commercial centers and transportation corridors. Multi-family proposed adjacent to proposed commercial center along Rancho Santa Fe Road. The project will construct/improve public streets needed to serve the development. Yes Circulation Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve proposed development. Yes Noise Residential exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL and interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Project provides noise attenuation walls adjacent to proposed SFR located along Rancho Santa Fe Road and commercial project to mitigate noise from Rancho Santa Fe Road and commercial development. Yes Noise To achieve noise compatibility between commercial and surrounding land uses. Project design features includes noise walls between the commercial and residential uses and restrictions on hours of public gathering in the central plaza use area to attenuate noise to an acceptable level. Yes Housing Allow development of sufficient new housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The multi-family site is included in the Housing Element as a site to meet Regional Housing Needs. Yes 2-51 EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 10 TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFI- CATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY Housing Allocate "excess dwelling units pursuant to Policy 43". Multi-Family project proposes housing at a density which is more affordable. Yes Open Space & Conservation Minimize environmental impacts to sensitive resources within the City. Project implements the Villages of La Costa Habitat Conservation Plan. Yes Open Space & Conservation Provide increased setbacks and establish greenways to create open space areas separating conflicting land uses. Project provides a reconfigured Open Space buffer between Commercial, Office and Residential land uses shown on the General Plan and Open Space and Conservation Elements. Yes Public Safety Public awareness of possible natural or man-made disasters. The project is conditioned to require notification to residents of the inundation area of possible flooding from the Mahr Reservoir. Yes The project proposes to vacate road dedications which were dedicated as part of the Villages of La Costa Master Plan and old County of San Diego roadways. The alignment of the new Rancho Santa Fe Road has moved very slightly as a result of the final design. The now present alignment has been dedicated and will remain and the previous alignment will be vacated. Road Survey 454, dedicated in 1930, was the old original Rancho Santa Fe Road and also was used as the truck-bypass. This road no longer exists and has been replaced by Rancho Santa Fe Road. The street vacations are consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element as Rancho Santa Fe Road is constructed as a prime arterial Circulation Element roadway and the old alignments are no longer needed. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 11 B. La Costa Master Plan Amendment and Compliance Master Plan Amendment The La Costa Master Plan is the controlling document for the development of the site. It implements the General Plan, Zoning, and applicable policies governing the site. The La Costa Master Plan allows for Office, Commercial, and Residential uses within the project area. In that the proposed land use changes (reconfiguration of the Office, Commercial, and Residential Low Medium density uses and addition of a new Residential High density use) will retain the existing mix of land uses that are currently allowed by the Master Plan, the Master Plan will remain internally consistent. Neighborhoods SE-13 and SE-14 of the La Costa Master Plan comprise the commercial and office development areas respectively of the project. Pursuant to the Master Plan, a minimum of twenty-five percent of the total square footage of the overall Commercial and Office planning areas (neighborhoods) is to be designated as Office. The applicant's proposal, to amend the Master Plan to revise the reservation of office space within the two planning areas from 25 percent to 19 percent, is based on the specific project design. Additional office space, which is a permitted use in the Commercial zone, may be provided depending on the tenants of the Commercial center. The Zone 11 LFMP plan assumes that 23.6% of the development is to be office. The Master Plan amendment also proposes to rearrange the boundaries of the neighborhoods to reflect the new roadway alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The existing Office, Commercial, and Residential Low-Medium development areas have been physically divided by the new roadway alignment. The area westerly of the new Rancho Santa Fe is proposed to be designated Residential High density. The Office portion of the project and the Commercial will be on the easterly side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The new Office land use location is a result of the addition of the High Density Residential land use. The site is appropriate as it is adjacent to a Commercial land use, separated from residential land uses by open space and a Circulation Element roadway, and is located adjacent to La Costa Avenue, a Circulation Element roadway. The Office area is reduced from 14 acres (9.lac. per LFMP) to 7.17 acres in size. The commercial area is modified from 37 acres (34.6 ac. per LFMP) acres to 41.55 acres. The reduction in the reservation of office space is reflected in the new smaller area reserved for office space. As discussed above, Office development would still have the potential of occupying space within the commercial development portion of the project. Other Office space has also been provided in nearby commercial centers, thus reducing the demand for office space. The single family residential portion of the project, residential neighborhood SE-8, is being updated as a result of the Villages of La Costa Project. The neighborhood was previously affected by the last Master Plan Amendment for the Villages of La Costa Oaks project and the revision is to correctly indicate the remaining number of residential units allowed in this neighborhood, which are 64 units on 24.39 gross acres (20.4 net). The other modifications proposed for the Master Plan is to bring the Master Plan into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. The La Costa Master Plan includes provisions for building EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 12 heights to allow six story or 70 foot tall buildings for RM and RMH land uses designations. The height provisions are being deleted and building height restrictions will default to the Municipal Code. The Master Plan includes a Community Identity Monument Sign Program that is not being utilized. The amendment proposes to delete the existing sign text and to reference the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21.41) for all sign regulations and the ability to utilize the City's Subdivision Kiosk Sign Program (City Council policy 65) for offsite directional signs for tract housing developments. Master Plan Compliance The project complies with the following requirements of the Master Plan as demonstrated in Table 3 below. TABLE 3 -LA COSTA MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS STANDARD Development Standards Grading guidelines Open Space and Trail System Signs Affordable Housing REQUIRED Development Standards of underlying Zoning Compliance with Master Plan and Chapter 15 of CMC Open Space buffers Compliance with the Sign Ordinance 15% of the total number of units are to be affordable PROPOSED Development is consistent with the development standards of the underlying Zoning. Project complies with Master Plan and Chapter 15 of CMC (Storm Water and Erosion Control). Open Space buffers are provided to separate the commercial, office and residential land uses per the Master Plan. Project conditioned to submit a comprehensive sign program per the Sign Ordinance. This requirement is being satisfied through the purchase of 10 affordable units off-site in Villa Loma. The La Costa Master Plan does not contain specific development standards and projects are subject to the development standards of the underlying zoning (Office and Local Commercial Shopping Center) established in the La Costa Master Plan and compliance for the project are outlined in the Tables 4 and 5 below. TABLE 4 - OFFICE DEVELOPMENT (TWO LOTS/TWO BUILDINGS) STANDARD - O Zone Lot Area PERMITTED/REQUIRED 10,000 square feet PROPOSED 1 1 8,047 sq ft and 1 93,406 sq ft EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 13 TABLE 4 - OFFICE DEVELOPMENT (TWO LOTS^TWO BUILDINGS) CONTINUED STANDARD - O Zone Lot Width Building Height Setbacks* Landscaping Building Coverage Parking Signs Employee eating areas PERMITTED/REQUIRED 75 feet at rear of front yard setback 45 feet/three levels/ height protrusions to 45 feet with increased setbacks per additional foot of building height above 35 feet Front yard, Arterial - 39 feet Side yard -19 feet Rear Yard -19 feet Per landscape manual/Streetscape Program 50% maximum 34 and 86 spaces required (4sp/1000sqft) Sign Program required 4,500 sq ft (300 sq ft/5000 sq ft) PROPOSED 335 ft and 525 ft 44 feet/ two levels Front yard, Arterial = 39 feet Side yard =19 feet Rear yard = 50 ft min Per landscape manual and Streetscape program Both at 9% coverage 34 and 86 spaces (4 sp/lOOOsq ft) Conditioned to provide sign program 2,700 sq ft with allowance for balance to be interior. * Setbacks increased nine feet for increased building height from 35 feet to 44 feet. TABLE 5 - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD - CL Zone PERMITTED/REQUIRED PROPOSED Property Size Four net acres 41.55 gross acres Building Height*45 feet/three levels/ architectural features to 55 feet 45 feet/ two levels/ architectural feature to 55 feet.* Yards (C-L Zone)Rancho Santa Fe Rd (Prime) - 20 feet La Costa Avenue (Secondary) - 15 feet Interior yard - 10 feet Prime setback =50 feet Secondary setback = 50 feet Interior yard = >10 feet Landscaping Per landscape manual Parking areas and slopes are landscaped per landscape manual Walls and Fences Provide along common lot line Project provides an open space buffer between commercial and residential land uses and a noise attenuation wall is provided along Rancho Santa Fe Road and between the commercial/residential boundary. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 14 TABLE 5 - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED STANDARD - CL Zone Lighting Roof appurtenances Trash enclosures Loading Areas and Docks Parking Employee eating areas Signs Recycling Areas PERMITTED/REQUIRED Exterior lighting required for parking, walkways and building entrances and exits. Lighting to be designed to avoid direct or indirect glare. Shield and screen roof appurtenances Enclosed in six-foot-high enclosures Oriented and screened from adjacent streets or properties. 1 ,422 spaces required (4sp/1000sqft). 1 ,700 square feet or public eating area Sign Program required - Variance for entry monument signs If required by State Law PROPOSED Project is conditioned to provide a lighting plan prior to building permit issuance. The lighting plan shall include light design and a photometric plan and lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. Roof equipment is screened and shielded by building design elements such as roof parapets or equipment screens. Trash enclosures are provided throughout the project site and meet Engineering Standard GS-16. All loading areas and docks are oriented and/or screened from adjacent public streets and residential properties and noise attenuation walls are included. 1 ,477 parking spaces are provided (55 extra) Public eating areas are provided in the central plaza. The project is conditioned to provide a sign program to create a comprehensive sign plan for the commercial project. A Variance for an additional entry monument sign is proposed to allow one additional monument sign for the additional entry off Rancho Santa Fe Road. None provided *The building height to forty Development Plan approval -five feet must be approved by the City Council through the Site subject to the following findings: a. That the building does not contain more than three levels; EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 15 b. All required setbacks shall be increased at a ratio of one horizontal foot for every one foot of vertical construction beyond thirty-five feet and the additional setback area will be maintained as landscaped open space; c. The building conforms to the requirements of Section 18.04.170 (Building Code) of the CMC; and d. The allowed height protrusion does not exceed 45 feet, with the exception of architectural features such as architectural towers which may be permitted up to 55 feet if the council makes the specific findings that the protruding architectural features (1) do not provide useable floor area; (2) do not accommodate and/or screen building equipment; (3) do not adversely impact adjacent properties; and (4) are necessary to ensure a building's design excellence. The increase in height is for the large retail building (Building 21 and Plaza Tower). The building does not contain more than two levels, all setbacks are greater than required by ten feet and the additional setback area will be landscaped and maintained as open space, the buildings comply with the Building Code for buildings between 35 and 55 feet in height, and the height protrusion above 45 feet for architectural features do not provide additional floor area, do not accommodate and/or screen roof mounted equipment, and are necessary to enhance the design and visual relief of the commercial center. The Master Plan designates Neighborhood SE-8 for single-family detached homes. The minimum lot size and width for each lot is evaluated in Section D of this report. C Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment A Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) has been previously prepared for Zone 11 pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Ordinance, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code. This amendment is to reflect the revision to the land use boundaries as a result of the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road, the previous bifurcation of Neighborhood SE-8, and the addition of the Residential High density land use designation. The project will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special conditions listed in the LFMZ plan. The facility demands of the build out of Local Facilities Management Zone 11 were based on a projection of future development within the zone. Table 6 below summarizes the anticipated development within Zone 11 compared to the proposed project. TABLE-6 LAND USE Commercial Office Residential Low- medium DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTION 403,801 sq ft 95,396 sq ft 82 dwelling units (du) PROPOSED PROJECT 284,400 sq ft 55,000 sq ft 64 du NET CHANGE -119,401 sqft -40,396 sq ft -18du 257 EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 16 TABLE-6 CONTINUED LAND USE Residential High density DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTION 0 PROPOSED PROJECT 128 du NET CHANGE +128 (net Residential unit change +110du) The project's facilities impacts are summarized in Table 7 below and are further analyzed in the EIR. TABLE 7 - LFMP ZONE 11 SUMMARY STANDARD City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools: Encinitas Unified School District Sewer Water IMPACTS 668 sq. ft. 356 sq. ft. 83,723 gpd 1.33 Acres 189cfs 25,51 6 ADT Station #6 and #2 5.6 Acres Elementary: 86 Middle: 20 High: 41 380 EDU 186,862 gpd COMPLIANCE W/STANDARDS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes: School Fees Yes Yes As identified in the Public Services and Utilities Section of the EIR 01-02, all facilities to serve the project are adequate and no significant impacts have been identified with public facilities. The City currently maintains an excess number of unbuilt dwelling units of 2,967 dwelling units in the excess dwelling unit bank. These units are deposited as a result of projects developing under their potential. The La Costa Town Square project proposes to draw 110 units for the Residential High density site. These dwelling units can be accommodated within Zone 11 without exceeding the Southeast Quadrant dwelling unit cap. The Southeast quadrant may allow up to 2,266 additional units before the quadrant cap is met. These dwelling units do not increase the demands of facilities as these units were previously anticipated to be constructed and adequate facilities were provided. D.Subdivision Ordinance The project necessitates the processing of three Tentative Tract Maps, one map each for the Commercial, Office and Residential projects. The commercial project (CT 01-09) proposes 25 lots. Each commercial pad will be a separate lot and there will be one common lot for the parking and open space portions of the project. A Non-Residential Planned Development Permit (PUD 08-09) accompanies this application for the planned unit development lots. The Office project (CT 08-07) proposes a total of two lots and a total of 60 airspace condominium units (23 EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 17 units on Lot 1 and 37 units on Lot 2). A condominium permit (CP 01-03) accompanies this application for each lot which contains more than one unit. The Residential project (CT 08-03) proposes a total of 68 Lots; 64 single family lots and 4 open space lots. A Tentative Parcel Map (MS 04-08) is also being processed to create four lots (Commercial, Office, Residential Single Family, and Residential Multifamily). The Parcel Map is an administrative action and will be acted on by the City Engineer after the other actions. Tables 8 thru 10 below summarize the projects compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. TABLE 8 - COMMERCIAL PROJECT (CT 01-09) COMPLIANCE TABLE STANDARD Minimum Lot Area Front on a dedicated street Lot width Bicycle routes Street Plan Hillside Development Ordinance Passive heating/ cooling design REQUIRED 4 acres (net) Frontage on a public street unless allowed per Chapter 21 .47 for non- residential planned developments N/A Provide for bicycle routes on Circulation Element roadways Assure proper development of abutting properties and street plans. Compliance with Hillside Development Ordinance. Design for passive heating and cooling. PROVIDED 41.57 The project fronts onto Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue, which are publicly dedicated streets. The PUD lots are allowed per Chapter 21 .47. 1,900 ft (RSF) and 1,100 ft (La Costa Ave). Bicycle routes are provided along Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Ave. The project's intersections have been aligned with existing driveways and street intersections. See Section F below for discussion on Hillside Development Ordinance compliance. Project provides, where feasible, building orientation to take advantage of passive heating and cooling. COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 9 - OFFICE PROJECT (CT 08-07) COMPLIANCE TABLE STANDARD Minimum Lot Area Front on a dedicated street REQUIRED 1 0,000 sq ft Frontage on a public street unless allowed per 2 1 .47 for non-residential planned developments. PROVIDED 1 18,047 sq ft (2.7 ac) and 193,406 sq ft (4.4 ac). The project fronts on La Costa Avenue which is a publicly dedicated street. The Condominium units are allowed per Chapter 2 1.47. COMPLY? Yes Yes EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 18 TABLE 9 - OFFICE PROJECT (CT 08-07) COMPLIANCE TABLE CONTINUED STANDARD Lot width Bicycle routes Street Plan Hillside Development Ordinance Passive heating/ cooling design REQUIRED 75 feet Provide for bicycle routes on Circulation Element roadways. Assure proper development of abutting properties and street plans. Compliance with Hillside Development Ordinance. Design for passive heating and cooling. PROVIDED 355 feet and 560 feet. Bicycle routes are provided along La Costa Ave. The project's intersections have been aligned with existing street intersections. See Section F below for discussion on Hillside development Ordinance compliance. Project provides, where feasible, building orientation to take advantage of passive heating and cooling. COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TABLE 10 - RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (CT 08-03) COMPLIANCE TABLE STANDARD Minimum Lot Area Front on a dedicated street Lot width Bicycle routes Street Plan Hillside Development Ordinance Passive heating/ cooling design REQUIRED 7,500 sq ft Frontage on a public street. 60 feet/33 on cul-de-sac Provide for bicycle routes on Circulation Element roadways. Assure proper development of abutting properties and street jilans. Compliance with Hillside Development Ordinance. Design for passive heating and cooling. PROVIDED 7,500 sq ft or greater. Lots front onto publicly dedicated streets. 60 feet/>33 feet on cul-de-sac. Bicycle routes are provided along Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Ave. The project's intersections have been aligned with existing street intersections and connections to adjacent streets are provided. See Section F below for discussion on Hillside Development Ordinance compliance. Project provides, where feasible, building orientation to take advantage of passive heating and cooling. COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Maps and has concluded that the subdivisions, as conditioned, comply with all the applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. All of the parcels are within the same Tax Code Area. No additional improvements or dedication of streets is required. All infrastructure improvements including frontage and EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 19 project-related roadways, and the extension of existing drainage and sewer facilities, are existing or are being installed concurrent with development. General utility, access, and water/reclaimed-water easements will be dedicated with recordation of the final maps. An owners association will be required for all the projects for the maintenance of common properties. E. Non-Residential Planned Developments (C.M.C. Chapter 21.47) The intent and purpose of the Non-Residential Planned Developments regulations are to: 1. Ensure that nonresidential projects develop in accordance with the General Plan and applicable specific plans; 2. Provide for nonresidential projects which are compatible with surrounding developments; 3. Provide a method to approve separate ownership of units within multiple-unit buildings; and 4. Provide for conversion of existing developments to condominiums. The proposal to create office nonresidential airspace condominium units and a commercial small lot development that do not have direct access from a publicly dedicated street necessitates that Condominium and Non-Residential Planned Development Permits be processed to supplement the proposed Tentative Maps (CT 01-09 and CT 08-07). The 25 nonresidential commercial lots and 60 Office airspace condominiums units will share common driveway access, parking areas, and landscaped areas which will be commonly maintained by owners associations. Each project is consistent with its respective Land Use designation and the La Costa Master Plan. F. Hillside Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) The site has a grade elevation change greater than 15 feet and slopes greater than 15% gradient, therefore the project requires a Hillside Development Permit (HDP). Hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. The project site has roughly 100 feet of fall across the site as measured from Rancho Santa Fe Road to La Costa Avenue. In order to develop the site with commercial and office buildings, extensive grading is required to create large commercial development pads with shallow sloping areas for parking lots. The commercial pad is roughly 10 feet higher than the elevation of the Rancho Santa Fe Rd and La Costa Ave intersection. The commercial pad does slope upward to the east for drainage purposes and is 30 higher at the eastern edge than the intersection elevation. The easterly commercial pad is roughly 20 feet lower than the elevation of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe and Paseo Lupino. The office pad is 40 feet lower than the adjacent commercial pad elevation. La Costa Avenue is roughly 20 feet lower than the office pad. The residential sites topography is equally as steep, however, the development of the site can follow the topography better because of smaller lot size requirements and steep street grades, but still requires extensive grading because of the drop in elevation. According to the proposed grading plan, approximately 66.6 acres (or 80 percent) of the 83.07 acre project site will be graded. Implementation of the grading plan will result in a total of 793,000 cubic yards of grading (ll,907cu yds/acre which is the unacceptable range for relative sensitivity of Hillside Grading Volume). Graded cut and fill slopes are planned at gradients of 2:1 or less. Notwithstanding the substantial topographic constraints of the existing property, the project complies with the Hillside Development Ordinance and Design Guidelines as discussed below. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 20 Commercial and Office project Section 21.95.140(D) of the Hillside Development Ordinance exempts non-residential projects from the volume of grading and slope height requirements. The project slopes are richly landscaped with a variety of landscape materials pursuant to the Hillside Development Guidelines landscape manual to visually screen the slopes whereby they will be naturally appearing when the landscape matures. The proposed nonresidential buildings maintain the required top of slope setback and do not have gable roof ends or overhangs which increase building mass near the tops of slopes. The exterior perimeter project slopes which exceed 20 feet in height and are over 200 feet in length are contoured to follow the curve of La Costa Avenue and curve around water detention basins. The slopes are undulated and contoured vertically to produce varied slope gradients as required. The Hillside Development Ordinance requires justification from the applicant for grading volumes over 10,000 cubic yards per acre. The applicant states that the commercial and office project proposed requires large building pads for accessible parking and building structures. Nevertheless, every effort has been made to keep the amount of grading at a minimum taking into account the uses proposed, user safety and functional design and walk-ability. Residential The proposed grading for the single-family residential project (11,454 cu yds/acre which is the unacceptable range for relative sensitivity of Hillside Grading Volume) will result in the parcel at the easterly edge of the project site (at Lot 52) to be approximately 40 feet below Rancho Santa Fe Road. The residential lot nearest to the commercial lot (Lot 34) will be approximately 5 feet below Rancho Santa Fe Road. The tallest proposed manufactured slope will be approximately 46 feet tall, located along La Costa Avenue on Open Space Lot 68 of the residential Map (CT 08-03). Proposed grading between lots in the single-family residential area also creates some slopes up to 40 feet in height. These slope heights are caused by the need to transition from an elevation at La Costa Avenue ranging from 262 to 290 feet to the elevation at Rancho Santa Fe Road ranging from 378 to 420 feet, an average elevation change of 123 feet. These slopes are located in the interior of the residential area and, with construction of homes, would have limited visibility from offsite. The Hillside Development Ordinance allows the decision-making body to approve modifications to the ordinance's development and design guidelines if the modification will result in manufactured slopes that are more aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance. The proposed modification, the creation of manufactured slopes over 40 feet in height, is proposed to be mitigated by extensive landscaping along the manufactured slopes and will be aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing. Reducing the grading quantities would require much steeper streets for many residents to get access to the property and be less appealing for the new residents. Approval of the modification to the development and design guidelines of the Hillside Development Ordinance will not cause a significant visual aesthetics/grading impact. The project site was previously anticipated to be fully developed with the approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan and mitigated the impacts with the preservation of open space which is equal or greater than that of the site. G. Qualified Development Overlay Zone, Chapter 21.06 of the Municipal Code The La Costa Master Plan identifies the zoning for the commercial site as the Local Shopping Center Zone (C-L). The C-L Zone requires the processing of a Site Development Plan processed pursuant to Chapter 21.06, the Qualified Development Overlay Zone. Per the Municipal Code (21.31.040(C), the City Council shall be the decision maker for the commercial SDP and related permits. The La Costa Master Plan also has EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Pafie21 a built-in Site Development Plan requirement. The Office development also requires a Site Development Plan permit, which is approved by the Planning Commission. The two Site Development Plan findings are similar for both commercial and office projects. Four findings are required for the Q-Overlay Zone. The required findings with justification for each are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for each of the projects. This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each. 1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings, and environmental settings; it is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan; it will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located; and it will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic circulation. The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental setting as the project design complies with the requirements of the La Costa Master Plan and all other applicable development regulations as discussed previously in this report. The proposed commercial and office uses are consistent with and implement the respective Local Commercial and Office Land Use designations. The required setbacks, open space buffer, and Circulation Element roadways provide an appropriate buffer between the commercial center, office, and existing and future residential developments and to ensure the proposed project will not be detrimental to existing uses. Furthermore, the surrounding residential uses will benefit directly by having a commercial center to serve everyday commercial needs in close proximity to their residences. The project's architectural design will compliment the areas Spanish/Mediterranean architecture. All required parking has been provided for and the infrastructure needs (full street improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and traffic signals) of the uses were planned for with the construction of existing facility improvements or are conditioned to be installed. 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The subject site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed buildings and the proposed uses comply with the required development and design standards of the La Costa Master Plan, C-L, and Office Zones of Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21 as previously discussed in Section B of this report. The proposed projects comply with the development standards for building setbacks, building height, and parking as proposed within the Master Plan, C-L, and Office Zones, except for the variance for an additional monument sign for the commercial project. 3. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. The site functions as a component of the La Costa Master Plan's allowed commercial and related uses and Office uses. The project has been designed in accordance with all development and design standards of the Master Plan, C-L, and Office Zones; therefore, the project is compatible with existing permitted and future uses. The project has been conditioned to include traffic mitigation measures, noise attenuation, and outdoor lighting restrictions to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. Primary access to the commercial site will be provided from three driveways: two located off of Rancho Santa Fe Road and one off of La Costa Avenue. The office project has one common driveway off La EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 22 Costa Avenue at Calle Timiteo. Pursuant to the Circulation Analysis of the project EIR 01-02, the street system serving the proposed uses will be adequate to handle the 25,516 Average Daily Trips generated by the proposed project. New traffic signals are proposed on La Costa Avenue located across from the existing Rancho La Costa Village Shopping Center, Calle Timiteo and Camino De Los Coches. The surrounding public streets will be improved to their full-width improvements, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. H. Variance, Chapter 21.50 of the Municipal Code The applicant is requesting a Variance from the Sign Ordinance (C.M.C. 21.41) to allow more than one monument type sign along a street frontage. Pursuant to Section 21.41.095 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, commercial centers are allowed one monument type sign per street frontage. The project fronts onto Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue and would be allowed a total of two monument signs, one sign for each street frontage. Because the project has two project entries off Rancho Santa Fe Road, the applicant desires to have one monument sign per each entrance along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Signs are not typically considered during the review and approval of the project since signs are subject to the City of Carlsbad Sign Ordinance and are typically reviewed and approved by the Planning Director subsequent to action on any discretionary permits. The analysis of this request is based on the sign standards for commercial centers. Commercial centers are permitted one monument type sign per street frontage to be located at the primary driveway entrance or at other strategic locations. Because the size of the shopping center is much larger than other typical commercial centers and has multiple project entrances off Rancho Santa Fe Road, staff is supportive of the request for the additional monument sign. The separation of the entrances and signs would prevent the perception that there is an over abundance of signage for the center while providing the center with adequate access identification. Per the sign Ordinance, monument type signs may be placed at primary project entries or other strategic locations. Signs on entry walls or retaining walls are encouraged. In cases where such walls are on both sides of an entry drive, two signs, each at the maximum square footage, are permitted. This may allow one of the signs to be placed at the corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue rather than at a project entry. The required findings can be made to support this request and are contained in the Variance resolution. The sample of the proposed monument sign is attached to the staff report. I. Conditional Use Permits, Chapter 21.42 of the Municipal Code As shown in Table 11, six drive through facilities, two gas stations and two car washes are proposed with this project. Conditional uses, such as bank drive thru teller lanes, drug store drive-thru windows, gas stations, and car washes possess unique and special characteristics that make it impractical to include them as permitted uses "by right" in any of the various zoning classifications (i.e. commercial, office, industrial). Pursuant to the underlying Local Shopping Center (C-L) Zone, drive-thru businesses that are not restaurants, gas stations and car washes are permitted in the zone with the approval of a CUP pursuant to the provisions and findings of Chapter 21.42.030. Staff has reviewed the six drive-thru facilities, two gas station, and two automatic car washes in the proposed project and concludes that all the necessary findings can be made to approve the CUPs. The required findings and satisfaction of these findings are discussed below in Table 11. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 23 TABLE 11(A) - PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USES CUP NUMBER CUP 04- 18 CUP 08-01 CUP 08-02 CUP 08-03 CUP 08-04 CUP 08-05 CUP 08-06 CUP 08-07 LOT NUMBER Lot 14 Lot 24 Lot 12 Lot 7 Lot 6 Lot 13 Lot 15 Lot 22 TYPE OF PROPOSED USE Gas station/Car wash Financial pad Financial pad Gas station/Car wash Financial pad Financial pad Drug Store Financial pad UNIQUE FEATURES Below grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road Covered drive-thru and landscaped Below grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road Below grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road Below grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road Below grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road Covered drive-thru and landscaped. Dual lane, covered. TABLE 11(B) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS FINDINGS PROJECT CONSISTENCY That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, including, if applicable, the certified Local Coastal Program. The requested use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community in that a drive-thru teller, drug store, gas station, and car wash provides a desirable service and is a convenience to the community by providing increased accessibility and is designed to operate safely and efficiently within the commercial center. The projects are consistent with the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, and Public Safety Elements as shown in Table 1. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed drive-thru facilities lanes are designed so that they will not impact other commercial uses in the center. The gas station and car wash will not be detrimental to existing uses as discussed in the section below. Each drive-thru provides an adequate vehicle stacking lane as to prevent blocking the commercial centers internal circulation aisles, parking aisles, or parking spaces. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 24 TABLE 11(B) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS CONTINUED FINDINGS PROJECT CONSISTENCY That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this code and required by the planning director, planning commission or city council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed drive-through facilities comply with all required development standards of the C-L Zone discussed previously in this report. The gas stations and car washes comply with the CUP section of the Zoning Ordinance as discussed below. The proposed design of each drive-thru lane includes a covered decorative building element with planters and landscaping to screen and separate the drive-thru lane from the existing parking lot. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The project will generate approximately 25,516 ADT. All uses within the La Costa Town Square Shopping Center, including businesses with drive-through facilities, gas station, and car washes, are included in the overall shopping center Site Development Plan approval. .The proposed drive through facilities will provide directional arrows in the parking lot to guide drive-up users to the lane and is designed with sufficient vehicular stacking to avoid impacting the internal circulation system. TABLE 11(C) - SPECIFIC GAS STATION FINDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD PROVIDED COMPLIANCE Part of a Community Shopping Center Shopping center site as identified in the La Costa Master Plan and General Plan. Yes Architecturally compatible with surrounding uses Architecture similar to remainder of center. Yes Landscaping: • Six foot planters • Six inch curbs • Flowers , shrubs, and trees • Efficient sprinkler system • Maintenance schedule Projects provide 10 foot minimum planters with six- inch curbs and flowers, shrubs and trees irrigated with an efficient sprinkler system and maintenance schedule per the Landscape Manual. Yes EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 25 TABLE 11(C) - SPECIFIC GAS STATION FINDINGS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Six foot masonry wall adjoining residential Shield exterior lighting All display and storage contained within building Trash enclosures Signs in conformance with Sign Ordinance Full public improvements PROVIDED Separated by distance (>200 feet) and topography and not physically adjacent to residential. Project conditioned to provide lighting study showing compliance. Project conditioned to preclude outdoor displays and storage. Project provides and is conditioned to meet Engineering GS-16 trash enclosure standard. Project conditioned to provide a sign program. Project conditioned to fully improve required public improvements. COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Xes TABLE 11(D) - SPECIFIC CAR WASH FINDINGS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Designed to reduce visual impacts of buildings and waiting cars Architecturally integrated buildings Noise analysis addressing noise impacts Traffic study PROVIDED Buildings are placed behind primary use and are below the grade of Rancho Santa Fe Road with screening of waiting cars by landscaping. Architecture similar to remainder of center. Noise assessment prepared and identifies potential noise impacts in the nighttime; therefore the project is conditioned to cease operation in the night unless noise mitigation is provided. Traffic study prepared and impacts are addressed in EIR 01-02. COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes 21/7 EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 26 TABLE 11(D) - SPECIFIC CAR WASH FINDINGS CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Adequate parking and circulation Screening of waiting cars Signs in conformance with Sign Ordinance Adequate means to eliminate oils and grease PROVIDED Parking provided and queue lines are adequate to not impact driveways or circulation. Queue lines screened by landscaping and topography Project conditioned to provide a sign program. Building code requires interceptor (clarifiers) to remove oils and grease. COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes J. Villages of La Costa Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan The proposed project is included in the HCP/OMSP for Properties in the Southeast Quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. The document was created by the City of Carlsbad; Fieldstone, La Costa Associates; DFG; and USFWS to provide for the conservation of sensitive wildlife and habitat in the context of a proposed large-scale development plan. The HCP/OMSP identifies 66 species of concern and provides an impact analysis of the proposed development in regard to these species. In addition, the plan provides for the dedication of open space, which has already been provided, for impact to the species of concern and affiliated habitat. Anticipated biological impacts for the proposed project are assessed according to guidelines set forth in the HCP/OMSP. The entire project site is designed for development resulting in 100 percent impact to biological resources. Impacts to the covered species and their habitats are permitted by the HCP/OMSP and the associated Implementing Agreement. The HCP/OMSP provides species-specific mitigation measures for some impacts to species of concern and conserved habitats, which are discussed below. Implementation of the proposed project will impact approximately 17.4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub, 5.6 acres of native grassland, 27.3 acres of normative grassland, 0.2 acre of riparian scrub, and 0.3 acre of disturbed wetland. The proposed development will impact thread-leaved brodiaea and Orcutt's brodiaea, and potentially impact San Diego thornmint, if found to be present. The impact associated with these covered, narrow endemic species is considered significant and has been mitigated by the open space dedication of the Rancheros/Southeast II component of the HCP/OMSP for Properties in the Southeast Quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B-l (conservation of brodiaea) for onsite occurrence of sensitive plant species would further reduce the onsite impacts to a level of less than significant. Impacts to the following sensitive or noteworthy species would also be considered significant but are mitigated on a habitat basis under the HCP/OMSP through dedication of the Rancheros/Southeast II open space: California adolphia, southwestern spiny rush, Palmer's grappling hook, western dichondra, and small-flowered microseris. The impacts to sensitive species listed in Table 5.6-2 of the EIR with a potential to occur onsite would be considered significant but are also mitigated EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 27 under the HCP/OMSP. Given the lack of vernal pool indicator plant species and the negative results of the 2001 protocol focused surveys for endangered fairy shrimp species, the pools onsite do not appear to be naturally occurring vernal pools. The wetland delineation survey also did not indicate the presence of vernal pools. Therefore, no impacts to vernal pools are expected during the proposed project. Impacts to disturbed and developed areas are not considered significant and do not require mitigation. The proposed project would impact all identified jurisdictional water and wetlands on the project site. This is considered a significant impact. The impact is not covered by the HCP/OMSP and will require additional mitigation. Impacts to the ephemeral drainages shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for a total of approximately 0.26 acre. Impacts to the riparian scrub/seep shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 for a total of 0.63 acre. Prior to issuance of a grading plan or other disturbance to the riparian scrub/seep, a restoration plan shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and US Army Corps of Engineers prior to disturbance (including grading) of the drainage or basin areas. The plan shall include mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. These mitigated areas may be satisfied by contribution to an approved mitigation site, where impacts to state or federal jurisdictional waters (as defined) are mitigated in an ACOE, DFG, or RWQCB mitigation bank. Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the impact to wetland and non-wetland jurisdictional waters to a level less than significant. Additionally, an individual Section 404 permit from ACOE, a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from DFG, and a 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB will be required. Also, the RWQCB requires that all urban runoff generated from any future development on the property be treated before being discharged offsite. This will be accomplished through the implementation of structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed for the treatment of storm water runoff. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project including ultimate buildout of the entire project. To determine the areas of potential impact, city staff prepared an initial study and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on April 23, 2003, distributing it to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies and members of the public. Four written responses were received and city staff scheduled a public scoping meeting session in order to increase opportunities for public input. Notices of the scoping meeting were sent to all property owners within a 600-foot radius of the project boundaries as well as being published in the newspaper. The public scoping session took place May 1, 2003 at the Community Development Building, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. At the scoping session, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Four people signed in at the scoping session. No additional input for the EIR was identified beyond what had already been received. After consideration of all the foregoing, city staff developed a detailed scope of work for the EIR. The EIR analyzed the following areas of potential environmental impact: EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-ll(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 28 1) Land Use and Planning 2) Transportation/Circulation 3) Air Quality 4) Noise 5) Paleontological Resources 6) Biological Resources 7) Hydrology/ Water Quality 8) Geology/Soils 9) Hazardous Materials and Hazards 10) Visual Aesthetics/Grading 11) Public Services and Utilities 12) Climate Change Additionally, the Draft EIR includes other sections required by CEQA such as an Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducing Impacts, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts, and Effects Not Found to Be Significant. On March 27, 2009, the Draft EIR was published and the City notified the Public via mailings and newspaper publications, interested parties, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies. The "Notice of Completion" commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period initially expiring May 11, 2009 and extended to May 29, 2009. A joint letter from California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was received and accepted on June 3, 2009. The "Notice of Completion" advised that the Draft EIR was available for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department; the City Clerk's Office; the Carlsbad Dove Library and the Georgina Cole Public Library. Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or without the Appendices, through the Planning Department. The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the exception of Traffic/Circulation, air quality (cumulative), and short term noise impacts which would be considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable. Direct impacts, also referred to as primary effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable standards currently. A total of 18 comment letters were submitted. Responses were prepared for each of the letters and mailed to the commenters on June 17, 2009. The response transmittal letter also provided notice of the availability of the Final Program EIR. Included as a part of the Final EIR is a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is also attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 29 Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However, the agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project's general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. ATTACHMENTS; 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6577 (EIR 01-02) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6578 (GPA 01-02) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6579 (MP 149(R)) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6580 (LFMP 87-11(C)) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6581 (CT 01-09) 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6582 (CT 08-03) 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6583 (CT 08-07) 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6584 (CP 01-03) 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6585 (PUD 08-09) 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6586 (HDP 01-05) 11. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6587 (SDP 01-03:OFFICE) 12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6588 (SDP 01-04:COMM) 13. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6589 (V 08-02) 14. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6590 (CUP 04-18) 15. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6591 (CUP 08-01) 16. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6592 (CUP 08-02) 17. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6593 (CUP 08-03) 18. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6594 (CUP 08-04) 19. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6595 (CUP 08-05) 20. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6596 (CUP 08-06) 21. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6597 (CUP 08-07) 22. Location Map 23. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 24. Background Data Sheet 25. Disclosure Statement 26. Reduced Exhibits 27. Final EIR for the La Costa Town Square, dated July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 28. La Costa Master Plan (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 29. Zone 11 Local Facilities Management Plan and constraints exhibit, July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11(C)/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08- 02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE July 1,2009 Page 30 30. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan MP 149(R) and Related Documents, dated July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 31. Exhibits "A" - "K" (Constraints and Hillside Development Permit), dated July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 32. Exhibits "A" - "LL" (All Architecture, CT 01-09 Landscape and Map), dated July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 33. Exhibits "A" - "G" (CT 08-07 Office Landscape and Map), dated July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 34. Exhibits "A" - "K" (Residential Landscape and Map), dated July 1, 2009 (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 35. Tentative Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision MS 04-08). 36. Monument Sign Design Sample 37. Correspondence to Planning Commission 2.72. NOT TO SCALE SITEMAP La Costa Town Square EIR 01-02 / GPA01-02 / MP 149(R) / LFMP 87-11 (C) / CT 01-09 / CT 08-03 / CT 08-07 / CP 01-03 / PUD 08-09 / HDP 01-05 / SDP 01-03 / SDP 01-04 / V 08-02 / CUP 04-18 / CUP 08-01 / CUP 08-02 / CUP 08-03 / CUP 08-04 / CUP 08-05 / CUP 08-06 / CUP 08-07 *7 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE - EIR 01-02/GPA 01- 02/MP149(RVLFMP 87-1KCVCT 01-09/CT Q8-03/CT 08-07/CP 01-03/PUD 08-Q9/HDP 01- 05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08- 04/CUP Q8-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: U GENERAL PLAN: Local Commercial. Office, Residential Low -Medium ZONING: Planned Community (La Costa Master Plan) DEVELOPER'S NAME: La Costa Town Square. LLC ADDRESS: 8799 Balboa Ave. Suite 270. San Diego, CA, 92123 PHONE NO.: (858) 268-8901 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 223-050-68 and 70 and 223-060- 31 and 32 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC, SQ. FT., DU): 83.07 ac ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: Unknown A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 668 B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 356 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 83,723 D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 1.33 E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 189 F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 25,516 G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2 and 6 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 5.6 I. Schools: Encinitas Union Elementary and San Dieguito Union High School. Elem: 86, Middle 20, and HS 41 J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 380 K. Water: Demand in GPD - 186,862 L. The project is 110 units over the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: EIR 01-Q2/GPA 01-Q2/MP149(R)/LFMP 87-1KCVCT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/ CP 01-03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-Q5/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07 CASE NAME: LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE APPLICANT: La Costa Town Square. LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, three Carlsbad Tract Maps, Condominium Permit, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, two Site Development Plans, Hillside Development Permit, Variance and eight Conditional Use Permits for the purpose of developing a 83.07 acre site with a 284,400 square foot community shopping center, 55,000 square foot office project, 64 single family lot subdivision, and a multi-family residential site all located northerly and easterly of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the southeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Section 31. Township 12 south and a portion of Section 6, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, together with portions of Lots 4 and 5 of Rancho Las Encinitas according to map thereof No. 848, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California APN: 223-050-68 and 70 and 223-060-31 and 32 Acres: 83.07 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: Residential: 64 units/4 OS Lots. Commercial: 24 lots, Office: 2 Lots/60 units, Multi-Family site: 1 Lot/128 units. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Local Commercial Office, and Residential low-Medium Proposed Land Use Designation: Local Commercial, Office, and Residential Low-Medium density and Residential High density Density Allowed: 3.2 and 19 du/ac Density Proposed: 2.62 du/ac Existing Zone: Planned. Community (La Costa Master Plan) Proposed Zone: Planned Community Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site PC (La Costa MP) Local Commercial/ Vacant Office /Residential Low-Medium North PC (Villages of La Residential Low- Residential Costa Master Plan) Medium Z75Revised 01/06 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use, Continued: Zoning General Plan South PC (La Costa MP)Local Commercial/Residential Medium/Residential Medium High Current Land Use Commercial/residential East West PC (VLMP) PC (La Costa MP) Residential Low Medium Residential Medium High Residential Residential LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: I I Yes 1X1 No Local Coastal Program Segment: N/A Within Appeal Jurisdiction: | | Yes [X] No Coastal Development Permit: I I Yes Local Coastal Program Amendment: I I Yes 1X1 No No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: Existing LCP Zone: Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: Proposed LCP Zone: PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Encinitas Unified Elementary and San Dieguito Union High School Water District: Olivenhain Municipal Sewer District: Leucadia Wastewater Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 380 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT I I Categorical Exemption, I | Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised 01/06 City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more thap 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) $££ E*H l % IT *ft" /J-£ Person ^- Corp/Part_ Title ^^ Title Address Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) r^ £ / ./•/ rt / Person_ Title Corp/Part_ Title 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us n -7*7L- t I 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. $££ fcx^i}/ $ J) Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust Title /' Title / Address / Address 4. Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s): C t70gJ' NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge : 70 u~ L \/S/*t&&^ tt*~^^ & ^ignature of owner/date ^Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner /«^c^- Print or type name of Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A (description of Economic Interests in La Costa Town Square, LLC) NOTE: La Costa Town Square, LLC, is both the applicant and the property owner. All descriptions to an Economic Interest refer to membership ownership interests in La Costa Town Square, LLC. Name of Economic Interest Holder Economic Interest Description Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) 50 % Company Interest in La Trust under the June 1, 2003 John M. Tworoger Costa Town Square, LLC Revocable Trust, Dietmar E. Schott, Trustee; Brenda K. Tworoger, Beneficiary; Patrick Tworoger, Beneficiary; Stacy Tworoger, Beneficiary. Pacifica Fontana, LP, a California limited 12.5% Company Interest in La Partnership (majority owned by Ashok Costa Town Square, LLC Israni, an individual) Ashok Israni, an individual 10.22-% Company Interest in La Costa Town Square, LLC Except as shown above, all other economic interests are owned by individuals or entities that own less than a 10% share of economic interest in La Costa Town Square, LLC. 271 SUMMARY TABLE LMO <f.i LOI i IIAHJ LOT J(Q-I) LOI 2 (C) iam &*>&texts 24. J9 **» 4iO/ ACft£5 Of Dt-VlLQPUMAl. COKSriVJHrS (!) ACftES Of IOOX CONIRAWTS (t) 2.00 .'.U J^ OS „ ,'_^_ 'tout. 2M 2-11 1 1.11 X J Zl .'.J XIMI(2J *7 12 SMJO.S " Nf tata XL* I - QIHOi £HM. Hj - Hirf; la ifK - SCHOOt Sff VICINITY MAP (J) *WXtS tfCA OS-I fl.OACJ (•) HClMSAfti* <K-t fJ.71 X) (i} 5t£ ffOtOlX* RtFOtir (»} s( *fatvua,r ftpaar SHEET t Of 4 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-03 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 EASEMENTS: njl£ RfPORT DA IfD ftBRVAJtt 13, 2OO9 BY CUUPAXt. (JffOCfi He. NCS-74Sae-50 Ho. DOCUV&T NU*Bl KCQfiOHG MJE ft£FB&K£ OMg»g 20 21 22 31 2* XXM IW MCI t SUOK S20S PACf 403 r/P IHK f/f IIT2S4 r/p xoe/r /P M-I26W /f It-Oiaa /P 77-MHI /pao-uo&i ,# s4-o»tJ6t /* XUO-OUII&J /" XM2-aont}2 /f 2CQ2-GOW} /*• 2002-02^0X7 /» xxx-oisaaw /t> 2<ic2-estooio /* foof-a&>o?i /» 2Q02-M3aot2 />• X/02-U&HV /* woi-auoin /P JOU-OOIXW /f xoj-iuHtQa OI/2I/ISXQ2/&/IMDt/is/i&i W/lf/>K IO/2J/W 0&/28/IS' OS/H/19? ffl/IJ/lf 07/H/Ht 10/72/1300 03/n/IXt OJ/IB/2OOO Ot/JO/2002 OI/X/2002 OJ/?7/2002 OJ/Z7/2VB1 Q4/29/M1! 04/39/Xia Ot/2»/2U>2 O6/28/2UO} 06/28/2002 OI/Ott/2IXa 0>/u>/yeoj ifl COtir SKfia cooin cute OHUO saio now mca nooo Off Of CMLSMO air or (MLSmt> one MM> cm or cxstssta air or CMiitua air or C*KSWO aircr cMHsew air or C4H5Uta QirorcMtSOM} arr or ctnsffja atr or C*O.SBM> arr of CMLS&IO one one K iS4 na' towse*MWi/a.Cff5 nmiHfs fVflHfS UtMN*£t ORMUtX MM* tXMTUCf >**irfs HFCiMS StSHVAIKH RfXHMfUH flUfi SWTf coat UIHHtCf fua. swat tve smetr co#sr. ne stsar/WAHMf •tux »Afff MCAlt PIK tS 04-6« 9tMMi HtMfMttwt WM4W fKUMi fCUMt M.UMH ff*«* HfMMt «*** VCHAfi WJMW W4U»' MafiTflWWi Q4-OB KfMMH flMAH HCHAt.- YfCAItrVtul W-fll H£*AJK lOfAH HfUAM LEGEND IOPAUAH at mxxxAMO /• sir NOIL NO. i BCIUW) HimmflAH! OKAMACf COUfSC 25 - 40* SOUS (• iff HOIf *fa 2 BUOfl OKAHII otAMm*a.iffs MKHAfetOtX^ SIES (' iff MOIT Ha. i SCtOfj SftQAi n^HHHC MfAS - H/A UQLQQCAl HA&'AIS f iff 101 Ht. i IXiQ*) (fAOfS - H/A LMW SJ&JfCf IQ UAMt POUCH IfMfMSSGK fA&lf/tfS (• S[f HOf No 7 BELO BAVtQAD ISAU SfOS - H/A CONSTRAINTS MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE 3f*5fi>. *<ri xoy PSttjtC? MCH ^1£ X CERT1FICA r£ OF COMPLIANCE DOG NO. 3S-S3001S use. oec 15. me SHEET 2 Or 4 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-03 S.D.P. 01-04H.D.P. 01-05 CONSTRAINTS MAP ros LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE Sff SHffT NO. 2 SHEET 3 OF 4 SHKTS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-03 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 CONSTRAINTS MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE C? !' /W #a?* Sff SHECT NO. SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS C.T. 01-09S.D.P. 01-03S.D.P. 01-04H.D.P. 01-05 CONSTRAINTS MAP FOK LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE 7. M\ MS 1 FigmjiJir 17, too*s sswyi*" SUMMARY TABLE /*- *'•»! «>*<"•'/ &JOI -tVflTJ Of (JCsfLOCMtHtM. CUC/«w,/S f(,J ^«s or .uv ownMa ^ J_* **> if * «J ,1 ai '" '* >» "•*' 'J l} it 'v J ^^5 *•ss- r.sW nt ./:/!/./0. ///i CONSTRAINTS MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN CENTER N 5_U L T "A/N T 5 SLOPE ANALYSIS OX - I5X 176 AC fSX - 25X 11,6 AC. 25X - 4OX 5.7 AC. CftEATCff THAN 40X 2.0 AC." PREVIOUSLY GRADED 46,2 AC. 33. I AC. 2I.2X 14.ax 6. ex 2.4X 55.6X IOO.OX NOTE: GRADING ANALYSIS: VICINITY MAP SHEET 1 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 C.T. 08-03 C.T. 08-07 H.D.P. 01-05 CIVIL CNCINKR/LAND SURVCYOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE QWNER/SUBDMDER L* COMA torn SUUMC. ucany S««M *nr »w mS*N Of60. CA 9H2J Ml <rr*B>**4KK m*umxQi CONSULT fl^TS IMOmr 0 CMROLL SHOT 2 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 C.T. 08-03 C.T. 08-07 H.D.P. 01-05 PARCEL f SLOPE: ANALYSIS SUMMARY j O.O AC. 0.0 AC. 0.0 AC. 0-0 AC. 10.0 AC. 10.0 AC. OX - I5X rsx - zsx 25X - 40X GREATER THAN 40X PREVIOUSLY GRADED HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE WHSB Mr 31. IOOJ _ joe MO _00-IQ25 n a. OHUCU, JR. Kt SCC SHOT NO. 2 SHEET 3 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 C.T. 08-03 C.T. 08-07 H.D.P. 01-05 GREATER THAN 40X I.I AC. PttVIOUSLf GRAOCD 21.1 AC. O.I AC 2.0 AC. 41.6 AC. 7.2 AC. fHT KCGUl* DON 21.951200 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE «T«SR OC/aetK Jl. HOI nr*sat Bfaieot >'. xoftiCUXO: Mr IX 2001-if orHXPARAnot fimusrKOIo*&*~? CONSULT A^Tr SHEET 4 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 C.T. 08-03 C.T. 08-07 H.D.P. 01-05 LOTS 1-68 SLOPE ANALYSIS SUMMARY LOTS f-M OX - I5X 3.4. AC. I5X - 25X 4.3 AC. 25X - 4OX 2.3 AC. GREATER THAN 4OX 0.3 AC.' PREVIOUSLY GRADED IJ. I AC 24.4 AC. NOTE: •Jza4a sr (aa *c.) [J HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE Y T.C._C.U. i . _... not _LL_ joe NO oo- ijji TM01HT 0 CXWXL * Ki. \ . - SHCET 5 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 C.T. 08-03 C.T. 08-07H.D.P. 01-05 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE y mewl** qpwr ._ CON S_U CNCINt£H IX WOHK nuomr o unoi. JR. 400 — 4OO — JOO — 400 — li'.";UO'J O'u .y ( ' s*v;x if no. '1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 KAHCH0 1 1 SAMl* T KOI 1 1 i 1 W.V/J ft HO. \ | 1 JP* ^ — ftOPO&S (,—-/—.... J ^-«« ^- MS WC C8QVHD . __l *40f SECTIOh SCM& MM *" " SECTION IB SECTIOI SCltf: HtW 'St-Bf- /;- KO; ttOM; otuw 'B2-B2'- r. jw ^ '83-B3'e ~ r- w t ~ Cm tOt' ""^V •- ~~~ _ ^u_ r " — ~ — \ i u fos.y1 *K. • i - ~ ~ ~ — »^^i i __^ — v i i IA CCSlA\ -,— I— - - U COSiA1 AVf. ' 400— \ r/)0 , r*w«n«e 5^Cj PSOfOSfD ClfADf--. 300 GMVHO '- 5E(. 400 —fWFOSfO WWW^^^ ftrsrw^_ SEt too— ,•< JOO— • ctistmcGKOUMD -^ 50 CROSS-SECTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL SITE ,^ StMDtiK IMf UM[ ^-pBoeosto ouof ^C «r! 770A' 'B4-B4' or. - ,-. or ^-^ \UMl"^T-": 77CW 'S5-55' KE.f. JV ^ BUIUHNG LUHr i!H£ Z> U COSH EZx 1 -1*- IfciKI 1 1 riOH 'B6-B6' KX£ HOK. ~ /' - W«re - r- /*• |^-«*«*e//w/- wvf •* ^- — fffOfOSCO OUPf ,_X/ |W C0Jtt T/OA^ 'B7-B7'Km- Moot. - r - wiere - c - «»' SHfd tf Of C.ic.; C.j H.D.I 7 SHEETS \ 01-09 ". 08-03 ". OB-07 '. 01-05 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMITro/f IA COSTA TQWN SQUARE *n»S£P OCTOBfg }l. JOO1KfHSlSt MfJI. &OJRIHXlt BffflMf !/. 20OSSCuKfD Mf It iOOt Ob**? : "~lr S J L T fl^N T S SiCHO SI. JHH DATE: HB«U*Jff J001 «Lr « HOIHt a CMROL J*v set iiMI O -4OO — 300— 3QQ— I AiMCfMJ II WfA f£ KB I — fWPQSfD GAifft SECTION 'Ct-Cl' «*£• K.tl, - I' - 100' fflSlffK OlOUHO CROS. SfCTION 'C2-C2 ^- PKOfQStD OtADf -SECT/QMS FOR RESIDENTIAL SITE SECTION 'CJ- SHECi -4- 7 SHEETS : 01-09 : 08-03 '. 08-07 H.D.P. 01-05 / or c.lc. PMENT^PERMITroR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE MAIN STREEET oo> o O) 111! CO/"—oO E CO <c =3 a Drawing Index TITLE SHEETart PLAN - cvBwa. SITE PLAN - PHASING SI I E PLAN - ENLAHCE PLAZA AREA STTE PLAN - ENLARGE OFHCE AREA SITE SECTIONSSTTESECTlOt* ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS * 8 AND S ELEVATIOr* - BUILDINGS * 10 AND 1 1 ELEVATIONS -BUILDINGS* I5ANDI6 ELEVATIONS - BUILDINGS # 17. laArJO 19 tL£VAT!ONS - BUILDINGS * 20. 21 AMD li til V,\ 1 1C iNS - BUILDINGS * 25 £1£VATON5 - BUILDING * 16 atVATONS - BUILDINGS * 5. t, 7 ft 12 ELLVA HOWS • BUILDINGS » tJ, HJ2iW BiVATlONS - BUILDINGS t 1,2,344 SDP-TSI SDP-AS I SDP-AS I.I SDP-AS2 SDP-AS3 SDP-AS 1SDP-ASS SDP-AS6 SOP- Public Service Agencies Prelect Data Vicinity Map es rwuoetM nm -WP«-« (WOEWTEDTfffl-IB WOE Witff i4»-R WOE tnt- -C.JI,!! tHA UK R W. F- SITED COPY SDP-TS BcMno angle FMIyHonw MUSE AND PARKING SUMMARY: ,/;WJUHHmXrESUBOVL / ~Y /. RESTAURANTS /RETAIL SHOPS JPAD ~ jOAS 1 CONVENIENCE STORE IRESTAURANTS I RE TAIL SHOPS [RETAIL SHOPS 1 |RESTAURANTS(ReTAIL SHOPS | 'GAS <C STORE IMAJOR WITH DRIVE THROUGH . \ (RETAIL SHOPS 'GROCERY STORE 5 RETAIL SHOPS '20 {MINI-MAJOR 21 [DEPARTMENT STORE ' 0 23 'RETAIL SHOPS TOTAL BUILDING AREA; Z( TOTAL PARK1NO REQUIRED flY CITY* TOTAL PARKING PHOVIOED| 1o (OFFICE BUILDING 2 2o iOFFICE BUILDING j 3 TOTAL BUILDING AB6A S 000 SF OOo'sF 800 SF 000 SF soo's 000 S SOO 3 200 S 000 S500! s 000 3 1001S 400 SF 4BD SF 000 SF 000 SF 000 SF 30 SPACES ] 16 SPACES ;O!SPACES 45 SPACES 38 SPACES 2S SPACES • |P^E! 1JSPACES ( B^SPACES 30 SPACtS 490 SPACES ) J1!SPACES <:<PAC» | 1 4Z2;St»ACES .1 47? SPACES 1 135',SPACES 0/1000 0 11000 0 1000 0 '1000 011000 o'/iooo 0 11000 0 11000 a '10000 HtHM 0,1000 o'/iooo o n ooo '®© /^ ExMng Slngte Famly Honwe BEST COPY I ® SDP-AS Enlrtng Slngl. F«m»y Homo. CROSS HATCHING IN BEOUTSIDETHE JCROSS HATCHED CONSjaUGTEOASf A P COPY SDP-AS1. 1 5 Refuse COPY SDP-AS; ENLARGED SITE PLAN TVFKM. PMNNG DNENSKWS SITE LEGEND O CO 1 ? i o I gig ® "8 til D)C oO -t^E CO ID a o < SDP-AS; CO 1 8 I "fl 1 SES QJ loias o< CD_c "3COcoO UH SITE SECTION 'g SITE SECTION T o < 4w 2a/£ ""~ss SITE SECTION '8' SDP-AS' o CO_c "5COco O 1 3 t« IN "••i,jBllfii SITE SECTION FWANCWLPADn Da>ABTWBIT8Tt»E21 SITE SECTION 'V SITE SECTION ' *»m»IMa SDP-AS! 00 1 1 !«I 111 CD C rsCOcoO E CO SITE SECTION SCALE: 1",40--0" SITE SECTION '4' HETML/BHOP8B RETAIL/SHOW 11 QAB/C«TDnE14 Pny Devriopment PbnOwk BUM PwmtSM CcnbucbonM SITE SECTION '5' SCALE: t"«40'-0" SDP-ASI RETAIL SHOPS EAST ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 8 & 9 . , RETAIL SHOPS SOUTH ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 9 . . . SCALE 1/W • f-0- RETAIL SHOPS NORTH ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 9 . , SCALE: M RETAIL SHOPS WEST ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 8 & 9 ;_j_j SCAI& I/W i RETAIL SHOPS NORTH ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 8 . .RETAIL SHOPS SOUTH ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 8 . . . SCALE 1/H' • f-0- HNISH / MATERIAL LEGEND 0RNNTB»TUCCO © PflEWNumCTUBCMTOOUJMN tlin£ lifii D) rsCOco(J E CO ex: < SDP-A1. RETAIL SHOPS WEST ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 10 & 11 . , , FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND 0 0 Him. TU ROOT © © 0 PflEMWUMCIUBCMSTOOUNM RETAIL SHOPS SOUTH ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 10 . .u—i—SCM.E; I/W • r-0- RETAIL SHOPS NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 10 SCALE: 1/16- . 1'Jl' RETAIL SHOPS EAST ELEVATION • BUILDINGS 10 & 11. .jl'-Q-A RETAIL SHOPS SOUTH ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 11 . . SCALE 1/M- . r-0' © RETAIL SHOPS NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 11 . SCALE f W . f-0- W I « J! O I g|g£ Uii £ lift! OTC O O O I SDP-A1.J ...__ FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND 0 NWTED9TUCCO 0 OEOOAATOE CEMENT PLASTER 0 MRRB.1U ROOF 0 KMWNnCCMTEDMlMMM: 0 ® © PfVMAHUFMnUVDCAftT COLUMN PMWETDCTMI. RETAIL SHOPS WEST ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 15 & 16 . . MAJOR RETAIL 15o RETAIL SHOPS SOUTH ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 15 & 16. SCALE 1/W < V-0P O • tf & RETAIL 16 RETAIL SHOPS EAST ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 15 & 16 j_j_^_ SCALE I/IB- . r-0" RETAIL SHOPS EAST ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 15 & 16 . CO r-o D)_C "-) — i rs COco O ->— ' CO Dajp Dewtopnwt PhnChKfc BdStt SDP-A1.; RETAIL 17 GROCERY STORE & RETAIL SHOPS NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 17,18 & 18, . FINISH/ MATERIAL LEGEND 0 nwreosiuoco © DECORATNE (•) 0 CBCNTPLAnnnUMPErDCTAI. OUUna 8MTBI GROCERY STORE & RETAIL SHOPS WEST ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 18 & 19 . ,h_i—SCALE I/W > r-0' O O GROCERY STORE & RETAIL SHOPS SOUTH ELEVATION - BUILDINGS 17,18 & 1fc SCW.6 1/M* . r-Q- A'*»'•»" GROCERY STORE 18 RETAIL 17 GROCERY STORES RETAIL SHOPS EAST ELEVATION-BUILDINGS 17,18 & 19 . . .- - -- - L^^^^M sc«.e i/«-. r-o- .5 CD C COcoO CO •< Z3 a o < CLJOCK TOWER RETAIL 23 DEPARTMENT STORE 21 DEPARTMENT STORE ELEVATION - BUILDING 20.21 & 23 . , . &CAL& t/tt- . V-o* TRUCK LOADING •no- DEPARTMENT STORE 21 DEPARTMENT STORE ELEVATION - BUILDING 21 DEPARTMENT STORE 21 DEPARTMENT STORE ELEVATION - BUILDING 21,20,23 . JTS 'DEPARTMENT STORE 21 DEPARTMENT StORE ELEVATION - BUILD!NGSj21&20_ RETAIL 23 sc«.e i/w = r-<r FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND 0 PANTED CTUOCO 0 DBCOIUTIK camrnAnai nvw>Er OETM. ©•MM. HE HOOF 0 POWDER OOMEDMJJMMUMSTOKFnOHr 0CMMMMNMNQ ©' QuaWQSnTEU o n o a a n o 1 1 1 coO E CO llfil O < SDP-A1. SOUTH ELEVATION - OFFICE BUILDING 25 FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND © MMIBOUCCO © CCOOM1NECemrPLMIBinwlM>ErDETML 0HK1UK1GF 0 KMnetCOMBlMJUMMUMSTCRff 0 cj*lml*»il»tt 0 POIBnULTDMNTHONMEAflEA ©« CO . O>c '.-fc--..' "5COcO O SCALE: 1/W i r.O' O (J "M*- EAST ELEVATION - OFFICE BUILDING 25 WEST ELEVATION - OFFICE BUILDING 25 SCALE; 1/W • r-0* O NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 25 SCALE: 1/M" • r-0' SI7\~ Sote I/if, c- SDP-A1.( © EAST ELEVATION - BUILDING 26 SOUTH ELEVATION - OFFICE BUILDING 26 WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 26 SCALE; l/«* . I'-O' SCALE 1/W . I-.0' SCALE.- !/«• . I'-O' FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND © 0 DGOOWTMCBBff FUUT1B PARAPET DET4L 0 WM0.1UHOQF 0 P (f) 0 PRE MWWWnURB> CAST OOUJMN NORHT ELEVATION - OFFICE BUILDING 26 SCAI& 1/W- . r.0- tf> I 0) I lift! CO_c "3COcoOJZ WRCetenni, SDP-A1.1 WEST WEST WEST © WEST WEST SOUTH EAST RETAIL ELEVATIONS- BUILDING 7 PUMP CANOPY . , . O NORTH FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND 0 DeOOmlWEOEMNTPLMTBUWWETDETML 0um.ni ROOF © © 0 © ©now SOUTH NORTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 5 SCALE: 1/W- , r-0' O © © ittJpfliMBl O O SOUTH EAST NORTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 6 000 sc*ifc I/*-. r-o- OO 0© O 0 SOUTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 7 SOUTH EAST NORTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 12 CO | 8 fs ya Z iijtl CD C "5 OO O < SDP-A1.( SOUTH EAST RETAIL ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 14 PUMP CANOPY . . WEST SOUTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 13 EAST NORTH © WEST SOUTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 14 EAST NORTH © O © O WEST SOUTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 22 EAST NORTH 1! WEST 3&.TT -us A SOUTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 24 EAST VJ5 - -O— CO i 8 K •£ llfll COcroO C/3 SDP-A1.! /i=f~-L: 1~^i' — _ NORTH WEST RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 1 NORTH WEST RETAIL ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 2 — EAST (i> J? n. NORTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS-BUILDING 3 EAST NORTH RETAIL ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 4 FINISH / MATERIAL LEGEND © PMOED8IUCCO 0 DeGOH«1VE CEMENT ®>WB.I 0 POWDER 0 0 POTENTHLieNAKTBlaNMlEAREA 0 PREMNMnCTUREDCWrcOUMN SOUTH EAST SOUTH EAST SCALE: 1/W • I'-O- O © WEST SOUTH -r*TU =H _- : JS^J i WEST SOUTH SCALE: I/W i f-0* CO I ? I o< GO C Oo.C -«—* "Een 1-1 s £J < rs a SDP-A1.K \ C.U.P. SUMMARY CJIf. M-lt oe-oi Di-02 Ot-OJ ee-ot oa-oi Ot-Of Qt-Qt wr* /« » 12 7 f IJ IS a usavaui as iun&t/cM »on omr-Mv SKftf-IMV OS StUOH/fM «*S" Onf-MrV Gnume ANALYSIS mnjnq Off: J02.<K FILL *G&tX SHfONIt J/.« J7.S2 AC 'ZS4O M9TK ASSESSOR'S FWKtl lOUi ACHES. .. &GHNG jorwc. mimsco /OHM £XtSnHG CfHC/W f rw&wsco ctHfHM. HAH o HUUBtH t UASSflC*nOH Of LOtS. . . NUUBfft Of ffSOfHIW. IMIS. arc LAMOSCMHC. sow* Dfuwo fi«y HAW OflUMO (OUW) SCHOOL usmcr C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 SHEET t Of 10 SHEETS C.P. 01-03 G.P.A. 01-02 M.P. 149(R) L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C) C.U.P. (SEE TABLE V. 08-02 THIS SHEET) TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL LEGEND see uwoscAet PLAHS iff AUCHIfC! PIANS N/* TO Of XUfWHlO ffr two 46 CPU fHOHIfAS UMQH tLCueWAttr SCHOOS*V OfSMOO UHOH HKH SCHOOL I {OSHM. (ASfUEHt. OKH/K Sf«* UMH A *«. easnue snx* oe** name Hf HWUMT. . .. casnf*; sneer uotr fWPOSCD fHSHfD COHKOtS o mmtir siav out* t ca MOWED PUX.K naf HWUM. ® cm -I A SITE VICINITY MAP EASEMENT TABLf S PtR fIffi/UMWr niLf ttPOItr OAffD rESfUAf/r U JW9 BY DJi£ COUfAMY. OKOfPHu HCS-74HSS-SO , a 3 15 •6 It It » f/f 7?-2tlt(l t/f ao-xoat /f XOt-OOWt'JJ /f XJQ2-0&UQ! /f f002-01XH)» /f xta-u&H» JP 20a?~05S#M ot/n/isx a//tt/isrt io/21/iaao OI/JV/2W OJ/2'/200i aj,y;/ftiai at/2<t/2eoi Vf/M/2002 sa onjuff Oil ST CAIX.5BAQ on y CAHISBAO orr or CAWSBA0 orr a cMtsgAO air a UM.SBM> an or C-W5**) arrofcMiiiua K *M MAD OfMUCf«a»w«w ft« satffr OMSF carsr. ne i«fr//WA«j<2 MCAif rtjr «s 04-oe UtOMH VMAtt ttUAti ffUAM KM/fffRUS 04- at VACAK rtn vs. tn-oi HfUfM LEGAL DESCKIPTiOH MJt. tlOHrtHP IJ SOUIH HOKf J HS!. S*V KRHMUHO UCM&AH /OCfHfJ/ mlH HXIKMS Cf IOFS IJiiOF S4HCHO LAS fHOKtS *CCWOK 10 HAPmentor no. <m # ME on or CAO.OAO, coutir of s*w OKA $i*n: or CAUFOHHU. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT NOTE CIVIL ENCINEER/LAHD SURVEYOR ODAf COHSUl fAH IS. W2tio ttxt* A'tmt xsr. sux 100CMHS&d. CA. 3X10 OWNCR/SUBDJVfpW LA COSfA 10m SOUMif, UC tiTXftB APM. IS. 2009ffVSTO Ft&UAHf J 2009"fusn> ofciusK a. looaff*xn Nowet* H«VSE txraao. xottt*S£D. AUCUSl < fOOeTUiffl Mf. ». KOBWKire Afftt 2J, ZHOUsrwjsc Aucvsr to. 200}SlIISfB Afft 20. MQ/ IIAKH 10. XtH KtOBlR 2i XOJ cfowex if. 2002 OP-IUP. 5KHIUSUHCC OfOVtCB rOOHK KffAMHC HAil Pf»*CVS PAHUC D MASH (Maosuff fxi A LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE o Oi SHEET 2 OF 10 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 X1HKH fiis* s^ffi^,..» SFCTION 'C-C'SECTION 'D-D' •Q'U' 44' «« »' A f J' _rt_ v- AT 44' a \— --- , • «J' « 1 1 UMTS a IMC? EXISTING RANCHO SANTA fT ROAD HO SUU ACCESS ROAD SECTION 'H-H'^C. ^ EXISTING LA COSTA A VE 1 *n*sra nwuMr 4 A«W ^**SR efcfuaa a. lootw wso MWMiff K .nor*f*sre cc/tar* AWWWfi MXIBH MOBW*fSfO JtMf « AW *r*stt **w/- w ?(»/AFWjn ***. XLtfOJwtfsro- Muoy KI jaw«f «ra ociotcit 2J. jwuflf*va xi r jt. A»Jffiwao rtgftiujtr <i xoj ff KSf* M.fl9. 100' W *>§\ ItnlAIIVt MAf f--.il ^\£™y)LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE ^^/ COMMERCIAL O%>**2^ •"• '" •".•;;.•- ;;;/;—- ..;;;..;~.t..^ DCSKMED HT HR. QAIF (ItNUMTT 1001 ^"^i^S^^r: ™"«" * "~^ IWOFMT 0. OflROLL Jfi HCC SSJ«l sneer j or to SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 trr-sif tinjifs at OUOHG*HS FKOfCr 9UU KOUKUSIVH5four a OMsavcaat TENTATIVE MAP FOR COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL SHEET 4 OF 10 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL SHEET 5 OF 10 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL TYPICAL SECTION - PERUEABLE PAVEMENT/PAVERS nor w SCALC 00 t\ H.D.P. 01-05 P.V.D. 01-14 TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL us Oa SHEET 7 OF W SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 C.f. 08^03 RANCHO SANTA FE RO. IMPROVEMENTS A STRIPING SCXf: >' - 50' /susa««H»fifteen %mlfS*rrswMrji 2009t&svs, TENTATIVE MAP FOR COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL KCMftt MXUST < C ° " S " I- T 1MHHT 0 QOTCLL Jt HCE SMal \ SHEET 8 OF 10 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 ./; Mliu ' V\ 1 H ! i!i « §- - -— - - ^_JL -^i ' \\ •\ -}]••• - _....,•:-:—-....•• _- A.- ,A- i /I;ff Sy' ' _^ =*_.._ ' ^ / yI S If) 1 1 1 1| 1 LJ__ Mf LUC SAWWC 1 SH ! 5^^ L .1- .- W/J/: lUMQKtlENTS ffiP WtS M5-/fl_*_JSJX/ _.__^= — j ! - i 11i jyi ,„...„ (-4— -rr... | ^-" TRAFFIC ' SIGNAL LA COSTA AVC. IMPROVEMENTS & STRIPING TENTATIVE MAP FOR COSTA TOWN SQUARE i. nufncsaut warMsuttai tramvocitsU OKU KUtMX MOSCOW «W TJf. COMMERCIAL OFFSITE STRIPING PLAN FOR LA COSTA AVENUE SHEET 9 OF 10 SHEETS C.T. 01-09 S.D.P. 01-04 H.D.P. 01-05 P.U.D. 01-14 LEGEND ' IWHKMUUS . 4? e^ ^ ":^:^^4-:~_ .—--'""' ,,*H*.>-';""' /4^^ TENTATIVE MAP-'^.,^~—J .:. ••••—-:•— ^— ^.'- kf %\ roK"---:_ .~"-—— --j ^..^-" assays. \*k"r%*7z.x< cosr/) ranw SQUARE ^\ t 'i I • ffMSfft orarnBm a »w\. .•*-! wxsni MJKiar* K MM', ', erwm or/«f« M«< > «"itsra AIXUSI t, soot*rnsm AW /< jtw«r «ra v« 74 /w# ON~SITE STRIPING PLAN 5SS a?iftaf w/TUKNING RADII SS £S»V£u »«,-.»• SS 1K£,^mi&Hstct Dfaiea », 2002ffnaa -ur<a ^o/ Xt2^x COMMERCIAL 6>'b^ "-"S-l s"" DCSKMEO BY. Hg_ _ D*l£. HBHUtfff 2001 p««a UGH.' i.c. joe «o . pj>-ioa ENONCEH OF KMK D*Ttnuoinr a. CWKU. j«. net SSMI \ \ \ s,\£\ _J f ^.-- — """ — — ' ..^--••"" ,.^{~i$ft"~ ^.-p^^^^^v^ ,,--" ^^^^-~~^,?^mmml\\ I; _— • — -v T"' 'A :i ^'' ^.^"''^.^~ . -' .-— "^ ... ^. .--•''' -"'"'""' **'''**' f^.--'~~~ \ ;• I 5//£fA W O/"c.r. 5.A/1. /r.A/3. p. ^./). LOT SUMMARY 10 SHEETS 01-09 01-04 01-05 01-14 tot 1 2 If It It X 21 22 23 3* K(COHX*) SHKHOSMU ft SO U COSH Vf TOM (1) cuossMU(itasy 0.28 024 021 21 i IS JOa 27i & 2f J? 20i /'a 52jr it 20 fJ 4* 20 12 It orsi _W 4I.5S MX nor MccnsMr nx tuns i OPOUOOHJ m XSMSKO outMSOf «t CClWtD fHAX 2 (MT MTS CARLSBAD &A. LA COSTA TOWN SOU ARE - RETAIL CENTER CT 01-OS SDF04-1B LANDSCAPE CONCEPT / XSATER CONSERVATION / FIRE PROTECTION PLAN - FULL SITE PLAN IRKieATKJ J-UTH A TEMPORARY SYSTEM. THIS TEMPORAR SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY PROJECT TEAM o COPY SHEET 10FKJ CARLSB/M5 CA. LA COSTA TOW SQUARE - RETAIL CENTER LANPSCAPE CONCEPT / I-NATER CONSERVATION / FIRE PROTECTION PLAN MANUFACTURED SLOPE 4FT TO BFT - STANDARD "3 CITY STANDARDS - THE FINAL FLANS FOR PROJECT LANDSCAPE ,N*CHITECTURE SHALLCOMPLY WITH ALL THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY5 LM4DSCAFE MANUAL IN EFFECT ATTHE TIME OF PRO-CCT APPROVAL. THESE SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLO»'*N<&. IN AREAS rtTH LESS THAN 3:1 SLOPE SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED CVER 60% OF THE TOTAL PLANTED AREA.. IN THESE AREAS SO% OF SHRUBS m,L BE FROM S SALLONCONTAINERS. ALL MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHALL BE PLANTED AS FOLLefGON ALL SLOPES 4FT OR &REATER OR ANY SLOPE NEXT To PUBLIC SIDEMALKS:STANDARD «1 * -LTE MESH / COVER CROP ON ALL SLOPES -4ft TO Oft. STANDARDS "1. "2.« «3STANDARD *3 = &ROUNDCOVBV SPACED TO PROVIDE PULL CCVEKA6E INONE TEAR,STANDARD »3 • LOW SPREADING SHRUBS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TO% COVER AT MATURITY. THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE REQWREMENTS OF »4BELOW.ON ALL SLOPES THAT ARE 8ft AND GREATER "AB.CJ CT STANDARD ••* = TREES AND /OR LAR3E SHRUBS FROM A MN. 16ALLONCONTAINERS AT A RATE OF 1/2OO SF ON SLOPES OF aFT OR MORE HEI6HTH PLANTED 1TREES AND/OR LAR&E SHRUBS AT 1/2OO SF ftfTH LOH SPREAPIN& SHRUBS OVER 1O%OF THE SLOPE AREA T MANUFACTURED SLOPES - STANARD »4 Car ex tumullcola - Liner pots 16" o.c. Finus Roxburgh ii 1-24" box / plante RANGHC" SANTA FE ROAD MEDIAN ISLAND PLANTER SEE SHETT 4 FOR THIS AREA COPY SHEET 20FIO CARLSBAD CA. LA COSTA TOW SQUARE - RETAIL CENTER LANDSCAPE CONCEPT / JAIATER CONSERVATION / FIRE PROECTION PLAN SLOPE / OPEN SPACE \BUFFfeR/SCREEN TREE »2\ ' \ \ NOTE: PARKWAr SHRUB MASSING f<ILL BE PLANTED TO COVEROF THE AREA AT MATURITY JJST5J5EO. RESIDENTIAL STE FOR THI6 AREA CARLSBAD CA. LA CO5TA TOJAIN SQUARE - RETAIL CENTER LANPSCAPE CONCEPT / KHATER CONSERVATION / FIRE PROTECTION PLAN JUNE CH flSfc, —^jjjjjm %VR . 1&O 434 2152 SEE SHEET 3 FOR THIS f SEE SHEET 2 FOR THIS AREA : *T^:>^jBjiBrSijja^^Rjfra ---I'-.. --;-v\\\\ r• SEE SHEET 5 FOR THIS AREA S^SSpft;%i^lf«*^^T^:•:^s^^sl^ ^m<i^s^r~ ^s%:§^x::$pvS«v tosEbFKoyi-^-'•^-S^-^wVvS^j- 1 N%))j&&> "''if//. }f ~~ *\^~f/ 7C ^^ RETENTV3N •^\v X 'o->>^~ :-y/ '^^f^; 5HEET 4OF1O CARLSBAD CA. LA COSTA TOJAIN SOUARE - RETAIL CENTER LANDSCAPE CONCEPT / XSATER CONSERVATION / FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 76O 434 2152 ie SHEET 3 FOR THtS SHEET SOF1O CARLSBAD GA. LA CO5TA TOJAIN SQUARE LANP5CAPE CONCEPT - PLAZA VIGNETTE MAIN PLAZA - PLAN VIEW CARLSBAP CA. LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE - RETAIL CENTER SITE SECTION - MAIN PLAZA 160 434 2152 FIN/PLANTER K<ALL SMALL SCALE ACCENT TREE CLOCK TOKSER PRIMARY THEME TREE OUTPOOR PININ6 , FOUNTAIN ARCIN6/SEAT KSALL MAIN PLAZA SITE SECTION 0s- CARLSBAD CA. LA CO5TA TOJAIN 5<2UARE - RETAIL CENTER VI(3NETTE5 RESTAURANT PINNIN& PLAZA LA COSTA BLVP ENTRY FEATURE RANCHO SANTA FE RD 4 LA COSTA BLVD INTER5ECION IDENTITY FEATURE PLAN VIEKS A V&{ OF INTERSECTION IDENTITY FEATURE fr-'^N vJ_A4J\.**., T |o] « i." tr I Uf|! lp: SfefR^f.^^r'^-Sfei ["^^^r^^SS •*\\ "*.-,. *«i '"-•> i;i-. *"—-,^ gfl VIEXN OF LA COSTA ENTRY FEATURE N N partial list of example, alternative plant material that may be used in the final planting plan PE5I&N PE5CRIFTION A N P TREE LE&ENP MAT j^J X L E £» E N P RANCHO SANTA J=E STWeETSCAre City perscrlOed T> invite on the plaij 34' Cox , •i • J * « • 9 . * • • e « * * 0 * * ft • • • * • . • „ • . • * „ * _ v^£rt£« r^zr^TZ*** — Erc^lfln <£*ro. * 1 * .Itor . 10* tov.r/«,r,- -"srsa-H -«"-" •"•*•* I--. i/400* BOTAMICAL NAME COMMON NAME Achillea" specie" ta'rr^ L*te'"r Agapanthus afrcanus Lily of the Nile Aloe specie* Aloe Arbutus species Artemisia &oecie& A¶gus retrofraxusEVaochSTLS species Coyote Busn carex species &edge CeanolHufi toncha Mtn Lilac Chondropetalum e'lephartinum cap^Bu^i Dendrwnecon harfordil Bush Poppy Dletes MyBrlds rtild IrisCamellia apecles Coleonema album yreatn of heave/iCycas revolUa Sago PamErica species Heatn Escallonla rubrafesmca trpecleb pescusFremontodendron-Cal Slary" Flainel Bush VINES, PLANTABLE m • K 1 < > • >» * ' ' _l • • 9 9 m ~. i * * • » * • » I r £S£^£; r^^'riA!:1?!^ — er«lo« Co^rffl 9 1 %.or, . 1C* s^r/^r,- "^TS^, ^'^-."1^ 2*'- MAOOt" Juflcus species RushLagerstromia specie* Crape MyrtleLantar.a spcles 3O" max ngt. LartanaLavandula species Lavender Llnw'nlu^tallforntoum CodOd SLalice MaMonla aquifotluni Munuenbergia ripens Deer &rass Nollna species Bear e.rassOptunia littoratis Tuna Pijraca-Tha species Flrethorn Rnamnus spetlesRosa specleb Rose RumonraadlantlFo^mls"* Leatherle^af Fernsalvla epecleB 3O1 max ngt - SageTegetes lemmonil Mtn Marigoldi-iestringla friJtlcosa coast Rosemary Zantedescnla aetliloplca Calla Lllij SROUNP COVERS CAMOFY &HAPE T quantity per plan rNALLS AND TRELLIS Calilandra haematoc Evergr Evergreen 6rape Issus trlcusptdata Boston ivy FLANTABLE BOTANICAL NAMB RETIANlNS TAuu CANgrr ameer ^oe TRM A slrgle t TREES. vertical or a itrcngquantity per plan leader to produce hlgM Brinchlng ot*CH STACC ,- Bjrcontrol drougnl tclerant large scale t Uree'lOOOsf Oviercua a^rk^ia Coast Live perplanLyorthamnub florlCundus - " - mejilcena SMALL SCALE PLANTIN& IN ZONE THREE MAT BE REPUCEC1 PUE TO SURFACE SITE ROCK. OPMENT IS LIMITED. THEL>RSEST AREA OF VESETATIGH IS THE 4 11 ACfi£5 IN ITS EASTERN OPEN LANDSCAPE IS DESIGNED AND MLL BE INSTALLED FOR THE Ff2LLCV*N6 REASONS ERl^SIONINLCUPE THE OB ACTIVE Of LANP&C*f E ARCHITECTURE &HAU. FULLY COMPLY MITH ALL THE STANDARPS IN THE CITi-'S HERBAOStXS SRCVND COVERS SHALL ALSO RECEIVE SHRLB PLAtfttH M EFFECTIVE LANDSCAPE TR£ATMENT. EROSION CONTROL S.IISSt (6^ *|OF TOTAL AREA PLAMT TEM THAT WLi. BE DgSI&NED AND RETAINEO BY MICPO ORGANISMS. IN ADDITION. comprerendive &llff lighting plan provlolng eafe aillumlneled by llghlb on 2OH pole or on tne side of large tauildmj walla AH vehicle area ligits mill Be a cut-off type I be malr.talnede retail center -ion. will Be u*li lit urith overhead celling riant* .n at a; Fountain.statue, obelisk,sculptuj-e garden arcdtectwe. ro r NOTES 4 LE<S-ENPS La Costa Totun Square - Retail Center SHEET <tof 1O CARLSBAD CA. LA COSTA TOW SQUARE RECYCLED kNATER U5E - FULL SITE PLAN 1 • V^ri \\ .I. / $mt&w™$fy jfes^uJi^v^JiiK:^^ BE COPY SHEET lOof 10 SCM£; I' - 100' EASEMENT TABLE EASEMNT TABLE: tASfifNK PtR /*fiJW«4*r nilt' KCPORf Mffff fEBftJAHr U 2QQ9 BT MSI Mtf&CAN nilC COMPANY, OR00! No. HCS-749SS--SD SfCOfiGttCMJE ft&&&#Z COUHEMS on- cr CAO.SOAO GRADING ANALYSIS aafiffrotr CUT- 46.000 CY flLL: 65.OOO CY SHtowf: J.OQO cr BULK: 7.OOO CY uifVHT: 13,000 Cf (') AR£A: $57 AC. CONDOMINIUM NOTES HDH-KSUNHAI coco*/** mofci mo O/IAXS soIMI5 AS OffMCD >t SCOUI Mil OF IHf O* COX tf IHf SUIT OfMB is mo fvKUMii m IK fvoti&ats y me aotn&oH UAC ACT. GENERAL NOTES C1OSHHC ZOMHC fWVSfO ZOMNC HtOPOStO CftfRAL fiAM XSCHA B&t. tHADfR or COHOOUHKJU WW3 Sf LAMOSCAPNC. /U/MWCT SPACtS tfOUHCP/ffKKilOfD. OftoiCf CABNG ARC* POOJfCT IMP OMXAOW StlfR KUAW (ICW) flAMS PLANS H.AHS . CHOHtfAS tMKW fUWtfAltr SCHOOL USUHCT SAM OfCUttD tMOH UKH SCHOOL fHSIKCt . airfw*uv uuMofAi mitx ots/Ktcr . itUCAOA MSJUMfff USIRKf . AEKIAL SUHVfYBf ?0t*i INC.. DAM 4-IO-2OO7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A eataat or SKOOM Ji. #****• u so/at t A mtaoH or xerox &,rnmoHf u savin tuaif j Ksr, SAH drwMwno venom manaimmnuacHsortois ttstrSAHCHOIASCTOWU ACCOM**; n>HAPHcntfta us * ite arr cf CM3B»A a*»rr or SAN man SIAX sneer / or 4 SHEETS C.T. 08-07 S.D.P. 01-03 G.P.A. 01-02 M.P. 149(R) L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C) P.U.D. 08-09 TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE OFFICE toittt. EttSWC fAX LOT 2 itrsmc COJIKWS. me HIWAI»I ............ smtft uoa. . . .......... e ntsto COMIOMS. ....... O nauc mufn HAM. ....... neuc sf«» UAM * A.H. . . ftoWK Stan/ s#Att t c.a. fVtmtf M£f ........... . auHtHNttOfi utr. ....... HMK «f HIWAMt . ..... ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT NOTE /HHC HALL . fffAMHG K4U (C UAXJ COWfD OtASH PKIOSMC (SB AHOHECH'S H.AIK) . famous Miocvf. . PQMUS COHOfff. . . LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER IA COS/A torn SOMSC. ucSf»9 BALBOA Ate 5U1S 3?0S*V Of CO, CA 32123 .i TYPICAL SECTION - PERVIOUS PAV£UENT INSTALLATIQHHOT so XALT .-- w»™«~'-'-W) ^-svs^/KwtttV w >•«*» CM* e» <-. imis ^ UKJ £«/tCCOUfWVH TYPICAL SECTION - POROUS CONCRETE INSTALLATIONHOI ro XAif TYPICAL BIOSWALE HO SCALf 2 OF 4 SHEETS C.T. 08-07 S.D.P. 01-03 G.P.A. 01-02 M.P. 149(R) L.F.M.P. 87-11(0) P.U.D. 08-09 SECTION 'C-C' easr caw & curitfi flf TAIL ~ CURB OPENING mt to XAII EXISrtHG LA COSTA AVE RIP-RAP SPILLWAYM SLUI fiTOWW ^ jy SECTION 'A~A' S££ SHCET Ho. J EXISTING LA COSTA AVE(lOQ' CAST Of CALLC TIHITCO IOCAUMO Of tOS COCHCSJHO SOU TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE SKTION 'B-B'SECTION '£-£'tBCNOJ BT. JJV Wit OCTOHEH ^tgl «X£CI UCB ;_LE___ JOB litOIKr Q CMROU. J» RCE: "a5T SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS C.T. 08-07 S.D.P. 01-O3 G.P.A. 01-02 M.P. 149(R) LF.M.P. 87-H(C) - P.U.D. 08-09 1. Mff OfF-SIT VOUOES Of OMOfff MKfSSMr ftH IHSffOfCf SHAU. OPOUKf CASOXHTS PHOR JO (XMSTWCOCft iMJ.au* FMUIfS AM OflBtnOM BA9KS MX COMSBBSD/WW K M€ Mf JO X tUMIAftD BY Of fft&a OMGK ^*t*TENTATIVE MAP FOR $Ls.«s.}s) LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE %j^ OFFICE o' iff us y jMtu*rjB 3009a Btauoat a, mot 0 N s u t. 7 VTTr_s _ Mft _ -«o NO fflhjoa CNCWOF Of MMK. SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS C.T. 08-07 S.D.P. 01-03 G.P.A. 01-02 M.P. 149(R) L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C) P.U.D. 08-09 LA COSTA AVC. IHPROVCHEHTS t STRIPING XM£: I' s «' !KVf)C NOTES I. fft*ffE90iMt JO If MSTMIID Af CMM K LOS COCHE5 4 U CQSIA AWUf NlBKECnON »W Of. HOOUKSOfllT. I "NO /MOW SKHS SMU X HtSfALifS OH LA COSIA AWU TENTATIVE MAP %$\ FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE ^f^ OFFICE 'AWJ O'Duy Consultants. Inc. HfWfD juff J teaATMSFR Affit X( 2001flrwHtt j*w/A?rjq ^oeyWKSW ocatttv s xa*&*ra ocnefnoai XSKHfO ttt: *JJ_ OMt. tMMM 8Y: 1C.. ^ JC*£: I". 40' P"OJ£CI yen- I.C JOB NO, QO-102S ntoMi o oxMoa. ji CARLSBAD GA. LA COSTA TOW SQUARE - OFFICE CT 01-CW SDP 04-16 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT / HATER CONSERVATION / FIRE PROTECTION PLAN - FULL SITE PLAN PHASING OF BUILDINS CONSTRUCTION: ANY BWLDN© SITE THAT IS IKACT1VE Of SIX MONTHS OR LONfflER SHALL St SEEPCD AMP A TEMPORARY SYSTEM. THIS TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY AND THRMNS CONDITION UNTIL AC.TlVITY,TAKES PLACE. ~ --'- ' '" - THE LANDSCAPE SHALL BE PLANTABLE OR EARTHTONE COLOR E--'--- - ,^. ,, -,-. A _^1\ V/.iv:;'>ii^^ \^,*t 'y^"'^M^^lfn/'xx^ s')^ sV' \^\ N^/•PROJECT TEAM SCALE |-.