Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-17; City Council; 21674; La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03D/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# MTG. DEPT. 21.674 06/17/14 CED LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/ PUD 13-02/IVlS 13-01 DEPT. DIREaOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council hold a public hearing and ADOPT Resolution No. 2014-169 DENYING the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Comnnission to APPROVE a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 78- 03(D), Site Development Pian SDP 13-03, Special Use Permit SUP 13-01, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 13-02 and Minor Subdivision MS 13-01 based on the findings contained therein. ITEM EXPLANATION: On April 16, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7044 and 7045, approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 78-03(D), Site Development Plan SDP 13-03, Special Use Permit SUP 13-01, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 13-02 and Minor Subdivision MS 13-01 for the La Costa Towne Center project (6-0-0, one seat vacant). On April 25, 2014, Mr. Everett DeLano, on behalf of the North County Advocates, filed an appeal ofthe Planning Commission's decision. The La Costa Towne Center project entails the following: 1) the demolition of two (2) commercial buildings, (including Vons located at 7710 El Camino Real and 7740 El Camino Real), totaling 45,830 square feet within an existing 123,822 square foot shopping center (La Costa Towne Center); and 2) the construction of a single- story parking structure and two (2) mixed-use buildings consisting of 60 multiple-family residential rental units and 48,908 square feet of new retail on a developed 15.24-acre site generally located along the east side of El Camino Real and south of La Costa Avenue. In addition to public comments received from a few of the adjacent residential property owners to the east concerning noise, building height and driveway access, public comments were received from the appellant. Specifically, Mr. Dave Voss, representing the North County Advocates, expressed concern regarding a deficit in open space and parl<s in the southeast quadrant of the city. In addition, Mr. Everett DeLano indicated that he disagreed with the approach taken with respect to the preparation of the traffic study. Further, he took issue with concessions made to the project as it related to the inclusionary housing. The applicant's traffic engineer, Mr. Justin Schlaefli, Urban Systems Associates, indicated that a response to Mr. DeLano's concerns with respect to traffic was prepared and circulated to the Planning Commission (please see Attachment #7, dated April 16, 2014). In addition, Mr. Schlaefli responded to Mr. DeLano's assertions with the traffic study and indicated that the baseline for traffic counts was accurately calculated. Please see Exhibit No. 8 (dated February 26, 2014), which is the response city staff prepared to all of Mr. DeLano's assertions. No additional issues were included in the appeal beyond that which was discussed in the staff response letter dated February 26, 2014. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Shannon Werneke, 760-602-4621, Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.fiov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED • CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC 3 DENIED • CONTINUEDTO DATE UNKNOWN CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF WITHDRAWN • OTHER-SEE MINUTES • AMENDED • Page 2 The collective testimony, including the Planning Commission and staff responses, are included in the attached Planning Commission minutes. Based upon a review of the facts, including the appeal form filed by the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, SDP 78- 03(D), SDP 13-03, SUP 13-01, PUD 13-02, and MS 13-01. FISCAL IMPAa: There are no fiscal impacts to the City other than administrative staff costs associated with the processing of this appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, and Noise. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was published in the newspaper. The requisite 20-day public review period for the MND occurred from December 24, 2013 to January 12, 2014. At the request of Everett DeLano, the review period was extended until January 21, 2014. Two public comment letters were received at the end of the notice period. A comment letter from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians was received on January 21, 2014 requesting minor changes to the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures as it pertains to Native American involvement iri the grading activities. In addition, a comment letter dated January 21, 2014 was received from Everett DeLano, on behalf of the North County Advocates, contesting various conclusions made in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response letters addressing the concerns of both the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and Everett DeLano/North County Advocates were sent on February 13, 2014 and February 26, 2014, respectively. An addendum has also been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA to include the revisions to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures No. Cultural-1 and Cultural-2. This revision has no new significant environmental effects not analyzed in the previously circulated MND, and none of the circumstances requiring recirculation or a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2014-169 2. Location Map 3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7044 and 7045, dated April 16, 2014 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 16, 2014 5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 16, 2014 6. Appellant Appeal Form and Attachments, dated April 25, 2014 7. Memorandum from Justin Schlaefli, Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated April 16, 2014 8. City Staff Response to Letter from Everett DeLano, dated February 26, 2014. 1 2 5 9 13 14 25 26 27 28 follows: EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-169 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE 4 DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM, SITE g DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SDP 78-03(D), SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP 13-03, SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 13-01, 7 NONRESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 13-02 AND MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 13-01 TO: 1) ALLOW FOR THE 8 DEMOLITION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, (INCLUDING VONS LOCATED AT 7710 EL CAMINO REAL AND 7740 EL CAMINO REAL), TOTALING 45,830 SQUARE FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING 123,822 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER (LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER); AND 2) ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE- 11 STORY PARKING STRUCTURE AND TWO (2) MIXED-USE BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 60 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS 12 AND 48,908 SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL ON A PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED 15.24-ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER 15 CASE NO.: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/ MS 13-01 16 " 17 18 19 20 21 22 Addendum, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 78-03(D), Site Development Plan SDP 13- 23 03, Special Use Permit SUP 13-01, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 13-02 and 24 Minor Subdivision MS 13-01 and adopted Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 7044 and 7045, approving the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe City of Carlsbad, on the 17th day of June, 2014, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider an appeal ofthe approval ofa Mitigated Negative The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on April 16, 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 78-03(D), Site Development Plan SDP 13-03, Special Use Permit SUP 13- 01, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 13-02 and Minor Subdivision MS 13-01; and 6 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and ^ arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal of the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 78-03(D), Site Development Plan SDP 13-03, Special Use Permit SUP 13-01, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 13-02 and Minor Subdivision MS 13-01. 8 9 10 11 12 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 14 Carlsbad as follows: 1^ 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 16 2. That the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Y] Planning Commission to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 78-03(D), Site 18 Development Plan SDP 13-03, Special Use Permit SUP 13-01, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit PUD 13-02 and Minor Subdivision MS 13-01, and that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 7044 and 7045 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions ofthe City Council. 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 /// 23 /// 24 /// /// /// PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: 6 ABSENT: 7 8 9 12 13 10 MATT HALL, Mayor 11 ATTEST: 14 BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk 15 (SEAL) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 2 SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D/SDP 13-03/ SUP 13-01 / PUD 13-02 / MS 13-01 EXHIBIT 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7044 1 2 _^ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING 4 PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO 1) ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (INCLUDING VONS AT 7710 EL 5 CAMINO REAL AND 7740 EL CAMINO REAL) TOTALING 45,830 SQUARE FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING 123,822 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER (LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER); AND 2) ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE AND TWO (2) MIXED-USE BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 60 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS AND A NET GAIN OF 3,078 SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL ON A PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED 15.24-ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG g THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER CASE NO.: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 10 11 12 13 Parcels "B" and "D" of Parcel Map No. 10283, in the City of Carlsbad, 14 County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on July 30,1980 as File No. 80- 15 240721 of official records WHEREAS, Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified application with the City ofCarlsbad regarding property described as ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 16, 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 23 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission ~™j hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and / 1 „ Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and 2 "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," and Addendum, Exhibit "ADDM" attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 3 4 5 6 7 8 Findings; 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and g b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California IQ Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 11 it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 12 Carlsbad; and 13 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 14 The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer 15 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree 1^ of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7044 -2- 1 NOTICE TO APPLICANT 2 An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village ^ Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the 4 appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a ^ determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. g PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of 7 the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 16, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: 8 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioners Anderson, L'Heureux, Scully, Segall and Siekmann 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NEIL BLACK, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 17 ATTEST: 18 k2L 19 DON NEU City Planner 20 " 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7044 "I <^^^ CITYOF ^CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carisbadca.gov MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center PROJECT NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 PROJECT LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real, south ofthe intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16. -17 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request to allow for the demolition of two commercial buildings totaling 45,830 square feet (SF) located within an existing 123,822 SF shopping center, also known as La Costa Towne Center, and to allow for the construction of two mixed use buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, 12 of which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing, and a single-story parking structure. Overall, including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings, a net gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 1X1 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECL^RATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: April 16, 2014, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7044 DON NEU City Planner rM Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8558 fax ,0 CITY OF ^CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carisbadca.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJEa NAME: LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER PROJECT NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 PROJECT LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real, south ofthe intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16, -17. PROJECT DESCRiPTiON: A request to allow for the demolition of two commercial buildings totaling 45,830 square feet (SF) located within an existing 123,822 SF shopping center, also known as La Costa Towne Center, and to allow for the construction of two mixed use buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, 12 of which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing, and a single-story parking structure. Overall, including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings, a net gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. AVAILABILITY: A copy ofthe Initial Study documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 and is available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/planning-notices.aspx. COMMENTS: Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Written comments regarding the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration should be directed to Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner, at the address listed below or via email to Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received within 20 days ofthe date ofthis notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. Ifyou have any questions, please call Shannon Werneke in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4621. I PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 24. 