*0' NORTH P E S I 6 N ANT partial Hal of example, alternative plan E5CRIPTION ANP TREE L E <S- N t material that may be used In the final planting plan E N C? _ _ nl*u, per plan Eastern Kedbud Phoilnla « Fruerl MEDWM •GALE PARKIN* IQTTReeTREES: Shade provider*quantity per plan Chinese Flarr-e TreeNeiu Zealand clHolly Oak CANOTT SHADE TREE - An Inform* planting In perimeter drainage are» drought tolerant large K o TREES, Flo^erlnfl - small tc«« tree* ^u«ilt\| per pUr J4t rULl PgUAj.g THetTWeesi Medium scale ujlin fcHlag* to th« ground evergreen qu»*(ty per plan _junipcrua chlnenab. TeruloM1 Twisted Juniper SHRUB MATRIX LESENP BOTANICAL NAMElion (.pitiesAcMllea specie* AJBV* tpecle* Arbutu* *peci»AreUisUptiytot cwltlvv* Artemlela spedebAtporaguft ipsctetBUiithorlt epeclee Coyote Bush Carpenter!* calftxnlia ~ ' ' Cerc.lt octldent»ll6 t^atetr Redd Cotonearter specleB ncnDendrome&on harfordll guen Coppy pletea Hybrldt rt\d Irto He»per*)oa parvlflora HEterome4» vtfutlfolli uigerttromla tpeeles, Blue Oat Srost To-jon &-ape Myrtle30" max hgt. La Nerlum OleanderNollna specie*cptunla llttorallsPer.nltBtum spetlesPlttotporum tobiraPyrot^itha tpetletRhapttiolepl* ovatanut tpstlet species Blue Spire*' ra Mlantlforml*species.Leattierleaf Fern 30- max. Mgt - sageHtn Marigold n ipecles Flannel Bu»h VINES, PLANTABLE HALLS * C-ROUNP COVERS VINES « ESPALIERS FOR BOTAHICAL N K1ALLS AND TRELLIS Pink powder f Evergreen ClematisBlood Red Trumpet VineEvergreen srape Shinning JawnlneBoslon Ivy _»ae - ALL TO M « »AU-ON. apA&N* PBt TLAN KETIANINS rtALLS A*til«e« lomentosa C£7/ERS TO COVER size i erAc««» It plHularls tyatrf Coyote Bueh Fluted material Rosmarlnus Irene prostrate Rosemary Pestiie* specie* Fescue flatted material Kfrjgerla cniioen»l» n\\a Strauoerry corex dlvul*a Berkeley Sedge 0(114* • IT'o.c. Corel penoUla Meadow Moge plugs • iT'o.c. _N O T E 5 -*NS FOR THE FRO.EC.T5 LANEJ5&Al»e *l E FCTWTW- CP &3IL El BIO STfiLe* - THESE AREAS ttLL BC PLM4TEP TO ALLCW DKA»4A6E TO MOVE THROJ«H THEM. ALL AREA3 THAT FULL HAVE STOKM fSATEW MCOVER THEM ITU.L HAVE A 1OO* SROUND COVER PLANTlNS. THESE MH-L SLOh T"E MOVEMENT OF THE l^^TER ENOU6H TO CATCH POLLUTANTSniLL THEN ENTER THE SOIL TO BE BROKEN PCtW BY HKttO ORGANISMS. IN ADDITION, WERE SPACE ALLCV6 TREES AND LARGER SHKUBS 111 AuSO BE PLANTED TO AID IN SOIL STABILIZATION AND STRUCTURE. BITE U&HTIH* - Tne development will nave * conprcnentlve site lighting Plan providing tale and well llgbt exterior grants. A« vehicle area* uilll CIlluminated by light* on 2O'l pole or on the side of large building ualls. All vehicle area lights u>HI be a cut-oPf type fixture, ittpadf---1 '"Hlumirated from poles lights and exterior Building light*. All of tne pedettrlw lights u/MI be of a coordinated architectural lantern • ENRICHED PAVM* - Areas noted on tnese plans as "Enriched Paving- urflr Be surfaced with one or more oF these type* oF paving: U Scored, ulond on *tte and perimeter parKiuBy landscape Improvement! uy«i be maintained In common PJ a service provided and paid for tig the ouna rNATER CONSERVATION •VUSHEO BY THE USE OF CRIP TYPE 4 FIRE SUPPRESSION APRJL 3OO^NOTES 4 LE<SENPS La Costa Town Square - Office CARLSBAD CA. LA COSTA TOF4N SQUARE - OFFICE RECYCLED kNATER USE - FULL SITE PLAN ,,,o s T A ,^'§i|] I^^l4i^r r TXEOl-IVENHAIN NOT TO A SET SCALE NORTH •H.OQQ cr ra Sf cxpoaito ro rue COMUCKCIAL S/TC. cr oi-Q9-isooo cr ro af EUPOHJEO to IH£ office SITE.I3.00O Cr JO fit tXPORKD OFF-SITE. HOKOOH of sfcnoH ji. AUKTOB 12 sou in t A potnoi of SCKH & IJ SCUOt KAtXX J Kir, SMt BfKHMOtfO ifSCMM. HXfOfgor tors user /UMMO IAS &XMUS MXOHOK TO i40. w if an-cr CMUWA COUMIY or SMI xca s'*r SHEET 1 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 08-03H.D.P. 01-05G.P.A. 01-02L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C)M.P. 149(R) TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RESIDENTIAL LEGEND ® fjasanc cat/ours casmc mm/ UMH .... fJOSMC Sfitf H*M 4 A.H . . casatc sia& BUM .... fJKMC Off HICftMT . . . CJttONC SIKfT IKMf. . . . fOOfOUD fWnyfD COHKVftS . D WltVIUK. . . -In ~n>x VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES #ca no- Sf«W ZONING •fftoPOsco /GwwG_, PEKCEW Of SITC UNOSCAP£_ XAISX cvs'ft/cr SfW£K IXSIKKT COHTOUH WTtffiML _ 64 ttSiOENn*t LOIS (LOtS 1-64) _ 4 OPEN SftKf LOT (LOTS 63-68) - GO rout lots . 0.014 UC/0 „ 640 AOT - s/w ofcmro UNION wen SCHOOL ws _ QUVENHAIN UUHKIML WATER &S1OKT _ IEUCAOM tmstftnAtra OISTKKT - A£nm sumfr gr TOWILL IHC.. CMIEV - 2' SHfH INDEX SHEET No. nne sneer - CXNCRAL nores. LECCNO rrPICM. SKTK3HS. LOT AREAS, £ iOrS AND CMDINC SlttfT PSOflLfS OWNER/SUBDIWDER •SL'h'SS,**-«-*£, CIVIL CHCINCU/LMD SURVfrOll LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE r ;z 2MJit otauew 17, xcfffi Mrs. KOIa HAr Ji. tooi DESICNQl BT HR_ *J. WIE. ftBHUlBY MOI ~1 LOT / LOT AREA, (SO. ~/T}' / »,»' » 4<« // £9Jj)M 4 £10 « &&.. "' « '-!**> W W A J » »S ») 1" J? 1 fcjg~: sneer 2 or 7 $ $ < C.T. Oior** MMS tf n p n fjasr »ww*i€*n */* »• '^ f* T* A f} J(9B-i , «»« ,.- 'la--. «'«;.i.i,y, L.F.M.F. 87-1 <f \ *-f.\ »• \ ^% j 1 T^ Af . /*. 74 tf si* / \ "^—fflmKn- *rwreB«tr ^*"4C fitur o^ea s' tg * **» flOSr RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD f^SfLlf IAMAKINUO 10 ««s V* sf */* ii 7n<A | too' w ? W wo' 1 S T^ ** «wjw/nw */* -J- fl3l .s?'j** ™ '«"'** . /"'i^jf'r^'j. S 4^ 10' w*cr JJ' ro »' »«fs JL?" ra »' w* ^^ 14 ™ ™ 1 W 1 \^ —i '-m — ^id 4 ^ 5^ ^ (^-"'"" y«ra..«^>C^ 47 / s^j 0-^' JJ — . j "Iltv "*Vl^f PCf-OUl* (<W) ^^ 67' 62610 HO SCMf -SSr^l-rJl^^.-™ Llli Cfl/J /. t/1 UC*J l» n VC. frcn UH\>- £3J fj ClUCT IX4HOH *W OMOOMa MC U> *f XlftMMfO DUONG fMU OfSGn WM. 2*Jf M: M y^r «»n«»»<r RESIDENTIAL 'MEETS 9-O3 (-05 1-02 1(C) 9(R) «W AifKKAH HILf COUPANf. ORO£R HA NCS-74!taa-SO iff Jo -»' w ^4, noajuwr Huuont efcaaaHfi OAJF atrrsfiieF onuunus nyasanM ,.,«-^1 aeOK 1737 PMX 4 Qt/ft/ISX $.0. COIMIr US *>* MC4T «» W ^. . i 5- i j- i .j., , ««x j/j? «*«• j*^ fl?/wix«M aw w «*« «w» L 7 ' I L "^x. » OT !_____ 4— __L^^i'"i >r :t"'^* ""* ** ^ J '/*• i1"^ «?/w/**/ in cown- owiwa/BOflfs ««M> -..» r—^tr fAI rwic ,^ \ ^ • f 1 ULDC Jf<s. ,a.J^ ]W>^T7^X7777fl 1 U^^T-XTV^-^^,^ ^*'l., ' IfHB* «'/"" <W "<!•« <™«— -JC 1 — < i'' / ^S. 10 fjf t4-O&*> U/14/H84 OUV MfLffS HfHMI \ \ ,^¥Mh, stlf j 'J /* 2eeo-axttu w/to/xm ouw prases xttu* -i .-^-'^- r*« a-wo fHJ, ^WIO^WCOICT-^ '* /»xxx-oorxa 01/10/2002 an OF cMiseto VSVWOOH stuMi - | .j* jr uf «jn, (Msa> AaxiC4IE eMl K ^ i<xa-e2swi <a/2'/*xv f" <r <****> t* SIKKI «MH t | * ' t. ir /*• xx>2~arSMa 01/27/2002 on OF CMISBU ccusr. «C4« KH us \ i , £XtSr. LA COSTA AVE, (PER DWG. J97-I8J a /f xat-aJUon oi/waoi an<ro*SB*o autwx ««M» 4g ^\ "^ (£ASr_fy PASEO TAMARINDQ) >y /t> xta-usenn 04/29/2002 on of c«ss*p H» smtrr nuw | ^ Mf JC4U a jp 20tU-l»tJ60i QI/Ot/2OU OHIO «ffJ? KMM1 J \ e . itNlA IfVt MAr M-oa w-oa ^ / 'k ^«. ^1 * ^ 1^ ^ COSTA TOWN SQUARE ' n ^w «»!«« \ ' «« «r s--> WT n,^,***^-,, sS™* Vo»4W/» ^W. ««««/«»» |gS||S TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE DETAIL EXIST. SIW LIMA (PER DWG. 253-7) fll 3sHfHJ?f "0 SCAtC HO SMC XFW3R MMKH 10. 2004ff KSP OCnXfH 21. 20U IHSTg; XXStK HAf Si. 2001 y^y^S^ oracNto er- M*. *£...- wit f— . MO-MI -*>M naHMn jooi *^5«HHoo-isa « iiMl SHKT J OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 03-03H.D.P. 01-05G.P.A. 01-02 L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C)M.P. 149(R) UfAFTIC CALMING NOTfif/*mc C*LUHG mr-ours yam <w canxflnM OH r. CJUCr IOCAJKN AND UUCHSON5 Atif fO K CfJfKla^DOVHHCflHAL OfSKH TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RESIDENTIAL PWMCT UGH: l.C, JOS NO.' M-tOiS nuoinr o. ctftcu. JH. ace. SHEET 4 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 08-03H.D.P. 01-05G.P.A. 01-02L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C) (R) TRAfTlC CALMING NOTE IKAfF)C CMMHC POP-OUTS SHOW ARC CONCEPTUAL ONL £MCr LOCATION AW OOfNSIOHS ARf fOBfOfTC. DURNC fHAL OCSKM. TENTATIVE: MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RESIDENTIAL O1 Jd SHEET 5 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 08-03H.D.P. 01-05 G.P.A. 01-02 L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C)M.P. 149(R) SCC SHfCT Ma. $ O2005 O'D.:/ JKAFF1C CALMING NOW IKAfTK CAUONG POP-OU15 5WHW Altf COHCfffUAL CW! rEXACT LOCAnOM ANO UUCXSKNS ARC TO B£ KKttutfttD DUHNC fUML XSKfi TENTATIVE MAPFOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RESIDENTIAL rtvsB ocfceff n xxu *C*XD gcateai if, o»t£: roftwrt MPI SHEET 6 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 08-03 H.D.P. 01-05G.P.A. 01-02 L.F.M.P. 87-ll(C) M.P. 149(R) Wf ffT-Sf l/aSTfS OfTOtMHC tCOSSVtr I/ ..fOK MS fdOJKrSHMi ttfOUttfiUGMWffi- J , ';.float to caHsa&caat " ' NOTf: ALL KJtNHOH BASKS A/tf CCNSIKflfOeup fjtatiifs AW A/if to K HAHl*Jt£D Br OHHEOS OT fHOJFCI TRAfTIC CALMING NOTE F/fAffK CAIWC POP-OUfS SHOHN AKf COtCfPKJAi OK r.fXACF LOCAfJON AMD MlfHSIOMS AK ID Bf KIUMHEDDVfmC fJHAt SfSKft TENTATIVE MAPFOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RESIDENTIAL .^POSTING M&ftOvtHENfS PER C.T. 99-CM(OHC. to,' 397-18) C.T. 99-04 . ''> o SHEET 7 OF 7 SHEETS C.T. 08-03H.D.P. 01-05G.P.A. 01-02L.F.M.P. B7-11(C)M.P. 149(E) 280— —JOO JW —280 PROFILE - PASCO TAUARINDO PROFILE - SITIO LIMA J60— 340— 320— -~«i- -i XO 340 320 -300 —280 TENTATIVE MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RESIDENTIAL ftfWXO. MHt J Ktaixwo- jMUMtm xosSSffiSSWtt*5tl> JUHf 21, KOBHt*s& ut*. a joea a gfcnoc* it. 100?O: MTS. KOtn turj>. xm PROFILE - STREET 'S' CONSULT 1WOIMT 0, CMHOLL JR. net: S5M1 Landscape Concept 4 kNATER CONSERVATION / FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL- TREES SHALL NOT CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC- l/TILITIES AND SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM Of; Sfl FROM PAVING £1fi" iF AN APPROVED ROOT BARRIER IS USED.)1ft FROM SEWER LINES. 2. ALL FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS SMALL ADHERE TO THE POLICES AND REQUIREMENTS FOUND WITHIN THEOTY OF CARLSBAD'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL. EXCEPT AS MODiFlED AND APPROVED SY THE FIREDEPARTMENT. 3. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED «|TH AN AUTOMATIC SYSTEM.4. THIS PLAN SEEKS TO LIMIT WATER CONSUMPTION. PRIMARILY THROUGH THE USE OF ADAPTED. LOW WATER DEMAND PLANT MATERIAL.5. FINAL PLANTING FLANS SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEED FOR PROPER SOL PREPARATION. ADEQUATEMULCHING Of PLANTING BEDS, EFFICIENT WATERING METHODS AND PROPER MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. CITY 9TANOA!«pa - THE FNAL PLANS FOR THE PROJECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SHALL FlA,LYCOMPLY wrrn ALJ. THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL N EFFECT AT THE TIME OFAPPROVAL, MANUPACTURBD SLCPBS - ALL MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHALL RECEIVE A COMPREHENSIVE EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT AS DEFINED IN THE CITTS LANDSCAPE MANUAL. ALL AREAS WILL RECEIVETREATMENTS A. B. OF C. ALL SLOPES WITH A HEIGHT OF 3FT OR MORE SHALL E£ PLANTED WITH WOODY TYPE SHRUB5 THAT WILL COVER A MiN. OF 6O% OF THE SLOPE FACE AT MATURITY. BIO SWALES - THESE AREAS 1NILL BG PLANTED To ALLOW DRAINAGE TO MOVE THROUGH THEM. ALL AREAS THAT WILL HAVE STORM MATER MOVING OVER THEM I"*_L HAVE A 1OO% &ROUNP COVERPLANTING. THESE WILL SLOW THE MOVEMENT op THE WATER ENOUGH TO CATCH POLLUTANTS THAT WILLTHEN EMTER THE SOIL TO BE BROCSH DOWN BY MICRO ORGANISMS. H ADDfTtON. TREES AND LARGERSHRUBS WILL ALSO BE PLANTED TO AJD IN SOIL STABILIZATION AND STRUCTURE. FAL STREET PARKKXAY MAINTENANCE THE PROJECT HOA MILL MAINTAIN THE FOU-OMNiS AREAS - OPEN SPACE LOTS * 65.fc6 4 61 - ALL RESIDENTIAL STREET PARKWAYS - THE PARKHAY OF LA COSTA AVE FRONTING ON THE PROJECTS PROPERTY. - THE AREAS IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAN AS HOA-M ALL OTHER AREAS SHOWN TO RECEIVE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS MILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL LOT/HOME OWNER. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO APJACENT RETAIL CNETER ADJACENT OPEN SPACfe BUFFER Carlsbad Ca O SO 1OO 2OO SCALE r-lQO' NORTH La Costa Town Square5FP Residential Sht. JC- Landscape Concept 4 MATER CONSERVATION / FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN o 20 4o ao SCALE 1"=4O' NORTH , /7@ 1NATURAL VE.4^TAT1ON \>1/// v^/%e^'-•\ //// I /tf///,*/^f%£^iu\ ^^w////mm ^^1^ ^ '> « }//>^-;^y-^<-<>'m^^ii//// / / s..--/..^•'/^<$.-Carlsbad Ca ... ,-j.uare -esidential ; sht. Landscape Concept 4 HATER CONSERVATION / FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN tfr\ RESIDEFitlAL ' « STREET .TREESWNOTE \ > &//„.. ...MASONRYX - RETAININ&WLL\PRIVET1A,YS NOT\ SHOW) v -"^ \ LOT SLOPES ZONE 2 ERO5ION -Corner eigntline area - typicalSEE VK3NETTE PARKXSAY NOISE ATTENUATION KNALL ALON& THI PER NOISE STUDY DRAINAGE EASEMENT SLOPES BETWEEN LOTS REAR LOT I VIEW WINDOW FRAMED BY S TREEe \ limits public roiu Carlsbad CaLa Coeta TownSFP Residential SCALE 1"iu4C' NORTH 160 434 2152 LJnd*capa Conceptsht. son Landscape Concept 4 KNATER CONSERVATION / FIRE SUPPRESSION PLAN CITY STANDARDS - THE FiNAL PLANS FOR PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SHAU. COMPLY niTH ALL THE STANDARDS IN THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PROJECT APPROVAL. THESE SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLCMNG. IN AREAS >"UTH LESS THAN 3:1 SLOPE SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED OVER 6(3% OF THE TOTAL PLANTED AREA.. IN THESE AREAS 50% OF SHRUBS HILL BE FROM 5 &ALLON CONTAINERS. TURITY. THIS IS AN ADDITIC3N TO THE REOUjKeMEtiT6 ' "" ON ALL SLOPES THAT ARE eft AND GREATER "AB.CI D" - "t"- ------- "-"-STANDARD «4 = TREES AND /OR LAR6E SHRUelS'/ROM A i^JU^'l^ALUJN^^- CONTAINERS AT A RATE OF V2OO 5F _____ "" ..... • '^ '" :^'"^>JJ^ « # }\^,::::::;^^^^^05^^'^^---^,^ LOW SHRUBS 1O% COVER IN ' \ GROUND COVER- • • ' \ TREES OR LARSE SHRUBS-^ RESIDENTIAL PARKWAY 4 STREET TREES f NOTE DRIVEWAYS NOT .SHOWN; SIghtline LOT SLOPES ZONE 2 EROSION CONTROL Corner sightline area - typical HOA- SLOPE PLANTIN& "D" O>N S 4YRS. Carlsbad Ca La Costa Touun Square5FP Residential l&O 434 2152 SCALE 1"~4Ol NORTH EPSE TREATMENTS PLANT LEiSENP potential alternative plant material that can be used In the flanl planting plan EP<5E LESENP -•I—oj—»| aj|- Masonry nail -» • • *_ 50/50 fNall —I 1 1 I Ornamental Iron Fence _ . - Accent Splitface Pilasters @ internals — Earth lone Splitface block wall wilh cap — Vines on walls Height for Solid Wall la per the Noise analysis Shrubs on walls in common areas MASONRY , Accent Splitface Pilasters @ internals / r——- Ornamental Iron 6rill Earth tone Spiitface block wall with cap — Shrubs and vines In common areas 5ft 5O/5O f*4ALL 1 1/2 Inch Top & Bottom Rail 2 inch Sq. Post & 1 inch Vert. Bars inch Pickets w 5" Spacing TREE LIST ' SHRUB LIST TYPE/AREA DESCRIPTION BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Appro*. Quantity 4 Size at installation HO we. © HO ym$ '~~ RANCHO SANTA FB ROAD CITYS STReeTSCAPE THEME SB- 34"B<9X PINU5 TORRIANA TORREY PWE JACARANDA MMO5IFOLIA JACARANDA OUERCUS SPECIES RESIDENTIAL STREET TREE SMALL TO MEDIUM SCALE TREES 14B~a4"BC»« ARBUTUS MARINE MOM CASSIA LEFTOPHYLLA GOLDEN MADALLION TREE CERCIS RENUFKMUS OKLAHOMA RED BUD JAGARNADA MWISOFQLIA JACARANDA LAGERSTROMIA HYBRID CRAPE MYRTLE OLEA EUROPEA FRUITLESS OUVE OUERCUS ILEX HOLLY OAK PRUNUS CERA5IFERA PURPLE LEAF PLUM SLOPE BETVCSN LOT» TREES MEPUM SCALE BRO9ION CONTROL TREES 3TMS GALLON CALLESTIMON VIMINALIS KCEPNG BOTTLEBRUSH JUNtPERUS CHINENSB TOR. TWISTED JUMPER LOPHOSTEMON CONTERTUS BRISBANE BOX PBRIMETBR SLOPES TRBCS MED-LARGS SCALE ; FRAMB V&>6 BUFFER BO-1S GALLON EROSION CONTROLL CEDRUS DEODORA DEADOR CEDAR LARGE BUFFER OUERGUS AGRIFOLIA COAST 1JVE OAK LARGE BUFFER BIO StSAl-C TREES: MEDIUM-LARGE SCAUER 4-24~BQX PLATANUS RACMOSA CAL SYCAMORE OUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK VINES - AROUND ON WALLS ANP FENCES BOTANCAL NAMB COMM0N NAME StZC - ALL TO BE » *ALLON Clematis armonetll Evergreen Clematis Dtellctus buccinatorla Blood Red Trumpet Vine Jaamlnum laurlFolium Shinning Jasmine Partnenoclsaua trlcuspldata Boston NV Trachelospermum jaemlnoldea Star Jasmine SROUNP COVERS • » - •- • — Slopes/Erosion 1 gallon TO% coverage a maturity Control — Bio Siuales/ 5O/5O% us gallon » 1/loosF u>/g.c. Hater Cleansing BOTANICAL NAM6 COMMON NAME Abutllon species cninese Lantern Achlllea species Yarrow Agapanthus afrcanus Lily of the Nile Agave species Agave Aloe species Aloe Anlgozanthos species Kangaroo pan Arbutus species Artemisia species Asparagus meryli Baccharls species coyote Bush Garex species SedgesCarpentaria calirornlca Bush Anemone Geanothus species Mtn. Lilac Chondropetalum spies cape Rush Cotoneaater species ncn Dletes Hubrlds Hid Iris Camellia species — Glstus species RocK Rose Coleonema species Breath of heavenErica species Heath Fremontodendron species Flannel Bush Srevlllea species — Helicotrlcnon sempervlrens Blue Oat Grass Heteromeles arDutlfolla Toyon Juncus species Rush Lontana spredln^ sunshine Prostrate Lantana Lavandula species Lavender Llgustrum j. Texanum Texas Privet Llmonium species Martonla aqulfoilum Muhuenbergta rlgens Deer Grtes Nerlum Oleander Dwarf Oleander Optunla species Pennlsetum species Fountain Grass PIttosporum species Pyracantha species Flrethorn Rhaphlolepls species Indian Hcuttiorn Rhamnus species Rosa species Rose Rosmarlnua species Rosemary Rumchra adbntlformls LeatherleaF Fem salvla species Sage Tegetes lemmonll Mtn Marigold Xylosma congestum Shinny Xyiosma Ornamental Iron = Tubular Steel. ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE flatted maUral 1»" dc,""" LAMPRANTHU» SPECS ICE PLANT MYOPORUM PARVIPOLIUM NCN •IE PROSTRATE ROSEMARY EXISTING PARKKVsY PLANTING Existing ParKuiay planting CITY STANDARDS - THE FINAL PLANS FOR PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SHALL COMPLY KUTH ALL THE STANDAREJS IN THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PROJECT APPROVAL. THESE SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOfUNS. ALL MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHAi-L BE PLANTED AS FOLLOWS ON ALL SLOPES 4FT OR GREATER OR ANY SLOPE NEXT TO PUBLIC SIDEflALKS: STANDARD "1 •= JUTE MESH / COVER CROP ON ALL SLOPES *ft TO Bft. STANDARDS «1, "2,4 "3 STANDARD *2 = &ROUNDCOVER SPACED TO PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE IN ONE YEAR. STANDARD "3 =• LOfX SPREADING SHRUBS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TO% COVER AT MATURITY. THIS 15 AN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF "4 BELCV4. ON ALL SLOPES THAT ARE BPt AND GREATER "AJ3.CI D" STANDARD »4 « TREES AND /OR LARGE SHRUBS FROM A MIN. 1GALLON CONTAINERS AT A RATE OF V2OO SF peso* r'ULD SA2ANIA CAREX WVUL6A CARCXPANSA CAREX PENDULA JUSCU6 PATCN6 HYBRID PASPALUM CALF MEADOrt SEC MCDoneeDGE CALIF &RAY RUSH TURF flatted material 12" oc plugs » 12" oc plugs • 24'oc NOTES: CITY 6TANDARP6 - THE FHAL PLANS FOR THE PROJECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SHALL FULLY COMPLY HFTH ALL THE STANDARDS IN THE CrPTS LANPSCAPE MANUAL fN EFFECT AT THE THE OF APPROVAL. rt*-n» CONSeRVATlON - ALL AREAS PLANTED r«TH HERBACEOUS GROUND CCVER5 SHALL ALSO RECEIVE SHRUB PLANTING TO COVER £O% OF THE AREA AT MATRURITY. EKOfllCN CONTROL - THE FCTTB-ttlAL Of SOIL EROSION SHALL BE MITASATED THROUGH AN EFFECTIVELANDSCAPE TREATMEMT. EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT STANDARDS «1."2.«9 «"4 AS DEFINED W THE CTPTS LANDSCAPE MANUAL fTV£ tu; SHALL BE FULLY HPLAMENTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PLANS FORTHE PROJECT. B0 WtLBft - THESE AREAS IMU- BE PLANTED TO ALLCV4 PRAINAGE TO MOVE THRCUSH THEM. ALL AREAS THAT K«LL HAVE STORM rtMER MOVN& OVER THEM rW-L HAVE A KXM6 SROUND COVER PLAKT1N&. THESE r«LL SLOM THE MOVEMENT OF THE rV.TER ENOUGH TO CATCH POLLUTANTS THAT tTILL THEN ENTER THE SCKL TO BC BROKEN DOr*l BY MICRO OR6ANISMS. IN APPITION. rlHERE SPACE ALLCVS TREES AND LARGER SHRUBS WILLALSO BE PLANTED TO AID IN SOW- STABILIZATION AND STRUCTURE. NOTES, LE^ENPS 4 DETAILS LOTS Residentail - Carlsbad . oCi Landscape Concept CONSERVATION / FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CONSERVATION MATER CONSERVATION WtLL BE PRACTICED WITH THE FOLLOftNG TECHNIQUES; SOIL AMENDMENT; RAIN SHUT OFF; LOW FLOW IRRIGATION; LOW PERCEPTION SPRINKLERS. 1. THE TOTAL SITE IS 23.5 ACRES. A TOTAL OF 5.11 ACRES (22% OF THE SITE AREA SHOWN TO RECEIVE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION ON THESE PLANS. 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS THE FOLLOWING BREAKDOWN OF WATER CONSERVATION PLANTING ZONES. ZONE ONE - 21.B"te SF C12%) ZONE TOWN - 151.232 SF f&&%) ZONE THREE - 43,&2& 5F (2O%) THE PERCENTAGE OF ZONE ONE 02%) IS HIGHER THAN IS TYPICALLY ALLOWED DUE TO THE NEED FOR WALKABLE PARKWAYS ALLONG ALL THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS. NEW VERFTIES OF TURF fPA&PALUMj WILL BE USED EXCLUSIVLY TO REDUCE THE IRRIGATION SO 1OO 2OO 4OO REQUIREMENTS TO THERE MINMUM5 SCALE 1"=1OO' NORTH FIRE PROTECTION THE THREAT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM MILD FIRE APPEARS TO BE LIMITED. THE NEAREST AREAS OF VEGETATION ARE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT. THE AREA TO THE WEST ("OPEN SPACE LOT OF THE ADJACENT PROJECT) WILL BE MAINTAINED TO KEEP FIRE FUEL LOW. THE AREA TO THE SOUTH IS A DRAINAGE AREA THAT HAS THE LA COSTA BLVD AS A FUEL BREAK . THE OFF SITE AREA TO THE NORTH IN THE POWER LINE EASEMENT. AT 26.T5"1 SF, IS TOO SMALL TO BE A THREAT AND THE LINEAR tHATERLINE EASEMENT ALONG THE SITE'S SOUTHERN EDGE HAS LITTLE NATURAL VEGETATION PROVIDING FIRE FUEL.Carlsbad CaLa Costa TownSFP Residential Sht. 00 Landscape Concept RECLAIMED KXATER USE FLAN O 50 100 200 I^ATER SUPPLIED BY THE OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL CSATER DISTRICT Carlsbad Ca La Costa Touun Sauare ?SFP Residential ^ SCALE 1"=1OO' NORTH -sht. IT -i.- A^ •;•-•••'-''. '.•'f*^f^~%.' < ^Si^?<*\ - :i ffrt^^&f'*^ '.•; ^ -•••• "W •> GENERAL NOTE'S PARCEL SUMMARY _ 22J-05&-6& n>. 22J-060-JI. Jf - l/ftH/KLU/05/Q , I H&iOfNtUL fWKCt (PAftCEL I) . I COUUffKiAL PARCEL (FMOC£l 2) . i of nee rtfica. (PAHCCL 3) , i tfsiOfMnu. wca fpMtca. *) - 4 TOTAL PAKELS . N/A t BULDINa COVtWCf N/A Pt'OClW or SifC KWKIftC SPfKCS SCHOOL o/smtcr VICINITY MAP - N/A - N/A _ £NC*illAS UNION £L£U£NrAftY SCHOOL Pl SAN of euro UNION men SCHOOL otsn . OtIVfNHAIH UUHKML M*l£H HfSWCr _ LCUCJ&A HMsmMfW dSJxicr , AfRUL SUffVCY fff fOtm MC. OATEQ 4 OWNER/SUBQIVIDER SHEET > OF 5 SHEETS M.S. 04-08 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE LEGEND KiHSta #*H 2X fOtS««sro Mm A ntaKfVSta ffWUASf I* 200t«MSB ocrosi* J 2oae#tnav. swum* 10. 200* fitUSCIt MfX 2003 ffUSK *f#t H 2001*f*SU>. OCKW. ZX» Xt*SD. M r. XOJ OAtf OF ftSPAMBOt MMJMf , PAi/ttl imc. OKOK tAXUftr. . . . PAKfl MINK* A Mt/fAtf, ftttOHC COXKUK. . . . fiasax siont ouw. , . [asmc f*r HtcMfii. . . [OSOHS SOttf! LKMl. . . ACCTSS HKHIS HtUMOUSHOI © y//////// DEVELOPMENT NOTES C cr fmonso tr ACOOH or ins untx st. HO oftfiotofHr is fmnsiD ar Mam or IHK tman s«wnsia*t strcr o'-oa. ct. OB-OJMD ci oe-w roa WHHE awnc *M> c&aamxr LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4 nxaiM of srcflov si. KMHSHF a SOUIH t * IVROOK or SCCK* f.IOIHSHP u savin tuna j KSI. **v ecfouwuo xcaau* Kxtmt* «Pa/nat$ cr tors 4 * $ cr IUHCHO IAS fnaur*s ACCGHOHC ID xv ittHa m * *c on or onanoi ccuirr or SAM UKQ. sux or CIVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR 2/10 tCflt JtCMC ITU SUITCMA50HA CA UOM(fO) UI-/JOO LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE PWOJtCI UEH.~ LCL JOS HO.: Si' I02i a. OWHQU. * RCT 5Wf£7 2 OF 5 SHEETS M.S. 04-08 EASEMENT TABLE s miuatMtr niif affwr DAICO fTSfa/Mfr ij, 2U& a ifacMt nt£ COWAN*, oftotn HO. Ncs-tisaa-so agpaacf cotHOtrs asposaaf j.-m PM? tt ^JL'^-i VMXIf Pf» MS M-Of -"V*""-**^"!"11^^"^ PASFQ LUPINO (an or CARLSBAD)STA. IO+9S TO STA H+JSMOS&U fc^VJi^vjLVJir ~"~^~;ca&ti __flW OK NO. 163-2 \ tasr s' nff v-t' a#e \f>« «- n, CMJSHfO JOJ&Uf SKSf ^ EXISTING RANCHO SANTA FE ROADHQSCM£ X- i to' fOSt AC MtfMTVrt9iCP MZHfUIE 8.KSPK MO JU PASEO LUPINO (CITY Of CARLSBAO) STA. 11 + 75 TO SfA 12+S. L_^ j* i »2ri- = = = ±= = = ^rr=rrrlr: ^ f«i/ AC «*/ EXISTING LA COSTA A VE K4NCMQ SANTA FL KO. JO CAUIN DC IAS COCHESm> sour EXISTING RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD 10' . wots J?' - \ »5f OJW* ^ f«SI AC PM1 EXISTING LA COSTA AW Of LAS fOCHCS TQ^fASEO _.^S5-£JfiL*_4BL-. I #:__ \ ! h-^.-HM.fcr ^i..'- £<« AW .,-* : • f ' | WOT AC ««***/ y S«tJ« -j_>- [>20u9 O'Ddy Caniullonls. I'K "S22S* i .« TYPICAL SECTIONSMOSCAlf a fttHuter in .voto- or/a** a AWn &>ffUM7 '£( A»S TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE T. K.H.. tj.V. u«E; f^BlMOT ZOQI HO 00-IOK SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS M.S. 04-08 y O'Ouy HCMSFBt Mf J. 2003 i AH* n xaei ocrvecx. xorv. Mir. xxa TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE CON S~jTL T A^l T T" a ctmgn. j» net, SHEET 4 OF 5 SHEETS M.S. 04-08 Sff SHCfT Ha. 3 *•«*» i-o/Ji'S/"a , I40O' .rI . ljJH«- - & *: •'.-•' •'''•'-':•• x^'^^ts^;'~-^ ••>?•.**,*'^&"f$f^~'~'''~ •H- /*>.•'.--^-''i-fsV .,,j*ij-r .=*^ •*. •••'®<£2f5&?&£*&*Zi'«£fe§sfS^^;" "%ilP y^\^ ;, "? '-V^.X X:'-^SwV^V^.^'Wv'S".*. -.^, -v<^-\^v-\x;' -C ••\.v.-v /W K-53S l-'ZACriOHAL SECTION S roMSHIP 135 HAHQ£ M ^^'"\'-\-A" •*$!&. •%& MAP ff39f ' ^"-' XT v ^ "^ 'g,'«s' PM MAP TIS3B TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LA COSTA i^-_^. S fl'N S U L7T fl/S T j^ .*,*« IM C-. «., — ., Ks /a xi VS(& Mf X 20O8 HX2 ^fl« ^ J«WSB ocjoea, xorwfa Mr. xoif or nffMtaat M SCALE CNCMCEN O Jd •••m&^:/-^,•'^&&.^:'-/-*.-'/yj^ , -X --KpS •&*%$•-., <•','&/ -^mM-- r-rrr5?jS \=* ^^r:'^P^§a^^P3S^?M^-Fv, , - -„ : • " lsJ/^^-'i--r-^VV;5si?*^^'.<..-.-i^,, —*-"..! ..-,;- --="^^Tfr=^::.r^L.-rr-/?0^)^^5%ft-;->; •>•• ,« *$?' ^fft-Si^; ^^''/S^"^—^''*;?^7 -••./ / '•- "' ,./x. ....-•-' /;^"<- .^<v-^K^ -.•••/ /•'^vp^^'*->^$<;-- "v^i^i/"^-" v"' /^/^•:->>^ SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS M.S. 04-08 SC*I: r - 100 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE RCHSfSt Mtf A X09 .IXWfD: OCKJBOT ^ XegKHSfBc StPtOtV! IS 2001RttKfO. JSf & 2O09 flTMSR #** H KM EXHIBIT 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 1,2009 Page 4 and have it reference the new nonconforming ordinance which the Commission is being asked to recommend approval of. Commissioner Boddy asked if the Commission is still being asked to approve the revised language to the Zoning Code. Mr. Neu stated yes, and directed the Commission's attention to the first page of the Staff Report to see the proposed text changes. Mr. Neu stated the difference is that there is now alternative wording proposed by Mr. Brechtel, and he feels it accomplishes the same thing as what is being proposed by Staff. Commissioner Boddy stated that the wording "may be waived" sounds like there is discretion with the Planning Department whereas "shall be waived" sounds more definitive. Commissioner Boddy stated that if the Commission agrees with the proposed changes to the ordinance, it should not be discretionary, and therefore she agrees with Mr. Brechtel. Commissioner Douglas stated she agrees with Commissioner Boddy. Chairperson Montgomery stated his concurrence with Commissioner Boddy. Chairperson Montgomery opened public testimony. Wayne Brechtel, 3676 Monroe, Carlsbad, thanked the Commission for making the proposed changes. Chairperson Montgomery asked if any other members of the audience wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Douglas, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6573 recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6574 and 6575 recommending approval of ZCA 09-01 and LCPA 09-01 based on the findings contained therein including the errata sheet and the language as proposed by Mr. Brechtel. VOTE: 5-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Douglas and Commissioner L'Heureux NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 4. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-11 (O/CT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-OS/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-Q4/V 08-02/CUP Q4-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07- LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE - Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, three Carlsbad Tract Maps, Condominium Permit, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, two Site Development Plans, Variance and eight Conditional Use Permits for the development of a 83.07 acre site with a 284,400 square foot community shopping center, 55,000 square foot office project, 64 single family lot subdivision, and a multi-family residential site all located northerly and easterly of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the southeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Planning Commission Minutes July 1,2009 Page 5 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Item 4. Mr. Lynch gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Pat O'Day, 2710 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. The Commission asked questions regarding the following topics: phasing of the commercial center, signage for the project, traffic circulation, traffic signal synchronization, and water capacity for the project. Chairperson Montgomery asked for responses to the questions raised by the Commission. Robert Wilkinson, 2810 Roosevelt, Carlsbad, stated the fountains will only operate during day, would use potable water, and would function as a noise buffer from traffic at the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The landscaping will use reclaimed water. Mr. O'Day stated it makes sense to phase the project so that the major anchor stores are in and operational before the other stores come in. All the grading will be done at one time. Mr. Lynch stated the request for a variance for signage will allow for flexibility in the placement of the monument signs for the project. Bob Johnson, City Engineer, stated that the traffic signals proposed for the project are required to be hardwired to work together and will be synchronized with other signals in the project vicinity by a Traffic Management Center at a later date. He further stated the project must be able to stand alone and mitigate any traffic impacts. RECESS Chairperson Montgomery called for a ten minute recess at 7:58 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting to order at 8:13 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Montgomery opened public testimony. The following speakers spoke in favor of the project: Andy Lee, 7040 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad Brenda Tworoger, 335 Via Linda del Sun, Encinitas John Harelson, 3523 Calle Gavanzo, Carlsbad Kevin Sharrar, 2371 Terrazo Salvo, Carlsbad Bonnie Diamond, 3554 Calle Palmito, Carlsbad Kim Nguyen, 907 Lake Ridge Drive, San Marcos The following speakers spoke in opposition of the project and cited concerns regarding traffic circulation and signal synchronization, mitigation provisions, lack of pedestrian paths and overcrossings, water usage, landscaping, and screening of rooftop equipment: Planning Commission Minutes July 1,2009 Page 6 Pat Bleha, 3209 Fosca Street, Carlsbad Barbara Tice, 7106 Lantana Terrace, Carlsbad Nancy Curry, 3325 Cabo Way, Carlsbad Ron Dechter, 3325 Cabo Way, Carlsbad Claire Crilly, 3508 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad Joe Crilly, 3508 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad The following speakers stated that they are in favor of the project but do have some concerns regarding traffic signals, water usage, lighting, high density housing, and the need for two gas stations in the center: Neal Myers, 3530 Calle Gavanzo, Carlsbad Alan Recce, 7442 Trigo Lane, Carlsbad Paul Kaplan, 3521 Corte Romero, Carlsbad Michael Mewborn, 3510 Camino Cereza, Carlsbad Ellis Diamond, 3554 Calle Palmito, Carlsbad Chairperson Montgomery closed public testimony and asked the applicant to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Mr. O'Day stated that in regards to the water usage on the site, the San Diego County Water Authority says the new development is responsible for less than 1% of the region's water demand. Olivenhain Municipal Water District planned for this development in 2007 in their 20 year Urban Water Management Plan. The earliest this project can start is two years from now up to four years from now as allowed by the permit. In regards to the lighting in the parking areas for the project, they will be down lit and will go to a lower intensity at night. Mr. O'Day stated there is a need for gas stations in the city and sometimes the major anchor stores like to have an ancillary gas station attached to it. At this time, he would like to keep both gas stations in the site and have the ability to re-evaluate the needs as the project moves forward. Chairperson Montgomery asked what would be proposed if one of the stations was not built. Mr. O'Day stated he was not sure at this time. Commissioner L'Heureux asked what flexibility is there for the developer to change any of the uses of the proposed building if the maps are approved as they are proposed currently. Mr. Lynch stated the Commission would be approving a use permit for a use that is conditionally permitted. For a use that is normally allowed by right, there would be no need for a use permit. In regards to the rooftop equipment, Mr. Langan stated there will be screening with parapets; however, the final studies have not been done yet to determine what level that needs to be taken. The mechanical equipment on the roofs will be screened per the city's standards. Mr. Lynch stated that the Habitat Conservation Plan was part of the Villages of La Costa project and the Rancho Santa Fe Road Widening project, and was put in place prior to the Habitat Management Plan. That plan anticipated the complete removal of vegetation on the site. It mitigated through the open space preserves throughout the Villages of La Costa and through offsite acquisition of property as part of the county core habitat area for mitigation purposes. Dawn Wilson, RBF Consulting, gave a detailed explanation regarding the traffic circulation and signal synchronization for the project. Mr. Lynch stated the project is conditioned to provide bus stop locations along La Costa Avenue and two bus stops along Rancho Santa Fe Road. There are no other opportunities for mass transit in the area. Mr. Lynch further stated that the EIR established thresholds for infrastructure that the project needs to meet as it pertains to police service, fire services, water services, and services in general. The fundamental purpose of Growth Management is to ensure there are facilities in place to serve the project at the time of its development. There are no significant impacts as it relates to services for this site. 358 Planning Commission Minutes July 1,2009 Page 7 In regards to grading for the project, Mr. O'Day stated that he anticipates the grading to take about two months with some light blasting happening first. Most of the heavy blasting occurred prior to the homes to the north being built. There are the protections of the grading ordinance as well as the protections as outlined in the EIR regarding blasting. Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, stated there are also stringent controls for dust control. Construction Management and Inspection requires noticing to the residents regarding blasting activity. Chairperson Montgomery stated that due to the time, he would forward the remaining questions to the Planning Director so that Staff could respond at the next meeting. Chairperson Montgomery reminded the audience that the public testimony has been closed and there will not be any public testimony taken at the next meeting. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Douglas, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue the item to the meeting of July 15, 2009. VOTE: 5-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Douglas and Commissioner L'Heureux NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Montgomery thanked Staff for their presentations. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of July 1, 2009, was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. DON NEU Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk DRAFTPlanning Commission Minutes ^O WMdll'tEV 2009 Pa9e 3 1. EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(R)/LFMP 87-1KCVCT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01- 03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01-04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08-05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07 - LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE - Request for the certification of an Environmental Impact Report, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, three Carlsbad Tract Maps, Condominium Permit, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, two Site Development Plans, Variance and eight Conditional Use Permits for the development of a 83.07 acre site with a 284,400 square foot community shopping center, 55,000 square foot office project, 64 single family lot subdivision, and a multi-family residential site all located northerly and easterly of the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection in the southeast quadrant of the City in Local Facilities Management Zone 11. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch, assisted by Associate Engineer Clyde Wickham, would respond to comments received during public testimony at the previous hearing. Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Item 1. Commissioner Dominguez recused himself due to being absent for the previous meeting. Commissioner Nygaard stated she wished to participate in the meeting as she has prepared herself for the meeting by reading all the submitted materials, watching the webcast of the previous meeting, and visiting the site. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant wished to continue with only 6 Commissioners. The applicant stated yes. Chairperson Montgomery stated that during the previous hearing, the Commission heard Staffs presentation, the applicant's presentation as well as public testimony. Public testimony was then closed. Chairperson Montgomery also noted that the Commission has received about 20 letters from the public since the last meeting. Seeing as the issues raised in the letters are the same issues that have been raised previously, public testimony will not be reopened. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated that the letters submitted by the public will become part of the public record. Chairperson Montgomery asked Staff to respond to the issues raised during the previous meeting as well as any issues raised in the letters received from the public. Mr. Lynch directed the Commission's attention to a slide to point out pedestrian linkages in the project as well as interconnections with adjacent neighborhoods. The project does have sidewalks all along the frontage as well as both sides of Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa Avenue. Mr. Lynch further pointed out trails near the project site along with four proposed bus stops. The project does also propose numerous traffic signals along with upgrades to existing traffic signals in the project vicinity. A pedestrian bridge is not included in the project. In regards to the multi-family site of the project, the site was previously graded as part of the mass grading for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment. The building heights for this portion of the project will be upwards of 40 feet to the peak of a roof which is measured from the existing pad height. If a development comes forward and proposes lower grades, the building height would go down with the new grades. If a development comes forward and proposes higher grades, the building height would be established from the newly established approved grades if the Commission were to approve a higher grade. If the proposed multi-family site was developed with office buildings instead, office buildings have Planning Commission Minutes July 15,2009 Page 4 a height limit of 35 feet with roof projections up to 45 feet. Mr. Lynch stated there would most likely be a greater mass with office buildings than with residential buildings. Mr. Lynch further stated that in regards to building heights, the La Costa Master Plan currently has a building height for residential medium and residential medium-high land use of six stories and 70 feet. The project is proposing to modify that to reflect the current code of the Zoning Ordinance to make it a three story, 40 foot maximum height. Pertaining to compatibility with the multi-family project, Mr. Lynch stated there are buffers built into this site with the old Rancho Santa Fe Road and grade separations for some of the portions to the north, northwest of the project. To the existing residences, the pads are at grade or lower in grade than the existing single family homes. There is about a 100 foot buffer from the previous road alignment and an open space buffer between the two projects. From a home to a potential setback, there will be about 150 feet between homes. The purpose of placing residential high density on the site is to help meet the city's regional housing needs. The city is looking for opportunities to provide sites that provide more affordable housing. Projects that provide densities of upwards of 19 units per acre are defined by the State to be more affordable. Mr. Lynch stated that is not affordable in that they are low income. It is affordable in that there are multiple units that are smaller sizes that are more affordable. The project will be required to provide 15% as affordable as part of the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff. Chairperson Montgomery asked how Staff determined to have high density housing units placed on that site versus residential housing similar to the homes to the northeast of the project. Mr. Lynch stated that the project originally proposed office uses at that site. In trying to follow the original land use designations for the site, there was an office component to the project. When Rancho Santa Fe Road was aligned, it appeared to try and keep that office designation at that approximate site which would be separate from the commercial site. There seemed to be a natural separation to the uses. As the project evolved, the City and the developer were looking for housing opportunities. In lieu of giving up the commercial site, or a portion of it, it was determined the site would be converted to residential and then modify a part of the commercial site to make it an office site. Mr. Lynch further stated there might be compatibility issues if the office and residential high density sites were swapped. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there was any precedence in the City for placing higher density housing near shopping centers. Mr. Lynch stated that the theory is that if you place higher density residential areas next to commercial sites, it will serve a greater number of people without having to provide additional trips. The La Costa Master Plan anticipated this so that is why there are higher density residential areas around the project site. Mr. Neu added that near the shopping center at El Camino and Aviara Parkway, the City has added multi-family sites in the vicinity of the center in response to General Plan policies which try to provide and locate higher density housing in proximity to commercial land uses. Mr. Neu stated there are a number of funding opportunities that the City foregoes by not having a certified housing element. Staff has worked very hard to find sites that would meet the City's General Plan policies as well as work with the City's Habitat Management Plan to preserve open space. As the City has gotten closer to buildout, Staff has had a hard time finding sites for higher density housing. The State assumes that as a project reaches a certain density, it would provide housing for various income levels. The City's local ordinance does require a 15% inclusionary housing requirement that this project's residential portion has to satisfy as well. It is very likely that the 15% requirement will be provided onsite unless there is a project feasibility issue that would cause it to be moved off-site. Mr, Lynch discussed the issue regarding building roofs and visibility of the roofs and directed the Commission's attention to several slides depicting the proposed roof heights and the potential views from various locations adjacent to the project site. Planning Commission Minutes July 15,2009 Page 5 Commissioner Nygaard stated her concerns regarding any of the roofs being white in color and asked if there is anything that can be done to make it not happen. Mr. Lynch stated the roofs will be white in color for the cool roof design as it is more reflective and the buildings absorb less heat. Additional roof screening is an option to help block the reflectivity of the white color. Mr. Lynch further discussed lighting for the project and stated the project is conditioned to provide a lighting study. The project will include full cutoff lighting for the prevention of glare. The light will be contained onsite and will not produce additional glare. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the lighting study will be required for the entire project. Mr. Lynch stated Staff typically sees the lighting study at the beginning of the project because that is when the initial infrastructure is done. Chairperson Montgomery asked about protections the city has for mitigating lighting in the late evening. Mr. Lynch stated at this point he does not have any details as to what types of lighting will be proposed for the project. The Commission could propose a condition so that only security lighting remains on after a specific time in the night. Mr. Lynch discussed water usage for the project. All the landscaping for the project will be using reclaimed water. Commissioner L'Heureux asked about water usage within the buildings with features such as low flow toilets. Mr. Lynch stated those are not required through Planning. Mike Peterson, Development Services Manager, stated there is a requirement within the Building code that require the use of water efficient facilities and appliances within the structures. Commissioner L'Heureux asked Mr. Peterson if those requirements are for residential buildings as well. Mr. Peterson stated it is required in the residential areas as well. Mr. Lynch addressed green building standards. Presently, the Planning Department does not have any standards for energy efficiency in buildings. Mr. Peterson discussed green building standards as they pertain to the Building Department. Chairperson Montgomery inquired about any green buildings proposed for the project. Mr. Langan, with Smith Consulting Architects, gave a detailed explanation regarding green buildings, LEED certification, and what is being proposed for this project. Mr. Lynch discussed guarantee of completion of the center prior to occupancy of the first building. Mr. Lynch stated that the only bonding that will be in place for the project will be for the grading of the site and for the completion of the public improvements by the City. Mr. Wickham gave a detailed explanation regarding the procedures on blasting. Glen Van Peski, Senior Civil Engineer, stated most of the blasting was done previously by the Villages of La Costa project. The developer is responsible for addressing any complaints from residents. Mr. Van Peski stated there are guidelines and policies in place with exact wording to be contained in the notice and further discussed the noticing requirements for any blasting activity. Mr. Lynch stated there have been some cursory fiscal impact analyses done for the project which have shown increased revenue for the City. As far as impacts to public facilities, the Growth Management Plan did anticipate a certain amount of development throughout the entire City and specifically Zone 11, which is the zone this project is in. This proposed project has significantly less square footage than what was anticipated. The facilities the City has provided and anticipated exceeds the project's demand. There will be no impacts to public facilities and the EIR supports that. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there will be a drop box for the library. Mr. Lynch stated the Library is open to the idea but does not feel it should be required at this time. A condition has been drafted for a library drop box if the Commission chooses to add it. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there has been any discussion of a smaller satellite facility for the post office. Mr. Lynch stated no, and further stated the police department stated there is no need for a satellite police facility at this site. Planning Commission Minutes July 15,2009 Page 6 Mr. Lynch discussed air pollution, stockpiling, and grading for both the residential and commercial sites. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there is anything unusual regarding the mass grading of this site. Mr. Wickham stated no, and the sites will be graded all at once. Chairperson Montgomery asked about the length of time and dust control. Mr. Van Peski stated the length of time is difficult to respond to. The project will be required to comply with the statewide general permit for construction activities. Mr. Lynch discussed gathering areas within the plaza. Mr. Lynch stated the commercial shopping center is not designed to hold large community events. Those larger events would be more appropriate for venues such as Stagecoach Park. Mr. Lynch responded to the letter from Mr. Delano regarding the adequacy of the EIR and asked Mr. Jerry McLees from EDAW to respond. Mr. Neu stated that EDAW did provide a written response to Mr. Delano's letter which has been provided to each Commissioner. Mr. McLees summarized the responses provided in EDAW's letter. RECESS Chairperson Montgomery called for a recess at 7:42 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting to order at 7:54 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Mr. Lynch discussed the errata sheets submitted for the project and concluded Staff's response to the issues raised by the public. Chairperson Montgomery asked the applicant to respond to any items raised. Pat O'Day, O'Day Consultants, gave a brief response regarding the traffic signals and connections. In regards to grading, he stated it should take about 2 months to grade the site. Commissioner Douglas asked if there will be bicycle parking provided on the site. Mr. O'Day stated yes. Dawn Wilson, RBF Consultants, gave a brief presentation and answered questions regarding traffic impacts. DISCUSSION Commissioner Baker stated her biggest issue with the project is solar readiness and urged the developer to think very long term for the project site. She stated she does not have any issues with high density on the site, likes that the project will provide services for the community. Commissioner L'Heureux thanked staff and the applicant for a very methodical review of the project and the points raised over the past number of weeks. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Baker in regards to solar readiness and green buildings for the project. His concerns about traffic and interconnectivity have been addressed. Commissioner L'Heureux does not have an issue with high density on the site. He feels the market will dictate the types of buildings and uses. Commissioner Nygaard concurred with Commissioner L'Heureux. She stated she has an issue with the rooftops on the buildings and she feels they should not be white. She further stated she would like a library drop box at the site. Overall she stated she is pleased with the project. Commissioner Boddy stated she feels there will be significant impacts with this project and there will be mitigation measures imposed because of those impacts; however, she feels the benefits of this project outweigh the impacts. She stated she is concerned with the water features proposed with the project but Planning Commission Minutes July 15,2009 Page 7 she wants to ensure this will be a beautiful, attractive town square. Commissioner Boddy commented that high density does not mean low quality, and she has no issue with it being included with the project. She further stated she would like to see more green building elements, and she feels the solar readiness of the buildings is good. Commissioner Douglas feels this project will bring many jobs and create more shopping opportunities for the community. She would like to see more conditions regarding the proposed lighting for the project. Chairperson Montgomery stated he is generally in favor of the project, but he does have some concerns with the project. He stated he does not feel the traffic issues will be better along La Costa Avenue past Levante going eastbound. He further stated he likes the concept of interlinking the signals in the area. He commented that he feels the project is lacking in the entertainment aspects. Chairperson Montgomery stated he feels La Costa deserves a high class shopping center. He commented that the high density residential component will directly support the shopping center. Ms. Mobaldi stated there are not requirements for solar in the city's code. If the applicant is in agreement for conditioning the project to be solar ready as stated in the letter he submitted, it can be conditioned as such. Mr. O'Day gave a summary of the specifics regarding solar readiness. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if it would be for the entire project or only for certain elements. Mr. O'Day stated he was in agreement for the commercial and office portions of the project to be solar ready but not the residential. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there is a process to send the issue of solar readiness up to City Council for their consideration in making a citywide policy. Ms. Mobaldi explained the Minute Motion procedures. Ms. Mobaldi commented that there are conditions that need to be added to project prior a motion being made. One is in regards to additional rooftop screening, one is in regards to the library drop box and the other pertains to lighting. Mr. O'Day stated he is in agreement with additional screening of rooftops. Ms. Mobaldi recommended the Commission have that condition deferred to the discretion of the Planning Director. Mr. Neu explained that Condition No. 16, in Resolution No. 6587, page 4, is a standard lighting requirement, and the mitigation measures include limiting the hours of the outdoor lighting except as they relate to security purposes. Mr. Lynch read the proposed wording for the library drop box. Commissioner Baker asked to change the word "need" to "feasibility." Ms. Mobaldi proposed the following wording regarding the rooftop screening: "The applicant shall screen the cool roof to the satisfaction of the Planning Director to mitigate the visual impacts to the nearby residences." Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2009 Page8 MOTION ACTION: VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Douglas, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6577 recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report EIR 01-02, including the approval of Candidate Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6578, 6579, 6580, 6581, 6582, 6583, 6584, 6585, 6586, 6588, 6589, 6590, 6591, 6592, 6593, 6594, 6595, 6596, and 6597 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 01-02, Master Plan Amendment 149(R), Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment 87-11(C), Carlsbad Tract Map 01-09, Carlsbad Tract Map 08-03, Carlsbad Tract Map 08-07, Condominium Permit 01-03, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit 08-09, Hillside Development Permit 01-05, Site Development Plan 01-04, Variance 08-02, Conditional Use Permit 04-18, Conditional Use Permit 08-01, Conditional Use Permit 08-02, Conditional Use Permit 08-03, Conditional Use Permit 08-04, Conditional Use Permit 08-05, Conditional Use Permit 08-06, and Conditional Use Permit 08-07 and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 6587 approving Site Development Plan 01-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including all the items contained in the errata sheet, the added condition of having the project solar ready for commercial, retail and office buildings, the added condition regarding lighting as described by the Planning Director, the added condition pertaining to the library drop box, and the added condition of screening the cool roofs per the Planning Director's discretion. 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner L'Heureux NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Commissioner Dominguez returned to the dias. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission place on a future agenda an item to consider sending forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt solar/solar ready recommendations on new projects in the City of Carlsbad. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner L'Heureux NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. CDNSULTA/^NTS Civil Engineering • Surveying August 13,2009 Hand Delivered All Receive-Agenda Item #_ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL Asst. i Date ^/<3 City Manager ^ CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mr. Van Lynch, Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 RE: La Costa Town Square - Refined Project Analysis Dear Mr. Lyflch: l/ffrt^^ Thank you for all your efforts in analyzing the La Costa Town Square project application ("LCTS" or "Project"). At the City Council hearing yesterday, the woman that expressed her appreciation that you were willing to come to her home, listen to her concerns and explain how the City was going to address her concerns about views of the Project is more evidence of the extraordinary effort I have seen you and your staff expend making the project the best it can be for the City of Carlsbad. After four hours of testimony at last night's hearing, it was clear to me that a major concern is that the Residential High Density land use designation currently proposed for the parcel north of Rancho Santa Fe Road, which has often been referred to as the Triangle Parcel, is perceived to be too high to be compatible with the surrounding residential land use densities. As you know, to the east of the Triangle Parcel the parcels are designated Residential Low Medium (0-4 du/acre) and to the north and west of the Triangle Parcel the parcels are designated Residential Medium High (8-15 du/acre). A lower density designation in this area would appear to alleviate these concerns and may be more compatible with the surrounding land uses on the north side of Ranch Santa Fe Road. Several of the Council members expressed similar concerns during the public testimony and their initial deliberations on the Project. It is clear to me from the hearing that the Council members are going to want to discuss further next week whether to change the land use designation on the Triangle Parcel. Like you, I believe it is important that the Project offer a range of housing types, sizes, and affordability levels. This important General Plan goal and Project objective could still be achieved with a slightly lower density designation and would reduce some of the traffic and air quality impacts of the Project, which have also been a major concern of the community. I have conferred with my client and they are agreeable to a density modification. Therefore, I respectfully request that the City supplement the current analysis with an analysis of the Project if it were refined ("Refined Project") to include the following: * Replace the proposed Residential High Density designation on the Triangle Parcel that would have allowed 128 units (including 14 affordable units) with a Residential Medium High Density designation (8-15 du/acre). At 6.0 net developable acres, this would result in a range from 48 to 90 units. With the mid-point density at 11.5 du/acre, this would result in approximately 69 units (not including affordable units). * Limit development within the Triangle Parcel to single family detached homes. O'Day Consultants Inc. 2710 Loker Avenue West. Suite 100 Carlsbad, California 92010-6609 E-mail: oday@odayoonsultants.oom Website: www.odayconsultants.com Tel: 760.931.7700 Fax: 760.931.8680 Mr. Van Lynch August 13,2009 Page 2 * Development of the Triangle Parcel to comply fully with the Carlsbad Municipal Code requirements for affordable housing. I have done some analysis,, including the attached matrices comparing the Refined Project to the Project and the Project's alternatives, along with an analysis of the reduced traffic impacts. (Exhibits '4,2, & 3). This analysis concludes that all Refined Project impacts are similar or less than the Project. Although it is not Absolutely necessary, it could assist the Council members if EDAW prepared some additional analysis of how the Refined Project category-by-category compares to the impacts of the Project. This could be done in short bullet points similar to the alternatives analysis in the EIR. EDAW may want to ask each of the technical consultants for the Project to provide a short written analysis confirming that the impact of constructing fewer units on the Triangle Project is less or similar to the Project. Furthermore, during the Council member's initial deliberations, they inquired from the City Attorney whether or not they had the legal authority to approve less than the full density of the Project. It is our understanding that the City Attorney expressed his preliminary opinion that the City Council had flexibility to approve the Project, one of the alternatives set out in the EIR, or something in-between so long as it was evaluated in accordance with CEQA and followed proper procedure. Moreover, the City Attorney requested additional time to confirm the law and the appropriate procedure. Based on consultation with our attorney, we believe the City Council has the authority to adopt a lower land use density. For your convenience, attached is a brief legal memorandum our attorneys have prepared for the City Attorney's further independent review confirming the City Council's authority under CEQA to adopt less than the full density as a result of public testimony and information received through the CEQA process. (Exhibit 4). Finally, attached are some responses to the other issues raised at the hearing last night. (Exhibit 5). Thank you, again, for all your assistance. As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Patrick N.O'Day President cc: Ronald Ball, Esq. Ronald Kemp, Esq. John Ponder, Esq. Attachments EXHIBIT 1 LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE SUMMARY COMPARISON OF REFINED PROJECT TO PROPOSED PROJECT LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO REFINED PROJECT -- RH MULTIFAMILY SITE TO RMH Impact Category Refined Project Land Use and Planning No significant impacts for the proposed project or Refined Project Transportation/Circulation Less - the Refined Project would generate approximately 472 fewer daily traffic trips. Air Quality Similar - the Refined Project would generate similar levels of construction-related emissions because it would use similar construction equipment as the proposed project. Less — the Refined Project would generate lower levels of operational emissions corresponding to the Revised Project's lower levels of traffic-related emissions in comparison to the proposed project. Noise Similar - the Refined Project's change in traffic- related noise would be minimal in comparison to the noise generated by the proposed project. Paleontological Resources Similar - the Refined Project would have a similar impact to paleontological resources because a similar level of site disturbances would occur. Biological Resources Similar - the Refined Project would have a similar impact to biological resources because the same biological resources would be impacted on the project site. Hydrology/Water Quality Similar - the Refined Project would affect the existing drainage patterns onsite in a way similar to the proposed project. Geology and Soils Similar - the Refined Project would be exposed to similar geotechnical conditions on the project site. Hazards Similar — the Refined Project would result in a similar impact associated with blasting and hazardous materials. Visual Aesthetics/Grading No significant impacts for the proposed project or Refined Project. Public Services and Utilities No significant impacts for the proposed project or Refined Project. Global Climate Change Less - the Refined Project would result in less impact to global climate change because of lower emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the Refined Project's reduced vehicle trips. The majority of the greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project are vehicle related. EXHIBIT 2 LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES and REFINED PROJECT TO PROPOSED PROJECT LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE SUMMARY COMPARISON OF REFINED PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT Impact Category Land Use nnd Planning Transportation/Circulation Air Quality Noise Paleontolagical Resources Biological Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Geology and Soils Hazards Visual Aesthetics/Grading Public Services and Utilities Global Climate Change Conclusion Alternative 1 NP:No Development Alternative + Less Less Loss Less Less Less Less IX!8S & * Less Environmentally Superior to the proposed project Alternative 2 NP: Existing General Plan, existing Master Plan, HCP Alternative » Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar * * Similar Environmentally Similar to the proposed project Alternative 3 Biological Open Space Alternative * Less Less Less Similar Less Less Less Less * * Less Environmentally Superior to the proposed project Refined Project Multifamily Site - RHtoRMH rfc Less Less Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar * * Less Environmentally Superior to the proposed project. NP = No Project Less = impact of the project alternative is less than impact of proposed project. Similar = impact of the project alternative is similar to impact of proposed project. Greater = impact of the project alternative is greater than impact of proposed project. * = No significant impact identified for the proposed project. EXHIBIT 3 TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM FROM URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES. INC. REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AT TRIANGLE PARCEL URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT E-MEMO E-Mail: T ATTN: Pat O'Day-O'Day Consultants .~ , ,. .potomodayconsultants. com FROM: Sam P. Kab, II ^-^ 1 J^ TOTAL PAGES (IncL Cover): DATE: August 11, 2009 TIME: 3:09:59 PM JOB NUMBER: 000704 SUBJECT: La Costa Town Square Confidential Communications This transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this information. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, at our expense and destroy the information. Pat: As you requested, provided below are average daily vehicle trip (ADT) generation comparisons of several residential densities for the residential parcel of 9.96 gross acres, which yields 6.0 net developable acres, northwest of Rancho Santa Fe Road, within the La Costa Town Square site plan. DENSITY Residential High (RH) Residential Medium High(RMH) Residential Low (RLM) NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES 6.0 6.0 6.0 CONTROL POINT 19.0 DU/AC. 11.5DU/AC. 3.2 DU/AC. **D.U. 114 69 19 TRIP RATE 8/DU 8/DU 10/DU ADT 912 552 190 REDUCTION COMPARISON TO DEIR* -112 -472 -834 *The DEIR traffic study evaluated 128 MFDU at 1,024 ADT, which includes 14 D.U. for required affordable units. **Does not include required affordable units. 1 000704-081109-ememo-spk-L. doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 EXHIBIT 4 MEMORANDUM TO CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING AUTHORITY TO MODIFY A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHEPPARD MULLIN SHEPPARD MULIIN RICHTER & HAMPTON UP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19th Floor | 501 West Broadway | San Diego. CA 92101-3598 619-338-6500 office \ 619-234-3815 fax | www.sheppardmullin.com MJE M O R A N D U M To: Ronald R. Ball City Attorney City of Carlsbad Date: August 13, 2009 From: John E. Ponder File Number: 19HR-139638 Re: Authority to Approve La Costa Town Square Refined Project This memorandum sets out the legal authority by which the City of Carlsbad ("City") can adopt the La Costa Town Square ("LCTS") project as refined to replace the proposed Residential High Density ("RH") designation on the parcel north of Rancho Santa Fe Road, which has often been referred to as the Triangle Parcel, with a Residential Medium High Density ("RMH") designation ("Refined Project"). A. Questions Presented 1. Does a local agency have the flexibility under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to approve that portion of a project that satisfies their environmental concerns? More specifically, does the City have the authority under CEQA to approve the Refined Project, which proposes a reduction in the density of the proposed project described in the environmental impact report ("EIR")? 2. Is recirculation of an EIR required under CEQA when a local agency approves that portion of a project that satisfies their environmental concerns? More specifically, is recirculation of the LCTS EIR required due to the reductions in density made in the Refined Project? B. Brief Answers 1. The City has the flexibility to adopt the Refined Project because the reduction in the density in the Refined Project satisfies the City's environmental concerns and furthers the fundamental goals of CEQA to reduce significant unavoidable damage to the environment and facilitate informed decision-making. 2. Recirculation is not required because approving the Refined Project with environmental effects that are less than or similar to those analyzed in the EIR 1) does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on potential W02-WEST:8MSH)\40!732I07.2 adverse environmental effects of the Refined Project; and 2) the Refined Project would not result in a "new significant environmental impact" or "substantially increase the severity of an environmental impact." C. Detailed Analysis 1. Flexibility to Approve Projects that Satisfy Environmental Concerns The most important consideration in assessing the validity of an agency action under CEQA is whether the fundamental purposes of CEQA have been satisfied. Dusek v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1038. A major purpose of CEQA is to prevent the significant unavoidable damage to the environment by encouraging agencies to require changes in projects..." CEQA Guidelines § I5002(a). Approving the Refined Project prevents significant unavoidable damage to the environment because it amounts to a reduction in density compared to the proposed project described in the EIR ("Project"). The RH designation in the Project would have allowed 128 dwelling units whereas the RMH designation in the Refined Project would result in a range of 48 to 90 dwelling units. Such a reduction in the LCTS density results in a corresponding reduction in adverse environmental impacts, such as traffic and air quality, thus fulfilling the fundamental purposes of CEQA. The Refined Project also fulfills the fundamental purpose of CEQA because the EIR thoroughly analyzed all potential adverse impacts of the Refined Project, allowing the City to evaluate those adverse impacts and take all possible steps to mitigate them. "CEQA is not meant to impede []development. It simply compels [] decision-makers to thoroughly evaluate any adverse impacts of a [] project and to take all possible steps to mitigate those environmental costs. The EIR serves as the informational tool to facilitate informed decision-making." Dusek, at 1037. By analyzing the adverse impacts of the 128 units in the Project and the zero units in the "No Project" alternative, the EIR analyzed all potential adverse impacts of the 48 to 90 units in the Refined Project. This enables the City to make an informed decision regarding the impacts and mitigation measures of the Refined Project, which furthers a fundamental purpose of CEQA. The City has the flexibility to adopt the Refined Project, which is substantially the same as the Project, but with a lower density on the Triangle Parcel. "CEQA does not handcuff decision-makers." Dusek, at 1041. When considering a project approval, local agencies are not required to grant a "blanket approval" of the proposed project described in the EIR; instead, decision-makers have "the flexibility to implement that portion of a project that satisfied their environmental concerns." Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 533. Therefore, the City clearly has the flexibility to adopt the narrower Refined Project, as compared to the higher density Project described in the EIR. This is particularly true because the reduction in the density from 128 units to a range of 48 to 90 units satisfies the City's environmental concerns. CEQA does not handcuff the City when it can make an informed decision that the Refined Project will not result in new or more severe impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. W02-WEST:8MSH1V40I732I07.2 -2- 2. Recirculation of EIR Requiring recirculation of the EIR due to decreased environmental impacts associated with the Refined Project would simply frustrate the fundamental purposes of CEQA. "The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind." Dusek, at 1037. Recirculation is only required whenever "significant new information" is added to the EIR to a degree where it "deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project proponents have declined to implement." CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. "New significant information" would arise if: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a)(l)-(4); emphasis added. First, recirculation is not required because the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the potential substantial adverse environmental effects of the Refined Project. The environmental effects of the Refined Project would be the same as those of the Project, except that they would occur to a lesser degree. The public was provided with the opportunity through the CEQA process to comment on potential adverse impacts of the Project. Because the Refined Project is merely a narrower version of the Project, the public was given the opportunity to comment on the potential adverse impacts of the Refined Project as well. Second, the Refined Project would not result in a "new significant environmental impact" or "substantially increase the severity of an environmental impact" because the environmental effects of the Refined Project are less than those analyzed in the Project. The RH designation in the Project would have allowed 128 dwelling units whereas the RMH designation in the Refined Project would result in a range of 48 to 90 dwelling units. Such a reduction in the LCTS density results in a corresponding reduction in adverse environmental impacts, not new significant information or an increase in the severity of an impact that would trigger the need for recirculation. In addition, recirculation is not required because approving the Refined Project would not violate any procedural aspects of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15088.5. Furthermore, all of the potential adverse impacts of the Refined Project are disclosed in the EIR, which was circulated for public review pursuant to the proper CEQA procedures. The City's W02-\VEST:8MSH1V401732I07.2 -3- adoption of the Refined Project, with decreased environmental impacts as compared to the Project, would only reinforce that the City complied with CEQA because it responded to a feasible option that reduced environmental impacts without sacrificing the project objectives. D. Conclusion By exercising its authority to approve the lower density Refined Project, the City would further the fundamental purpose of CEQA to prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment. The City should not be punished for adopting a narrower project with decreased environmental impacts. As the California Court of Appeal put it, "[Requiring [an agency] to engage in the punitive acts of redrafting the EIR, recirculating it for public comment, and rewriting the appropriate comments, considerations, and findings is a fate worse than purgatory." Dusek, at 1044. W02-WEST.8MSH 1UOI732107.2 -4- EXHIBIT 5 LCTS RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AT CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON AUGUST 11.2009 Water Supply * OMWD has informed the City the Project will be serviced with reclaimed water. * It is important to keep the water demand of new development projects in their proper perspective. According to the San Diego County Water Authority ("CWA"), which supplies the water to the Olivenhain Municipal Water District ("OMWD") that services the Project, new development is responsible for less than 1% of the region's water demand. Stopping all new development is not going to solve the current short-term water shortage, and may have consequences on the area's economic development. * OMWD's emergency drought measures prohibit the water district from issuing new water meters without new water supply offsets so the water is not being taken away from current users. * In reality, the Project will not be constructed right away. There may not be a drought and the Carlsbad Desalination Plant is scheduled to be completed by the time the Project needs a water meter. * The Project's long-term water supply over the next 20 years has already been planned for because the Project was included in OMWD 2007 Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP"). * The Project's water use is 186,000 gpd, which is relatively minor and does not trigger further CEQA scrutiny as a major "water demand project." * The Project is "water-wise" and includes the following: 1. Create water efficient landscapes with native, drought-resistant species. 2. Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture- based irrigation controls. 3. Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. 4. Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. 5. Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non- vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. 6. Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. 7. Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. 8. Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the proposed project. 9. Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Wal-Mart / Big Box * La Costa Town Square has not been in contact with Wal-Mart to be a tenant for the shopping center. * Wai-mart's spokesperson, John Mendez, confirmed in an August 7, 2009 Union Tribune article that they have had no contact with La Costa Town Square. * Walmarts typically need 150,000 SF of commercial space. La Costa Town Square's anchor building is 98,000 SF on two-stories. * The news report states that Walmart once considered a store at El Camino Real and College Boulevard that would sell goods tailored to upscale clientele, but abandoned the plan because it does not fit with the company's overall strategy. La Costa Town Square is designed as a high-end shopping center so it does not fit Walmart's profile or strategic plan. * At 284,000 SF, La Costa Town Square's overall commercial area is much less than the 400,000 SF allowed in the La Costa Master Plan. If this project is rejected, another developer could propose a commercial project using all 400,000 SF with anchor buildings that could accommodate big box development. The La Costa Town Square is Carlsbad's opportunity to implement a site plan that big box developer's confess is not attractive to them. Opponents of big box should welcome this site plan. * To the extent the City Council is concerned that Big Box development could lead to urban decay, La Costa Town Square is willing to accept a condition stating: To the extent permitted by all applicable laws, owner shall include in its CC&Rs a prohibition on entering into a lease with a tenant [defined as a tenant requiring more than 150,000 SF, allocating more than 10% of floor space to non-taxable sales items, and offering more than 30,000 separate stock keeping units (SKUs)j without obtaining further discretionary approval from the City Council. Neighbors battle proposed project* • Page 1- of 2 Related TermsrCarlsbad, La Costa, North County, Rancho Santa Fe ' g Neighbors battle proposed project Shopping center, offices and homes planned on La Costa Avenue By Michael Burge Union-Tribune Staff Writer 2:00 a.m. August 7, 2009 Where: Carlsbad City Hall, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive What: Public hearing on proposed La Costa Town Square project CARLSBAD — A proposal to build a shopping center, office buildings and housing at a busy intersection in southeastern Carlsbad has drawn criticism from neighbors, who say the project is too large and needs to be scaled back. A commercial complex has been proposed for the 83-acre site, at La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road, since the 1970s, but it was delayed over the years. Known as La Costa Town Square, the project would consist of a 284,000-square-foot shopping center, two office buildings totaling 55,000 square feet and 64 single-family houses on the northeast comer. A 128-unit multifamily housing complex would be on the northwest corner. A public hearing on the project will be held Tuesday. "We don't want a regional shopping center," said Patricia Bleha of a group called North County Advocates, which opposes the project. "It doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood." The largest piece of the development puzzle is a 98,000-square-foot, two-story building that was originally planned for a Kohl's department store. "Nobody here wants a big box, whether it's a Walmart or anything else," Bleha said. "If it's sitting there empty and it's built already, it could be anything, it could be a Walmart or anything." Pat O'Day, a land-use consultant who's representing the developer, Aspen Properties, disagreed that the shopping center would be a regional draw. He also said the company is not in touch with Walmart, and the proposed building's not large enough to house one. Some Walmarts are smaller than 100,000 square feet, but the size is usually around 150,000 square feet or larger. httn://sienonsandiego.Drintthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Neighbors4-battle+proposed+proj... 8/11/2009 Neighbors battle proposed project* Page 2 of 2 y John Mendez, Walmart's media spokesman for Southern California, said the company's has had no contact with La Costa Town Square. Walmart owns a 17.6-acre site at El Camino Real and College Boulevard that's zoned for a shopping center. The retailer, the world's largest, considered building a small store there with goods tailored to an upscale clientele but backed away from that plan, saying it didn't fit with the company's overall strategy. It has the property on the market. O'Day said that if La Costa Town Square wanted to include a Walmart, "(we'd) have to start over in the EIR (environmental impact report). It'd be a completely different project" because the proposed store would be too small. Bleha said the neighbors also are concerned about the additional 25,500 daily vehicle trips the complex would generate. "The main thing is the traffic," Bleha said. "It's going to be quite a bit more than what it is now, and you can't widen La Costa Avenue." But O'Day said the increase in traffic was accounted for with the widening and realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Van Lynch, a senior city planner overseeing the project, said Carlsbad adopted a citywide Growth Management Plan in the 1980s that requires roads and other public infrastructure to be in place as growth occurs. Developers also must contribute to those infrastructure costs. "This (site) contemplated up to 400,000 square feet of commercial space, and this (proposal) is much smaller," Lynch said. Neighbors also complain that a multifamily complex was never part of the project, and Lynch agreed. But Lynch said the 128 multifamily units were added to meet state requirements for higher-density housing. Michael Burge: (760) 476-8230; mlchael.burg.e@umontnb.com Michael Burge: (760) 476-8230; Find this article at: http://www3.signonsandiego.eom/stories/2009/aug/07/1 mc7costa22458-neighbors-battle-proposed-project/?northcounty&zlndex=145445 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickabiIity.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Neighbors+battle+proposed+proj... 8/11/2009 Urban Decay / Existing Abandoned Commercial Buildings * While Project opponents admitted during testimony that the current economic recession has caused there to be abandoned commercial buildings in the area, they still urge the City Council not to approve the Project speculating it will not be successful and contribute to urban decay. * Project opponents offer pictures of abandoned commercial buildings and speculate as to the Project's urban decay impacts, but offer no expert economic evidence to support their claims. * In contrast, the EIR includes an Economic Impact and Urban Decay Analysis prepared by commercial real estate consulting experts at CBRE Consulting. The report examined several larger stores, cited by the Project opponents, that have closed such as Linen's n Things outlet, a Circuit City store, a Von's grocery store, Albertson's supermarket, a Home Depot Expo store, and the closure of Mervyn's department stores and concluded that many of the stores were underperforming before the downturn hi the economy primarily because their retail spaces were outdated, which is why the Bressi Ranch Center has attracted new retail tenants despite the recession. * The report determined that the recent increase in store vacancies is independent of the planned development of La Costa Town Square shopping center. Moreover, the closure of large retailers such as Mervyns and two older supermarkets is likely to provide new demand for the proposed Center while reducing the potential impacts of diverted sales. In other words, these shopping centers will continue to fail on their own and sales revenue will flow to other shopping centers outside of Carlsbad designed to be like La Costa Town Square unless the City approves La Costa Town Square to help recapture and keep the sales revenue in Carlsbad. Traffic Report School Traffic Counts Are Included * The traffic engineer reaffirmed in a memo dated August 13, 2009 that the traffic report incorporates traffic counts from the school during the school season. * Despite claims from Project opponents, not all traffic counts were conducted when school was not in session. * The Camino de los Coches/La Costa Avenue intersection near La Costa High School was counted in January when school was in session. Project is Properly Defined as a Community Shopping Center * The traffic engineer reaffirmed in a memo dated August 13, 2009 that the Project's traffic report used the proper trip rates associated with a Community Shopping Center (80 trips per 1,000 SF of commercial). * SANDAG defines Community Shopping Centers to consist of 125,000 to 400,000 SF usually with one major store, detached restaurants, a grocery and a drug store. The Project is 284,000 SF with one major store, detached restaurants and retail pads, a grocery and a drugstore and is therefore within this land use category for traffic count purposes. URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. ^PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT E-MEMO ATTN:Pat O'Day - O'Day Consultants E-Mail: T pato(3)0davconsultants. com FROM: Sam P. Kab, II "jT" TOTAL PAGES find. Cover): 2 +• Attachments DATE: August 23, 2009 TIME: 9:21:51 AM JOB NUMBER: 000704 SUBJECT: La Costa Town Square (LCTS) Confidential Communications This transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you are notthe intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this information. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, at our expense and destroy the information. Provided below is information on existing traffic counts and shopping center categories relating to LCTS that were issues at the August 11, 2009 Council Hearing. EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS The LCTS traffic study included existing AM and PM traffic counts at 45 major intersections. Nine existing locations were counted in summer months when schools were not in session, while the remaining 36 locations were counted when schools were in session. Camino de los Coches/La Costa Avenue near La Costa High School was counted in January when the High School was in session. Although the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection was counted in August, the volumes are high enough to account for High School traffic that was counted at the Camino de los Coches intersection. Traffic count comparisons by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department indicate that, typically, traffic volumes in Carlsbad are higher in the summer, and that is the reason the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program is conducted during the summer months. The existing plus project short-term evaluation indicates that all study area intersections within Carlsbad would operate acceptably (LOS "D" or better) and that all locations have available capacity. When a small amount of traffic is added to account for additional school traffic at the La Costa Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe intersection, project impacts would remain less than significant at this location. The Year 2010 and Year 2030 evaluations use the results of the SANDAG/Carlsbad Combined North County computer traffic model that takes into account schools in session. The volumes of these traffic models are higher than existing plus traffic conditions and are the basis for the cumulative traffic impact determination analysis. 1 000704-081209-ememo-spk-L. doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Pat O 'Day © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. O'Day Consultants • August 13,2009 COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER DEFINITION The LCTS is correctly categorized as a Community Shopping Center, as determined by SANDAG land use definitions in their traffic generation rate table (attached pdf). According to SANDAG's definition, a Community Shopping Center consists of 125,000 to 400,000 square feet, with usually one major store, detached restaurants, a grocery, and a drugstore. The LCTS of 284,400 square feet with one major store, detached restaurants and retail pads, a grocery, and a drugstore is therefore within this land use category. A Regional Shopping Center is described as having 400,000 to 800,000 square feet, usually with two major stores, retail pads and restaurants, but no grocery store. A community serving shopping center, approximately three and a half miles from 1-5, is expected to attract shoppers from the immediately surrounding area and would not attract a considerable amount from the freeway. This assumption is supported by a project specific forecast of the SANDAG/Carlsbad Combined North County traffic model that indicates only approximately 12% of LCTS traffic is oriented to/from 1-5, as included in the DEIR traffic study. Cc: John Ponder Jeffrey Forrest 0007 04-081209-ememo-spk-L doc 4540 Ksarny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 BRIEF^GUIDE OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GE/VERA71CW RATES FOR THE SAA/ DIEGO REGIO/V APRIL 2002 401 B SIIMI. SUM BOO San dago, California 52101 (619) 699-1900 • Fix (619) 653-1950 orossnls i ov/tf.of overage, of asllmataJ, Irsllfc oeneratton -driveway rates *x< some very general IrtpdaU tor land uses (emphasis on acreage jnd bUMIng square rpougc) ntaTheserateYtoo™ tocalaSl naltonel) are sutlen to chanje as futuro aa-um-nlanon Becomes avMUMc. or 3s regional sources am updaled. For more specific InTormatlon dflTind^ S0i.Wr.Jer lo me L Bejo Traffic (S^ars manual. Atoi» eta* »m M^rtaftftoar fcr !»•.- -nftr-erf cr w>*c,M, «(«. TRIP CATEGORIES ES•^^MTED WEEKDAY V6HCUE TRIP GENERATION RATE (DRIVEWAY) HIGHEST PEAK HOUR W (p'xrs IN:OUT rallo) TRIP LENGTH aaWeen 6:00-9:30 A-V. Between 3:00-6:30 P.M. [Mtlas* AORICULTURE (Opon Space) - [SO:1S:2) AIRPORT [78:20:21 Commettia! General Avtollor, Hekports AUTOMO5U.E'Car WashAutomatic , [21:SVJB) w.m/Food Man wllhffood Mart £ Car Wash OUcr Service Suiton Design Sales (Dcaterl Repair) AL'lo Paris Sales OuliXLuMTIrcSloni CEMETERY CHURCH ( ....[54:35:11) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL' Super RegtoMl Shopplns Cenw(Won Kan 80 acres, more than 800.000 sq. n., wAnueny 3* major slorai)Rtolonal Shopping C«nl«riSo-arneres, 400,000-800.000H.fl..wnm«jlly24. naiorslons)Commurily Shopping Onler («7:31:22) (15-40 tcres. 12S,DOO-4CO,000 sq. n., wAsuaUy 1 majnr store, delachad reslunrHC). grocery and drugstcra) Nttehinmood Shopping Collar(Cess Ihsn IS acre*, less than125.000 sq. «.. wAHiaBy onxery&drugs»a, c^anen, baaiKy Ir b«rt» shop. ifasimodsawtees) ,«.,,.«,Commercial Shop 145:40:151 Specially RalaVSUIp Commercial EtoclronlcsSiipBSloiB FicloyOuual Supermirket CfuostaraConvenlenoi Market (15-16 hours) Convontenca Market (24houfs)ConvanUnca MarKel (wnjasottne pumps)ascaaaxiDBcount SloraFurniture Sure lurrter StoreHome improvomonl SuperstorerUrdwardPami Store Garden MurseryMtxedUse: Commercral (w/supormarkctJ/Resltienllal 2/acro" eOfocro, -OXUtlghl, 70/1 OOOsq. n.* TOOVSIe.OOO/ecro" 140/vohfctonjolloQ space" isSAiehloeruellngspaee" lMfta*leroelng5pace,900fsl»ilon--SOV1000sq.ri.,300/acre.60/servlcestal|-" 20/1000 so, n..400/acre. 20Servtesl3lr 60/irxxuq.rt.'- <0tavlcestall" 2S/1000so,(l..30/se(VICB3B:i" 9/1000K|.n.l3Olacre"(qiiar)ruii»rate Tor Sunday, or dlys of assembly) 350000 jq. ft.,e 400/acre* 50/1000 sq. ft..e 500/eae* 80/1000 sq. n.. 700/aa«* •• 120/1000 sq, fl. 1200/acra' •* 40/1000 so. n.. 400/acre* SW1000sq.rt" 40(100080, ft."150/IOOOsq.R. «vioooso,n.** 500nODOsq.fl." 700/1 OOOaoj.ft.** 850/1 000 sq.ft.. 550Jv9hlde fueling space** 60/1000 sq. ft., 600/<ae- •• son OOOso. ft. ion/acra"6nCX»sq.tl.. 10O/aCr«"30*1 000 sq.ft., ISO/acre**«0"IOOOsq.rt." 60/1000 sq. IL. 60O/aae" lOTOOOso.fl.. 90/Jcrs" rllO/lOOOsq. n..200O/acra* (commercial only) ls/dwtlmsunll.ZOWaer<!*(resli(enlIalonly) St (6:4) IK (7:3) 9» (5:5) 1 siBA (7:3)« Ttt Ml TO (6:4) 5H (6:4) <K (7:3) « C7:3) «i (6:4) 34 (5:5)15% (5:5) (5:5) WK (5:5) 9» (5.5) S.2 3.6 EDUCATIONUnlvorslly (« yean)Junior CoEej! (J years) h School Jl:fJ ^":'!1(75:19;6J 1,5^:::"™:::::::::::^:::::::::::™™ i^se^j FIKANCIAL' - (35:42:231 Bank (Walun only) with Drive-Through OnVc-Threughonly Savings & Loan Orkw-Thra-jnonty HOSPITAL ....... .. tkroralConvatescenl/Muntng 1SDUSTRIALir«MIHaraii indjilnal Pirk (no a*m*raai ... [73:25:2( Wsnnouslng Sdnrcs Besairch » Lardffil it Secydtftg Centa* 2.4/sludeni. too acre* 1.2/tiudttH. 2V10OO sq. ft., 120/acra* 1.3/slud-rt. 157lOOOjq.fi., 60/aera* • 1.4/sludcnt. 12/1000 sq. It. SOncra" 1.6/siudcnt, 11/1000 sq. ft.. 90/acre- 5/cNld. SOnOOO sq. ft." 150/1000sq.fl..10OOVaero- •' 200/100050, n.. 1500/acre' 250!'25one.way)"ane' 60/1000 »(.fl..60C»»eiq" 100(50one-way)rtano" 2IW»<i. 25/1000 sq, fl., 250/JtW i6nooo«.tt.,200;aae--'BflODO so, ft., oortcre" 10/1000 sq. ft., 720*jcr«* 4/1000 jq. ft, 5C/BCte"S/IOOOse, ft. SO/scte" 2/tCOO M. ft.. 0.2/vsull. 8/1000 sq. fu. so/acre' 6/acro (OVER) 10% (B:2)12% (B:2)20* (7:3)30S (6:0 3H4 (6:4)17% (5:5) * (7:3)9i (o:4) 3K (5:9 W (7:30 n* 0:1)14% CB:2) «"» (9:1) 13» (7:3) * (5^ 16% (1:1)11« (5:5) (4:6) 10» (4:4)7« (4 *) 12% (28)12% (Z-^ 15% (3:7) 20* (2:B)IS* (4:6) 5% (S:S) MW (1:9) 10% [4:6) R AaENCffiSJ CKM or CadsSad. Chuia vnia. Cwaoaoo. Oel Mar, fil Cajofi. Er.cinftej, escWMftao. Knp«;al feaeh. La Mesa. Lemon (Sowe. NBfejjiBl Ctlj. ocaarsMe. ?o»iy. S»n OMJO. San Mareoa. Siattt, Soara Seaea, 'All ana Co»«y a Sao Oiejn. ACWISORW.1A1SON MSMSERS: CaBmla 0«»er»canl ofTnMoanali"-. Couwy Wal«r Aulla»itf. U.S. OejinmeM cl Oelene. S.O. Undixl P«l DUBio and Tiuanafflaja oaMor B.I 7.04.85.0 3.4 3.7 9.0 11.7 COPY '.AND USE TRIP CATEGORIES (PRIMARY:OtVERTEO:PASS-GY)' LODGING 158:38:4)Hotel frtlconvenltonrKllNes/reslaur wit} Moltlaetort HOIBIBusiness Hold OFFICE (le»Mn 100.000 sq.ft.) (mere then 1QO.OOOsq. ft.. 6* stories)Office Pan (400.000* sq. fl.) Single Tenant Office Corparale Headquarters Post OfficeCcnlral/Wak-lnOnlyCommurlly (rat fncludlng malf drop lane) Community (w/mtlt 0rop tow)MaO Drop Lane only Department or Motor Vehicles Medtat-Oenlal [60:30:10) PARKS - - (66:28:6)City (developed w/meollng rooms and spans faculties) Regional (daveloped) NielgfccorboocVCounly (undeveloped)Stale (average 1000 acres)Amusemcnl (jFhoroe) San Diego Zoo Se. World RECREATIONBeach OceanorBay. ..... 152:39:91 Beach, Lake (fresh wslofl BowNng CenterCampground ColfCourseDriving Range only MarinasMuUI-purpose (miniature golf, vldoo arcade, baiting cage, etc.) Bacquelbal'/Hialth ClubTennis Court!Sports fadfltlas Outdoor SUdHJin Ir-coor Ar«naRacelrack Eslau. Urban or Rural(averago1-2DU/aero) Shan Fanny ottacned(average 3-6 DU/acre) (or any multi-family 6-20 DUVacre)Apartment(or any muttl-famlly units more tnan 20 OU/acre) unitary Housing (off-base, muHI-famlly) dess than 6 DU/acre)(5.20 OU/gcm)Mobile Homofarrty aoliraitontConimunlty Congregate Care Faculty RESTAURANT1 ~. (51:37:12)QuaMySit-down. WghlumoverFast Food (w/Brlve-lhroijcli) Fast Food (wJlhoul drtve-lhrougn) DcUcalesscn(7am-4pm) TRANSPORTATIONBusOepot Tfuc* Terminal WaleiBOrvTvHnne TerminalTransit Sullen (Light Re3 w/parklng)Park 1 RJd3 Lots ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE HIGHEST PEAK HOUB It, (plus IN:OUT ralio) TfilP GENERATION HATE (DRIVEWAY) 6Mw«n loM-l-M A.M. Solw.in 3iOtJ.6:3r! P.M. 50/1000 sq. ft., 400/acre" ^6 I0/oc:upled room, 300/acre &o/ccciptcd room, 2QO/acr«" Si8/cccupted roorn. lOO/acrc" 9K7/occupieclroom" an 2.5/mltUary A ctuian personn!lw 9% 20/ic00sq.(l.,"3007acre- 1fl4 17/1000sq.fl..B600Vacre- 1J» 12/1000 Sq.fl.. 200,'EcrE- -• 13% 14/1000 sq. II., 1BO/8CTC- 15%7/1000 sq. ft-, 110/acr-- 17% 30/1000 sq. ft." «% 90/ICOOsq.ft."* 5%2CO/1000 sq. ft., 1300/iKre- S»300/IOOOsq. fl.. 2000/acre- "K, ISOORSOone-wBylrtone" 7*iao/1000sq.ft.,900/acra" Si 50/lCOOsq.n..500/»cr«- S4 T4, SOfacro- 13%20/acra'57acro(a(Jd forspeclTic sport uses). 6/plcnlcsIls' ••I/acre, lO^lcnlcslle" 60/acre, 1 30/acre (summer only)" US/acre'awacro- 600/1000 ft. shoreline, 60/acre* 50/1 ooo fl. snoratie, s/acnj-30/1000 sq.ft., 300/acre. 30Hane— Tfc4/carnpsltG"" <fe7/acrc. 40/hole. 700/coursc' " 7K 7Q/acre. 14/tee DDK* 3& 4fterth. 20/ecrt!' " 3Mi90/acr> 3* 30/1000 sq. fl . 300/acr>, to/court* «l6/ac.-a. 30/courf 514 50/acre. 0.2/seaf30/acre.0.1/seat'40/acr<,0.6seal*80/lCOOsq. ft., 1.B/seal,360/screen- ln% izydwelurgunll" &. 10/dweHlngunlf" Bi a/dweSngunlt" K 6/dwellngunn-" K B/dwemng unit 7%6/dwelHng. urit 7% 5/dweirmg i.nlt. 40/acre* 94 3/dwHCngunll, 20/3cra* ti n/dwellingunH"- 94 2.5/cwell!ng unit** fit, lOOVlOOOsq. ft.. 3/seat, 500/acra- " D4 160/IOOOso.. ft., 6/seat, lOOOttcrc- " M650/1000!iO,ft..Z[V>eal,3000/acr<i' •• 734700/10CQsq.ft." 5» I50/looosq.ft.,ll/seaf « 25/lOOOsq.fl."ia'1000sq.fl., 7/ba>, SO/acrs" m17C/bentt.l2/BCn!" 300/K)e.2u.'parUngspar.e(4/occuplecD*> 1«400/iae (600/paved acre). l<« rS/parKlngspace(8/occupled)'> •" 17:3) (6:4) (6:4) (9:1) (9:1) 19:1) (9:1) (9:1) (9:1) (6:4)15:5) (5:5) (6:4) (6:2) (5:5) 0:3) (0:2)(7:3) (3:7) (4:4) (3:7) (3:7) (2:8) (2:8) (3:7)(3:7) (3:7)3:7) (6-4) (6:4) (44) (7:3) 10% 7%7% 13% 14% 15% 7% tea13410% 1TS er. B6 1011 1C* 1CB4 9% 9% 11% 7% Bi 8% fflt 7» 8>4 1SK (5:5) (6:41 (Mi (4;6) (2:8) (2:6) 3:8) (2:8) ?? (3l7) (55) 14:6) 13:7) i5;5) (6:4) (3:7) (5:5)(6:4) (6:4) (5:5) (7:3) (7:31 (7:3) (6:4)(6:4) (6:41 (6:4) (6:4) (5:5) (6:4» (5:5) p:T) (5:5) (3;-!) (3::) TRIP LENGTH [Mllcsf 3.9 7.6 11.2 8.8 10.0 8.8 6.O f>.4 5.4 6-3 6.1 7.9 4.7 • finery worcK Stn Cleyv Trail 1C GWawlfl". • Othw soured: tTE Ttfp Gtitwtiton fttpert lAlf. F tfrftxd.Trtp Generation Dates (sifter agencies and pjtttcallfifts), varlotit SANOAG & CALTRANS studies. :epextsard esttmalu.f TitvcalMorr pvunlagc mttoi *te dafty from teett NewsoftodJ surweyi, of ;ew cannot tie appRedto very wedttelenrfusM, »«<irf»nollnckidBni3(i.rs*ldsni(H«ws pfflMARY • w* trtptflrastty MiwMn orlfftn and prtfnary foffliWtan. 1 TrtpltnfltmReiVBrsoewetgnleetor all jrtpsiBa«J(romg«fwattandy«sltc. tAit trips sys'etn-wKJe avetage icrigisi • e.9m)tes} 1 Piled cwv»8guarwni i«-2.169 UXfl-* 12.83 1 S«95«Si*H3PASS-gYli/niiv«rlidci-tftvaftK3<1 : =. 1.000 5q. fl. = IfipyotJ, a - d«f:sHy(Gu;ac*}.£>u >i»(«Jue,faf»ioni¥ * Trtpa«dueae r. .•3 aeX.'wwnrfliigesan Diego's szpadtfra} past uansii system. HI A5% i«y irtpiWueltaft todnd UHI wl»i trmstt icc«s» oc ft BEST COPY Project Phasing / Timing * While the EIR analyzes the worst-case scenario of environmental impacts for the entire project, City staff affirmed at the hearing that the approvals allow the Project to be constructed in phases. * Such phasing facilitates Project financing. * At this time, it is anticipated the Project will take 2-4 years to construct. Global Warming/ Solar Panels Global Warming * State Global Warming (GHG) regulations have not been finalized and will not go into effect until January 1, 2012. * The Project is consistent with the state's "early action" guidance to focus land use decisions on mixed-use developments because this mixed-use Project allows residents to live, work, recreate and shop in the same area without driving and vehicle sources are the largest contributor of GHG emissions in California. * State regulatory agencies admit that the scientific knowledge of global warming is "rudimentary and still evolving" and that the quantification models are rapidly changing. * The City's expert environmental planning firm for this project, ED AW, Inc., has evaluated the available evidence and concluded that Global Warming impacts are too speculative for evaluation. * CEQA Guidelines § 15145, which states, "[i]f, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact." * Therefore, it is reasonable and legal for the City Council to also conclude, after reviewing the 21 pages of investigation in the EIR that follow state agency recommendations to identify and quantify the GHG emission sources, assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and identify feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, that GHG impacts are too speculative for evaluation since measuring the effectiveness of various mitigation measures and establishing the appropriate threshold of significance is too speculative at this time. Solar Panels * Specifically with regards to solar technology, the Project's mitigation includes installation of solar panels on carports and infrastructure to make the commercial, residential, and office structures solar-ready. * The City Attorney concluded that the City lacked the legal authority to impose solar panel installation as a Project condition because there is no City ordinance or building code requiring installation of solar panels and CEQA does not grant the City independent authority to impose mitigation measures. (PRC § 21004). * The Project is required to achieve energy efficiency levels that exceed 20% more than the state's energy efficiency standards for buildings, known as Title 24. Depending on its relative cost, solar panels may or may not be part of the mixture of energy-efficiency technologies used to achieve this standard, but the City Council is assured that the energy-efficiency result is the same regardless. Statement of Overriding Considerations * Where a project's environmental impacts remain significant despite project design features and City-imposed mitigation measures, the City cannot approve a project without adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration. * What this means is that the City Council has to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then the City Council can deem the environmental effects "acceptable" and approve the project. Such a finding is documented in a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Candidate Statement of Overriding Considerations is provided for your independent review and consideration. * We believe the benefits that outweigh the environment impacts include, but are not limited to: (1) the estimated $910,000 in sales tax revenue and additional property tax revenues will help strengthen the City's budget and allow it to continue to provide its services to the residents of Carlsbad; (2) the estimated $16,244,000 in development impact fees, and $627,000 in school fees, even if reduced through any changes in density, that will help construct the public facilities (streets, libraries, police stations, fire stations, parks, etc.) planned for this part of Carlsbad; the temporary construction jobs and permanent jobs created from the Project; (3) the increased, upscale shopping opportunities that residents were promised at this site through the La Costa Master Plan since the 1970s; (4) the ability to recapture and keep sales tax revenue that is already being lost to areas outside of Carlsbad as a result of area shopping centers failing to provide the type of attractive shopping facilities this project will provide; and (5) an attractive, livable, workable, pedestrian friendly, mixed use, smart growth community along a transit route called for in the City's General Plan and state legislation promoting smart growth planning. * LCTS has significant, unmitigated impacts related to * Noise (from blasting/construction) * Air Quality (from CO and PM-10) * Global Warming * Traffic * The EIR, Candidate Findings, and our prior correspondence contain a detailed analysis of why it not feasible to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. * Blasting. Blasting is necessary to create the building pads needed for the residential, commercial, and office space proposed for the Project. Feasible mitigation measures (movable soundwalls, advance notification to homeowners, insurance, pre- and post-blasting inspections of buildings nearby) have been incorporated, but the temporary noise impacts cannot be completely avoided. * Air Quality (CO and PM-10). The only way to reduce the CO and PM-10 emissions to below a level of significance is to reduce the commercial site to 40,450 SF. The commercial site is proposed to be 284,400 SF, which is already less than the 400,000 SF of commercial space designated in the La Costa Master Plan. A commercial project that is 10% the size of the La Costa Master Plan would not allow the City to fulfill its master plan and general plan goals to diversity its taxable revenue sources and provide an attractive mixed use community that will reduce the need for people to drive. * Global Warming. State regulatory agencies admit that scientific knowledge on measuring greenhouse gases is "rudimentary and still evolving" and the quantification models are rapidly changing. City Planners and City's expert environmental planning consultants affirm that it is too speculative to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions at this time. However, the Project is still subject to state regulations on global warming, which will go into effect by January 1, 2012. * Traffic. The City simply lacks the legal authority to amend the Capital Improvement Programs in other cities to provide further traffic mitigation. Requiring the owner to pay a fair share toward such improvements provides no mitigation because there is no means to implement the traffic improvements. Within the City of Carlsbad, mitigation is successfully provided through traffic signal synchronization. Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment Section 2 Statement of Overriding Considerations INTRODUCTION CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City Council proposes to approve the project despite certain significant unavoidable adverse Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Global Climate Change impacts identified in the Draft EIR. As interpreted by the courts, a lead agency's determination that a project's benefits outweigh significant effects that cannot be mitigated lies at the core of the lead agency's discretionary responsibility under CEQA (City of Marina V. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 368). Furthermore, courts have upheld overriding considerations that were based on a variety of policy considerations including new jobs, stronger tax base, and implementation of an agency's economic development goals, growth management policies, redevelopment plans, the need for housing and employment, conformity to a community plan, and provision of construction jobs. See Towards Respons/biV/fy in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal App. 3d 671; Dusefc v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal App. 3d 1029; City of Poway v. City of San Diego (1084) 155 Cal App. 3d 1037; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal App. 3d 656. As identified above, this project has significant and not fully mitigated effects relating to transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, and global climate change. The project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR would not fully achieve the project objectives as listed in Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR. These objectives that would not be achieved include strengthening the City's tax base, providing shopping and job opportunities, ensuring that the commercial services under the La Costa Master Plan are fulfilled, and offering additional residential areas with a range of housing types and prices. Therefore, these alternatives are infeasible in accordance with the findings prepared pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. 39 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment Project features or mitigation measures would partially mitigate direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts to transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, and global climate change associated with the project. Among others, these include: 1. Paying for the project's fair share contribution toward the construction of a traffic signal; 2. Requiring the commercial development operator to operate, maintain, and promote a ride-share program for employees; 3. Providing one more secure bicycle parking areas within the property and encouraging bicycle riding for both employees and customers; 4. Requiring that all materials handling equipment operated by the businesses within the facility be electric or use non-diesel engines; 5. Implementing a portable sound attenuation barrier during off-site rock drilling with a Sound Transmission Class rating of 15 or more along the northern portion of the project site; 6. Certifying that the rock drill shall not generate noise levels in excess of 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet while operated at high idle (maximum governed rpm) under full-load condition during the test; 7. Notifying all property owners within 250 feet of the blasting area of the blasting activities (for noise and vibration impacts); 8. Designing buildings to be energy efficient and siting buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; 9. Limiting idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. These mitigation measures would partially mitigate direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts fo transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, and global 40 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment climate change, but not to below a level of significance. Impacts to some or all transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, paleontological resources, biological resources, hydrology/water quality, geology and soils, and hazards impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR, significant effects can be mitigated to less than significant except as described below. A. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Transportation/Circulation A thorough analysis of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project has been performed and mitigation to reduce project impacts has been required where feasible, but would not reduce Transportation/Circulation impacts to less than significant. Only the No Project: No Development Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR for the project would avoid significant impacts to Transportation/Circulation. Findings The City Council hereby finds that completing the roadway improvements identified in the Draft EIR needed to mitigate the project's traffic impacts is not feasible for the following economic, legal, and social reasons. • The significant project transportation/circulation impacts are to segments of the 1-5 Freeway and roadways and intersections located in the cities of Encinitas and San Marcos. As described above in Section 1 under CEQA Finding (2), Caltrans has no plans or funding for improvements to increase the capacity of 1-5 in the project area. The cities of Encinitas and San Marcos do not have Capital Improvement Programs for widening or other improvements to the roadways and intersections to which the project would contribute relatively minor increases in traffic volumes. As described above in Section I under CEQA Finding (1), significant impacts from projected regional traffic increases to the roadway segments and intersections in the cities of Encinitas and San Marcos would occur with or without the project. Therefore, it would be an inequitable requirement 41 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment and beyond the capability of the applicant to effect improvements that would avoid significant cumulative project impacts. Air Quality A thorough analysis of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project has been performed and mitigation to reduce project impacts has been required where feasible, but would not reduce Air Quality impacts to less than significant. The No Project: No Development Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR for the project would avoid significant impacts to Air Quality. Findings The City Council hereby finds that reducing the project's mobile source emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulates (PMio) to mitigate the project's air quality impacts is not feasible for the following economic, legal, and social reasons: • As shown in Table 5.3-4 of the Draft EIR, total emissions resulting from mobile and area sources would exceed the threshold for significance for CO and PMio. As most of the emissions are from mobile sources, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce operations emissions of air pollutants due to the proposed project. Project design features will also be implemented to reduce the long-term air pollution. For example, enhanced bus stops will be provided on the La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road to encourage use of public transportation, employee car-pooling would be encouraged, and improved bicycle lanes and onsite bicycle storage facilities would be provided to encourage bicycle use to and from the project site. However, the results of implementing these measures cannot be reasonably quantified and the impact would be significant and unmitigated. • Reducing the project's CO and PMio emissions to comply with the thresholds would require reducing the project's vehicle use from the project's total of 25,516 average daily trips (ADT) to approximately 6,000 ADT. This would require reducing the shopping center from 284,400 square feet of commercial space under the proposed project to approximately 40,450 square feet. Reducing the project size to this level would not fully _. Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment comply with the existing Carlsbad General Plan and the Zone 11 LFMP or proposed amendments to these documents. Provision of adequate public facilities and improvements, including transportation improvements, as well as public safety services, parks, and libraries, relies on development impact fees that have been calculated based on the level of residential and commercial development allowed by the adopted General Plan. Thus, the City would be unable to adequately accomplish its public services and facilities goals without income from another source, for which excess City revenue is not available. The loss of property tax and sales tax revenue, particularly from commercial development, on which the City is highly dependent, would also reduce the City's ability to meet its annual budgetary obligations. Noise A thorough analysis of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project has been performed and mitigation to reduce project impacts has been required where feasible, but would not reduce Noise impacts to less than significant. The No Project: No Development Alternative and the Biological Open Space Alternative/Environmentally Superior Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR for the project would avoid significant Noise impacts. Findings The City Council hereby finds that mitigating the project's construction noise impact as identified in the Draft EIR is not feasible for the following economic, legal, and social reasons: • As stated in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR, approximately 127,000 cubic yards of rock material is anticipated to be excavated within the onsite granitic rock formation and drilling and blasting would be conducted to excavate this material. Rock drills generate airborne noise levels of approximately 80 to 98 dB at a distance of 50 feet. The closest existing residence to the blasting area would be a home located approximately 30 feet away on Sitio Lima; other homes would be located approximately 150 or more feet from the blasting area. In the worst-case scenario, the maximum noise level at the nearest residence could be as high as 100 dBA; a few other 43 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment residences may find noise levels up to 80 dBA. This is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure N-l of the Draft EIR would reduce this impact to a degree; however, it cannot be guaranteed that the impact will be below a level of significance at the nearest residences. Therefore, this would remain a significant and unmitigated impact. • Construction blasting noise will vary but usually generates a maximum noise level of approximately 94 dBA at a distance of 50 feet and the maximum noise level at the nearby residences would range between 84 to 100 dBA for the brief blasting events. This would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure N-2 of the Draft EIR would require notification of all property owners within 250 feet of the blasting area of the potential activities. However, this will not reduce the perceived noise level and, therefore; a significant and unmitigated noise impact would remain for blasting. • Drilling and blasting would be the most cost-effective means to loosen the granitic rock for excavation. It would also reduce the period required for grading the site in comparison to use of conventional earth-moving equipment and would more efficiently reduce the rock to a size that can be loaded into the onsite portable rock crusher for use as fill material IB within the project site. Global Climate Change A thorough analysis of environmental impacts caused by the proposed project has been performed and mitigation to reduce project impacts has been required where feasible, but would not reduce Global Climate Change impacts to less than significant. Short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project would generate emissions of GHGs, predominantly consist of CO2. The No Project: No Development Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR for the project would avoid significant impacts to Global Climate Change. findings The City Council hereby finds that reducing the scope of the project to avoid generating emissions of GHGs is not feasible for the following economic, legal, and social reasons: 44 9 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment • Construction emissions would be associated with vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, vendor trips, and employee compute trips. Operational emissions would be associated with area, mobile, and stationary sources. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as natural gas use and maintenance of landscaping and grounds. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project- generated vehicle trips associated with residents, visitors, employees, and deliveries to the project site. In addition, increases in stationary-source emissions could occur at off-site utility providers associated with electricity generation and water distribution that would supply the proposed project. • No air district in California has adopted a significance threshold for GHG emissions generated by a proposed project, or a methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions or global climate change. By adoption of AB 32 and Public Resources Code sections 21083.05 and 21097, however, the State of California has established GHG reduction targets and has determined that GHG emissions as they relate to global climate change are a source of adverse environmental impacts in California that should be addressed under CEQA. The proper context for addressing the issue in an EIR is the discussion of cumulative impacts, since while the emissions of one single project will not cause global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. • To meet GHG emission targets of AB 32, California would need to generate in the future less GHG emissions than current levels. It is recognized, however, that for most projects there is no simple metric available to determine if a single project would substantially increase or decrease overall GHG emission levels or conflict with the goals of AB 32. • In 2006 the California Climate Action Team (CAT) prepared a recommended list of strategies for the state to pursue to reduce climate change emissions, including strategies to promote smart land use: the integration of transportation and land use decisions. These strategies generally encourage jobs/housing proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and encourage high-density residential/commercial development along transit corridors. The proposed project is consistent with the CAT smart land use strategies in the following respects: 45 Candidate Findings _ La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment o The proposed project includes a mixture of housing types including affordable apartments and high-density units as well as nonresi'dential uses such as a grocery, retail shops, and other commercial uses adjacent to one another. o The project proposes a commercial shopping center intended to serve the daily commercial needs of existing nearby residential areas. o Pedestrian trails would interconnect the residential and nonresidential components of the project and link the proposed project site to an existing trail network. o The project would make improvements to an existing bus stop on Rancho Santa Fe Road, including a turnout lane and bus shelter. • Reducing the project's CO? emissions to avoid GHG impacts could only be accomplished with the No Project: No Development Alternative, which would not comply with the existing Carlsbad General Plan and the Zone 11 LFMP or proposed amendments to these documents. Provision of adequate public facilities and improvements, including transportation improvements, as well as public safety services, parks, and libraries, relies on development impact fees that have been calculated based on the level of residential and commercial development allowed by the adopted General Plan. Thus, the City would be unable to adequately accomplish its public services and facilities goals without income from another source, for which excess City revenue is not available. The loss of property tax and sales tax revenue, particularly from commercial development, on which the City is highly dependent, would also reduce the City's ability to meet its annual budgetary obligations. B. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Having reduced the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project by adopting mitigation measures and balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the project's potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City Council hereby determines that the specific overriding economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse effects on the environment; and, therefore, in spite of a No Project: No Development Alternative that would avoid significant impacts to 46 Candidate Findings Ua Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Global Climate Change, the unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed La Costa Town Square project are acceptable based on overriding considerations. The data to support these conclusions may be found in the La Costa Town Square Draft EIR. The City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed La Costa Town Square project against the identified unavoidable environmental risks and impacts in determining whether to approve the project. The City Council finds that the project will provide significant economic, social, and other benefits which outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project, such that those impacts are considered acceptable. With approval of the project, these benefits include: 1. Conform to General Plan Land Use Element: The project will be consistent with the existing Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element because it provides an orderly balance of both public and private land uses creating a healthy and diverse economic base. The project design and arrangement will serve to protect and enhance the environment, character, and image of Carlsbad. The project will provide two choices of housing types and density to meet the diverse economic and social requirements of City residents while retaining the present predominance of single-family residences. The development will offer compatibly designed and conveniently located shopping for City residents. The project will also create employment possibilities within the diverse range of retail and commercial uses proposed within the project site. 2. Conform to General Plan Circulation Element/Alleviate Traffic Congestion: The project will include the realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road within the project site. This will result in a better overall circulation infrastructure for the area's future needs. The project will also accommodate a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile. For example, a bus transportation system is an important part of the project design. Bus stops will exist along circulation roadways around the commercial parcel in order to offer a transportation system that helps to reduce pollution and traffic congestion in the area. The bus transportation system also supports the project site's commerciai and economic development, and the project will enhance bus stop features 47 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Additionally, the project will offer landscaped trails and walkways throughout the project site and connecting sidewalks to adjacent residential properties for convenient pedestrian access. It will also offer bicycle racks for bicyclists using nearby bicycle routes on the adjacent streets to access the site. The project's design for alternative modes of travel is derived from the City's goals to offer a balance of different travel modes based on safety, convenience, attractiveness, costs, and environmental and social impacts. These transit, pedestrian-friendly, and bicycle-friendly features, combined with the project's mixed-use development and proximity to existing housing will help minimize the length of local vehicular trips and thereby provide air quality and energy use benefits to the community. 3. Conform to General Plan Noise Element: The project will construct noise attenuation features along planned roadways where needed to reduce vehicular noise impacts to below a level of significance. The project will also include attenuation features to reduce the noise level audible at nearby residences from the outdoor gathering area. Amplified speakers will not be permitted and the outdoor gathering area will not be used for events between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. In addition, no noise- related nuisances will result from the location of residential units near heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and outdoor mechanical equipment. 4. Strengthen Tax Base: The project at buildout will generate additional public revenues in the form of property tax and sales tax, which would include approximately $910,000 in sales tax revenues by the year 2012. The provision of this revenue stream combined with development impact fees will help the City to maintain or enhance police and fire protection, parks, roads, affordable housing, and other infrastructure and services around the City for the benefit of the community. The project's revenue generation will positively impact the entire City and not just the area around the project site. 5. Development Impact Fees: The project would provide approximately $16,244,000 in development impact fees that would contribute to the construction of key infrastructure improvements such as police and fire 48 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment stations, parks, numerous roads, traffic signals, and sewers. In addition, the project will contribute approximately $627,000 in school fees. 6. Employment Opportunities: The project will provide considerable employment opportunities in a region where employment is a recognized need. The project will provide permanent employment from the retail and offices uses, as well as temporary construction-related jobs for the development of the entire project. It is estimated that a total of approximately 976 jobs will be created by the project. 7. Positive Economic Impact: The project will increase the number of people living in the area who will be in need of goods and services that can be provided by other commercial ventures within the City of Carlsbad. The new households are projected to generate $407.5 million in new retail demand, which will have a positive economic impact on the City and the region. 8. Create a Sustainable Community. The project will create a cohesive and unified mixed-use community through the strengthening of physical, economic, and social ties between residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational land uses within and in the vicinity of the project area. The project will encourage sustainability in design to foster "green" development that reduces project energy needs and water consumption. The project will meet Title 24 plus 20 percent energy efficiency standards for the community shopping center. 9. Reduce Housing Imbalance and Provide a Range of Housing Types: The project will supply needed housing in the City of Carlsbad with a range of housing types, styles, and price levels, thereby helping to meet the needs of the region's growing population. The project will also increase the stock of new homes in the region, thereby reducing the long-term imbalance between housing and employment. 10. Affordable Housing Units: The project will provide affordable housing units offsite by complying with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.85.040. 49 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment 11. Help Manage Greenhouse Gases and Criteria Air Pollutants: Several components of the project will reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. Among the many mitigation measures and project design features detailed in the Draft E1R (pages 6-27 to 6-30), the project will include buildings designed to be energy efficient and will site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use. In addition, the project will install energy efficient lighting and lighting control systems. The project will also install light colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. The project will limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. The minimization of the length of local vehicular trips resulting from sustainable mixed-use design and supplying retail and employment opportunities near housing could help to achieve regional air quality and greenhouse gas reduction goals. 12. Protect Biological Resources/Provide Open Space: The project will contribute to the permanent protection of significant biological resources at offsite habitat conservation areas through the implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan/Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (HCP/OMSP) in place of the limited natural habitat conditions onsite where permanent wildlife resource protection does not exist. The proposed onsite open space features will benefit onsite residents and neighboring communities to support active and passive recreation opportunities and a high-quality living environment. 13. Improve Aesthetics: The project will improve aesthetics in the area through the preservation of 9.1 acres of open space and through a landscape concept that features open plazas, visual landmarks, water features, specialty paving, site furniture, and tree and rich landscape plantings. 14. Increase,Shopping Opportunities: The project will increase shopping opportunities for local residents and allow surrounding residential areas to be served by a modern commercial center that fulfills daily shopping 50 Candidate Findings la Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment needs and provides convenient access to goods, food, and personal services in accordance with the La Costa Master Plan. 15. Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Design: The project will allow for walkability features for pedestrian access to the site and bicycle linkages to the surrounding neighborhoods through a logical connection of trails, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. The project will also link with future hiking trails. 16. Minimize Visual Impacts: The project will minimize visual impacts from surrounding public viewing areas by implementing a plan that is sensitive to existing hillside areas and providing contour grading where feasible. 17. Performing Arts and Community Gathering Space: The project will include an outdoor gathering space for performances and-community events. 18. Minimize Water Quality Impacts: The project will manage stormwater runoff from the proposed development through sustainable design features, such as natural bioswales, that will treat flows from paved areas before the drainage waters enter the public drainage systems. The City Council finds that any one of the benefits detailed above is sufficient, standing alone, to justify approval of the La Costa Town Square project in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15092 and 15093 and Public Resources Code Section 21081. Documents related to these findings are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, City Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. • The Carlsbad City Council has adopted Findings Regarding Significant Effects for the above project, which identify that certain significant effects of implementing the project are unavoidable, even after incorporation of feasible mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable due to each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits that would result from the approval and 51 Candidate Findings La Costa Town Square General Plan Amendment implementation of the project, as described above. All of these benefits are based on the facts set forth in the CEQA Findings, the Final EIR, and the record of proceedings for this project. Each of these benefits is a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project, so that if a court were to set aside the determination that any particular benefit will occur that justifies project approval, the City Council determines that it would stand by its determination that any one of the remaining benefits is sufficient to warrant project approval. 52 AGENDA ITEM # c; Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney aty Clerk August 15, 2009 Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr Carlsbad, CA 92008 Honorable Mayor and Council Subject: La Costa Town Center These comments on the La Costa Town Center project and EIR are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots conservation organization whose goal is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of coastal north San Diego County. While most of the natural resources on the project site were lost years ago, the project as proposed could cause further direct and indirect impacts. We have three primary concerns with this project: - Open space was not mitigated in Carlsbad, and has yet to be replaced The habitat mitigation plan for the La Costa Master Plan included exporting 300 acres of open space from Carlsbad to the unincorporated area of the county. This will help create a California Coastal Gnatcatcher habitat area in the county- but it leaves the residents of Carlsbad with 300 fewer acres of natural open space. This mistake has been made once. We urge you not to let this happen again. Please direct staff to require mitigation for impacts in Carlsbad to be replaced in Carlsbad- let's keep all possible open space here. Unfortunately this mitigation plan has been in place for over 10 years. The open space has been lost in Carlsbad- but the replacement open space has yet to be acquired. That is not mitigation- that is a piece of paper that talks about mitigation. Please establish some real time limits for when this mitigation will be inplace. - Insufficient mitigation for air quality impacts You are being asked to adopt statements of overriding considerations because this project fails to meet basic air quality standards. We understand that at times there are offsetting benefits that justify such actions. But this should be an 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056 www.preservecalavera.org Nonprofit 501(c)3 ID#33-0955504 exceptional case that only occurs after all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been taken. This project needs to do a better job of reducing the air quality impacts- and protecting the health of the residents of today and those of tomorrow. We urge you to have staff review all of the air quality mitigation measures included in the technical study for Robertson Ranch that was distributed at the public hearing on August 11,2009. Many of these are relevant for the La Costa Town Center project. Including them will help make this project a better fit for your community. - Preserve affordable housing We understand the pressure you are under to remove/reduce the number of affordable housing units in this project. But it is city policy for all neighborhoods in the city to help meet this affordable housing need. And this location is much better suited to such a land use than Quarry Creek with its priceless natural, historical and cultural resources. Adding affordable units to La Costa Town Center and reducing them at Quarry Creek could help get the Housing Element approved in a more timely manner, would free up the transportation funds being held by SANDAG, and could result in actual housing unit construction in a much shorter period of time. This would be a real win-win for the entire community. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard Preserve Calavera Cc: Van Lynch, Ron Ball AUG 1 8 2009 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATE CITY ATTORNEY isr: cc August 18, 2009 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council City Attorney La Costa Town Square Following the close of the public hearing on this matter at the meeting of Tuesday, August 11, 2009, the Council has received additional information from the developer and the public. I recommend that the public hearing be re-opened for the limited purpose of admitting this new information. That is hot to say the Council must listen to information it has already received at the August 11, 2009 meeting, but only additional information received after that meeting and prior to this evening's meeting in order to allow the public an opportunity to respond to this new information and any staff comments. Following that new information and the public response, the Council should begin its deliberations. If, at the conclusion of those deliberations, the Council's action is something other than the staff recommendation, I would recommend the following procedure: 1. Determine the appropriate General Plan designation for the proposed project and direct the City Attorney to return with documents implementing that decision. 2. Introduce Ordinance No. CS-051, as amended this evening, with the following Special Condition: (a) To the extent permitted by all applicable laws, Owner shall include in its CC&Rs a prohibition on entering into a lease with any tenant which requires more than 100,000 square feet, allocates more than 10% of the floor space to non-taxable items and offers more than 30,000 separate stock-keeping units or such other lesser amount as typically offered by big box retailers; and (b) prior to the execution of any such lease described above, the matter shall be returned to the City Council for consideration of an amendment of this Condition. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. RONALD R. BALL City Attorney fa- ce: City Clerk City Manager Planning Director Van Lynch, Senior Planner (via facsimile) John Ponder, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (via e-mail) POST AUGUST 11 MEETING Lucy Peters Beatrice Chance Martha Allen Dave Calder Gary Baker Margaret McAllister 3018 Cadencia Street 7723 Calle Madero 3311 La Costa Avenue 3418 Cortedrezo 3310 Avenida Anacopa Levante Street Against the project Opposed to project - traffic not good Opposed to the project as 1 see the plans - No high density, no big box, already enough traffic. Not opposed to a Forum-like project - The city has done a really nice job w/development until now. Opposed to project Opposed to project Supports the project AUG 182009 ,. - *LSlfiCSOFI AC AGENDA ITEM # 1"3 c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk AGENDA ITEM # c: Mayor 3315CaboCt ; c""" Carlsbad, 8.14.09. Carlsbad CA 92009 -,; ci*AZ?£ ; City Clerk Mayor Bud Lewis • • City of Carlsbad ' Re: La Costa Town Square. As mentioned in the meeting last tuesday by most of the speakers, THIS PROJECT IS TOO BIG for the location. We now have a nice area with single homes. This project will stand out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. It is especially the size of the two story 98,000 square feet building. The office buildings will be more hidden, but near by°i&. office buildings with empty spaces. Carlsbad has about 25% of empty office and store spaces. Why make it worse. We also have more than enough supermarkets within a radius of 4 miles, 7 to be exact. What we could have instead is many small specialty stores that would better fit in the project "Tuscany Village". We don't think anybody likes to shop in just one supermarket. People are looking for the best deals and merchandise in different stores. Most likely they would drive anyway. The 128 unit multi-family housing project should be placed where the 64 single family homes are. We don't think the owners of the homes that would look down on these three story units would like to have their view blocked. One gas station on the property should be sufficiant.There will be enough pollution from the area anyway. We live outside of the "600 feet" area, but from the enclosed picture, taken from our property, you can see that we are looking right down on practically the whole Town Square area. The same is true of many homes. We hope you make your decision based on the wishes of most of the people in the area. Sincerely: Cleo Gihbsson Lerr Gmbsson BEST ORIGINAL * 'SrkS' /l^v» *iw*"" «»,»!?" • " '"''.'/V*«*^V i** .t- . ' \A * v -' »• Kira Linberg From: marnfrancis@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:51 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department , City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: To: Carlsbad City Council Fr: Marianne Franis 7689 Sitio Algodon Carlsbad CA 9009 Re: Future development of shopping center located on Rancho Santa Fe Rd and LaCosta Blvd. I would like to urge the city council not to allow any useless plans for this massive project given the poor economy, in which so many businesses are failing. There is a huge inventory of empty office and retail space, along with rising interest rates, and a glut of houses on the market with no buyers. This is not the time to build a "white elephant" in a residential neighborhood especially as all the citizens shopping needs are met just driving down El Camino Real. Bressi Ranch shopping center still looks like a ghost town, yet a better planning effort was made as this project is not such an eyesore for its neighbors. What went wrong with the planning of this project - Walmart? Let me know when I need to sell and get out of LaCosta Oaks so I won't have to stress about the immense traffic and noise. Thank you for your consideration, Marianne Francis - a homeowner who has invested $2.5M in my home which is now worth $1M because of the poor economy. Marianne Franis 7689 Sitio Algodon Carlsbad, CA 92009 marnf rancisffiaol . com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.0.3705) 75.42.168.74 Andrea Dykes From: paul@biomedicapartners.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 8:50 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Regarding the La Costa Town Center project discussed on 8/11, the message from the citizens is clear. This is the wrong project. The issues are many and all are credible but the major one is the safety of our children. Approval of the current project would put them in unacceptable danger and would constitute criminal negligence on the part of the city and the developer. La Costa Canyon HS, Mission Estancia primary school and La Costa Heights Primary school students and parents would have to negotiate over-congested traffic on La Costa Ave from Romeria to RSF road and on RSF road itself, all directly caused by this ill conceived project. The mitigation proposed by the developer is not sufficient and increased accidents and injuries will occur due to the size of this project. We as citizens do not think the risk is justified by a project that is clearly beyond the scope of any perceptible need. There is a grass roots coalition already in place prepared and capable of taking a number of actions including a recall of the members of the Council that vote for this as well as the filing of lawsuits against the relevant parties to stop this project. Our opposition, as you heard on 8/11 is based on, and can be mitigated by dealing with, the following aspects of the proposed project: 1- Removal of the 98,000 sq ft big box store; 2- Retaining the NW corner original zoning and replacing the 128 condo units with SF homes; 3- Reducing the 55,000sq ft office space to 30,000 sq ft; 4- Reducing the remaining retail space by 30% for a total of 130,000 sq ft. These actions would reduce the danger to our Children and it is on this basis that we will take all the necessary actions to make this project safer and compatible with our neighborhood. Thank you and we will see you on 8/18. Paul Marangos 7402 Cadencia Street Carlsbad, CA 92009 paul@biomedicapartners.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 76.176.10.211 Andrea Dykes From: djb83@netzero.net Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:40 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD j CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Dear Mayor and City Council, As one who attended and spoke at the meeting held on August 11, let me first thank you for your patience and forbearance. Clearly some citizens are not accustomed to holding their tongues until the appropriate time to speak has come. However, given the circumstance one can understand their frustration. One observation I would like to make is that while Mr. Lynch made his presentation, he repeatedly used the pronoun "we", making it seem as if he were working for the developer. Isn't the primary responsibility of anyone who works in government,at any level, to the citizens? We who live nearby the proposed development and who would be most affected by it, both in the construction phase and afterwards, are most upset by the apparent disregard for our opinions. When we met with representatives of the developer 3 years ago at a neighborhood home, we were given a presentation that was remarkably close to that given at the latest meeting. Some changes have been made...the movie thea! ter is gone. That must mean that changes can (and in my opinion SHOULD) be made. We are not completely opposed to the development of this location; however, when we are presented with specious reasoning, fantasy scenarios, and bogus statistics all used to justify proceeding, what are we to think? It certainly appears the project is being railroaded through. Fortunately based on some of the comments made by City Council members near the close of the meeting, we can be encouraged that our voices will be heard. We do not need and do not want a large-box store in our neighborhood. This would clearly NOT be a local store and, as was pointed out,violated your own stated principles. Furthermore, we do not need and do not want a zoning change to put high-density condos right next to single family homes. This is ludicrous. Certainly a better more suitable location can be found. It seems as if we are paying the price Don Burton 7450 Esfera Street, djb83@netzero.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0;.NET CLR 2.0.50727) 66.81.159.185 Andrea Dykes From: djb83@netzero.net Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:44 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: for the lack of accountability for prior developments in other parts of Carlsbad. We implore you, please consider the effect this project as proposed will have on the lives of the citizens of Carlsbad. It will NOT improve them. A smaller scale shopping center that might serve the neighborhood would be fine. I would also like to point out another piece of specious reasoning. ..to claim that the center is "walkable" for people in the neighborhood defies logic. Have you ever walked up and down the hills around here? No one other than a sherpa would walk back and forth to this center from our side of RSF Rd and certainly not carrying bags of groceries. No, IF anyone chooses to shop here, they'll be driving. This is California after all. Don Burton / dib83@netzero.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 66.81.159.185 Andrea Dykes From: alcor1@pacbell.net Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:08 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: My wife, Martha, and I have lived in La Costa (3311 La Costa Ave.) for the past 20 years. We love the area and our home. Unfortunately, we have had front row, ringside seats to view and experience the increased traffic congestion and attendant problems created by the growth and development in our area. Where once we were surrounded by buclic natural beauty of open space with cattle grazing and a multude of canyon trails to hike and walk our dogs, we now face the daily hazard of surviving an exit from our driveway onto the steady stream of traffic on La Costa Ave. I note that we are not NIMBYS. In fact, I can commiserate with the LCTS developers since before my retirement, I was a principal and the attorney for Cornelius Ranch Estates, Inc, a subdivision development company in Crest during the 1976-1992 era. It took us 15 years to get final map aproval which entailed a 55% lot density reduction the added expense to us of improving the county road which bordered our property in order to eliminate a traffic hazard ("dead man's curve"). This major road improvement caused us to lose two lots entirely and to separate four other lots as contiguous to our subdivision parcel. Given the fact that the traffic problems in this area cannot be mitigated, it seems totally impractical and certainly not in the best interests of the Carlsbad community to allow a regional-size shopping center with large box retail space and multi-unit cono units to be built at the proposed site. Given the current economic conditions the watch word should be less, not more. Scale this development down. In closing, I note an article in the U-T Our North County section (8/14/09)wherein Westfield LLC has been forced to abandon its "... massive expansion plans at Westfield North County mall..." due to "...the recession and the bankruptcies of many traditional retailers." Thank you, Robert and Martha Baron Robert Baron 3311 La Costa Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 alcorl@pacbell.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618) 99.136.234.150 Andrea Dykes From: lynn.mccabe@sharp.com Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:53 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: I attended the City Council meeting Aug llth and was impressed as to how many residents appose the planned LCTS and what was reported by the EIR. I am strongly opposed to the LCTS. We have enough empty building is Encinitas and Carlsbad and would like to see those filled first. If the center does go in, I want to add my name to the list that opposes a "big box" department store and 2 gas stations. No where in Carlsbad or Encinitas are there 2 gas stations so close together unless it is in a massive commercial area. This area of Carlsbad is quaint and as private as it should be, please, please do not commercialize it. The other area I appose is the multifamily housing west of the new rancho Santa fe road. This was zoned for single family dwellings and should stay that way. Please reconsider what is best for our city. Look into the future, what will this do to our area, in the long run. Please do not look for immediate gratification.I plan to live in Carlsabd til I retire, between the 2 on us in our family we make over 300K. We will move if this is built up in such a way as is proposed by the developers. Please consider us homeowners when you make up your mind whether to improve our city or tear it down.Thankyou Lynn McCabe 3427 Corte Aciano Carlsbad, ca 92009 usa lvnn.mccabe@sharp.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.l; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NETCLR 3.5.30428; CSVT:1AB40005Z20000000000RKTQ40QINF) 76.176.10.28 Andrea Dykes From: pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 3:54 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Just say " NO " to a big box store nad regional shopping center! How about having the Carlsbad Mall fixed up ...it is an eyesore and a disgusting place to shop. Your citizens are always telling you to slow down, down -size and relieve the traffic congestion. Why does it always seen that people in power do not listen and give out "token " responses. Penny Johnson 1360 Hillview Ct. Carlsbad, Ca 92008 USA pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB5; .NETCLR 1.1.4322) 76.176.213.26 Andrea Dykes From: vitalos13@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:02 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Dear Mayor and Council members- We recently bought property in La Costa. We like it the way it is: a residential, family oriented community. We do not need a shopping center in our beautiful community. Our family opposes LCTC and any and all developments of such magnitude in La Costa. Thank you. Vital Osegueda 3339 del Rio Ct. Carlsbad, Ca 92009 619-602-5700 vitalosl3@yahoo.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; GTB6; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618) 66.74.196.78 Kir a Lin berg From: pcb@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 12:49 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: re: LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE OUTREACH POOR Aspen Properties outreach, contrary to the assertions of their lawyers, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, were not excellent, nor were they all encompassing. As reported in The La Costa Breeze, they did not have meetings with any of the neighborhoods north of La Costa Avenue except one at a mortgage broker's* home on Cadencia St. (about 15 people attended) a few blocks from which I live, and which I nor any of my neighbors heard about, nor did they have a meeting with neighborhoods northeast of La Costa Canyon HS, such as The Ranch, with $2 million homes directly above all the proposed lights and noise and big imposing structures. You should not be surprised that so many people are now alarmed and outraged at the intrusion of a regional shopping center into our upscale neighborhoods. Furthermore, we have been told by attendees that at the few presentations the developer did have, that survey cards were misleading, the impression was this was a "done deal", and that their in! put was to say which stores they would like to see there! Pat Bleha, 3209 Fosca St., Carlsbad CA 92009 *PS: This mortgage broker, and her husband have been trying to sell their house during this past year on and off so I think this indicates they don't have too much interest in our neighborhoods, like those of us who have lived here for 20 or 30+ years. Patricia Bleha 3209 Fosca St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 pcb(3sbcglobal. net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 75.42.162.214 Kira Linberg From: David.Calder@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:01 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: PLEASE DON'T approve La Costa Town Square AB#19,935. -High density homes in this area does not make sense nor does it fit in the community. -Traffic on neighboring street (mostly LaCosta the most obvious connection to the freeway) is TOO congested already. -Poor Economy and empty/bankrupt nearby stores doesn't puts the project at risk. -Limited WATER resources in Olivenhein can NOT support the shopping center nor residential 192+ homes/condos. Please find a more acceptable use of this land with much less impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Please just say NO. David Calder 3418 Corte Brezo Carlsbad, Ca 92009 David. Calder(a)sbcelobal. net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 157.127.124.15 Kira Linberg From: david.calder@ngc.com Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:20 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: to The CITY Council: Please DISAPPROVE La Costa Town Square proposal. -High Density Homes do NOT fit the community. -Traffic on La Costa is too crowded. -Bad Economy combined with empty/bankrupt stores in the area put the new development at risk. -State II drought conditions within Olivenhein water district can't be resolved without dramatically impacting the wider community. Please ask for a more reasonable development plan without so many waivers to existing zoning rules. Just say no. Dave Calder Carlsbad, CA 92009 david. calder(Sngc. com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 157.127.124.15 Kira Linberg From: lagavins@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:57 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: I live just a couple of blocks from the proposed shopping center and I am absolutely., positively against this. Shopping malls should always be located within % mile of a major freeway, think of all the best malls in San Diego county, they're all located near a freeway. Their convenience is what makes them so popular. We already have a really good mall, Carlsbad Company stores at Palomar and 5 and Westfield Plaza at 78 near the 5. You will be pulling shoppers from these two shopping centers, creating traffic which is much more than you bargain for in the La Costa area. I've noticed you only do traffic studies during the summer months, traffic is much heavier during the school year. There is more than enough shopping close by, we have the Forum within 2 miles, there is a small mall at Camino De La Coches, another at La Costa and El Camino Real, the two shopping centers I mentioned above and lots of shopping in Encinitas. I do not leave these two areas to shop in other cities, it's not necessary. I can find everything I need here. You would be better off encouraging or offering incentives to the owner of the mall at 78 to renovate. It's located near two major freeways and easy to access for Carlsbad, Encinitas, San Marcos, Oceanside and Vista. You could also encourage the owner of the shopping center on the south side of La Costa and El Camino Real to renovate. Why aren't you trying to increase traffic in existing shopping centers? I don't understand why this city feels compelled to build on every inch of open land when the residents are all screaming enough already! I can't even believe you would consider this when there are so many empty retail buildings nearby (Home Expo, Patio Source, Linens N Things, Circuit City, soon you can include the Metropolitan) and tons of housing which no one is buying. Plus last I heard we have a water shortage problem, this is only going to add to the burden and decrease the standard of living for Carlsbad residents, something all the residents I know are really worried about with this constant, never ending expansion. Vote NO on this shopping center, it not needed or wanted. Lauri Gavin 3107 Quebrada Circle Carlsbad, lagavins(3vahoo. com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) Kira Lin berg From: recce@sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:52 PM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: August 18, 2909 Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council; I'm writing this letter in response to the recent letter from Pat O'day submitted last week that proposes a change to the housing density for the triangular parcel of land. Even thought he is requesting the change from RH to RMH, this is still three times the current existing RLM density. I still have not seen or received any response from Pat O'day or the City's Planning Department regarding the exact reason why this parcel of land needs to be rezoned after 20+ years. Never the less, increasing the density above the current RLM designation will disrupt the cohesiveness of the existing neighborhoods. People have purchased their homes based on the fact that this parcel of land was zoned RLM, and eventually they would have homes comparable to theirs. I know that when RSF road was realigned, both land owners MAG properties and a Canadian holding company (?), exchanged property and money to finalize the deal without the need to make any density changes. After all these years the land use designations have remained the same: RLM, 0 and L. That's it. Why can't the new land owner Aspen properties live with the current designations? They purchased the property knowing full well what the land use designations were. They have never presented any shred of evidence that explains their exact reasons for the change? I have never seen nor heard of a developer coming before the city council without showing any renderings, or analysis to support their request. I'm urging that you vote against changing the land use designation for this parcel of land. We the residents of Carlsbad should not suffer or be impacted by a developer who can't stay within the existing land use designations. RLM homes is still the best land use designation for this ocean view property. If there is a dire need for high density housing then it should be developed along the stretch of land adjacent to the east side of RSF. This will not only act as a sound barrier to the new and existing RLM homes east of RSF road, but the residence of the high density housing will be in walking distance of the La Costa Town Square shopping center. By keeping high density housing next to retail, it will be in compliance to the spirit of the Carlsbad Master plan. Regards, Alan Recce Alan Recce 7442 Trigo Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009 US recce(Ssbcglobal. net Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; Uj Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 71.136.57.1 To: Members of the Carlsbad County Council August 18.2009 From: Nancy Curry - 3325 Cabo Way Thank you for reading our letters and e-mail and for listening to all of us speak. Please consider this e-mail to be my impassioned plea for an OVERPASS to safeguard all who would walk, bike or use scooters to get to the La Costa Town Square Shopping Center if it is built. I chose one topic to speak on last week so that I could do a thorough job. I provided data regarding the viability of solar and asked you to make a stronger statement to the developer to use of active solar technology and complementary architecture. I also asked you to task the Planning Department to draft regulations for the use of active solar panels and additional technology in new construction. Thank you for your consideration. However, there was only one person who spoke of the need for a pedestrian overpass on Rancho Santa Fe Road. I wish I had spoken for the overpass instead. I could have found data to support the need. Use of more solar and green materials is important, but safety for children, adults and teens is literally matters of life and death. I called the Planning Department regarding an overpass soon after I heard about the La Costa Town Square project. Van Lynch said it was not part of the project. He also gave me a litany of reasons why an overpass wasn't practical. Some of those reasons were: • people wouldn't walk to use it and would cross at the easiest light, • children with bikes and skate boards would do the same, • it would be a magnet for graffiti, • there would be risk of suicide unless there was substantial fencing, • fencing would degrade the aesthetics of the area. I did not push on the issue and I regret very much that I did not. With the addition of twenty-five to twenty- seven thousand additional vehicles per day, the need for a pedestrian overpass is very important. Rancho Santa Fe Road is a six lane roadway, essentially a highway. La Costa Avenue already has far too many accidents and has obvious traffic problems at the intersection with RSF Road at the point at which most adults who want to go to shops and dining will want to cross. It is also the intersection where children will want to cross to get to the "gathering areas," to the homes of friends in the new and old residential areas, and Stagecoach Park. The developer & Planning Department have emphasized walking to & through this center, and the "community building" to be designed into it. The Traffic Study is questionable and does not address pedestrian concerns. Please consider an overpass as an essential part of this project for the safety of Carlsbad residents. > People will want to cross at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue but will choose to use their vehicles instead because of the lack of safety crossing on foot or bike, even at lights. RSF will be a busier six lane highway and the intersection at La Costa Avenue will be worse. > It will be even more dangerous for children to cross RSF Road and La Costa Avenue on foot, bike or skate board, whether to go to the shopping center, to visit friends, go to Stagecoach the park, Mission Estancia Elementary School and La Costa Heights Elementary School. > Teens will do what they want either on foot, motorized or non-motorized skateboards and scooters, or with their cars increasing the danger for themselves and others. Do we have to wait for people to get killed before we build an overpass? By that time it will be too late for the city to ask the developer to build it or contribute to the building of it. To: Members of the Carlsbad County Council August 18.2009 From: Nancy Curry— 3325 Cabo Way Years ago, as a new resident, I was unaware of the process required to have input to the development process. When I became aware of the decision by the city to realign and widen Rancho Santa Fe Road, my neighbors had been working to make that happen for many many years. When I became aware of it, I contacted the Planning Department and asked about the possibility of an overpass and was told it was not needed. When I became aware of the La Costa Glen development, I again called the Planning Department about the possibility of an overpass and was told it hadn't been negotiated with the developer and the city would not pay for one. I was concerned that with the added traffic of the combination of these projects, that crossing Rancho Santa Fe Road would become substantially more dangerous, especially for children on the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Children who would normally be old enough to go to Stagecoach park, the elementary school, and neighborhoods on the east side of the RSF Road would not be able to safely cross. My children were never allowed to go to the park unless I was available to take them. What a shame that my children had a such a wonderful place to play (unlike anything I ever had growing up) and friends in the apartment complex across RSF but couldn't go unless I was available to take them and pick them up again. I was not being "over protective," I was being a "responsible" parent, and my children were aware enough not to argue. With the added traffic, now more than ever, we need an overpass. There are several reasons that the project known as La Costa Town Square should not be approved. The overwhelming opposition expressed by person after person who spoke at Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting indicate the will of the people. One person who spoke in favor of the project said that instead of complaining we should work with the developer. While this sounds good in theory, the fact is in spite of overwhelming opposition to ideas such as having two water wasting water features; the developers insist that the only way to make that area attraction is to spray potable water up into the air on hot dry days to that it can evaporate. Suggestions as to art, xeriscape and other solutions are simply rejected. Other suggestions that could truly make this project a forward thinking showcase such as solar are rejected. It certainly seems that the developers are bound and determined to do whatever these please regardless of input from the community. There are certainly many opinions that could be debated, but there are some facts that indicate that traffic will cause this project to be a major hardship for many in the community. I draw your attention to what was written in the traffic EIR: Page 23 states: "La Costa Town Square © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Aspen Properties December 23, 2008 000704 3-9 000704_Report_H.doc As shown in Table 3-3, three roadway segments are operating at unacceptable levels of service. Rancho Santa Fe Road between Island Drive and Melrose Drive currently operates at LOS E. The City of San Marcos have identified this segment as being deficient, but has determined that widening is infeasible". In other words we know this area is a problem and we know it will get worse and yet the solution is, "infeasible" Then there is what was not written in the traffic EIR. I draw your attention to page 26 intersection 13, being the intersection of La Costa Ave and Rancho Santa Fe and pg 28, intersection 27, being the intersection of La Costa Ave and Cadencia. What is missing are the intersections that are really between and yet not studied or mentioned. In particular there are the intersections of La Costa Ave and Dehesa Court, the intersection of La Costa Ave and Esfera Road, and the intersection of La Costa Ave and Caloma Circle. There are hundreds of families that live on these three roadways. Each and every family will be adversely impacted by increased vehicle traffic on La Costa Ave. Some of these impacts will only the longer waiting times necessary to make right turns and longer wait times to make left turns. Some of these impacts are statistically bound to include collisions with other vehicles (being that by August of 2009 there have already been 128 vehicular accidents). These accidents cause damage to vehicles, property and persons. With the significant increase in ADT on La Costa the number of these incidents will surely increase. Inevitably these accidents will include fatalities. The cost of a human life is too great a price to pay for the convenience of this regional shopping mall. There are other errors in the Traffic EIR, such as being done in the month of July when all three schools that will be impacted were not in session. I find it interesting that it was said that the studies are always done in July and that the number of trips is actually higher. This must mean that they have data from other months (otherwise how could they know July was higher). So why if they have data from other months was data from a month when schools were in session not used. Again I urge you to vote that the Traffic EIR not be certified. Sincerely, Ronald J. Cohen-Dechter, 3325 Cabo Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Kira Linberg From: Rob Houston Sent: Tuesday, August 1 8, 2009 9: 1 2 AM To: Kira Linberg Cc: Bonnie Elliott Subject: FW: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US Bonnie, I am forwarding this and your other email to Kira who is tracking all of the La Costa Town Shopping Center comments. Please send any future items to her. Thanks, Rob. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Elliott On Behalf Of carlsbadtriathlon Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 5:30 PM To: Rob Houston Subject: FW: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US Hi Rob, Who should I send these to? Bonnie ----- Original Message ----- From: janiebeve@aol.com [mailto:janiebeve@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 2:24 PM To: carlsbadtriathlon Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Carlsbad Triathlon. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Carlsbad City Council: I want to register my opposition to what is planned for the "La Costa Town Shopping Center and accompanied housing projects. This building exceeds the property and needs of La Costa. We already have affordable housing. The condominium project is excessive and will add further congestion to already overcrowded highways leading to overdeveloped neighborhoods. We are under drought conditions that seem unimportant to this impending development. A multistoried condominium is NOT in keeping with the La Costa we have now. I would like to know that the shops will reflect the spirit and continuity of La Costa. I am led to believe that our neighborhood is going to be saddled with the noise, traffic, lights, congestion of a strip mall that belongs on a highway rather than in quiet residential neighborhoods. I think most people now have watches or clocks on their cell phones. I question the value of lauding "a clock tower" rather than letting the citizens know the stores you have planned for what I consider to be a redundant mall. Let us know what Big Box entity is going to dominate the shopping area. Additionally, following the blasting for the State Highway (Rancho Santa Fe Road expansion), several families had their lives and homes disrupted by a slope slide. The slide was a result of the blasting which disrupted existing underground water which eventually saturated yards and the resulting Agua Dulce Slope Slide. Thank you for your attention to these and other crucial details. Yours truly, Dane S. Beveridge Dane Beveridge 3318 Dorado Place Carlsbad, CA 92009 United States 1aniebeve(3aol.com Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Uj PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/530.19.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.2 Safari/530.19 75.20.176.103 Kira Linberg From: Rob Houston Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:12 AM To: Kira Linberg Subject: FW: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US ----- Original Message ----- From: Bonnie Elliott On Behalf Of carlsbadtriathlon Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 5:30 PM To: Rob Houston Subject: FW: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US Here's another one.... Bonnie ----- Original Message ----- From: rich@richvanevery.com [mailto:rich@richvanevery.com] Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:14 PM To: carlsbadtriathlon Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Carlsbad Triathlon. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: NO BIG BOX and NO REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER Keep the bigger picture in mind. Carlsbad has been honorable in many ways. . .Please keep it that way. With Soul and Presence, RVE Rich Van Every 2977 Ridgefield Ave carlsbad, CA 92010 USA richQrichvanevery . com Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/530.19.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.2 Safari/530.19 76.176.116.89 FROM : FfiX NO. Dear Mr. Mayor and Carlsbad City Council Members Re: La Costa Town Square Proposal Revision of August 14 Letter August 18 2009 Please disregard my Aug. 14 letter and accept this in place of it. I. speak for the North County Advocates who have all reviewed, contributed and agree with what is below. The message from the citizens at the packed 3/1 1 Council meeting is clear This is the wrong project and 90% «• of your constituents are against it! The issues are many; traffic, unacceptable zoning changes, the total about-face of the previous published Council position against BIG BOX stores, water supply issues, air pollution and over-building with redundancy we do not need. All of these negatives of the currently proposed project are credible but I want to focus on the most important issue that really constitutes the bottom line: the safety of our children. Approval of the current project would put them in unacceptable danger. La Costa Canyon High School, Mission Estancia Primary School and La Costa Heights Primary School are all less than a half mile from the focal traffic point of this center. Twenty five thousand extra cars per day will be in that tiny area which already is in gridlock when schools are in session (a time in which your traffic study was NOT conducted). The new traffic will wreck havoc with an already dangerous situation and very likely result in a near chaos situation nearly every day of the year, except in July when your traffic survey was conducted. The mitigation proposed by the developer is clearly not sufficient and three major schools will be at great risk for about 180 days each year. According to the Carlsbad Police dept (we have the printout) there have already been 128 accidents on La Costa Ave between El Camino and RSF road in 2009 YTD. We do not think the increased risk to child safety is justified by a project that is clearly beyond the scope of any perceptible need, A "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be generated by the Council on many of the issues above, the justification of which does not exist because we do not need such.a large center. There is already too much shopping available in the area as evidenced by all the vacancies in existing shopping areas. The same holds for the substantial office space which is also an un-needed part of this project. The office space in the Henrys plaza 500 yards from the proposed project is still largely empty three years post completion. The North County Advocates is composed of long term residents dedicated to preserving the quality and safety of our beloved La Costa. Our opposition to this inappropriate project is based on and can be.mitiqated by dealing with the following aspects of the proposed project: 1- Removal of the 98,000 sq, ft. big box store 2- Retain the NW corner zoning and accommodate the low income housing, at a reduced number, elsewhere in the project. 3- Reducing the 55,000 sq. ft. office building to 20,000 sq. ft. 4- Reduce the remaining retail space by 30% for a total of 130,000 sq. ft. 5- Delete one gas station. 6- Provide more green space. These actions would reduce the danger to our children, mitigate the need for the numerous Overriding Considerations justifications and make the project more compatible with the road infrastructure and the community. I would ask you to please consider these modifications to the project to preserve the safety of our community, it is our desire to work constructively with both the Council and the developer to make this the right and safest project for the community. kind consideration of this extremely important matter aul J. Marangos PhD 7402 Cadencia Street Carlsbad CA 92009 760-944-4570 / 619-787-4083 (M) Kira Linberg From: Sent: To: Subject: rxman42@yahoo.com Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:14 AM Council Internet Email CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US AGENDA ITEM # (C) c: Mayor City Council fJtv IVf nnnopr City Attorney City Clerk A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. #**#####***#***#*#*******#*#***#**#*********** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ####*###****************#**##*******#***###*## Below, please find the information that was submitted: I would like to express my opinion regarding the rezoning of the parcel of land bordering Paseo Lupino and Rancho Santa Fe Rd to high density. I am in favor of the La Costa Town Square but I do not favor having a "big box" retailer that would attract a lot of traffic from out of the area and not fit in with the concept of a pedestrian type shopping center that is geared towards locals walking to the town square. I also do not understand why we need two gas stations for a shopping plaza that is geared to attract local residents walking to the stores! Finally, I am strongly opposed to rezoning the current low density property mentioned above to high density. I live less than a block away from this parcel and there is no buffer between the existing low density homes and the 3 story 128 unit that is being placed right next to expensive single family residences. When I bought my home, I was told this would be an office building. If I were told that it would be high density low income housing I never would have moved here. This will cause increased traffic on Calle Conifera (my street). It is unfair and this unit does not fit in with the until now well planned community. Please do not spoil our dream home. The high density belongs adjacent to the shopping area, not right next to single family homes. I appreciate your careful consideration. Jeffrey Geiger 7378 Calle Conifera Carlsbad, Ca 92009 USA rxman42(ayahoo.com Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073021 Firefox/3.0.13 76.176.190.102 Kira Linberg From: jcharest@katzandassociates.com Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:40 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Re: La Costa Town Center. My home backs up to the new hiking train, the old Rancho Santa Fe Rd (Thank you for moving RSF Rd. out of my backyard!). Behind me now is the large pad meant for residential development. I don't oppose this, although it would be more compatible with the neighborhood to have single family dwellings there. I support this shopping center and hope it will move forward quickly. Claims of a "regional" shopping center are, as you know, irrational, as are many of the opinions expressed at last night's meeting. I believe it is the right size and will make La Costa at least a little more walkable. I could use the exercise. I know from attending the public workshop, listening to the Planning Commission meeting and reading comments in the media that there is strong community support for this center. It is particularly disingenuous of La Costa Oaks residents in that brand new community to be complaining about the development, given the fact that their neig! hborhood was open space and generating no traffic just a handful of years ago. Sincerely, Doe Charest Doe Charest 3347 Del Rio Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92009 1charest(o)katzandassociates. com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 38.96.15.218 Kira Linberg From: m92ocanna@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:27 AM To: Council Internet Email Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. ********************************************** FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: After watching the complete coverage of the hearing on La Costa Town Center, there are a few things that absolutely must be addressed prior to any kind of approval. We live across the street from La Costa Heights Elementary School. It should be mandatory to do the traffic test during the school year both for the elementary school traffic and the high school. Duly might have higher traffic on 1-5, but it certaintly does not in residential areas. Don't allow them to get away with that outrageous statement. The project simply needs to be downsized. You must acknowledge all the empty buildings in the area, including in the Henry's market center off Calle Barcelona, and the Trader Doe's/Stater Bros off Palomar Airport Road. Please do not be pressured into voting on this project without honest input. If it takes a few more months to thoroughly investigate and redo the plans, please do your citizens a favor and do not rush to judgment. Thank you. Margaret O'Canna 3036 Levante St. Carlsbad, Ca 92009 USA m92ocanna@aol. com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; GTB6; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729) 66.74.194.220 .. .. ^ AGENDA ITEM # IMarilyn Strong ,. MQM, — From: Lisa Gill [lisamariegill@sbcglobal.net] City Council Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:09 PM City Manager To: Marilyn Strong City Attorney Subject: Tonight's Agenda-La Costa Development City Clerk j^pmtry•a* Hi Marilyn, Leslie Sippel-Saldana, Ann Kulchin's daughter said I should contact you with my concerns so that hopefully you can forward them on to Ann and the rest of the council since they are in closed session right now. I am hoping to attend tonight's meeting but am not sure whether Mayor Lewis is going to allow speakers. My concern is this: Everytime the city has done a traffic study they have done so during a holiday break or, as is the case this last time, in the middle of summer. What about when the high school traffic starts as well as the 2 local elementary schools and those commuters that take La Costa Ave as a short-cut to CSSMU and Palomar College? I live on La Costa Ave. adjacent to Quinta Street and traffic is already a nightmare. We have had two rollovers in the last 6 months alone right in front of our house. 45 mph is too high of a speed limit given that there is a blind curve from east to west where MULTIPLE accidents have occured. I am honestly shocked that the city hasn't been sued over this issue as it has been addressed numerous times at the council level with no action whatsoever taken. Lowering the speed limit of course will only mask the problem as speeders don't obey the current 45 mph so why should they care about 35 mph? If this project is approved speed bumps and additional traffic lights should be put in place immediately. We are a neighborhood with kids walking to and from schools, parks and with their dogs. We don't need nor want such a huge intrusion upon our community. Thank you ahead of time for helping deliver this taxpayer's concerns to our elected council members. Sincerely, Lisa M. Gill 3011 La Costa Ave Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-942-7473 760-583-5758 LAW OFFICES OF EVERETT L. DELANO III 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, California 92025 . (760) 51 0-1 562 AGENDAITEMfl \(760) 51 0-1 565 (fax) ^ Mayor - CltyConncfl August 18, 2009 , CityManager City Attorney VIA E-MAIL V City Clerk Honorable Mayor and City Council Members " ^x?Qt^ ^>tfodu^ , c/o City Clerk 0 o City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad ViUage Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: La Costa Town Square: EIR 01-02/GPA 01-02/MP 149(RVLFMP 87-1 UCVCT 01-09/CT 08-03/CT 08-07/CP 01-03/PUD 08-09/HDP 01-05/SDP 01-03/SDP 01- 04/V 08-02/CUP 04-18/CUP 08-01/CUP 08-02/CUP 08-03/CUP 08-04/CUP 08- 05/CUP 08-06/CUP 08-07 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates in connection with the proposed La Costa Town Center project ("Project") and the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). Today I received a copy of an August 13, 2009 letter from Patrick O'Day, which indicated that the applicant is proposing revisions to the Project. These revisions are not referenced in the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting, nor are they discussed in the staff report. As such, it appears that notice of consideration of the Project at tonight's meeting is insufficient. An attachment to the letter from Mr. O'Day asserts "that Global Warming impacts are too speculative for evaluation." This is incorrect. As prior comments have noted, several agencies have analyzed global warming impacts as a part of the CEQA process. Indeed, this same consultant (EDAW) has prepared a detailed analysis of such impacts. Enclosed with this letter are selected pages from an analysis prepared by that consultant for a project considered by Carlsbad's immediate neighbor to the south (the City of Encinitas). The attachment also asserts that the City "lacks the legal authority to impose solar panel installation as a Project condition." This is also incorrect. The FEIR acknowledges significant global warming impacts. Requiring the installation of solar panels is an appropriate mitigation measure, as well as an appropriate alternative, to address these impacts. See e.g., Gov. Code § 66473.1; Carlsbad Municipal Code §§ 18.40, 20.12, 20.16, 21.24, 21.31, 21.42 & 21.90. Comments re La Costa Town Square August 18, 2009 Page 2 of2 Accordingly, North County Advocates requests that the City reject the Project and the EIR. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Everett DeLano Enclosure: Selected pages from Hall Property Community Park FEIR (8-22-08) cc: Van Lynch, Planning Dept. Final Program Environmental Impact Report Prepared for: CiTYOFENCiNITAS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 ;:Augusi.22, 2008 HALL PROPERTY COMMUNITY PARK FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Case No. 04-197 Coastal Development Permit/ Major Use Permit/Design Review Permit SCH No. 2004121126 Volume T Prepared for: City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Scott Vurbeff Phone: 760.633.2692 Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 500 San Diego, California 92101 Contact: Bobbette Biddulph, AICP Phone: 619.233.1454 August 22, 2008 19009 5 Cumulative Impacts 5.4.13 Population and Housing Because population and housing are a citywide consideration, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis considers the entire Encinitas area. As discussed in Section 3.13, the proposed Hall Property Community Park project would not result in population growth in Encinitas or the region and thus would not affect population. The project would displace two households; however, these households would be absorbed into the current 4 percent vacancy rate within the city. The project would not create the need for new or additional housing to be constructed. Because the project would have no impact to population and housing, the project's impacts are not cumulatively considerable and the project would not result in a cumulative impact. 5.5 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Although a discussion of global climate change (also referred to herein as "climate change") impacts is not explicitly required by the CEQA Statutes or Guidelines, it is the view, of the State Legislature (as expressed in its adoption of Assembly Bill [AB] 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and the Governor (through the issue of Executive Order S-3-05) that global climate change poses the threat of significant adverse effects to the environment of California and the entire world, and that mitigation measures are needed to limit these impacts. Furthermore, the global scientific community has expressed very high confidence (i.e., at least 90 percent) that global climate change is anthropogenic, i.e., caused by humans, and that global warming will lead to adverse climate change effects around the globe (IPCC 2007). 5.5.1 Existing Conditions Atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and clouds within the Earth's atmosphere influence the Earth's temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation rising from the Earth's sun-warmed surface that would otherwise escape into space. This process is commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect. GHGs and clouds, in turn, radiate some heat back to the Earth's surface and some out to space. The resulting balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from both the Earth's surface and atmosphere keeps the planet habitable. However, anthropogenic emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere enhance the Greenhouse Effect by absorbing the radiation from other atmospheric GHGs that would otherwise escape to space, thereby trapping more radiation in the atmosphere and causing temperature to increase. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a preindustrial (roughly 1 750) value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 379 ppm in 2005, primarily due to fossil fuel use with land use change providing a significant but smaller Hall Property Community Pork Final EIR Page 5-19 03080076 Hall Prop Cornm Pork FEIR 8/08 19341 5 Cumulative Impacts contribution. The annual rate of growth in CO2 concentrations continues to increase, with a larger annual CO2 concentration growth rate during the last 1 0 years (1 995-2005 average: 1.9 ppm), than since the beginning of continuous direct measurements in 1960. Like CO2, the global atmospheric concentration of methane (CH4) in 2005 exceeds its preindustrial value. CH4 growth rates have declined since the early 1990s with total emissions being nearly constant during this period. The observed increase in CH4 concentration is very likely (at least 90 percent likelihood) due to anthropogenic activities, primarily agriculture and fossil fuel use. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 greatly exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. The global concentration of nitrous oxide (N2O) in 2005 also exceeds the preindustrial value. The growth rate in N2O concentration has been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third of all N2O emissions are anthropogenic and primarily due to agriculture. Eleven of the last 12 years from 1995-2006 rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). An increase in global surface temperature of 0.74 °C (0.56 °C to 0.92 °C) occurred during the 100-year period from 1906-2005. The human-produced GHGs responsible for increasing the Greenhouse Effect and their relative contribution to global warming (i.e., their relative ability to trap heat in the atmosphere) are CO2 (53 percent); CH4 (17 percent); near-surface ozone (O3) (13 percent); N2O (12 percent); and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (5 percent). The most common GHG is CO2, which constitutes approximately 84 percent of all GHG emissions in California (CEC 2006). Worldwide, the State of California ranks as the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 (the most prevalent GHG) and is responsible for approximately 2 percent of the world's CO2 emissions (CEC 2006). The increasing emissions of GHGs—primarily associated with the burning of fossil fuels (during motorized transport, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing, etc.) and deforestation, as well as agricultural activity and the decomposition of solid waste—have led to a trend of anthropogenic warming of the Earth's average temperature, which is causing changes in the Earth's climate. This increasing temperature phenomenon is known as global warming and the climatic effect is known as climate change or global climate change. Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants (CAPs) and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. While pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (generally on the order of a few days), GHGs have relatively long atmospheric lifetimes ranging from 1 year to several thousand years. The long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHGs to disperse around the globe. In addition, the impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to the localized air quality effects of CAPs and TACs. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR . Page 5-20 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19342 5 Cumulative Impacts The State Legislature adopted the public policy position that global warming is, "a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California" (Health and Safety Code § 38501). Further, the State Legislature has determined that, "the potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra Nevada snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious disease, asthma, and other human health-related problems," and that, "(g)lobal warming will have detrimental effects on some of California's largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry (and)...will also increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air-conditioning in the hottest parts of the State" (Health and Safety Code § 38501). These public policy statements became law with the enactment of AB 32, Statutes of 2006. 5.5.2 Regulatory Framework International Policies and Regulations The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate changes. The UNFCCC recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. The UNFCCC enjoys near universal membership, with 1992 countries having ratified. Under the UNFCCC, governments: " Gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices. • Launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries. » Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The UNFCCC entered into force on March 21, 1994. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-21 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19343 5 Cumulative Impacts Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the UNFCCC but standing on its own. The Protocol requires developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions below levels specified for each of them in the Protocol. Under the Protocol, the United States, which never ratified it, would have been required to reduce its GHG emissions to 93 percent of 1 990 levels within the 5-year time frame between 2008-2012. Federal Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws House Resolution 6 - The 2007 Energy Bill House Resolution (HR) 6, the 2007 Energy Bill, mandates improved national standards for fuel economy (Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards). These standards require a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) to be achieved by 2020. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is directed to phase-in requirements to achieve this goal. Analysis by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) suggests that this will require an annual improvement of approximately 3.4 percent between now and 2020.10 State Plans, Policies, Regulations, and Laws Assembly Bill 32. the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code S 38500 etseq.) In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, into law. In general, AB 32 directs CARB to do the following: • On or before June 30, 2007, CARB shall publicly make available a list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures that can be implemented prior to the adoption of the statewide GHG limit and the measures required to achieve compliance with the statewide limit. • By January 1, 2008, determine the statewide levels of GHG emissions in 1 990, and adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to the 1 990 level. • On or before January 1, 2010, adopt regulations to implement the early action GHG emission reduction measures. ' www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/abl 493_v_cafe_study.pdf Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-22 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19344 5 Cumulative Impacts " On or before January 1, 2011, adopt quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable emission reduction measures by regulation that will achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit by 2020, to become operative on January 1, 2012, at the latest. The emission reduction measures may include direct emission reduction measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentives that reduce GHG emissions from any sources of categories of sources as CARB finds necessary to achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit. • CARB shall monitor compliance with and enforce any emission reduction measure adopted pursuant to AB 32. AB 32 also takes into account the relative contribution of each source or source category to protect adverse impacts on small businesses and others by requiring CARB to recommend a de minimis threshold of GHG emissions below which emissions reduction requirements would not apply. AB 32 also allows the governor to adjust the deadlines mentioned above for individual regulations or the entire state to the earliest feasible date in the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm. CARB "Early Action Measures" (June 2007) On June 21, 2007, CARB approved a list of discrete early action measures to address climate change as required by AB 32. The three measures include (1) a low-carbon fuel standard, which will reduce the carbon intensity in California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020, thereby reducing total CO2 emissions; (2) reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance through the restriction of "do-it-yourself" automotive refrigerants; and (3) increased CH4 capture from landfills through the required implementation of state-of-the-art capture technologies. CARB Resolution 07-55 (December 2007). The adoption of CARB Resolution 07-55 on December 6, 2007, established 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) as the statewide GHG emissions limit to be achieved by 2020 as required by AB 32. Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada's snowpack, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-23 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Porfc FE1R 8/08 19345 5 Cumulative Impacts potentially cause a rise in sea levels. In an effort to avoid or reduce the impacts of climate change, Executive Order #5-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, 1 990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The executive order also directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multiagency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary will submit biennial reports to the governor and state legislature describing progress made toward reaching the emission targets established by the executive order and on the impacts of climate change on California, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and shall prepare and report on mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. The first of these reports on the impacts to California, "Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview" (Climate Scenarios report), was published in February 2006 (California Climate Change Center 2006). The Climate Scenarios report uses a range of emissions scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project a series of potential warming ranges (i.e., temperature increases) that may occur in California during the 21st century: lower warming range (3.0 to 5.5 °F); medium warming range (5.5 to 8.0 °F); and higher warming range (8.0 to 10.5 °F). The Climate Scenarios report then presents analysis of future climate in California under each warming range. Each emissions scenario would result in substantial temperature increases for California. According to the report, substantial temperature increases would result in a variety of impacts to the people, economy, and environment of California associated with a projected increase in extreme conditions, with the severity of the impacts depending upon actual future emissions of GHGs and associated warming. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Climate Change Center 2006), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following. Public Health Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to O3 formation are projected to increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background O3 levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55 percent more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-24 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19346 5 Cumulative Impacts In addition, under the higher warming-scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90 °F in Los Angeles and 95 °F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. Wafer Resources A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming scenario, snowpack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities. The state's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta—a major state fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25 percent of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the state (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-25 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19347 5 Cumulative Impacts Agriculture Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California's farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development will change, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate O3 pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth. Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California's agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts, and milk. in addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests' breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates. Forests and Landscapes Global warming is expected to intensify this threat by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90 percent. Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60 to 80 Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-26 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Part FEIR 8/08 19348 5 Cumulative Impacts percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state's forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming. Rising Sea Levels Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the state's coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Senate Bill 1368 (Public Utilities Code 58 8340-41] Senate Bill (SB) 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish a GHG emission performance standard for baseload generation from investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. Similarly, the California Energy Commission (CEC) was tasked with establishing a similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. These standards cannot exceed the GHG emission rate from a baseload combined-cycle natural gas fired plant. The legislation further requires that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet the standards set by the PUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the PUC adopted an interim Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance Standard, which requires that all new long-term commitments for baseload generation entered into by investor-owned utilities have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas turbine plant (i.e., 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour). A "new long-term commitment" refers to new plant investments (new construction), new or renewal contracts with a term of 5 years or more, or major investments by the utility in its existing baseload power plants. In May 2007, the CEC approved regulations that prohibit the state's publicly owned utilities from entering into long-term financial commitments with plants that exceed the standard adopted by the PUC of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. California's Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Program (2005) and Senate Bill 107 (2006) In 2002, California established its Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Program, which originally included a goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent by 2017. SB 107 requires investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) to meet the 20 percent renewable energy goal by 2010. The state's most recent Energy Action Plan (2005) raised the renewable energy goal to 33 percent by 2020. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-27 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19349 5 Cumulative Impacts Senate Bill 1505 SB 1505 of 2006 establishes environmental performance standards for the production and use of hydrogen fuel for transportation purposes in the state. In general, SB 1 505 specifically requires that hydrogen-fueled vehicles reduce GHG emissions by at least 30 percent compared to emissions from new gasoline vehicles; at least one-third of the hydrogen produced or dispensed for transportation purposes in the state must be made from renewable sources of electricity; well-to-tank emissions of smog-forming pollutants from hydrogen fuel dispended in the state must be reduced by at least 50 percent when compared to gasoline; and emissions of toxic contaminants must be reduced to the maximum extent feasible compared to gasoline on a site-specific basis. Executive Order S-20-04 - The California Green Building Initiative Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-20-04 ("The California Green Building Initiative") establishing California's priority for energy and resource-efficient high performance buildings on December 14, 2004. The Executive Order sets a goal of reducing energy use in state- owned and private commercial buildings by 20 percent in 2015 using nonresidential Title 20 and 24 standards adopted in 2003 as the baseline. The California Green Building Initiative also encourages private commercial buildings to be retrofitted, constructed, and operated in compliance with the state's Green Building Action Plan. California Climate Action Registry (Senate Bills 1771 and 527) The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) was established in 2001 by SB 1 771 and SB 527 as a nonprofit voluntary registry for GHG emissions. The purpose of CCAR is to help companies and organizations with operations in the state establish GHG emissions baselines against which any future GHG emissions reduction requirements may be applied. CCAR has developed a general reporting protocol and additional industry-specific protocols that provide guidance on how to inventory GHG emissions for participation in the registry. Senate Bill 97 SB 97, signed August 2007, directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, for evaluation under CEQA by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency is required to certify or adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. This bill also protects projects (retroactive and future) funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality Hall Properly Community Park Final EIR Page 5-28 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19350 5 Cumulative Impacts and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1 B or 1 E) from claims of inadequate analysis of GHGs as a legitimate cause of action. This latter provision will be repealed on January 1, 2010. Assembly Bill 1493 In 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed AB 1493. AB 1493 required CARB to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve "the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state." To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding GHG emission standards to California's existing motor vehicle emission standards in 2004. Amendments to CCR Title 13 Sections 1900 (CCR 13 ] 900) and 1961 (CCR 13 1961) and adoption of Section 1961.1 (CCR 13 1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet average GHG emission limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weight classes beginning with the 2009 model year. Emission limits are further reduced each model year through 2016. Emission requirements adopted as part of CCR 13 1961.1 are shown in Table 5-3. For passenger cars and light-duty trucks 3,750 pounds (Ibs) or less loaded vehicle weight (LVW), the 2016 GHG emission limits are approximately 37 percent lower than during the first year of the regulations in 2009. For medium-duty passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks 3,751 LVW to 8,500 Ibs gross vehicle weight (GVW), GHG emissions are reduced approximately 24 percent between 2009 and 2016. Table 5-3. Fleet Average GHG Exhaust Emission Requirements Included in CCR 13 1961.1 Fleet Average GHG Emissions (grams per mile CO^equivalents] Vehicle Model Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 1 Specific CCR 13 All Passenger Cars; Light-Dirty Trucks 0-3,750 Ibs loaded vehicle weight (LVW)1 323 301 267 233 227 222 213 205 Characteristics of Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, 1 900 as amended to comply with AB 1 493. Light-Duty Trucks 3,751 Ibs LVW to 8.500 Ibs gross vehicle weight (GVW); Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles' 439 420 390 361 355 350 341 332 and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles are provided in Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-29 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19351 5 Cumulative Impacts In December 2004 a group of car dealerships, automobile manufacturers, and trade groups representing automobile manufacturers filed suit against CARS to prevent enforcement of CCR 13 1900 and CCR 13 1961 as amended by AB 1493 and CCR 1 3 1961.1 (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep et al., v. Catherine E. Witherspoon, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board, et al.). The suit, heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contended that California's implementation of regulations that in effect regulate vehicle fuel economy violates various federal laws, regulations, and policies. In January 2007, the judge hearing the case accepted a request from the State Attorney General's office that the trial be postponed until a decision is reached by the U.S. Supreme Court on a separate case addressing GHGs. In the Supreme Court- Case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, the primary issue in question is whether the federal Clean Air Act provides authority for EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts' favor, holding that GHGs are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. On December 11, 2007, the judge in the Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep case rejected each plaintiff's arguments and ruled in California's favor. On December 19, 2007, the EPA denied California's waiver request. California filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA's denial on January 2, 2008. California's waiver request has not been granted as of this writing. California Solar Initiative As part of the California Solar Initiative, the state has set a goal to create 3,000 megawatts of new solar-produced electricity by 201 7 through the provision of approximately $3.3 billion in incentives to existing residential customers and all nonresidential customers by the PUC and to new residential customers by the CEC. Local Plans and Programs The City does not have any adopted plans or programs specifically designed to address the emission of GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The City recently formed the Encinitas Environmental Committee to advise the City Council regarding policies and actions related to environmental issues. This new committee is still in the process of formalizing a mission statement. The Encinitas Environmental Committee shall provide leadership for long-term thinking to address various environmental issues and promote a collaborative process and shared environmental vision between the City, businesses, and citizens. The City Council has approved a "Cool Roof" project to be constructed at City Hall. The project consists of installation of a 95 KW photovoltaic solar array, installation of skylights and solar tubes, an upgraded building energy management system; view enhancements from the adjacent library, Hall Property Community Park Final EIR PQge 5-30 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Part FEIR 8/08 19352 5 Cumulative Impacts educational kiosks and replacement of the existing heating, ventilation and air conditioning system with a central plant and thermal energy storage system. 5.5.3 Cumulative Impact Evaluation The following threshold is used to evaluate the project's GHG emissions for cumulative significance: The proposed project would have a cumulatively significant impact to climate change if it would: Directly and/or indirectly generate a mass of greenhouse gas emissions that would interfere with the ability of the State of California to achieve the. 1990 statewide level of emissions by 2020, an approximately 28.8 percent reduction from a business as usual (BAU) emissions scenario,11 as required by The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Cumulative Effects of Climate Change on the Project The following briefly evaluates the potential effects of climate change on the proposed project: Sea Level Rise The proposed project site is located approximately 0.75 mile to the east of the Pacific Ocean at elevations ranging from 180 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 220 feet MSL. As a result, the proposed project is not considered vulnerable to sea level rise expected to occur as a result of climate change. Wildfire Hazard The proposed project is located within an existing urban area that is not within or in proximity to an area likely to experience a wildfire. As a result, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would be directly impacted by the increased risk of wildfires associated with climate change. 11 A preliminary estimate from the California Air Resources Board indicates that net GHG emissions in 2020 would be 600 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) under a BAU Scenario. (600 MMTCO2e - 427 MMTC02e) = 173MMTCO2e. (173 MMTCO2e/600 MMTCO2e) = 28.8%. http://www.crb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_ report_1990Jevel.pdf. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-31 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19353 5 Cumulative Impacts Public Health As discussed previously, the higher temperatures associated with climate change are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to O3 formation. The increased risk of wildfires could increase the level of particulate matter in the project's air basin. In addition, rising temperatures would increase the risk of illness and death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. The health of users of the proposed park, particularly active users such as sports teams, would potentially be affected by poor air quality conditions and extreme heat. However, projections about these potential impacts were made for the state as a whole. It is not known at this time whether and to what degree climate change will affect the air quality and propensity for extreme heat at the project site. As a result, analyzing the project-level effects of climate change to the health of users of the proposed park is considered speculative under CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. Water Supply Reliability As discussed previously, climate change is expected to reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack and therefore potentially reduce the amount of runoff, which is used as drinking water during the dry spring and winter months. Reduction in the snowpack, as well as potential changes in precipitation patterns, could affect the amount of water conveyed to southern California, including the project site. Providing reliable water supply during increasingly dry years and the overall reduction in water availability as a result of climate change poses a long-term challenge for southern California. SDCWA, which is the main supplier of water to SDWD acknowledges in their 2008 Strategic Plan that climate change and warmer, drier years are making tradjtional sources of water less reliable (SDCWA 2008a). In order to begin to address the potential water supply implication of climate change, the SDCWA Strategic Plan presents a water diversification strategy including conservation, desalination, nonpotable water reuse, and water transfers. SDCWA has also joined in the formation of the Water Utility Climate Alliance which is a coalition of water agencies working to research the impacts of climate change on water utilities, develop strategies for adapting to the change, and reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (SDCWA 2008b). Cumulative Effects of the Project on Climate Change Global climate change is caused by the addition of massive quantities of GHGs to the atmosphere due primarily to human activities in the last 150 years from all over the world. For example, about 26 billion metric tons of CO2 were added to the Earth's atmosphere in 2005 alone. If viewed apart from Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-32 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19354 5 Cumulative Impacts the GHG emissions produced by activities elsewhere in the world, the mass of GHG emissions generated by an individual development project such as the proposed project would be so minute that the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere would essentially remain the same. The increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is caused by the aggregate GHG emissions from a variety of human activities throughout the world, including development projects. Therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate a project's contribution to global climate change in this cumulative, worldwide context. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (CO2, CH4, and N2O, respectively) primarily associated with project-generated vehicle trips; electricity and natural gas consumption of the proposed buildings; energy embodied in potable and recycled water anticipated to be used by the project (i.e., the electricity required to extract, convey, treat, and distribute treated water to the project site); outdoor lighting; and the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. For each source, emissions are estimated for 2020 under the following four scenarios: • Scenario 1: Business as Usual (BAD). This scenario assumes the following: • Current carbon intensities for purchased electricity, natural gas, and motor fuel (i.e., gasoline and diesel). Fleetwide vehicle mix and fuel economy assumptions and building natural gas consumption factors are taken from URBEMIS Version 9.2.4 (URBEMIS). • Current California averages for commercial building electricity consumption factors were used to estimate building electricity demand since averages for the proposed building types are not available. It is assumed that the estimates of building electricity and natural gas consumption represent building energy performance under construction in accordance with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (2005). • The project's electricity demand would be met by electricity purchased from the grid. Estimates for electricity and natural gas demand (at the proposed aquatic center) are based on' analysis performed for similar swimming pools in the City of Carlsbad. The level of project water consumption is consistent with the water demand projections of Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities. The proposed buildings, swimming pools, restrooms, and infield turf irrigation are assumed to require potable water. Landscaping and outfield turf would be irrigated with recycled water. • Outdoor lighting is consistent with the type of lighting used by the City at other parks and recreation facilities. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-33 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Porfc FEIR 8/08 19355 5 Cumulative Impacts « Scenario 2: Implementation of Federal and State Mandates. This scenario assumes full implementation of the following federal and state mandates for 2020 that would result in GHG emissions reductions associated with vehicle trips and electricity consumption: (1) federal CAFE standards requiring average miles per gallon fleetwide of 35 miles per gallon to be achieved by 2020 and (2) the state's 2005 Energy Action Plan goal requirement for investor-owned utilities such as SDG&E to generate 3-3-20_percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 2010. There are currently no adopted local or regional mandates that would reduce the project's GHG emissions in 2020 associated with vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, or the embodied energy of water consumed by the project. • Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures. This scenario evaluates the potential for mitigation measures associated with building and facility demand for natural gas and grid electricity, water, and outdoor lighting demand for electricity that go beyond current requirements (i.e., BAU) to reduce GHG emissions. • Scenario 4: Implementation of Federal and State Mandates and Implementation of Mitigation Measures. This scenario reflects the aggregate emissions associated with implementation of federal and state mandates (Scenario 2) and implementation of mitigation measures (Scenario 3). Vehicle Trips Mefhodo/ogy CO2 emissions associated with project-generated vehicle trips were calculated in tons per year in 2020 using URBEMIS. The results were converted to metric tons per year using the standard conversion rate of 1 ton equals 0.90718474 metric tons. The calculations assume that the project would generate 2,615 average daily trips (ADTs), consistent with Section 5.2, Transportation/Circulation. The project-generated ADTs would result in approximately 15,155 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2020 according to URBEMIS. URBEMIS does not calculate CH4 or N2O emissions, Iwo other GHGs associated with the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel. However, CO2 emissions are considered a good estimate of total GHG emissions from vehicle trips since CH4 and N2O represent a negligible portion of the GHGs associated with the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel compared to CO2. Resu/fe As shown in Table 5-4, project vehicle trips would annually generate approximately 2,606 metric tons of CO2 (MTCO2) in 2020 under the BAU Scenario. CO2 emissions associated with project vehicle Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-34 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19356 5 Cumulative Impacts trips were also calculated under implementation of the new federal CAFE standards requiring average miles per gallon fleetwide of 35 miles per gallon to be achieved by 2020 (Scenario 2). The new federal CAFE standards are projected to reduce GHG emissions of the California fleet mix (passenger cars and light duty vehicles) by approximately 30 percent in 2020 according to a technical assessment of the standards prepared by CARB.12 Project vehicle trips would annually generate approximately 1,817 MTCO2 in 2020 with implementation of the new CAFE standards, approximately 30 percent less than under the BAU Scenario. Table 5-4. Projected Annual GHG Emissions from Project Vehicle Trips in 2020 Project Vehicle Trips Emissions Scenario Scenario 1 : BAU Scenario 2: Implementation of CAFE Standards Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Scenario 4: CAFE Standards + Mitigation Measures ADTs 2,615 2,615 2,615 2,615 Annual VMT 15,155 15,155 15,155 15,155 Annual GHG Emissions in 2020 ' (Tons CO,) 2,873 2,002 2,873 2,002 (MTCCy 2,606 1,817 2,606 •1,817 Percent Change from BAU n/a -30.3% 0.0% -30.3% Source: URBEMIS Version 9.2.4, 2008; EDAW, 2008. Notes: URBEMIS Version 9.2.4 output is in tons CO2 per year. Results converted to metric tons CO2 using conversion rate of 1 ton = .90718474 metric tons. Scenario 3 indicates that the proposed project does not include any measures or features that would reduce the level of ADTs or VMT associated with the project in a quantifiable manner compared to the BAU Scenario. However, the quantitative estimate of project trip-related GHG emissions is considered a conservative analysis because the park is intended to serve the surrpunding community, the residents of which currently travel outside the community to access existing parks and recreation facilities such as swimming pools and athletic fields. Residents will be able to drive shorter distances and/or walk or bike to access park and recreation facilities than under the existing condition. Thus, the project would reduce the mass of GHG emissions associated with the vehicle trips community members make to access parks and recreation facilities below current levels. Nonetheless, since this reduction cannot be accurately quantified without detailed study that is beyond the scope of this EIR, the quantitative analysis assumes that the project as designed would result in a level of CO2 emissions from vehicle trips consistent with the BAU Scenario. Scenario 4 indicates that the approximately 30 12 Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under U.S. CAFE Standards and California Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Regulations (CARB, February 25, 2008); Table 5: Federal Fuel Economy Standards and Estimated CO2 Emissions in California. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-35 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Paric FEIR 8/08 5 Cumulative Impacts percent reduction in CO2 emissions from vehicles would be entirely attributable to implementation of federal CAFE standards. Building and Swimming Pool Electricity Demand Mefhodo/ogy GHG emissions associated with projected building electricity demand were calculated for year 2020 using current average electricity consumption factors for commercial buildings in the SDG&E service area. Electricity consumption factors for the proposed building types are not currently available. Electricity consumption for the proposed teen center is assumed consistent with a small office (less than 30,000 square feet) and the proposed restrooms are assumed consistent with an unrefrigerated warehouse (the building type with the lowest electricity intensity per square foot). The Electricity Intensity Factors per square foot of commercial use were taken from California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEC 2006).13 Electricity consumption of the proposed aquatic center is assumed consistent with the existing Carlsbad Swim Complex. GHG emissions are calculated in metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent14 (MTCO2e) using CCAR General Reporting Protocol (GRP) Version 2.2 emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O in statewide electricity mix. Emissions factors for these gases from the SDG&E electricity mix are not provided by the CCAR GRP. The Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) for CH4 and N2O were taken from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), consistent with the CCAR GRP. Results As shown in Table 5-5, projected electricity demand for the proposed buildings and swimming pools would annually generate approximately 99 MTCO2e in 2020 under the BAU Scenario. GHG emissions associated with projected building electricity demand were also calculated under the assumption of full implementation of the state's 2005 Energy Action Plan goal requirement for investor-owned utilities to generate 33-20_percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 2010 (Scenario 2). According to the CEC, the average for the statewide electricity mix is 10.9 percent of 13 California Commercial End-Use Survey. California Energy Commission. CEC-400-2006-005. March 2006. 14 CO2e = Carbon Dioxide Equivalent: CO2e is a calculation that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group in order to measure the impact of all GHG emissions. This is necessary because GHGs vary widely in their ability to absorb radiation and trap heat in the atmosphere, which means their power to affect the climate—or their global warming potential—also varies widely. The global warming potential of GHGs is measured relative to the global warming potential of CO2. For example, since CH< and N2O are approximately 21 and 310 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have global warming potentials of 21 and 310 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1). The global warming potential of each GHG is then multiplied by the prevalence of that gos to produce CO2 equivalent. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR - Page 5-36 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19358 5 Cumulative Impacts Table 5-5. Projected Annual GHG Emissions from Electricity Demand in 2020 Land Use Aquatic Center Teen Center Restrooms Scenario 1 : BAU Scenario 2: Implementation of Renewable Portfolio Standard Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Scenario 4: Renewable Portfolio Standard + Mitigation Measures Total Area 5,000 Sf 5,000 Sf 800 Sf no change Source: EDAW, 2008. Notes: Assumes the following CCAR GRP emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O: Assumes the following GWPs from the IPCC's Second Assessment Report: CO2 = 1 ; Annual Electricity Intensity (kWh/sf) n/a 12.13 /si 4.54 /sf n/a Annual Electricity Use (kWh) 206,640 60,650 3,632 270,922 270,922 223,511 223,511 CO2 = 804.54 Ibs/mWh; CH, = 21;N,O = 310. (mWh) 207 61 4 271 271 224 224 CH, = Emissions (Ibs) C02 166,250 48,795 2,922 217,968 198J33 179,823 mfS CH 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0.0067 Ibs/mWh; A N20 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 N2O = 0 Total Emissions (MTC02e) 76 22 1 99 •7-2 90 82 M 2A 0037 Ibs/mWh Percent Change from BAU n/a n/a on 1 Of'•££.. \ 7U -9.1% -17.5% 35 j% VOu>in Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-37 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FE1R 8/08 5 Cumulative Impacts electricity from renewable sources as of 2006, the latest year for which data are available.15 As a result, the calculation assumes an additional 22.1 9.1 percent of grid electricity purchased by the proposed project would be generated from renewable sources (i.e., sources that would have no net GHG emissions). With full implementation of the 33-20_percent g-ooJ-requirement by-2QSO 2010, projected building electricity demand would annually generate approximately -77-90 MTCO2e in 2020, approximately 22-9_percent less than under the BAU Scenario. Scenario 3 assumes that the proposed buildings would achieve energy performance equivalent to a 1 7.5 percent improvement over Title 24 standards (equivalent to 3 points under LEED™ for New Construction Version 2.2 Energy and Atmosphere Credit I16) and reduce electricity demand for the proposed swimming pools by 17.5 percent compared to the Carlsbad Swim Complex. The implementation of this mitigation measure would result in approximately 82 MTCO2e in 2020 from building and swimming pool electricity consumption, approximately 17.5 percent below the BAU Scenario. Scenario 4 indicates that full implementation of the state's 33-22_percent ered-renewable energy requirement by 2020 2010 and energy performance equivalent to a 17.5 percent improvement would reduce CO2e emissions from building and swimming pool electricity consumption to approximately -64-74 MTCO?e in 2020, about 3^-25 percent less than BAU in 2020. Building and Swimming Pool Natural Gas Demand Methodology Natural gas demand associated with the proposed teen center was calculated in tons CO2 per year using URBEMIS. The results were converted to metric tons per year using the standard conversion rate of 1 ton equals 0.9071 8474 metric tons. Natural gas demand associated with the proposed aquatic center is assumed consistent with the existing Carlsbad Swim Complex. Nearly all (about 98 percent) of the project's natural gas demand would be associated with operation of the proposed aquatic center. The remaining natural gas demand (about 1.5 percent) would be associated with the proposed teen center. Results As shown in Table 5-6, the proposed project would generate approximately 174 MTCO2 in 2020 under the BAU scenario. There are no federal, state, regional or local standards that would reduce '5www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_resource_mix_pie_charts/index.html. Although the percentage of renewable energy within the SDG&E portfolio is known, the emission factors for CO2, CH<; and N2O for the SDG&E portfolio are not known. As a result, this analysis assumes the statewide averages for percentage renewable energy within the electricity mix and for CO2, CH<, and N2O emission factors. '6http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPagelD=220#v2.2. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-38 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19360 5 Cumulaiive Impacts Table 5-6. Projected Annual GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Demand in 2020 Annual Natural Gas Intensity Land Use Teen Center Aquatic Center Scenario 1 : BAD Scenario 2: Implementation of State/Federal Mandates Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Scenario 4: Mandates + Mitigation Measures Total Area 5,000 Sf 5,000 Sf (Therms) Calculated using 31,870 31,870 31,870 31,870 31,870 (MMBtu) URBEMIS 3,187 3,187 3,187 3,187 3,187 Emissions (kg) CO2 3,778 1 69,070 172,848 1 72,848 129,920 129,920 CH4 0 19 19 19 14 14 N2O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 4 170 174 174 130 130 Percent Change from BAU n/a n/a 0.0% -24.8% -24.8% Source: EDAW, 2008. Notes: Assumes the following CCAR GRP emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O: CO2 = 53.05 kg/MMBtu; CH< = 0.0059 kg/MMBtu; N2O = 0.0001 kg/MMBtu. Assumes the following GWPs from the IPCC's Second Assessment Report: CO2 - 1; CH4 = 21; N,O = 310. Vo Co Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-39 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Perk FEIR 8/08 5 Cumulative Impacts the carbon content of natural gas used by the proposed project or the natural gas intensity (i.e., natural gas use per square foot) of the proposed buildings or swimming pools. Thus, Scenario 2 would be consistent with BAD. Scenario 3 assumes that the proposed buildings would achieve energy performance equivalent to at least a 17.5 percent improvement over Title 24 standards (equivalent to 3 points under LEED™ for New Construction Version 2.2 Energy and Atmosphere Credit 117) and that at least 25 percent of the swimming pools' heating demand would be met by onsite solar heating. The implementation of these mitigation measures would result in approximately 130 MTCO2e in 2020 from natural gas consumption, approximately 25 percent below the BAD Scenario. Since there are no state or federal standards that would reduce natural gas-related emissions, Scenario 4 would be equal to Scenario 3. Potable Water Demand Methodology Water provided to the project is embedded with energy by virtue of the amount of energy consumed in collecting, extracting, conveying, treating, distributing water to end users, and treating and disposing of wastewater. The analysis of embodied energy of water consumed by the proposed project assumed that potable water consumed for indoor uses has an embodied energy of 13,222 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per million gallons (MG) while potable water consumed for infield turf irrigation has an embodied energy of 11,111 kWh/MG (the latter figure is lower because water used outdoors is not embedded with energy used during the wastewater treatment process).18 Water demand for the proposed project was assumed consistent with Table 3.11.3, Estimated Park Potable Water Use, of Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities. Resu/fs As shown in Table 5-7, electricity consumption embedded in projected potable water demand would annually generate approximately 10 MTCO2e in 2020 under the BAU Scenario. GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption embedded in projected water demand were also calculated under full implementation of the state's 2005 Energy Action Plan goal requirement for investor-owned utilities to generate 33~2_0_percent of electricity from renewable sources by S920-2QlQ_(Scenario 2). According to the California Energy Commission, the average for the statewide electricity mix is 10.9 percent of electricity from renewable sources as of 2006, the latest year for which data is 17 http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentlD=:1095. 18 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program. CEC-500-2006-11 8. December 2006. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-40 03080076 Hall Prop Comm PorV FEIR 8/08 19362 5 Cumulative Impacts Table 5-7. Projected Annual GHG Emissions from Potable Water Demand in 2020 Average Daily Use Annual Land Use Restrooms Infield Turf Irrigation Aquatic Center Other Scenario 1 : BAU Scenario 2: Implementation of Renewable Portfolio Standard Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Scenario 4: Renewable Portfolio Standard + Mitigation Measures (gallons] 2,572 717 2,319 20 5,628 5,628 13,595 5,628 (gallons) 938,780 261,705 846,435 7,300 2,054,220 2,054,220 4,962,175 2,054,220 Use (million gallons) 0.939 0.262 0.846 0.007 2.054 2.054 4.962 2.054 Embodied Energy of CA Water (kVVVMG) 13,200 11,111 13,200 13,200 n/a n/a n/a n/a Source: EDAW, 2008. Notes: Assumes the following CCAR GRP emission factors for CO2, CH<, and N2O Ibs/mWh. Assumes the following GWPs from the IPCC's Second Assessment Report: CO, = 1 Annual Electricity Required for Demand (kWh) 12,392 2,908 11,173 96 26,569 26,569 26,569 26,569 002 = / CH4 = (mWh) 12.392 2.908 11.173 0.096 26.569 26.569 26.569 26.569 Emissions C02 9,970 2,339 8,989 78 21,376 ss 21,376 2+7376 19.431 804.54 Ibs/mWh; CH< 21;N,O = 310. (M Total Percent Emissions Change CH, N2O (MTCO2e) vs. BAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0067 Ibs/mWh; 5 1 3 0 10 8 9 10 8 9 N2O n/a T-l TO/'/!<£. 1 rv -9.1% 0.0% -33r4% -9.1% = 0.0037 votoo\ CO Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-41 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FE1R 8/08 5 Cumulative Impacts I available. As a result, the calculation assumes an additional 22.1 9.1 percent of grid electricity embodied in potable water would be generated from renewable sources (i.e., sources that would have no net GHG emissions). With full implementation of the 33-20Lpercent goal by 2020, 2010, electricity consumption embedded in projected water demand would annually generate approximately &-9_MTCO2e in 2020, approximately 3S-9J_percent less than under the BAU Scenario. Scenario 3 indicates that the proposed project does not include any measures or features that would reduce the level of demand for potable water compared to the BAU Scenario. Therefore, the project as designed would result in a level of CO2e emissions from electricity consumption embedded in potable water demand consistent with the BAU Scenario. Scenario 4 indicates that the approximately 23-9_percent reduction in CO2e emissions from electricity consumption embedded in potable water demand would be entirely attributable to full implementation of the state's 33-20_percent renewable electricity goal by 2020 2010. Recycled Water Demand Mef/iodo/ogy Water provided to the project is embedded with energy by virtue of the amount of energy consumed in collecting, extracting, conveying, treating, distributing water to end users, and treating and disposing of wastewater. The analysis of embodied energy of water consumed by the proposed project assumed that recycled water in San Diego County has an embodied energy of 400 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per acre foot.19 Water demand for the proposed project was assumed consistent with Table 3.11.4, Estimated Park Recycled Water Use, of Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities. Results As shown in Table 5-8, electricity consumption embedded in projected recycled water demand would annually generate approximately 14 MTCO2e in 2020 under the BAU Scenario. GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption embedded in projected recycled water demand were also calculated under full implementation of the state's 2005 Energy Action Plan goal requirement for investor-owned utilities to generate 3£-20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 201 0 (Scenario 2). According to the CEC, the average for the statewide electricity mix is 10.9 percent of electricity from renewable sources as of 2006, the latest year for which data are available. As a result, the calculation assumes an additional 7*2rr-9.1 percent of grid electricity embodied in recycled water would be generated from renewable sources (i.e., sources that would have no net GHG 19 Energy Down the Drain: The Hidden Costs of California's Water Supply. Natural Resources Defense Council; Pacific Institute. August 2004. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-42 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19364 5 Cumulative Impacts Table 5-8. Projected Annual GHG Emissions from Recycled Water Demand in 2020 Land Use Landscaping Outfield Turf Irrigation Scenario 1 : BAD Scenario 2: Implementation of Renewable Portfolio Standard Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Scenario 4: Renewable Portfolio Standard + Mitigation Measures Average Daily Use (gallons) 25,098 59,385 84,483 84,483 84,483 84,483 Annual Use (gallons) 9,160,770 21,675,525 30,836,295 30,836,295 30,836,295 30,836,295 (acre feet) 28 67 95 95 95 95 Embodied Energy (kWh/af) 400 400 400 400 400 400 Source: EDAW, 2008. Notes: Assumes the following CCAR GRP emission factors for CO2, CH4, and 0.0037 Ibs/mWh. Assumes the following GWPs from the IPCC's Second Assessment Report: CO2 Annual Electricity Required for Demand (kWh) 11,245 26,608 37,853 37,853 37,853 37,853 N20: C02 = 1 ; CH4 = mWh) 11 27 38 38 38 38 Emissions (Ibs) Tota| C02 9,047 21,407 30,454 0*3 T~>A^-U, ' •*- ' 30,454 00 T~l AI-*Jt f £~ ! = 804.54 Ibs/mWh; = 21;N2O = 310. CH< 0 0 0 0 0 0 CH4 Emissions N20 (MTC02e) 0 4 0 8 0 14 • £ 0 14 • s = 0.0067 Ibs/mWh; Percent Change vs. BAU n/a OO TO/*!.,£,. I r3 -9.1% 0.0% -9.1% N20 = voGJ 0\ U] Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 5 Cumulative Impacts emissions). With full implementation oi the 33—20 percent goal by--2020_,2010, electricity consumption embedded in recycled water demand would annually generate approximately 44-J_3 MTCO2e in 2020, approximately 23-9_percent less than under the BAD Scenario. Scenario 3 indicates that the proposed project does not include any measures or features that would reduce the level of demand for recycled water compared to the BAD Scenario. Therefore, the project as designed would result in a level of CO2e emissions from electricity consumption embedded in potable water demand consistent with the BAU Scenario. Scenario 4 indicates that the approximately 22-9_percent reduction in CO2e emissions from electricity consumption embedded in recycled water demand in 2020 would be entirely attributable to full implementation of the state's ^£-20 percent renewable electricity goal by 2020 requirement. Park Lighting Electricity Demand A/lefhodo/ogy The proposed project would install outdoor lighting for the proposed athletic fields as well as walkways and parking lots. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that outdoor lighting would be operated from sunset until 10 PM, 7 days a week, year-round. Based on the average time of sunset for each month,20 it is estimated that outdoor lighting would be operated approximately 1,280 hours per year. It is assumed that 100 percent of the electricity demand of outdoor lighting would be purchased from the grid. Results As shown in Table 5-9, electricity demand from outdoor lighting would annually generate approximately 120 MTCO2e in 2020 under the BAU Scenario. Athletic field lighting demand accounts for about 93 percent of outdoor lighting demand. GHG emissions associated with outdoor lighting demand were also calculated under full implementation of the state's 2005 Energy Action Plan goal requirement for investor-owned utilities to generate 33—20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2920-2010 (Scenario 2). According to the CEC, the average for the statewide electricity mix is 10.9 percent of electricity from renewable sources as of 2006, the latest year for which data are available. As a result, the calculation assumes an additional 3&4-9.1 percent of grid electricity purchased to power outdoor lighting fixtures would be generated from renewable sources (i.e., sources that would have no net GHG emissions). With full implementation of the S3-20 percent ered-reauirement by 2020, electricity consumption associated with outdoor lighting demand would 20 http://www.timeanddate.com/woridclock/sunrise.html?month = 12&year=2008&obj=sun&afl=-n&day=l. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-44 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Park FEIR 8/08 19366 5 Cumulative Impacts Table 5-9. Projected Annual GHG Emissions from Outdoor Lighting in 2020 Lighting Emissions Source Types Athletic Field Lighting 1 500 watt Parking Lot and Walkway 70 watt Lighting ] 50 waft Scenario 1 : BAD Scenario 2: Implementation of Renewable Portfolio Standard Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Scenario 4: Renewable • Portfolio Standard + Mitigation Measures Annual Hours of Use 1 ,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 Number of Lights 158 126 69 353 353 353 353 Electricity Consumption watt-hours 303,360,000 11,289,600 13,248,000 327,897,600 327,897,600 203,520,000 203,520,000 mWh 303 11 13 328 328 204 204 Emissions (Ibs) C02 244,065 9,083 10,659 263,807 239J800 163,740 ss CH4 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 N2O 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 111 3 5 120 95 109 74 68 Percent Change vs. BAU n/a n/a n/a n/a -9.1% -37.9% -43.6% voI*)en Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-45 03080076 Hall Prop Conm Park FEIR 6/08 5 Cumulative Impacts annually generate approximately 93-109 MTCO,e in 2020, approximately SS-9_percent less than under the BAD Scenario. Scenario 3 assumes that the proposed project would install athletic field lighting that uses on average 41 percent less electricity than conventional lighting technology over the same time period. Implementation of this measure would reduce annual emissions from outdoor lighting to approximately 74 MTCO2e in 2020, approximately 38 percent less than under the BAD Scenario. Scenario 4 indicates that full implementation of the state's -3S-20_percent geej-requirement by 2020 2010 and installation of athletic field lighting with 41 percent less electricity use would reduce CO2e emissions from outdoor lighting to approximately 5§-68_MTCO2e in 2020, about -SS-^^percent less than BAD in 2020. Construction Construction of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions primarily associated with the operation of gasoline- and diesel-powered equipment and vehicles. CO2 emissions associated with project-generated vehicle trips were calculated in tons per year in 2020 using URBEMIS. The results were converted to metric tons per year using the standard conversion rate of 1 ton equals 0.90718474 metric tons. The calculation assumptions are provided in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the EIR. Project construction would result in the one-time generation of approximately 2,519 MTCO2 in portions of 2008 and 2009 according to URBEMIS. Since construction would be completed in 2009, construction-related emissions are not included in the scenarios for 2020. URBEMIS does not calculate CH4 or N2O emissions, two other GHGs associated with the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel. However, CO2 emissions are considered a good estimate of totalGHG emissions from construction equipment and vehicle use since CH4 and N2O represent a negligible portion of the GHGs associated with the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel compared to CO2. Additional Sources Affecting Project-related GHG Emissions The preceding discussion does not attempt to quantify the GHG emissions associated with the management (i.e., recycling or landfilling) of solid waste generated by the proposed project. However, the landfilling of the project's solid waste would result in GHG emissions. According to Section 3.11, Public Services and Utilities, the Miramar Landfill is anticipated to receive the project's 21 Light-Structure Green™ from Musco Lighting. http://www.musco.com/permanent/lightstructuregreen.html#performance %20. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-46 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19368 5 Cumulative Impacts solid waste. This landfill is equipped with systems to capture landfill gas (i.e., CH4, a powerful GHG about 21 times more potent than CO2). The captured landfill gas is used to generate electricity, which emits CO2 and N2O. A portion of the landfill gas would not be captured by the systems and would be emitted into the atmosphere. The mass of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project's solid waste would also vary depending upon the types of materials in the waste stream. GHG emissions would also result from the collection of solid waste and transport to the landfill. Recycled waste would avoid the GHG emissions associated with landfilling, although the collection and transport of recycled materials would still result in emissions. Thus, management of the project's solid waste would result in GHG emissions. The proposed project does not include any measures or features that would reduce the level of solid waste sent to landfills and associated GHG emissions below a BAU Scenario. • . In addition, the analysis does not attempt to quantify how the removal of existing onsite vegetation and subsequent installation of landscaping, trees, and vegetation associated with the proposed project would affect the total amount of carbon sequestered on the project site. Whether the proposed project increases or reduces the amount of carbon sequestered on site, the effect of vegetation relative to total project GHG emissions is minor.22 Furthermore, the effect of the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) on project GHG emissions is not considered in the preceding analysis. The LCFS seeks to reduce the life-cycle (i.e., production, storage, transport, and use) carbon intensity in California's transportation fuels by at least 1 0 percent by 2020. However, it is not known at this time what level of carbon intensity reductions would occur at which fuel life-cycle stage(s); the reduction could occur during only one life-cycle, or some combination of all four. The preceding analysis calculates the GHG emissions from fuel use due to project vehicle trips, and does not reflect GHG emissions emitted earlier in the transportation fuel life- cycle process (i.e., production, storage, and transport). Since it is now known what, if any, level of carbon intensity reductions would be achieved at the use stage of the transportation fuel life-cycle, the effect of the LCFS on the mass of GHG emissions due to the fuel associated with project vehicle trips cannot be estimated at this time. 5.5.4 Summary of GHG Emissions As shown in Table 5-10, the vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas demand, and electricity embedded in the water demand associated with the proposed project would annually generate approximately 3,022 MTCO2e in 2020 under the BAU Scenario. With full implementation of federal CAFE standards and the state's -33-20_percent renewable electricity qed-reauirement by 5020-2010 22 For example, the EPA reports that, over a 10-year period, a medium growth urban tree sequesters 0.039 MTCO2. Source: http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy-resources/refs. html#seedlings. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-47 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19369 5 Cumulative Impacts Table 5-10. Summary of Projected GHG Emissions In 2020 Emissions Source Vehicle Trips Electricity Demand Natural Gas Demand Embodied Energy of Potable Water Demand Embodied Energy of Recycled Water Demand Outdoor Lighting Construction Total Non transport Transport Reduction of non-transportation emissions Scenario 1: BAU GHG Emissions (MTCO2 or MTCO2e) 2,606 99 173 10 14 120 2,519 3,022 416 2,606 n/a Source: EDAW 2008. 1 Emissions totals and reduction percentages under Scenario and project mitigation measures on project GHG emissions Scenario 2: Implementation of Federal and State Standards GHG Emissions (MTCO2 or MTCO2e) 1,817 77-90 173 89 •H-13 93-109 n/a £r4-792.210 343394 1,817 5422 % Change Compared to Baseline Scenario -30.3% -22.10%-9.1% 0.00% 22.196-9.1% •22.1%-9.1% -23rW&-9.1% n/a 27.90%-26.9% -12.89%-5.3% ..30.30%^30.3% -1 2 89%-5 3% Scenario 3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures % Change GHG Emissions Compared to (MTCOZ or Baseline MTCO2e) Scenario 2,606 82 130 10 14 74 n/a 2,916 310 2,606 106 4 do not equal the sum of the totals under Scenarios is different when calculated concurrently rather than 0.0% -17.5% -24.8% 0.0% 0.0% -37.9% n/a "O. jU/P-Q.O A> -35r46%-25.5% Q7QQ%0.0% .-^4^,25^ 2 and 3 because the separately. Scenario 4: Federal and Stale Standards + Mitigation Measures1 GHG Emissions (MTCO2 or MTCO2e) 1,817 64Z1 130 89 mi 5868 n/a 276872.110 370294 1,817 446122 effect of federal % Change Compared to Baseline Scenario -30.3% oc 7QO/ nc ryy— G sJ . / O TO ~Z,vJ . \J fv -24.84%-24.8% -22.1%-9.1% •22.1%-9.1% -S4^7%-43.6% n/a on oco/- on OQ/,a\j.7 *j /O-QL/.Z. fo -35.0196-29.4% -30.30%-30.3% oc nig/, 90 4%QiJiT/ I TO jL.7 _." />j and state standards vo OJ Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-48 03080076 Hall P'op Comm Park FE1R 8/08 5 Cumulative Impacts (Scenario 2), the proposed project would annually generate approximately 2,1 79 2,210 MTCO?e in 2020, approximately 3&-27_percent less than under the BAU Scenario. Scenario 3 indicates that implementation of mitigation measures that reduce building electricity and natural gas demand, swimming pool natural gas demand, and outdoor lighting electricity demand would annually generate approximately 2,916 MTCO2e in 2020, approximately 4 percent less than under the BAU Scenario. Scenario 4 indicates that full implementation of CAFE standards, the state's 33-20 percent-er&&< renewable electricity requirement, and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce emissions to approximately 2.087 2,110 MTCO,e in 2020, about 5i-3JLpercent less than BAU in 2020. Thus, Scenario 4 indicates that federal CAFE standards and the state's 33-20_percent renewable electricity goal-requirement would account for most of the emissions reductions from the BAU Scenario. As discussed previously, the California Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 32 declaring that global climate change is "a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California" (Health and Safety Code Section 38501). AB 32 establishes a GHG emissions limit for the state in 2020 equal to the mass of GHGs emitted statewide in 1 990. In December 2007, CARB approved 427 MMTCO2e as the 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. A return to the 1990 emissions level by 2020 is considered a 28.8 an approximately 29 percent reduction from the mass of GHG emissions that would have occurred under a BAU Scenario (i.e., no changes in policy, technology or behavior to reduce GHG emissions). The timeframe and the level of the statewide emissions limit are intended to avoid the worst effects of climate change to California and the world. In essence, the legislation seeks to reduce California's contribution to the cumulative, worldwide impact of global climate change. AB 32 requires the state to achieve an absolute reduction in GHG emissions concurrent with projected population and economic growth. Although no universally accepted threshold of significance for j climate change impacts exists, this analysis uses a £&-&-29 percent reduction below BAU in 2020 as a gauge for determining whether the proposed project's impacts are cumulatively considerable. | As shown by the preceding analysis, implementation of state and federal mandates for 2020-and mitigation measures (Scenario 4) would • reduce the project's GHG emissions in 2020 by approximately £4-30 percent compared to the BAU Scenario, which is consistent with the roughly 2&-S-29 percent reduction sought by AB 32. Although the project would result in additional GHG emissions associated with the landfilling of project-generated solid waste, such emissions are not anticipated to substantially change the project's emissions under the four scenarios. When considering solid waste-related emissions, the project's percentage reduction relative to the BAU Scenario is still considered consistent with the reduction from BAU sought by AB 32. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-49 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19371 5 Cumulative Impacts Moreover, the results of Scenario 3 indicate that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce the mass of GHG emissions by about 4 percent below the BAD Scenario, which shows that most of the reductions achieved under Scenario 4 would be achieved by state and federal mandates, particularly federal CAFE standards. However, approximately 89 percent of the emissions under Scenario 3 are the result of project-generated vehicle trips. There are no feasible mitigation measures through which the proposed project could bring about a substantial reduction in ADTs,. VMT, or fuel consumption, or increase the use of alternative transportation modes for project-related trips. In other words, vehicle trip-related GHG emissions are largely beyond the control of the proposed project. As discussed previously, the proposed project would contribute to reduced vehicle trip-related GHG emissions by locating a community park in closer proximity to residents who currently drive relatively farther distances to access a community park with comparable facilities. Since GHG emissions related to vehicle trips are largely beyond the project's control and the project contributes to reduced VMT, the analysis differentiates between transportation and nontransportation emissions (electricity, natural gas, and water demand), which are within the project's control. As shown in Table 5-10, implementation of project mitigation measures would reduce the nontransportation emissions associated with the proposed project by approximately £§-26 percent compared to the BAU Scenario, which is generally consistent with the reduction from BAU sought by AB32. In conclusion, the implementation of state and federal mandates and project mitigation measures (Scenario 4) would reduce the project's annual GHG emissions in 2020 by approximately -34-30 percent compared to a BAU Scenario. Although a sizeable portion of the total reduction is attributed to implementation of CAFE standards, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures that would achieve a substantial reduction in annual GHG emissions from nontransportation sources of about £&-26_percent compared to a BAU Scenario. Therefore, the proposed project's substantial reduction in total emissions achieved with implementation of state and federal mandates and project mitigation measures (Scenario 4) is considered consistent with the roughly S§r8-29 percent reduction in GHG emissions from a BAU Scenario sought by AB 32. As a result, the project's incremental contribution to global climate change is considered mitigated to below a level of significance. 5.5.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Climate Change-1: The following feasible mitigation measures will be implemented to mitigate the project's contribution to climate change: Hall Properly Community Park Final EIR Page 5-50 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Pork FEIR 8/08 19372 5 Cumulative Impacts a. The proposed buildings will achieve energy performance equivalent to at least a 17.5 percent improvement over Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (equivalent to 3 points under LEED™ for New Construction Version 2.2 Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1. b. The proposed swimming pools will have a demand for electricity at least 1 7.5 percent lower than the Carlsbad Swim Complex. c. Solar heating will be used to meet at least 25 percent of the swimming pool's demand for natural gas. d. Athletic field lights will feature Light-Structure Green™ fixtures from Musco Lighting, or comparable lighting fixture(s), which on average use 41% less electricity compared to conventional lighting technology. Timing: Compliance with Mitigation Measures Climate Change-la, Ib, Ic, and Id must be demonstrated prior to approval of a building permit. Responsibility: The City of Encinitas Parks and Recreation Department shall be responsible for incorporating the measures into the design of the project. The Planning and Building Department shall be responsible for ensuring the requirements are incorporated into the Major Use Permit for the project. The City of Encinitas Planning and Building Department shall be responsible for review and incorporation of building permit provisions. The City shall be responsible for ensuring that the construction contractors implement the measures according to the building permit specifications. Significance after Mitigation: As discussed above, implementation of the proposed feasible mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to global climate change to a level less than significant. Hall Property Community Park Final EIR Page 5-51 03080076 Hall Prop Comm Part FEIR 8/08 19373 Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Fred C. Sandquist ________ 6408 Crossbill Court Carlsbad, CA 92011-2783 (760)918-2408 Sandquist2@earthlink.net August 14, 2009 Letters to the Editor San Diego Union-Tribune P.O. Box 120191 San Diego, CA 92112-0191 Subject: Opposition for La Costa Town Square, City Council Agenda Item AB# 19,935 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am submitting the following letter to be considered for publication in opposition for the La Costa Town Square Project under consideration by the City of Carlsbad City Council under Agenda Item AB# 19,935. You are authorized to use the following material. "WRONG PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE IN CARLSBAD I am writing in opposition to the proposed La Costa Town Square Project in Carlsbad. While in the planning process for over nine years, this project as evolved into a massive project that is being shoehorned into a site that is too small, totally out of character with the surrounding community, and far above the needs of the local residents and the City of Carlsbad. This project includes major components and amendments such as: a CEQA statement of overriding considerations to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); a General Plan Amendment for land use open space and conservation elements; a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; and a zoning change to medium to high density to accommodate affordable housing and a high rise condo. Such changes and amendments should be a clue that the proposed project has grown too big! All this, coupled with having to deal with a Stage II potable water conservation drought restriction and associated supply issues with an organization outside the control of City of Carlsbad, a flawed traffic analysis (data collected in July when the local schools are not in session) in the EIR, not properly addressing CEQA's Cumulative Impacts with other projects and communities (e.g., did not include impacts on adjacent Encinitas communities (e.g., their low light ordnance, traffic impacts) by limiting the study area boundary, school safety impacts (La Costa Canyon High School and two elementary schools), and the current economic downturn and a 25% commercial vacancy rate in Carlsbad), I fail to see how this project serves Carlsbad and its citizens. Serving on the City of Carlsbad's Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee to make recommendations for how the City should look in 30+ years following build out, the recent city- wide survey indicated that a significant majority of residents place open space, recreational trails, small local community-focused landscaped areas for meeting, shopping, restaurants, walking, without the typical massive parking areas and large stores. The people don't like to have large malls that draw in out-of-the area patrons and associated traffic and urban sprawl. They would rather see local community-oriented pedestrian-friendly areas to gather in, shop and recreate. I strongly encourage the City Council to listen to what the people are saying and send the project back to be downsized to one that more appropriate fits the site and the needs of the community." Fred C. Sandquist Carlsbad AGENDA ITEM # c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City ClerkFrances Ryglewicz 7700 Corte Promenade, ' ; -------------- Carlsbad, CA 92009 August 17th, 2009 Dear Council Members, Reference: La Costa Town Square - Request for fence upgrade. Today you will continue to consider the requests for permits and other approvals related to La Costa Towne Square. I hope that in doing so you will more specifically investigate the request for an upgrade to the fence structure on La Costa opposite access to the proposed development. The developer will most likely attempt to argue that it is not their responsibility in spite of the fact that the EIR does state that there are elements to the project that cannot be mitigated. These include traffic, pollution and noise. They may attempt to make a case that the improvement of this structure will not make a sufficient change in mitigation as to be worth doing. They may attempt to identify that homes below grade are not affected and they will likely be using data that is averaged and generalized. Which is of course very different from the real world this community will live in. There will be times everyday of very significant peaks of impact that will be interrupting to our lives and any effort the developer can make to mitigate these impacts is desirable and appropriate. In addition any data in this EIR that is based on the current conditions meeting the previous EIR will be faulty, due to the history of what has happened on this stretch of La Costa since the last EIR (for the Savon/CVS commercial site) was completed. Back in 2002, when the current CVS Pharmacy project was approved by the city council and planning commission. The need for stucco or masonry walls on this stretch of La Costa was discussed. The commission and council asked if there was going to be any change to La Costa avenue in this specific location as a result of that development. At the time that the permissions were granted, this stretch of La Costa was not identified by planning as directly affected. Therefore the developer was conditioned to replace their planned open fencing with stucco walls but only to the perimeter of the surrounding commercial area. As construction proceeded it was 'discovered' that there needed to be alignment work on La Costa on this stretch in order to provide the required traffic lanes for exiting the commercial site. The need to accommodate this by providing property from the home owners resulted in negotiations with the developer that included additional walls on the east side of the property with the understanding that this specific stretch could expect to be addressed and upgraded when the Town Square property was developed. Based on the commission and council Q&A at that time it was clear that had the need to modify this area of La Costa been identified during the original approval meetings then the conditions to erect walls would have extended to this area also. In the face of that previous decision and in the knowledge that traffic and other impacts are increasing it is difficult to believe that this upgrade request will not a part of the conditions placed on the developer for La Costa Town Square regardless of any 'science' they might submit to suggest otherwise. It may well be, that due to the previous events there is no capacity due to nature of the last realignment to adequately support the kind of structure that would be appropriate. If that is the case, then now is the time to resolve this compounding of errors that has affected this neighborhood. Significant road improvements are required to support this project, now would be the time to ensure upgrades that will support known growth to the area. This is a picture of the current fence today. You can see that this fence is a barrier not just for the homeowners in the On the Park Development, but also for the many families that live at ground and upper level units on the west side of the Santa Fe Ranch apartment complex. The roof lines of these units, because they are at grade are visible above the tree line in the photograph. Roof lines are directly below boxes A, B and C. Graffiti is an on going problem as can be seen from the discoloration on the fence panels. Also there is significant wear and tear on the fence due to pedestrian traffic. Fence panels require regular replacement to keep the structure from total deterioration and from being an eyesore in the area. As a developer of a high end "Town Square" I would not want patrons viewing this every time they entered and exited the property. From the following image the letter A shows where the NEW traffic light at La Costa to access the site will be placed. The letter B in the yellow square will help you identify how close to the road the yards of these homes are. up from there to this point and adds new sound issues related to idling vehicles etc. to the current environment. Also you can see that we have graffiti issues inside the fence due to easy access and we have had to contact the Carlsbad police department many times to remove youth and transients from the area.. For a project of this complexity the solution we are asking for, while certainly adding expense, is key to helping our community maintain levels of comfort and safety that are reasonable and expected. Please, be willing to use your position of oversight to ensure that this simply request is incorporated in the conditioning of this project. Sincerely Frances Ryglewicz up from there to this point and adds new sound issues related to idling vehicles etc. to the current environment. Also you can see that we have graffiti issues inside the fence due to easy access and we have had to contact the Carlsbad police department many times to remove youth and transients from the area.. For a project of this complexity the solution we are asking for, while certainly adding expense, is key to helping our community maintain levels of comfort and safety that are reasonable and expected. Please, be willing to use your position of oversight to ensure that this simply request is incorporated in the conditioning of this project. La Costa Town Square EIR 01-02/ GPA 01-02/ MP 149(R)/ MP 87- 11(B)/ CT 01-09/ CT 08-03/ CT 08- 07/ CP 01-03/ PUD 08-09/ HDP 01-05/ SDP 01-04/ V 08-02/CUP 04-18/ CUP 08-01/ CUP 08-02/ CUP 08-03/ CUP 08-04/ CUP 08-05/ CUP 08-06/ CUP 08-07 General Plan Land Use Element -Table 2 ALLOWED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE General Plan Land Use Designation Minimum Growth Management Control Point Maximum RL 0 1 1.5 RLM 0 3.2 4 RM 4 6 8 RMH 8 11.5 (12) 15 RH 15 19 (20) 23 Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Summary August 1, 2009 NORTHWEST Excess Dwelling Units Deposited =66 Withdrawn =111 Since 01/01/2003 SOUTHWEST Excess Dwelling Units Deposited = 37 Withdrawn = 59 Since 01/01/2003 SOUTHEAST Excess Dwelling Units Deposited = 45 Withdrawn = 12 Since 01/01/2003 NORTHEAST Excess Dwelling Units Deposited = 374 Withdrawn =177 Since 01/01/2003 Citywide Excess Dwelling Unit Bank Balance is 2,963 as of 08/01/2009 Bank balance of 5,985 reduced to 2,800 City Council Action 12/17/2002 2.8 du/ac 6.2 du/ac 5.8 du/ac 5.6 du/ac 17.4 du/ac 8.7 du/ac