2013 - Januan/12. 201^ Januarv 21, 2014 PUBUSH DATE December 24. 2013 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8558 fax ^^1^ CITY OF Initial Study ^ CARLSBAD 1. PROJECT NAME: La Costa Towne Center 2. PROJECT NO: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 3. LEADAGENCY: 4. PROJECT APPUCANT: City of Carlsbad Excel La Costa, LLC 1635 Faraday Avenue William Stone, Geoff Sherman Carlsbad, CA 92008 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92128 5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad (760) 602-4621, Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov 6. PROJECT LOCATION: East side of El Camino Real, south of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16, -17 7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS) 8. ZONING: Neighborhood Commercial, Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q) 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 78-03(D)), Site Development Plan (SDP 13- 03), Special Use Permit (SUP 13-01), Nonresidential Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-02), and Minor Subdivision (MS 13-01) to allow for the demolition of two commercial buildings totaling 45,830 square feet (SF) located within an existing 123,822 SF shopping center, also known as La Costa Towne Center, and to allow for the construction of two mixed use buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, a parking structure, and an expansion to the parking lot. The existing shopping center is 15.24 acres (gross) in size and spans two legal parcels (APNs 216- 124-16, -17). APN 216-124-17 has frontage on La Costa Avenue to the north and El Camino Real to the west. APN 216-124-16 has frontage along El Camino Real to the west. Two parcels, which are separately owned and currently developed with office and commercial uses, are located in the shopping center but are not a part of the proposed project (APNs 216-124-15, -25). The La Costa Towne Center shopping center is anchored by a vacant Vons grocery store, as well as five one and two-story multi-tenant retail and office buildings. The properties proposed to be redeveloped are located outside of the boundaries of the coastal zone. The shopping center is located in Local Facilities Management Zone 6, has a zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q) and a General Plan Land Use designation of Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS). The proposed project entails the demolition of the existing Vons building (31,070 SF) and an additional building (14,760 SF), addressed as 7710 and 7740 El Camino Real, respectively. In place of the existing 31,070 SF Vons building, which is located on the northern third ofthe shopping center, a three-story, 95,078 SF mixed use building is proposed to be constructed. The first floor of the new mixed use building, comprising 35,584 SF in area, is proposed to be occupied by retail uses. The 2"" June 2013 -1- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 and 3^'' floors ofthe mixed use building will be occupied by a total of 48 multi-family units (16, one bedroom units, 6, two bedroom units, and 2, three bedroom units on each floor) ranging in size from 700 to 1,391 SF, as well as a common recreation area on the 2"'' floor. At its closest point, the building is proposed to be setback from El Camino Real approximately 36 feet. Two pedestrian access points are proposed from El Camino Real to the proposed development. Including a proposed architectural tower, the building will have a maximum height of 45 feet. A second, two-story mixed use building is proposed to be constructed southeast ofthe existing Vons building in an area which is currently occupied by surface parking and ornamental landscaping. The building will have an overall floor area of 18,320 SF and a maximum height of approximately 42 feet (including architectural tower). A total of 9,324 SF of retail area will occupy the bottom floor and 8,996 SF will occupy the second floor. A total of 12 multi-family units (8, one bedroom units and 4, two bedroom units) ranging in size from 624 to 1,001 SF are proposed on the second floor. These 12 units are proposed to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement for the mixed use development. An open-air pedestrian bridge is proposed across the main driveway off of La Costa Avenue to link the residential uses and allow the tenants to utilize the common recreation area and access the parking. Overall, including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings, a net gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed. The proposed density for 60 residential units is 22.2 dwelling units per acre (10.83 net acres x 0.25 = 2.7 acres; 60 units/2.7 acres = 22.2 dwelling units/acre). Parking for the new retail and residential uses is proposed to be provided by a combination of surface parking and a single-level parking structure, a portion of which is subterranean, with open parking on top. Overall, a total of 470 parking spaces currently exist in the shopping center and a total of 608 parking spaces are proposed. Therefore, a net gain of 138 parking spaces is proposed to accommodate the additional retail area and new multi-family residential use. The parking structure is proposed to be located adjacent to, as well as below, the proposed three-story mixed use building. Access to the parking structure will be provided by a new driveway entry proposed off of El Camino Real. In exchange, one driveway, which is located south of the new driveway and adjacent to Building 7740 (to be demolished), will be removed and replaced with parking, pedestrian access to the site from El Camino Real and landscaping. The front yard setback from El Camino Real for the parking structure and additional parking lot will be 17.5 feet and 14.5 feet, respectively. Grading for the proposed project includes a total of 54,600 cubic yards of cut for the development of the parking garage, a portion of which is below grade. As no fill is required, a total of 54,600 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the project site. In order to allow separate ownership for the existing and proposed retail area, as well as the new residential area, a three-lot vertical parcel map is proposed. Parcel 1, which will comprise the new retail area, parking structure and surface parking is proposed to be 7.78 acres in size. Parcel 2, 7.44 acres in size, will include the existing retail/office area and surface parking. Parcel 3 is proposed to allow for the new multi-family units to be separately owned. It is proposed as a vertical parcel, above the retail area on Parcel 1, and is 1.37 acres in size. The proposed applications are summarized below. Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 78-03(D). The existing Site Development Plan for the shopping center, SDP 78-03(C) is proposed to be amended to address the development proposal. A November, 2013 -£.- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Site Development Plan is required for projects which are located in the Qualified Development Overlay (Q) zone. Site Development Plan. SDP 13-03. A Site Development Plan is required for the 12 inclusionary housing units proposed on-site (i.e., 20% of residential units provided). Included as a component of the Site Development Plan is a request to exceed the 35-foot-height limitation ofthe C-1 zone and El Camino Real Corridor Standards pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100. CMC Section 21.85.100 allows modifications to standards for projects which incorporate inclusionary housing. Special Use Permit. SUP 13-01. A Special Use Permit is required for projects which are located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is designated as a scenic corridor. The proposed project is located within Area 5 ofthe El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECR Standards). Area 5 ofthe ECR Standards currently allow for a maximum height of 35 feet. As the project proposes a height up to 45 feet, a deviation to the standards is required and will be processed as an offset pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100. No deviation is needed for the proposed front yard setback from El Camino Real since a 10-foot frontyard setback was approved as part ofthe original Site Development Plan. Non-Residential Planned Development Permit. PUD 13-02. A Non-Residential Planned Development Permit is proposed for the mixture of residential and commercial units and to allow for reciprocal access and parking throughout the shopping center. Minor Subdivision, MS 13-01. The shopping center currently spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-124- 16, -17). A Minor Subdivision is proposed to allow for the property to be subdivided into three parcels. Included in this proposal, is a vertical parcel to allow for the multi-family residential uses above the 1" floor retail uses to be separately managed and owned. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: The La Costa Towne Center Shopping Center is characterized as an infill lot located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6, in the southeast quadrant of the city, approximately 2.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and outside ofthe boundaries ofthe coastal zone. The site is bounded by La Costa Avenue, a secondary arterial road, as well as an office building to the north, two-story multi-family units to the south, one and two-story single-family uses to the east, and El Camino Real, a prime arterial road, to the west. The existing shopping center is located approximately 15-20 feet above the elevation of El Camino Real. While a majority of the developed area is flat, a large uphill perimeter slope is located along the eastern quarter of the property. The slope ranges in elevation from a high point of 180' above mean sea level (AMSL) to 80' AMSL at the base of the slope. Overhead power lines for SDGSiE traverse through a 50-foot-wide easement, which is located midway up the eastern slope. The uphill perimeter slope is primarily landscaped with non-native, ornamental trees. 11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Not applicable November, 2013 -3- Initial Study 14 La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics n Agriculture & Forestry Resources • Air Quality D Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources IE) Geology/Soils n Greenhouse Gas Emissions ^ Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality D Land Use & Planning G Mineral Resources IEI Noise D Population & Housing D Public Services n Recreation n Transportation/Traffic n Utilities & Service Systems IEI Mandatory Findings of Significance 14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by: ShafnnoryWerneke, Associate Planner / Date Novennber, 2013 initial Study ( La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03{D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency} On the basis ofthis initial evaluation: • I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IS I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. • I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant lmpact{s)'' on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1] has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration is required, but It must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Therefore, nothing further Is required. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: l^e initial study for this project has been reviewed and the \vironmental determination. Indicated above, is hereby approved. £flvironmentai aeter /Z'2o-/J DON NEU, City Planner Date 17. APPUCANT CONCURRENCE WiTH MITIGATION MEASURES: This Is to certify that I have reviewed the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the project. 1-2.I Signature . Date Na»fflb*r,2oi3 -5- Initial Study Project Name: La Costa Towne Center Project No: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Initial Study ^r~j Project Name: La Costa Towne Center Project No: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 1. AESTHETICS ally 3nt Impact in ant with orporated in ant Impact tj n enti lifici ithe lifiCi .Inc ^ <3 a S Would the project: Pot Sigr OJ .— .T -J IO 2 Les! Sigr o a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? • • • b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to. trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic • • • highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the • • • site and its surroundings? • • • d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would • • ra • adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • • lAl • a-b) No Impact. The project site is located on the east side of El Camino Real and south of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The site is currently developed with an existing 123,822 SF shopping center which is situated approximately 15-20 feet above the elevation of El Camino Real. Surrounding land uses include a shopping center and bank to the north, multi-family uses to the south, single-family uses to the east, and El Camino Real to the west. As the project is surrounded on all sides by development and is located adjacent to a major transportation corridor as well as transit stops, it is considered to be an infill lot. The proposal to demolish two existing buildings and construct two mixed use buildings as well as a single level parking structure will not have any substantially adverse effects on public scenic vistas or substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway as the project is not located adjacent to a Scenic highway and the developed site does not have any scenic vistas. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. c) Less than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings in that the property is currently developed with a shopping center. Further, as the existing shopping center is currently underutilized and outdated in design, the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings is expected to revitalize the shopping center and improve the visual quality ofthe site. While the proposed project is located adjacent to a designated scenic corridor. El Camino Real, and is therefore subject to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor development and design standards, the proposed mixed use buildings will not be located any closer to El Camino Real than what was previously permitted (i.e., 10 feet) pursuant to the approved Site Development Plan (SDP 78-03C). In addition, the project will incorporate extensive landscaping in the front yard setback to visually enhance its current degraded appearance. Moreover, the request to exceed the allowable 35-foot height limitation pursuant to CMC Section 21.26.030, can be permitted pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120(B) if inclusionary housing is incorporated into the project design and findings can be made to support the increase. Given the urban context of the surroundings land uses, the request to construct a three-story mixed use building up to 45 feet in height will not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista of the site nor will it degrade the visual quality of the site because of the existing vacant Vons building. With exception to the deviation from the El Camino Reai Corridor Standards required for the building height. -7-Initial Study IS La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 compliance with the Municipal Code, will reduce the potential impacts to the site's visual character to a less than significant level. Short-term construction-related impacts would consist primarily of grading and building activities, including the presence of construction equipment, truck traffic, construction debris, and temporary safety signage. While views across the project site from surrounding areas as well as from El Camino Reai would be disrupted, no vaiuable aesthetic resources would be destroyed as a result of construction-related activities. These short-term impacts (approximately 12 months) are temporary and would cease upon project completion. Thus, the construction-related impacts to the site's visual character would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The primary sources of exterior lighting in an urban setting are typically associated with street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination through signage and other lighting, security lighting and landscape lighting. Depending upon the location ofthe light source and its proximity to adjacent light-sensitive uses, light introduction has the potential to be a nuisance, thus affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky. Light spillage is typically defined as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentiaily objectionable result from looking directly into a light source of a luminary. Sensitive land uses, such as the proposed multi-family residential uses and the adjacent multi-family and single-family uses to the east and south, could be impacted by the light and glare from the proposed project. Existing lighting conditions at the La Costa Towne shopping center include parking lot, security, landscaping and signage lighting. In addition, street lighting as well as vehicle headlights are present along La Costa Avenue to the north and El Camino Real to the west. The proposal to demolish two existing commercial buildings and construct two mixed use buildings as well as a single level parking structure, will not have a significant impact on tight and glare as the shopping center currently exists in a developed, urban context, both on-site and offsite. The proposed parking lots will be illuminated with standard parking lot lighting. While an increase in light will be created by the project, the impacts will be minimal since the parking light fixtures and exterior building light fixtures will be shielded and directed downward to reduce the impacts caused by glare. This will limit any impacts to the adjacent single-family residentiai uses to the east, which are located approximately 100 feet upslope form the proposed development as well as the new multi-family uses proposed as a component of the mixed use project. Therefore, potential operational light and glare impacts would be less than significant. November, 2013 initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES* tiaily cant Impact ^an cant with icorporated lian cant impact « a. Would the project: Poten Signifi LesstI Signifi Mit.il LesstI Signifi Nolm a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to • • • the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe California • • • Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? • • • c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to • • • non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? in determining v/hether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) a-c) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a shopping center, is located in an urbanized area, and is zoned for commercial as well as mixed uses (C-l-Q). The proposed project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use; does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts; and there are no agricultural uses within the vicinity of the project site, nor is the project proposing any changes which, due to its location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources are anticipated. IM. AiR QUALITY* Itially Ficant impact •a at *• 5-= S Q » 3 S 45 1= .5 rhan Ficant Impact ts n a c Would the project: Potei Signii Lessi Signii Mit.l Less' Signii c o z a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? • • • El b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an • • El • existing or projected air quality violation? • • El • c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard • • • (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? November, 2013 -9-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 ^' -tJ- •... n • a. • a -2 i o •. E III. AIR QUALITY* intially Ificant than Ificant' incorp 'Than Ificant ts ra o. E a <: «, c Wl Ml Would the project: o .aH ii R z d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • • • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of • • IEI • people? • • • * where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air poliution controi district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) No Impact. As discussed in the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2013), the project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin, which is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the state standard for PMio, PM2.5,1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8- Hour Standard for ozone. The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quaiity Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Poliution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The RAQS outlines the APCD's plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009. The APCD has also developed the SDAB's input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. In addition, the project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed 60 dwelling units will be deducted from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Section 15125(d) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quaiity management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part ofthe RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quaiity standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quaiity plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? November, 2013 -10-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. The TCMs adopted by SANDAG identified job-housing balance, mixed use and transit corridor development as criteria for indirect source control. As part of the job-housing balance, SANDAG indicated that land use policies and programs shall be established to attract appropriate employers to residential areas and to encourage appropriate housing in and near industrial and business areas. Mixed use development should be designed to maximize walking and minimize vehicle use by providing housing, employment, education, shopping recreation and any support facilities within convenient proximity. The La Costa Towne Center project meets the criteria of the RAQS, SIP and SANDAG's Transportation Control Measures as it provides mixed use (i.e., multi-family apartments and commercial uses) along a major transportation corridor with bus stops located in close proximity to the site. The project is designed to maximize walking and minimize vehicle use by providing housing in close proximity to commercial uses in the shopping center as well as on the north side of La Costa Avenue. In addition, bicycle parking as well as designated parking stalls for energy efficient vehicles are provided on site. Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality plans and would not result in a significant impact. b) iess than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are at Camp Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from 2009 through 2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1- Hour ozone concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through 2011; the 8-Hour ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010 and the state standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PMio concentration exceeded the state standard in 2009, but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PMio and the federal 24-Hour PM2.5 standard was not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011. Short-term/construction impacts The proposed project inciudes construction activities associated with demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. The proposed project would be constructed over a time frame of approximately 12 months and is anticipated to begin mid-year in 2014. Construction activities would require the demolition of 45,830 SF and the export of approximately 54,600 cubic yards of soil. Table 4d of the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2013), provides detailed emission estimates associated with the proposed project. Emitted pollutants would include volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxide (SO,) as well as particulate matter (PM) less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter. As part ofthe project design features, it was assumed that standard dust control measures, such as watering the site three times daily and using soil stabilizers on unpaved roads, and architectural coating that comply with the SDAPCD, would be utilized during construction. As demonstrated in the table, emissions of criteria pollutants during construction would not only be temporary but would also be less than significant. November, 2013 -11- Initial StUdy La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction. LonR-term/operational impacts Operational impacts associated with the La Costa Towne Center project would inciude impacts associated with vehicular traffic, as well as sources such as energy use, consumer product use, and architectural coatings for maintenance purposes. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the La Costa Towne Center (Urban Systems Associates, May, 2013), the existing site generates 14,890 average daily trips (ADT). According to the Traffic Impact Analysis, upon build-out, the project will generate 15,682 ADT for a net increase of 791 ADT. Table 5 of the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2013) presents a summary of the emissions calculated for the existing conditions and the proposed project. Because the project involves renovation of an existing site, the project's operations will result in an incremental change in emissions. Based on the estimates of the emissions associated with Project operations, the emissions would decrease from existing levels and would, therefore, have a less than significant impact. Projects involving traffic impacts may result in the formation of locally high concentrations of CO, known as CO "hot spots." To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO "hot spots" was conducted. The Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans, 1998) were followed to determine whether a CO "hot spot" is likely to form due to project-generated traffic. In accordance with the Protocol, CO "hot spots" are typically evaluated when (a) the level of service (LOS) of an intersection or roadway decreases to a LOS E or worse; (b) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and (c) sensitive receptors such as residences, commercial developments, schools, hospitals, etc. are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment. The rro///c Impact Analysis evaluated whether or not there would be a decrease in the level of service at the intersections affected by the Project. Based on the analysis, no intersections would experience a degradation in LOS to LOS E or F due to project traffic. Accordingly, the project would not result in CO "hot spots", and no significant impact would result. c) iess than Significant Impact. The San Diego air basin is currently in a state of non-attainment for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent an incremental contribution to a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with nonattainment pollutants would be minimal and below the screening-level thresholds. Given the limited emissions associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. Any project emitting toxic air contaminants (TAC) which has the potential to directly impact a sensitive receptor located within one mile arid results in a cancer risk greater than 10 in one million would be deemed to have a potentiaily significant impact. Air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (preschool through 12"' grade), hospitals, residential care facilities, or day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Residential land uses may also be considered sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the site are the single-family November, 2013 -12- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 residential uses located to the east and south and approximately 0.1 miles from the project. As discussed above, as well as in the Air Quality Technical Report (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2013), the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no other sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. e) iess than Significant Impact. A project that proposes a use which would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of offsite receptors. The construction ofthe proposed project will generate exhaust from the operation of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable to some people. Odors are highest near the source and wouid quickly dissipate offsite. Such exposure associated with the construction activities for the proposed project would be short-term in nature as well as transient, and would cease upon project completion. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. Land uses associated with odor complaints typically involve agricultural uses, wastewater treatment facilities, food processing and chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills and fiberglass molding. The proposed mixed use project would not generate objectionable odors during business operations. In addition, the project would comply with city requirements applicable to maintenance of trash areas to minimize potential odors. Therefore, significant impacts related to odors would not occur. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Itially Ficant Impact than ficantwith Incorporated than Ficant Impact 13 ra -a E Would the project: Potei Signii Lessi Signii Mit. 1 Less! bignii C o z a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • • • b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • • • c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? • • • m d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? • • • El e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological • • • M November, 2013 -13-Initial Study 2 Lj La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES entially lificant impact sthan lificant with . Incorporated s than lificant Impact Impact Would the project: Pot Sigi 5-as Les! Sigr o z resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? • • • a-f) No Impact. The project site, currently developed with an existing shopping center, is substantially surrounded by urban land uses. Pursuant to the Biological Technical Report (Alden Environmental, Inc., November, 2012), no candidate, sensitive or special status species are located on the project site. In addition, no potential state or federal jurisdictional features (i.e., wetland or riparian areas) are located on-site. While the project's eastern uphill slope has a General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS), the parcel is not located within an existing Hardline or Standards Areas 'pursuant to the city's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). In addition, there are no wildlife habitat linkages on the project site. Therefore, the project does not conflict with any of the provisions outlined in the HMP. The proposed mixed use project does not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as CMC Chapter 21.210. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated. V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? • • • b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? • • • c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • • • d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? • • • a &d) No Impact. Pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Assessment (ADR Environmental Group, December, 2011), the existing shopping center was developed in 1981. Given the date of construction (i.e., less than 50 years old), no historical resources exist on the property. In addition, no conditions exist which would suggest that human remains are likely to be found on-site since the property has been previously disturbed and is currently developed with a shopping center. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. In the event that human remains are discovered, proper treatment would be required in accordance with the applicable state laws. November, 2013 -14-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on review of the Map 5.8-2 of the Final EIR for the General Plan Update, (March, 1994), the project site is not located in a known archaeologically-sensitive area. In addition, as the project site has been previously graded for the development of the existing shopping center, the probability that the demolition and construction would impact any undocumented buried archaeological resource is moderately low. Notwithstanding the above, given that excavation is required for the construction of the subterranean parking structure, mitigation measures are proposed to address the potential impact to any archaeological resources that may be discovered during construction. Compliance with mitigation measures CULTURAL-1 and CULTURAL-2 would reduce the potential impacts to a iess than significant level. Mitigation Measures; CULTURAL-1 - Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological monitor If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, dato recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 ofthe CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre- excavation agreement. If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area ofthe discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City ofCarlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. November, 2013 -15- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 CULTURAL-2 - Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services of a Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance ofa grading permit. Prior to implementation ofthe monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on- site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation (Ninyo 8i Moore, Juiy, 2012) prepared for the proposed project, the geologic setting on-site consists of Quaternary-aged surficial deposits, underlain by Tertiary (Del Mar Formation) and Cretaceous-age sedimentary rocks. Pursuant to Map 5.8-1 of the Final EIR for the General Plan Update, (March, 1994), the site is located in a potentially significant fossil area. In addition, it is noted that the Del Mar Formation has produced a large number of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. As the project grading has the potential to disturb undisturbed soils which may contain fossils, a mitigation measure is proposed (PALEO-l) to reduce the potential impacts paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure; PALEO-l A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City Planner prior to issuance of a grading permit. C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner during the grading process. E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the City Planner and the City Engineer November, 2013 -16- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Vi. GEOLOGY AND SOILS intially ificant Impact than iflcantwith Incorporated than ificant Impact mpact Would the project: Pot« Sign Less Mit Less Sign o z a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • • • ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? • • • iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • • • iv. Landslides? • • • b) Result in substantial soil erosion orthe loss of topsoil? • • • c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result ofthe project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? • • • d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 ofthe California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? • • • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? • • • a.i-a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project (Ninyo &. Moore, Juiy, 2012), the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, nor are there any known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one ofthe active regional faults, the nearest ofwhich is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located 5 miles west of the site. Due to the relatively dense nature of on-site soils, the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is not a significant concern. In addition, the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the California Building Code which includes specific design measures which are intended to maximize structural stability in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. a.iv) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation, based on a review of geologic maps, there are no mapped landslides underlying the subject site; however, the site is located in an area classified as marginally susceptible to landslides. In addition, as noted in the report, a previous evaluation of the site in 1977 indicated that an ancient landslide was present at the site based on the presence of claystone and siltstones with slickensided surfaces November, 2013 -17-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 indicating shearing. Furthermore, a boring taken for the proposed project in the area proposed to be developed with the two-story mixed use building (i.e., east side of shopping center) encountered possible landslide deposits. To address the potential for slope instability in this area and to stabilize the area proposed to be excavated, a series of tie back anchors are proposed, the details of which are discussed in the Geotechnical Evaluation. In order to reduce the potential impacts associated with the potential for landslides to a less than significant level, mitigation measure GEO-1 is proposed. Mitigation Measure: GEO-1. The project shall incorporate all engineering recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated July 13, 2012, during grading, construction and operations to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards at the project site. These recommendations shall be stipulated in the construction contracts and specifications. b) iess than Significant Impact. Grading and earthwork activities associated with the proposed project, which includes the construction of a single-level parking structure, would expose soils to short- term erosion by wind and water. Ail demolition and construction activities would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code, the city's Excavation and Grading Ordinance, as well as the recommendations of the Preliminary Stormwater Plan (Stevens Cresto Engineering, January, 2013). As discussed in the Preliminary Stormwater Plan, the implementation ofand standard city-required erosion control techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce soil erosion impacts associated with construction to a less than significant level In addition, substantial soil erosion or loss of top soil is not expected to occur as a result of long-term operations since a majority of the project site will be either be developed with the mixed use buildings or repaved. Any pervious areas that are proposed would be landscaped, which would reduce any potential impacts to a iess than significant level. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is generally underiain by the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation, an exploratory boring also encountered fill soils to depths up to 23 feet as well as possible landslide deposits which may extend to depths of more than 36 feet below existing grade. As discussed above, to reduce the potential impacts associated with the potential for landslides to a less than significant level, mitigation measure GEO-1 is proposed. Based on the generally dense nature of the formation materials occurring below the groundwater, the potential for liquefaction at the site is not significant. Due to the presence of groundwater at a depth as shallow as 3.5 feet, groundwater seepage is expected to be a constraint during construction of the subterranean parking garage. Compliance with mitigation measure GEO-1 will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to the Geotechnical Evaluation, on-site soils have a medium potential for expansion. Accordingly, recommendations for deepened foundations and supplemental recommendations for thickened slabs-on-grade with reinforcing are described in the Geotechnical Evaluation. Compliance with mitigation measure GEO-1 will reduce the impact to a iess than significant level. November, 2013 -18- Initial Study '-^ ^ La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Impact with lorated Impact Vll. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS entially lificant sthan lificant . Incorp Less than Significant Impact Would the project: Pot Sigr Sigr Mit Less than Significant o z a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly. • • ra • that may have a significant impact on the environment? • • Ley • b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for • • ra • the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? • • • a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad has not adopted its own greenhouse (GHG) thresholds of significance and is, therefore, following guidance provided from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report, CEQA and Climate Change, dated January, 2008, for interim screening criteria to determine when a GHG analysis would be required. Specifically, CAPCOA proposed a 900-metric tons of CO2 e (i.e., equivalent) screening threshold to evaluate whether a project requires further analysis. Projects with emissions above the 900 metric ton threshold are required to evaluate whether emissions can be reduced to below "business as usual" levels. Based on a state-wide goal to reduce GHG emissions and comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, a significance threshold of 28.35% below "business as usual" conditions was used in the Global Climate Change Evaluation (Scientific Resources Associated, October, 2012) prepared for the La Costa Towne Center project. "Business as usual" is defined as the emissions that would have occurred in the absence of reductions mandated under AB 32. Based on the latest guidelines and baseline emission calculations for energy efficiency, "business as usual" is considered to be the equivalent of Title 24 as of 2005. Pursuant to the Global Climate Change Evaluation (Evaluation), GHG emissions for the project (existing and proposed) were estimated separately for five (5) categories: construction; energy use, including electricity and natural gas usage; water consumption; solid waste handling; and transportation. Existing Conditions Taking into account the existing traffic counts pursuant to the Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Systems Associates, 2012), as well as the fact that the existing buildings were constructed prior to the 2005 Title 24 standards. Table 4 of the Evaluation, estimates that the total existing operational CO2 equivalent emissions are 12,506 metric tons per year. Construction GHG Emissions Construction GHG emissions include emissions from heavy construction equipment, truck traffic for the export of materiai, and worker trips. Emissions were calculated utilizing the CalEEMod Model, which is the newest iand use emissions model for completed and proposed construction. Pursuant to Table 5 in the Evaluation, construction CO2 equivalent emissions are estimated to be 1,103 metric tons. Lead agencies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego, recommend that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year period to account for the contribution of constructions emissions over a lifetime of the project. Amortizing November, 2013 -19-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 emissions from construction of the proposed project over a 30-year period would result in an annual contribution of 37 metric tons of CO2 e. These emissions are added to the operational emissions to account forthe contribution of construction to GHG emissions forthe lifetime ofthe project. Operational GHG Emissions The property owner/applicant. Excel La Costa LLC, proposes to renovate and expand the existing shopping center with the addition of two mixed use buildings. Overall, a net gain off 3,078 SF of retail space and 60 multi-family units are proposed. The results ofthe inventory for operational emissions for business as usual for the proposed project are presented in the table beiow. These inciude GHG emissions associated with the new buildings (natural gas, purchased electricity), water consumption (energy embodied in potable water), solid waste management (including transport and landfill gas generation), and vehicles. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO Emission Source Annual Emissions (Metric tons/year) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O C02e Operational Emissions Electricity Use 658 0.0274 0.0074 661 Natural Gas Use 44 0.0049 0.0001 44 Water Use 108 0.0045 0.0012 108 Solid Waste Management 49 --49 Vehicle Emissions 11,952 0.20 1.39 12,388 Amortized Construction Emissions 43 --37 Total 12,854 0.24 1.40 13,293 Global Warming Potential Factor 1 21 310 CO2 Equivalent Emissions 12,854 5 434 13,293 TOTAL CO2 Equivalent Emissions 13,293 Existing CO2 Equivalent Emissions 12,506 Net CO2 Equivalent Emissions 787 As demonstrated in the table above, the net emissions associated with the La Costa Towne Center Project are below the 900 metric ton screening threshold under business as usual conditions. In November, 2013 -20-Initial Study 3! La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 addition, pursuant to Table 7 of the Global Climate Change Evaluation, with the implementation of GHG reduction measures such as state and/or federally-mandated energy/fuel efficiency and mobile source emission reductions, the proposed project will be more than 28.3% below "business as usual" levels. Therefore, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; nor will it conflict with an applicabie plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project will be consistent with the goals of AB 32, and wouid not result in a cumulatively significant global climate change impact. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? • • • b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? • • • c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • • • d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? • • • e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • • f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? • • • g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • • • h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? • • • a) Wo Impact. The proposed mixed use project wouid not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; therefore, no impact is anticipated. November, 2013 -21-Initial Study r-.. .''7 La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 b) iess than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to the Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared for the project (ADR Environmental Group, December, 2011), no indications of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mold or lead-based paint were detected. However, during an on-site survey, suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were identified, including, but not limited to, vinyl sheet flooring and tiles, mastic, gypsum wallboard, joint compound, ceiling tiles, and roofing materials. As a result, a follow-up Asbestos Survey Report was completed (ADR Environmental Group, December, 2012) which confirmed the presence of asbestos-containing materials. Whiie no significant damage to the materials was observed, because two buildings are proposed to be demolished, mitigation is required. Compliance with mitigation measure HAZ-1 will reduce impacts associated with asbestos to a iess than significant level. Mitigation Measure: HAZ-1. Prior to physical disturbance of any of the identified asbestos-containing materials, asbestos abatement is required in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The removal of asbestos-containing materials requires the use of appropriate engineering controls by a contractor licensed by the California State Contractors License Board, and registered with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). Evidence that this measure has been implemented shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the demolition or grading permit, whichever occurs first. c-f) No Impact. No existing or proposed schools are located within V* mile of the project site. In addition, the McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately three (3) miles north of the subject shopping center. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan (ALUCP), the project is located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Further, the project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip nor is it included on any lists as a hazardous materials site, pursuant to the Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) Wo Impact. The project site is located adjacent to El Camino Reai, which is one of five primary arterials designated in the General Plan as an emergency access or emergency evacuation route to move people during emergencies. The City of Carlsbad's Fire Department will provide ali basic fire and emergency medical services to the project site. Specifically, the project will be served by Fire Station Nos. 2 and 6. The developed site is within a five minute response time for these fire stations. Additionally, the City of Carlsbad's Fire Department has agreements with other agencies, such as the County of San Diego, to provide additional services, including hazardous materials incident response. In the event of a large scale incident, the City of Carlsbad will activate its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and provide details to residents. The proposed mixed use project will not impact the ability to provide emergency services to the project site, nor will it physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. h) iess than Signiflcant Impact. The subject parcel is located in a developed area and the project is considered as infill development. A west-facing manufactured slope, ranging in elevation from 45' to 180' MSL and primarily vegetated with eucalyptus trees, is located along the eastern boundary of the site. The at-grade porches proposed in association with two-story mixed use building are located approximately 10 feet from the base of the slope. While the City is considered a medium fire hazard area (Public Safety Element, General Plan), given the sparse vegetation located on the slope, the Fire Department has indicated that a Fire Protection/Suppression Pian will not be required for the project. However, fire sprinklers will be required. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. November, 2013 -22-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Lessthan Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? • • K • b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? • • • 13 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? • • K • d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? • • Kl • e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? • • Kl • f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? • • Kl • g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? • • • K h) Place within lOO-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? • • • K i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result ofthe failure ofa levee or dam? • • • 13 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • • • Kl a) iess than Significant Impact. The project is required by law to comply with ali federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Titie 23, specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quaiity Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP), and the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which inciudes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction activities as well as post-development activities for this project are covered under state- wide construction permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ issued by the State Water Resource Control Board November, 2013 -23-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Permit and regional Order No. R9-2013-0001 issued by the California Regional Water Quaiity Control Board's San Diego region. As the project qualifies as a Priority Development Project, a Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (Stevens Cresto Engineering, January, 2013) has been prepared for the project which addresses what treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be constructed to treat the post-development runoff from the project. The Plon addresses how pollutants from this project will be reduced, captured, filtered, and/or treated prior to discharge from the project site. In addition, as a standard condition for this project, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pian (SWPPP) will be required to control the quality of storm water runoff, erosion, and sediment during construction. Through the implementation of the recommendations of the above-noted reports, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Any impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are therefore considered to be less than significant. b) Wo Impact. This project does not propose to directiy draw any groundwater. The project wili be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. c-f) Less than Signiflcant Impact. Pursuant to the Preliminary Drainage Study (Stevens Cresto Engineering, January, 2013) prepared for the project, storm water runoff generated by the existing shopping center is collected within an existing storm drain located on-site and is conveyed to one of three public 24" RCP pipes crossing El Camino Real. As part of the proposed project, a new storm drain will be constructed to support the improvements. All three existing pipes discharge, within approximately 750 feet of each other, into Encinas Creek, located west of El Camino Real. Encinas Creek crosses La Costa Avenue to the north and ultimately flows into Batiquitos Lagoon, which is approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the project site. Construction of the new storm drain will necessitate a minor redistribution of area between the localized basins. Per the Preliminary Drainage Study, this is not considered a diversion of runoff since all project outfalls discharge to the same location. As a Priority Project, and per Carlsbad's SUSWMP, the project is subject to hydromodification criteria as detailed in the San Diego County's Hydromodification Plan, dated March 25, 2011. As a result, the project will be designed to match pre-project runoff flow rates for storms up to a 10-year design storm. Since the La Costa Towne Center project proposes to redevelop a portion ofthe existing shopping center which is already paved, the net impact to the total impervious surface at the project will be negligible. Per the pre-project and post-project runoff calculations identified in the Preliminary Drainage Study, the average runoff coefficient will not change. Total peak runoff will increase, however, due to the inclusion of a new storm drain within the project site, and the corresponding decrease in time of concentration. With the incorporation of Low Impact Development (LIDs) features and hydromodification BMPs, the increase in runoff will reduce the impacts to a iess than significant level. In addition, pursuant to the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, the incorporation of bioretention basins, higher rate filters, and underground detention, will not only treat the water but will also reduce the rate of runoff leaving the site. Through these efforts, the project will not violate any water quality standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality; will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns causing substantial erosion, siltation, or fiooding; and will not significantly impact the capacity of storm water drainage systems. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. November, 2013 -24- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within the lOO-year flood hazard area. In addition, pursuant to the Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mapping Studv. Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami, and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps (September 1992), based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, as well as the elevation of the site with respect to the sea level (45-60 feet above mean sea level), the possibility of tsunami or mudflow is considered to be low. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING entially lificant Impact i than lificant with . Incorporated ithan lificant Impact Impact Would the project: Pot Sigr ifl So ~ 5'^S Sigr o z a) Physically divide an established community? • • • Kl b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? • • • c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? • • • Kl a) Wo Impact. The proposal to renovate an existing shopping center, including the demolition of two existing commercial/retail buildings and the construction of two mixed use buildings, would be compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community; no impact is anticipated. b) iess than Signiflcant Impact. The subject 15.24-acre property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q) and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS). The property is also located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is identified as a scenic corridor. The proposal to renovate the shopping center, including the demolition of two commercial buildings and the construction of two mixed use buildings, is consistent with the goals and policies ofthe Housing Element (Programs 2.1 and 2.3) ofthe General Plan in that mixed use is highly encouraged in shopping centers. In addition, the proposed density for 60 residential units is 22.2 dwelling units per acre (10.83 net acres x 0.25 = 2.7 acres; 60 units/2.7 acres = 22.2 dwelling units/acre), which meets the minimum standard of 20 units per acre set forth in the Housing Element. The proposed uses are also consistent with the C-1 zone in that the residential component of a mixed use project as well as retail uses are permitted by right in the C-1 zone. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately three (3) miles north of the subject shopping center. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Use Plan (ALUCP), the project is located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to the ALUCP. Entitlements required forthe proposed project inciude the following: November, 2013 -25-Initlal Study 5^ La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 78-03(D). A Site Development Plan is required for projects which are located in the Qualified Development Overlay (Q) zone. The existing Site Development Plan for the shopping center, SDP 78-03(C), is proposed to be amended to address the development proposal. Including the architectural projections, the maximum height proposed for the three-story mixed use buiiding is 45 feet. Parking for the new retail and residential uses is proposed to be provided by a combination of surface parking and a single-level parking structure with open parking on top. Overall, a total of 470 parking spaces currently exist in the shopping center and a total of 608 parking spaces are proposed. Therefore, a net gain of 138 parking spaces is proposed to accommodate the additional retail area and new multi-family residential use. Site Development Plan. SDP 13-03. A Site Development Plan is required for the proposed inclusionary housing units. Included as a component of the Site Development Plan for inclusionary housing, is a request to exceed the 35-foot-height limitation pursuant to the C-1 zone and the El Camino Real Corridor Standards, as welt as encroach within the required front yard setback. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100, modifications to the height and setbacks can be permitted to offset the cost of affordable housing. Special Use Permit. SUP 13-01. The proposed project is located within Area 5 ofthe El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECR Standards). Area 5 of the ECR Development Standards currently allow for a maximum height of 35 feet and front yard setback of 40 feet. As the project proposes a height up to 45 feet and front yard setback as close as 14.5 feet, a deviation to the standards is required. The original Site Development Plan for the shopping center established a 10- foot-wide front yard setback. As discussed above, because inclusionary housing is being provided on-site, modifications to the developments standards can be permitted as an offset. Non-Residential Planned Development Permit. PUD 13-02. A Non-Residential Planned Development Permit is proposed for the mixture of residential and commercial units and to allow for reciprocal access and parking throughout the shopping center. Minor Subdivision. MS 13-01. The shopping center currently spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-124- 16, -17) totaling 15.24 acres (gross). In order to allow separate ownership for the existing and proposed retail area as well as the new residential area, a three-lot vertical parcel map is proposed. Parcel 1, which will comprise the new retail area, parking structure and surface parking is proposed to be 7.78 acres in size. Parcel 2, 7.44 acres in size, will include the existing retail/office area and surface parking. Parcel 3 is proposed to allow for the new multi-family units to be separately managed and owned. It is proposed as a vertical parcel, above the retail area on Parcel 1, and is 1.37 acres in size. Pursuant to the C-1 zone, there are no minimum standards with respect to lot size or width. In addition to the above-noted permits, an allocation from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) is being requested for the proposed 60 multi-family residential units. In order to receive an allocation, the project must be consistent with City Council Policy No. 43 and the following findings must be made: (1) the project iocation and density shall be compatible with the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses; (2) the project location and density shall be in accordance the applicable provisions of the General Plan and any other applicable planning document; and (3) the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range. The proposed mixed use project meets these findings; therefore, an allocation from the EDUB can be supported. November, 2013 -26- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 In summary, with the approval of deviations to the ECR Development Standards and a modification to the height and setbacks as allowed for an affordable housing project, the proposed mixed use project is consistent with the goals and policies ofthe General Plan and the standards ofthe C-1 zone and the El Camino Real Corridor. c) Wo Impact. As discussed in Section IV above. Biological Resources, the project does not confiict with any applicabie habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact is assessed. Impact with orated Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES >• *.> = c •'•. +-»\ • e C u entia Ilfica sthai Ilfica . Incc Ilfica m a. E Would the project: Pot Sigr Les: Sigr Mit Les: Sigr o z a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the • • • State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific • • • Kl plan, or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within the City are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts will occur as a result ofany project (MEIR 93-01, page 5.13-1). Xll. NOISE entially lificant impact ithan liflcant with . Incorporated i than lificant Impact Impact Would the project result in: Pot Sigr Les! Sigr MIt Les! Sigr o z a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? • • • b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? • • • c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • • d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • Kl • e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • • • November, 2013 -27-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Impart with orated Impart Xll. NOISE entially liflcant sthan liflcant . Incorp ithan lificant Impart Would the project result in: Pot Sigr Les! Sigr Mit Les! Sigr o z f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to • • • Kl excessive noise levels? a) Less than Signiflcant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located adjacent to El Camino Real as well as La Costa Avenue, two heavily-traveled corridors in the city. To analyze the proposed project's compatibility with the City's Noise Guidelines Manual (2013), an Exterior Noise Analysis Report (Report) was prepared by dBF Associates, Inc. (June, 2013). Pursuant to the Noise Guidelines Manual, the following thresholds shall be applied to assess impacts: Interior Noise Residential: 45 dBA Leq Commercial: 55 dBA Leq Exterior Noise: Residential (if outdoor recreation/amenities required): 60 dBA Commercial: 65-70 dBA Leq Existing/Baseline Condition Pursuant to the Report, the ambient noise at the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic on El Camino Reai and, secondarily, from traffic on La Costa Avenue. Existing on-site activity consists of occasional low-speed vehicular traffic to and from the onsite businesses. Gathering or other activity at outdoor areas is very limited. Short-term sound measurements were conducted at the afternoon peak period to quantify the existing on-site acoustical baseline due to vehicle traffic and to calibrate the noise model. The measurement results are summarized in Table 2 of the Report. A review of the table indicates that measured sound level ranges from approximately 54 dBA Leq (upper parking lot/location of two-story mixed use building) to 71 dBA Leq (El Camino Real). Construction/Short-Term Impacts Construction of the project would generate a temporary increase in noise in the project area. The increase in noise level would be primarily experienced closest to the noise source. The magnitude ofthe impact would depend on the type of construction activity, noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, duration ofthe construction phase, and distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction activity and delivery of construction materials and equipment would be limited to non- holidays, between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. This project would utilize conventional construction techniques and equipment. Standard equipment such as scrapers, graders, backhoes, rollers, loaders, tractors, cranes, and miscellaneous trucks would be used for construction of a majority of the project facilities. Sound leveis of typical construction equipment range from approximately 65 dBA to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 1971). November, 2013 -28-Initial Study -3^ La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Acoustical calculations were performed to estimate noise from construction activity. Noise sources associated with grading, the loudest of the construction activities, are shown in Table 4. The closest residence is located approximately 175 feet east of construction activity on the project site. It was assumed that one bulldozer, one scraper, one backhoe, one water truck, and one roller would operate continuously throughout the site. A combined point source level of 91 dBA at 50 feet would attenuate to approximately 80 dBA at the closest residence. The average sound levels (CNEL) would be expected to be less than estimated because of downtime that typically occurs during construction. Construction activity would occur during allowable times, in compliance with Section 8.48.010 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. As noise impacts associated with construction are temporary in nature, no potentiaily significant noise impact related to construction would occur. Future Condition- Traffic and Project-Generated Noise The future noise environment will be driven by the amount of vehicular traffic on El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Table 3 of the Report, summarizes the SANDAG forecasts for the future ADTs (Years 2030 and 2050). Incorporating the project traffic counts into the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), as well as other features, such as topography, buildings onsite as well as offsite, and roadway alignments, calculations show that future exterior traffic noise levels at the proposed outdoor usable spaces and building facades (Figure 3 of the Report) wouid range from beiow 60 dBA CNEL (east elevation of Building 7714) to approximately 74 dBA CNEL (west eievation of Building 7710). The foliowing outdoor use areas would be exposed to unmitigated future traffic noise levels over 60 dBA CNEL: the proposed private balconies on the west side of Building 7710, on the second and third floors directly facing El Camino Real; and the common patios on the second and third floors of the north side of Building 7710. However, because these areas are considered amenities and are not required to be provided on-site, no mitigation is required. All other proposed outdoor common and private usable areas would be exposed to future traffic noise levels under 60 dBA CNEL without mitigation. Project-generated noise sources include loading activity at the dock on the northeast corner of Building 7710, HVAC units on the rooftop of Building 7710 and Building 7714, and the cooling tower between Building 7710 and Building 7714. Loading dock activity would primarily consist of tractor-trailer and smaller box trucks. The project is expected to generate an average volume of no more than five hourly trucks during daytime hours (7 AM - 7 PM), two hourty trucks during evening hours (7 PM - 10 PM), and one hourly truck during nighttime hours (10 PM - 7 AM). Sound level measurements of delivery trucks, including tractor-trailers and smaller box trucks, have been conducted at existing similar commercial facilities. A typical maximum delivery hour, which includes one 18-wheeler, two bread trucks, and two refrigerated trucks with the compressors running, generates an average noise level of approximately 66 dBA at 25 feet over a one-hour duration. Building 7710 would have 26 HVAC units in the eastern roof well, 26 units in the western roof well, and 6 units in the central roof well. Building 7714 wouid have 6 units in the northeastern roof well and 6 units in the southeastern roof well. The units are projected to produce a sound power level of approximately 72 dBA. One cooling tower would be located in a mechanical plant area built into the hillside between Building 7710 and Building 7714. The mechanical plant area is surrounded by a retaining wall approximately 16 feet in height to the east, down-sloping retaining walls on the north and south, and a 12-foot-high barrier to the west. The cooling tower would produce a sound power level of approximately 94 dBA at 100% fan speed. At 80% fan speed, which is common during off-peak hours such as nighttime, the sound power level is approximately 91 dBA. November, 2013 -29- Initial StUdy MO La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Excluding the ambient noise (i.e., existing traffic), the operation of the project-generated noise sources would produce noise levels up to approximately 45 dBA CNEL at the eastern project property line, near the center of the western property line ofthe single-family residence at 7623 Rustico Drive, as shown in Table 5 of the Report. Because this measurement is iess than 60 dBA and the existing ambient noise exceeds the project-generated noise, no impact is anticipated to the adjacent residential properties to the east. The project-generated noise sources would also produce noise levels at various points on the project site ranging from below 60 dBA CNEL to approximately 65 dBA CNEL at the third fioor of Buiiding 7710. The implementation of the project with respect to noise is not expected to appreciably alter the use of the outdoor areas on the project site. As discussed above, because the communal outdoor space proposed in conjunction with the residential component is not required, no mitigation is required. However, because future traffic noise levels would exceed 60 dBA CNEL at some of the residentiai buiiding facades and 65 dBA CNEL at some ofthe commercial building facades, an interior noise analysis evaluating proposed exterior wall construction, windows, and doors would be required once buiiding plans are finalized to ensure that the interior noise levels meet the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Noise Insulation Standard, as well as the city's Noise Guidelines Manual requirement, which requires a noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less for residential land uses and 55 dBA CNEL or less for commercial land uses. Compliance with mitigation measure NOISE-1 will reduce impacts associated with interior noise to a iess than significant level. Mitigation Measure: NOISE-1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent with City standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the proposed building design will limit interior noise for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55 dBA. The building plans shall incorporate the recommendations in the report to satisfy the requirements. b&d) Less than Signiflcant Impact. The anticipated grading operations associated with the proposed project will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundbourne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the completion of demolition, grading, and construction activities, ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) No Impact. e-f) No Impact. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately three (3) miles north ofthe subject shopping center. Pursuant to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Land Use Pian (ALUCP), the project is located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Further, the project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. November, 2013 -30- Initial Study Mi La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Signiflcant Impart Less than Signiflcant with Mit. Incorporated Lessthan Signiflcant impart No Impart a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • • • b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • a) Less than Signiflcant Impact. The 15.24-acre infill site, currently developed with a shopping center and substantially surrounded by urban uses, is located within the boundaries of Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 6. The project proposes to replace two existing commercial buildings with two new mixed use buildings. In addition to 60 multi-family units (i.e., apartments), a net gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed to be added to the shopping center. Based upon the SANDAG's average of 2.76 people per household, the residential component of the project is expected to provide housing for approximately 166 people. The Zone 6 LFMP was prepared pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program, as outlined in Chapter 21.90 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based on the underlying Zoning and Generai Plan Land Use designations, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with neighborhood commercial uses. While mixed use projects with a residential component are permitted by right in the C-1 zone, because there are no residential units currently allocated to be developed at the site, an allocation from the city's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) is required. As of October 31, 2013, the current city-wide balance of available residential units is 2,144. In order to receive an allocation from the EDUB, the project must be consistent with City Council Policy No. 43 and the following findings must be made: (1) the project location and density shall be compatible with the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses; (2) the project iocation and density shall be in accordance the applicable provisions of the General Plan and any other applicable planning document; and (3) the project complies with the findings stated in the General Plan Land Use Element for projects that exceed the growth management control point for the applicable density range. The proposed mixed use project meets these findings; therefore, an allocation from the EDUB can be supported. As discussed in Section XIV below (Public Services), implementation of the project would not adversely impact planned or current levels of service for public facilities such as sewer, water, open space, parks, libraries, fire, and police. In addition, no road extensions are proposed in association with the project that may induce the potential for induce growth. Furthermore, because the neighborhood that the infill site is located within is already developed with existing uses, it is unlikely that the project will induce substantial growth. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to population or growth patterns in the area. Therefore, a iess than significant impact is anticipated. November, 2013 -31-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 b-c) No Impact. The subject site is currently developed with a shopping center. No residential uses are located on-site. Thus, implementation of the proposed mixed use project would not displace housing nor substantial numbers of people. Therefore, no impact is assessed. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: ts ra a E ' 4-» c s 'c w ui .•s 2 * S 4-» — ts ra Q. E 5 5 a. E o Z a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? • • • Kl ii. Police protection? • • • Kl iii. Schools? • • • 13 iv. Parks? • • • Kl V. Other public facilities? • • • Kl a.i-a.v) No Impact. The La Costa Towne Center project is proposed on a property which is currently developed with a shopping center. While the public service demands for the proposed 60 residential units and minor increase in commercial square footage (3,078 SF) will increase, it will not significantiy affect the provision and/or availability of public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, etc.). Furthermore, the proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. As a result, no impact is assessed to public services. XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impart Less than Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impart No Impart a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial • • • physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? • • • November, 2013 -32-Initlal Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 a-b) No Impact. The project site is located within Park District No. 4, which is within the Southeast Quadrant of the city. As part of the City's Growth Management Program (GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. Specifically, the performance standard requires that three acres of Community Park and Special Use Area be provided per 1,000 people within each district. Consequently, all development (i.e., commercial and residential) within the Zone 6 LFMP is conditioned to pay a park- in-lieu fee to satisfy the performance standard established by the GMP. Furthermore, other than the possibility of a small private gym for the residents of the multi-family component, the project does not include any public recreational facilities, nor does it require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, no impact is assessed. XVl.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Potentially Signiflcant Impart Less than Significant With Mit Incorporated Less than Significant Impart No impart a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance ofthe circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? • • K • b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • • • Kl c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? • • • 13 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? • • • K e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • • K f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? • • • K a) Less than Signiflcant Impact. Pursuant to the cit/s Growth Management Program (GMP) circulation standards, no road segment or intersection in the zone or any road segment or intersection outside of the zone which is impacted by development within the zone, shall be projected to exceed a level of service (LOS) "D" during peak hours. To analyze the proposed project's compatibility with the GMP threshold, a Traffic Impact Analysis (Analysis) was prepared by Urban Systems Associates (May, 2013). November, 2013 -33-Initial Study MM La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 The proposed project has frontage on El Camino Real to the west and La Costa Avenue to the north. A total of three driveways within the shopping center are located off of El Camino Real and one driveway is located off of La Costa Avenue. Pursuant to the Analysis, the proposed mixed use project will generate 791 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 46 AM and 75 PM peak hour trips. Existing Condition As summarized in the Analysis, ail affected street segments and intersections are currently operating acceptably at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS As summarized in the Analysis (Tables 5-1 and 5-2), all affected street segments and intersections incorporating the traffic generated by the proposed project will operate acceptably at LOS "D" or better. Project impacts are considered less than significant. No affected street segment or intersection mitigation is needed in Year 2013. NEAR TERM WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS As summarized in the Analysis (Tables 6-1 through 6-4), all affected street segments and intersections incorporating the traffic generated by the proposed project will operate acceptably at LOS "D" or better. Project impacts are considered less than significant. No street segment or intersection mitigation is needed. YEAR 2030 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS As summarized in the Analysis (Tables 7-1 through 7-4), the study area street segments and intersections are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better with project traffic added in Year 2030. Project impacts are considered less than significant. No street segment or intersection mitigation will be needed. In summary, while the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. As substantiated in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic ioad and capacity of the street system. Therefore, the impacts from the proposed project with respect to traffic are lessthan significant. No mitigation is required. b) No Impact. In 2009, the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an "opt out" option defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to development in the City of Carlsbad. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. In addition, the project site is located outside of the Airport Influence Area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Therefore, it would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact is assessed. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed in compliance with City standards and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact is assessed. November, 2013 -34- initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact is assessed. f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 250 feet south of the signalized intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Existing bike lanes as well as public transportation routes (North County Transit District) located on the east side of El Camino Real will not be affected by the proposed project. In addition, bike racks as well as parking stalls for hybrid vehicles have been incorporated into the project design. The proposed project would also provide multi-family housing and employment opportunities in a location proximate to alternate transit options. Therefore, no impact is assessed. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Itially kant Impart Lessthan Signiflcant with Mit. Incorporated han leant Impart ts ra a. Would the project: Poter 1 Dignii Lessthan Signiflcant with Mit. Incorporated Usst digniT E o Z a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • • • b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ofwhich would cause significant environmental effects? • • • c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? • • • 13 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? • • • 13 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? • • • m f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • • • g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • • a-g) No Impact. The subject properties are located within the boundaries of Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 6. The proposed mixed use project is also located with the service boundaries ofthe Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the Leucadia Wastewater District. Adequate capacity exists to serve the proposed project, including the proposed residential units, which will be required to be withdrawn from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. In addition, the proposed project will be required to comply with ali Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. One new private storm drain is proposed in association with the mixed use project. No new water or wastewater treatment facilities are proposed or required. All proposed public facilities, including water. November, 2013 -35-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 wastewater, and drainage facilities, have been designed to accommodate the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs and the project will comply with federal, state, and locai statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact is assessed. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: Potentially Significant Impart Lessthan Significant with Mit Incorporated Less than Signiflcant Impart No Impart a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory? • Kl • • b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) • • K • c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • Kl • • a) iess than Signiflcant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed mixed use project is located within an existing shopping center. As such, the project site does not contain any sensitive fish or wildlife species and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species and will not threaten to eliminate or reduce the number of endangered plant and animal species. In addition, the two buildings proposed to be demolished are not considered to be important examples of California history. However, given the potential for cultural or paleontological resources to be discovered during grading operations, mitigation measures have been included to reduce any potential impacts to pre-historical resources to a lessthan significant level. b) iess than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quaiity standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. November, 2013 -36-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. In addition, while the incremental increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic in the short-term as well as build-out in the City of Carlsbad. Further, the project is consistent with the City's growth projections in that the proposed 60 dwelling units are available and will be withdrawn from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank; therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project. City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) iess than Signiflcant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As outlined in the Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, and Noise sections ofthis document, mitigation measures are required to reduce environmental impacts which may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directiy or indirectly, to a less than significant level. In addition to the mitigation measures, the project will be designed to comply with ail applicable Federal, State, Regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the site will not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. November, 2013 -37- initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 XVIX. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the foliowing on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope ofand adequately analyzed in an eariier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the eariier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions forthe project. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The foilowing documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Division located at 1635 FaradayAvenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March, 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March, 1994, as updated. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad Planning Division, November, 2004. 5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan- Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), amended December 1, 2011. 6. City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual, July, 2013. 7. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami, and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps, September, 1992. 8. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, May 17, 2013 9. Exterior Noise Analysis Report, prepared by dBF Associates, Inc., June 3, 2013 10. Global Climate Change Evaluation, prepared by Scientific Resources Associated, October 10, 2012 -38- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 11. Biological Technical Report, prepared by Alden Environmental, Inc., November 28, 2012 12. Asbestos Survey Report, prepared by ADR Environmentai Group, December 28, 2012 13. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by ADR Environmental Group, December 19, 2011 14. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc., January 7, 2013 15. Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Stevens Cresto Engineering, Inc., January 7, 2013 16. Air Quality Technical Report, prepared by Scientific Resources Associated, October 10, 2012 17. Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Ninyo 8i Moore, July 13, 2012. -39- Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES CULTURAL-1. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 ofthe CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement. If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area ofthe discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Pubiic Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. CULTURAL-2. Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services ofa Native American monitor. The purpose ofthis monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements ofthe program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. -40-Initial Study La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 PALEO-l A. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. B. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City Planner prior to issuance of a grading permit. C. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some ofthe fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. D. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner during the grading process. E. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. F. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. G. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the City Planner and the City Engineer. GEO-1. The project shall incorporate all engineering recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo &. Moore, dated July 13, 2012, during grading, construction and operations to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards at the project site. These recommendations shall be stipulated in the construction contracts and specifications. HAZ-1. Prior to physical disturbance of any of the identified asbestos-containing materials, asbestos abatement is required in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The removal of asbestos-containing materials requires the use of appropriate engineering controls by a contractor iicensed by the California State Contractors License Board, and registered with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). Evidence that this measure has been implemented shall be submitted prior to the issuance ofthe demolition or grading permit, whichever occurs first. NOISE-1. Prior to issuance of the building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent with City standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the proposed building design will limit interior noise for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55 dBA. The building plans shall incorporate the recommendations in the report to satisfy the requirements. -41- Initial Study EXHIBIT "ADDM" ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-03/PUD 13-03/MS 13-03 The purpose of this Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the La Costa Towne Center project, and to state the determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmentai Quaiity Act (CEQA) have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. The revision contained in this addendum revises Mitigation Measure Nos. CULTURAL-1 AND CULTURAL-2 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The revised mitigation measure shall apply as follows: CULTURAL 1- Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of tho find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can bc evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American monitor, shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor, in consultation with a Native American monitor, shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materiais and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement. If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area ofthe discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native 5^ EXHIBIT "ADDM" American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City ofCarlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. In addition, if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where thev were found until an analvsis is done on-site, in consultation with a Luiseno Native American monitor CULTURAL-2 Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services of a Luiseno Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre- excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground- disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authoritv to temporarilv halt or redirect gradina/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If the resource cannot be avoided, the Native American tribe shall be consulted regarding the testinq, cataloaina. drafting and finalization of the recovery of anv resources. This revision is not considered substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects associated with the project, or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. 3-ZO-/V Date: Don Neu City Planner o — •a 01 01 E (U o o Q. 0) CC •o c re OJ QUO O I rrt O Q a. r» 00 ro O 00 z z o c (U u c o V, ^ 7i 090 U ob {2 i3 ^ ce .. Q UJ 11 I 11 I W =; =; oe 000. ce oe Q- Q. a. < c 01 -a o U dl in c o o; u u. 3 O ro •5: 2 -i 0) •a t: ™ 00 o i c « — <u = « ro 'OQ Q5 .y >. .!2 i= 5! *^ ro ^ ^ 0) o £ E ^ c t5 ro o 01 o '+3 °^ 2 ro 5P, < ^ ^ in nj 5 .9 1-1^ o u 0) 01 <-> o O 73 .E ^ 00 ..I, O Q. -D O 4--U O) C 0) E o; c a; i_ 60 C c o E in V b 0) tu c *-> Q. E 0) S 01 Z3 tfl pfe C c .op O '35 ••w .E ro .. DO .rr O — *^ — E ^ — 0) ro ro •o o; c 0) E OJ CL E ro c 01 E c 2 > c <i) 00 ro .E ? 1 ^ 1 0 •X3 c 'a 0) ^ •Q. VO E o § O E £= rM — S ni _ OJ 01 (U > m (J c ro 0) 0) J3 LO sifjeuiaii uo|)e)uauia|dui| paiiijaA suejd uo UMoqs )uaui)jedaa 3u!JO)!uovv adAi 8u!JO)|uo|/\| LU ec 3 LO < LU z o c 00 o .£ « S ^ ^ 2 iS >- C ll 00 Q. (30 •i ^ 60 .= 0 £? C > 00 .2 01 c 2 •o" fl; 00 m .5 0) o 01 o" 1. Q. 0) 0 "f* ••;= a in o '4= = fll fll ro ^ u ^ *.> in ^ 'E. 2 > I- 01 c 0) ° ro Sl op i: 'ij uJ 01 3 .= ^ t; JS .2 >• £ £ ro u 'oo O o ai ro .c u a; ro 12 3 00 o 01 ro x: u u -a 41 ro I/) •a a; t/l 01 4-1 >- ro t; 00 .a ro o c S o > fl) t; fll "5 9-= ro c 01 .c: m ro ro > 0) o 01 ro 3 c fll a o > OJ > G ro 00 c XI 3 T3 ro fll ro 5 .y +J tl 00 •£ ^-2 § c S ^ 9 ro a x: op 3 u .E "° ro "S OJ ro flf _2 00 00 4-> ro ro ^ ^ 0) ro O .12 -C 01 > u £ >. c QJ M— ro X 'C 3 4-1 0) V) O > .12 O >• +^ c 'u •> 01 x: 01 Sl c ro o = 01 ro r= ^ 4= in 5 •K 00 00 .E o X o ^ S S ro i_ ro c 0) 'o X ro ob flj ^ ^ ^5 u O fl) 01 0) X X 00 J>! ro 00 01 0) X c ^ .- ro "o •a o c ro ro a 1.1 r- ro .9 ^ tJ fl) ro o c c 0) 00 •- o ro fl) X 0) 2 y o 3 Q. _ o ro TD 0) l/l fll in in ro •O c ro -o 0) +j c 0) E 3 (J o -a o o ro S O 0 *-• *^ ^ ro O 01 c o 00 3 •a t3 fll "S ^ fl) ^ .i I fll .ii ^ u> O fl) X +-• •o «-.0 o 0) 0) a u ro _a) o £ ro c c 00 S ro 01 fl) -c in >- ro 5 U O u fll 0) ro a. oT 2 ^ Q. ro Q. -a ro 'O X ro P - c fll X fl; •D c ro 0) 3 ro c fll ™ i (/) o 01 u y = ^ fl) 01 03 3 O ro ^ Q) o -c c fl) il a; X o fl) J ro S •QO in O S O 01 3 ro o X w o fl) 1- ro c .2 -D t! ro •= >*- .£ O — fl) (U 3 0 t; u o 01 = •»-» o a. fl) Q. TJ ro ^ .E i ro .E m fl) ro +^ ro fl) S o ro 4^ fl) :S ° T3 0) fl) ro E -5 < oe U rH 01 00 ro > o DO Ul C <u c .2 E o .!2 Q. 'Si •^ -2 :> I Q .= C "D 2 S '5 K 3 a Z O 19 -J Z Q B. iu " CO 3 dl s .g E ? o ™ ra 01 •ti 4= E i II u := 5 = 5 o 11 o £ «i o S c ° 2 < E 5^ E Q. S .i a (u E 01 &p = ro ^ 01 tu) E .= c O E 3 *3 ^ .2 c ra re ti 01 c ra 01 DO E 5 ™ I- ° i *j II a M 01 c Q _fg u o. C c "C o •if o o Z in aa 5 II .a §•§ 45 01 5 -o E re 0) Ol n.< E II 01 01 So 5 ^ |2 9 ro S ro ^ ro ^...^ ro Q. LO no O I PO r-l Q. Q to PO o I 00 D. Q LO oe LU CQ Z b LU o QC Q. s>|jeui9ii uo!)e)U9ui3|dui| pa»!«A sueid UO umoqs c op o .E „ , fl; . T3 c S ^ g- £ ™ > C S: 00 QL o oe Q. )U3iu)jed9a 3u!J0)!UO|/\| sdAi 3u!J0)!UO|^ 00 00 c "S •« o 2 = > 00 .9 S c 2 '5' fl) k! 3 Q. Q. TJ o o ts 0} •a o fl) .y 00 M ro op c .E o -a ro — ai u ll c 4^ fll c > 5 8 in fl) Q. T3 V) 0) 01 o 01 in -a 01 '> +; o > 01 S i_ •- tt) 0--° a; = re t 00 x: o .E Ql O .-r T3 < O fll . c ro •a ttl = >-.:!:: ro O 0) S « '^ E =5 ^ _ ro ro X 01 ro Q. O I. o. Q. ro c g 4-> oi 2 .E 11 3 ttl o 00 ^ J ^ UJ < LU 5 U7 •Si, O 00 Q. .E a; » - I (/i i_ 3 fll 01 3 O O LO fll >- ID o T3 LO QJ iH I- fll C B -2 o tj .12 5 "O LO I ^1 flj ^ 00 ro 5 « y ro -a 45 ro X t: flj ^ fl) C _ 0) 5 ^ E 1/) 00 ro ro .E 00 ro c 'O u l/l T3 01 ^ C T3 ^ ro -a ^ w fll 2 •<-' o ro Ql L; -= tt; tt) Q- >-*•' t ro 5 f: R ro C U 4-' 4- 0) -S = ^ e ^ 1 ro (/I ro fll ^ X in t: "flT O 5 in ^ 'TJ ro ro T3 o c 'C ro 01 E £r< .2 I O ro Q. Z £ fl; .2 +J Q. ttl 2 E Q. fl) Q. 0) "» Ob 01 ro 0) OJ X X 4-» 4-» .E T3 c >. ro 4-1 > >: U fl) ro ti 2 s ^ O OJ 11 4-1 in C fl) tt) u ir, flj E E T3 ro 3 o o c +-• ro 4-> u X < 0) > ro tl ^ LO ro 0) O Z >• _ o C 4-* o « 3 •L T3 fl; ts 4= 01 ro 4= o is d £J S o .2 >; .w 1- 01 op ro a; ro fl) ~ 4-" >— c o TJ » ro fll 10 o 01 <-) > lO o 1 .E U S ro 00 E 01 fl; X ^ v. ou c 4J 01 (S •— = -c: ^ = 01 .a r? fl) .2 tti u u ^ t: I- "T^ fl; OD 00 _ c r= •>. 5 'u c ro Q; -O ™ OJ « X .E ro <4-E ° ^ S E 3 ifc LO O -D ^ = S 01 • X •S ro c " ttl •= >- ^ I 2 ro i c OJ T3 00 1 Si 9 5 w .9 in *~t 1 ^ E o 01 ^ "§ 01 LJ I.. 3 o in 01 oe T3 c fll E E o u fl) ro E T3 C ro >. o c i£ ro *4_i c -a 0) c u ro "rt 0) to ii fl) E •§ c ^ >• E c ro fll >- ~ 01 ,, n, ^ Q. .y £ ts O fl) u = u o ro LJ O ^tz u fll a fll 4-» ro T3 >. ttl ^ E E ro c ro U -p « ^ O LU 0 = 's; 01 ro 2 ro 3 .y X in "O < o. ^ 01 E -? < I % .2 '4-> C c g !2 E E o u 01 00 ro +^ 01 X c ro u 'u 01 E < " 45 _F U ro i_ 4-' c o u 13 a; 'o" i_ o. ttl 01 4-1 ro c g 01 "+-' 4-" ^ ^ fll ^ E 5, E .op o -a <-> 01 w = C E ro ro I -5 E ro ro 2 flj " c > .Eoo ro Ll o I .Si, M- ro Q. E 3 _ X I- 0) £ O c ro 01 ^ o E J .y 3 4-> ro o ro ttl •- ^ o 01 TJ c ro TS" ro a. o ui T3 o o 00 -2^ Sl ro c c ro ro Ll fll 00 ro in — .5i ro 'i^ in -5 .9 <^ ro 0) c .E -2 +-• T3 a. Q. ro o -c' -S a; h O X in *J ^ 4-> ~ ;-: o T3 U > 4-" 4-' 01 •I I. > 00 - -a 00 01 •Co .2 CL o .52 T3 ro 4-> a; = I o = X ro X! _ 0) LJ O is — "> T3 C O O 'C U 0) 00 Q- c .0^ E S3 3 8 - to 01 Q) O fl; ro Sl <u S •a .= > ™ o E ro ^ .E < IQ O; tt ™ XI ^ -a "» 3 o 2 tn Ob g ^ 8{ fl) ttl E 0) ^ .E c 01 ro o E ^3 E E ^ !2 81 ;£ fl) i»_ •= w O S{ fl) ° O E a; ro £ ro v. tt; O-S •4= fl; u 5 2 zi o.^ " "g T3 O M C 4-> := ro fll I g = £ e S Qp 01 ?= O o; ° s- 4-- _0 4) 9 > C 01 Q. TJ T3 C 3 ro O E = 3 X C •2 ro ro .y ro fl; 'i E ttl < 00 01 c > a; in r-o "5 ro e- c Z = S! ^ Q. 4= o < ce 3 U IM O) o ,2 9 ro 2 to o u Q 3 Q. rrt O I PO < CL Z 3 I- iC. y s O PO Q- CL Q PO o I 00 CL Q 00 of LU CO u LU O oe a. s>|4eui3y uo!)e)U3ui3|duj| payuaA sueid uo umoqs )U3ui)jed3a 3u!J0)!U0M 3dAi 3ujjo)!uo|/\| CC LO <£ UJ 2 < « 1? 01 0) '+j .E •> > ro O " c 01 01 U tt) C JQ •S ifl ^ -S O T3 3 E 2 c: 00 ro ro £ M < ro T3 Z £ 0) fl; X > O 4-' u ro c X 3 OJ i^ XI c •-^ fl) ^ > E =S 4-. X ro 01 X 4-* c a; fl; ? 4-» 01 T5 fl; Q. _g fl; > 01 T3 fll jQ fll 01 > s: +-• 5 -<= z .t; 5 fl; QJ tj * Q; E Q. 01 S £ T3 00 00 c T5 E ro i-00 o 00 J-! tt) 01 4-> — I— ~ . 2 *^ o 00 -f 01 Q. 00 c T3 ro 1- 00 ro fll E 0) 0) 00 ro c _g *4-» ro > ro u X 01 I 0) Q. ro 0) T3 X c ro t3 c 0) O) fl) 00 .ti o o I 1 *^ -f u E 01 01 X .•e I- c ro u < 4-" ro ro tt, Q. QJ Q; 4-t ^ .2 c Q. O 01 JQ .E ^ to in Q. i_ X O 0) .S o; - ro Q. u a; °- B ro < E L. o c •S ro 2 'C 4-> 01 § I o < 01 X 4-^ >-.£3 c O CL 3 T3 fll fll ^ 00 ro flj w 01 X 4-» o in to _0) c 3 m OJ •> ro 00 c 15 L. ro 3 4-* 4-' m tn >• TJ 4-» •o 'o c T3 3 C O ro t-t. 00 o 4^ 0) 'E X o 4-" o E c 00 5 I „ o 2 JS c £: 00 Q. 01 00 •1 ^ 00 .- o 2 c 00 g tt 00 *i fl; c 2 'o" fl) LI 3 Q. CL T3 O 01 fll .Q X 5 0) •> fl; 'oo o o o -o in to a tt ro Q. E O u > +-> c > s fl) ro Q. to 01 ro X flj O 'in >-01 t; £ O) 3 O" ^ k_ Q. 01 > 01 o x: .ii ro o > 00 .E E 2| 00 a; >. °- ro 4-» o 01 t. .E O ro Q. t- 00 c T3 ro -a 01 to o a. o 01 X 01 T5 in c _ro a 4-> u fl; X 01 •g •> o Q. 2 fll Sl u a; o *^ •c o QJ •M CL ttl E t- o t J2 o £ T3 T3 fl) .t; 00 ~ .E ro *in t; « ro 01 tn O lm. a. £• o 1 1 m OJ Q-O S Q. .S QJ -D 2 .y> ob ti ro 2 -= « to £; 1- ro ,^15 E 00 o m 01 00 U .E 3 T3 O ro in I- ttl 00 u O ™ ro .iG O QJ •»- :£ o >. 01 a. ^ i- ttl 00 Q; ro Sl _> ro ro X o m 4-. T! in c "oo ro o a; o .-t; S o fl) T> to QJ C S .9 ro u 3 01 a- Q. u ob _g o _ OJ ro 00 ^ QJ J3 ^ .2 .E S •4- m Q. 2 E Q. ro 01 c c _ro Q. >~ 4-» • 01 X fll SI X ro 00 c c XI .g ro 4-* 00 3 01 ^ t; ^ :^ O o ttl " E o in £- t ro OJ 01 o O Q. 01 •a g 'kT fll Q. fll ro E a; "O ttl o S ^1 .> ™ -° o O +•• L. -D 01 fl) "D ro JC 01 m 00 0) M .E U O T3 moro ' 00 < CL < .E 3 01 ro ^ c a; _ Sl ro >-E I <n C — Ofl; ^ 01 X -= 00 ™ 00 2 = 2 o; •= ^ I- TJ fl) = X to in 1 ° m "D 4-, fl) To to .2 X O <u 4-» c c O ro ^ 14- ro o |s H ro c o O 00 •.;= .aj tt = •E 2 :S ?• in c ro 2^ o- = ~ in Sl , 3 _in O. ro ro •>- o Si •>-• ro •s ^ o - T3 c fll ' X i;: >- fl; i E 01 TJ 00 flj ro tt _aj •5 u E QJ g .E ^ X 2 2 2r ro o 01 4:: in m 2 I 00 01 C JZ ro T3 v- C 00 ro fll t- X fll +-> c •° S c J2 ro CL in >• §>• O >. _01 S3 ro XJ a. tt) 0) > X o +^ m i4_ OJ O >- If QJ ™ 1 2" ro Q. 00 ^ tt) tt; >- X to .52 .y O to m fll o o ttl = c < ro ro .| ro CO u 01 01 H- « .E c 01 00 o -j: c (J LU >• -B >• c tt .ti < ro U ^1 5 5 = I ,2 9 ro 3 4-' " ro ^ ro — s>|jeui3}| uo|)e)U3ui3|dui| psyijSA < Z o oc D. PO TH Q. 3 LO PO o I PO r-l CL Q s ro O I 00 1^ a. Q LO oe LU CO u LU —1 o DC Q. sueid uo umoqs )U3Ui)jed3a 3U!J0)!U0|AI adAj. 3uuo)|uov\| ec 3 in < UJ Z g 00 c •— 00 O c 00 .= • T3 c ro •- -2 -H 00 u tj 00 2 .E tt o^ >- c £13 0 Q. T3 U 4J ro to L-fll Q. o flT .9 ro TJ ._ c ••-» OJ oa ro 0) -a in c 0) m X I- >. 5. c o 5 ~ tt . ro a; iz ^ c o u TD .0) o'.e 00 T3 C C ^ O 'l- >- •4-t 0) ro u 0) Q. 3 .E 2 i= 00 Q. ^ £| 8 = ro 00 ro ^ c ro ^ QJ > ro 00 c 3 0) .M X to +-t c 4-t O ro " m ^ •2 « 5 .E ro X -a _ fl) S ^ 3 o "5 Q..y ^ o ^ § <J LJ = C QJ T3 — 4-t = ro <J o -= ttj in ^ PO- tt c •Si,^ >• 2^^ 1 ro "O 4-t OJ 0) c 42 X o ro I- O T3 00 = ro ro X m C in 01 C "-^ ro ro ^ E o u Z Q _i —1 Q. CO c o o E 01 -a 00 c 2 ^ CL -O 00 ^ X c ]E '(5 4-t c o u I to O 4-t in fll X to ro ro o •Q. Q. ro 01 u c ro •D -a 01 w o u u ro 00 ro c ••p >• .E X ro c ^ o 2 V ^ o o *; o in 0) 00 X c fs-g ° E ro «) •9 ^ ro ro CD ^ fl; ttl t^ to ro c LO fl) _ .y ro —1 c ro X m •D fll 4-t c 01 01 Q. 00 c TJ a; ro to O E 2 a; . Q. in Q. o ro 4:^ Q. ro u is fl) c ro g io.g .2 Q c t|- c E g ro •Q. 00 .E c c fll o ttJ -4= S3 — in O X E X tt) QJ "O 3 fl) 12 m X ro .12 o Fx -4= *r ro o r O 01 OJ •" E OJ u c ro «J •2 ™ ^ -Q _ro 3 0) 00 m OJ 3 ro ^ o (3 i fe ro U 01 u c ro 3 ro in to 4^ fl) .!2 in X( O ro S .y X !£! tn ^ ro QL _tn O ro +-• 'C 1- fll .2 ro CL E " T3 fll *^ C >-ro ro 4-t in jn _- ro ro 'Z. fl) flj >. X X X. -B fll '5 QJ T3 .y fl) T fl) O tn tt 'ob C ro aJ X c . fl) o XJ *^ t2 fl) T3 ro a E C T3 O C u ro —i Q- 3 X -a u LO 0) o O t; i_ £E S X fl) ro w .y flj ttl -= X X S o CO fl) _ to ro 'I .9 O t/) (J Wl OJ (/) V4-> •« O t °- ro 0) "TO 01 = u *.t 'r: ••i= -rl 5 O) LO 10 4-' 1- in 0 01 •g 5 •E? 1 2 — o in 00 3 0) 0 >- <-) ro ro c ro X .-tT E 2 I- ro 01 Q. Q. 01 1 ^ 3 -° ro 01 X X m in T3 00 ro ~ T: ^ LO T3 S 2 O m Q. 01 0 m I- 3 °-T3 01 C X ro 01 X ro TJ c 01 E E o u a; fl) 4-t ro i o Q. o u c in .52 >. 4-t <—' ro 01 a; -a 4-t •— ro w >- a; 4-t l_ m C 01 o X « 3 S cr ro 0) •Q. 01 00 ^ E += i9 IfT '3 -SS -° ts X o I- • .9 E t: ~ -5 fl) o CL 5 T3 it: < CO TJ o Q. fll O 01 DO ro E ro 00 o 00 c o Q. 01 QC T3 C ro 00 c o c g 4-t ro 00 6& 5 6 7 1 ., PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7045 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 4 NONRESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO 1) ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF TWO (2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (INCLUDING VONS AT 7710 EL CAMINO REAL AND 7740 EL CAMINO REAL) TOTALING 45,830 SQUARE FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING 123,822 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER (LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER); AND 2) ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE AND TWO (2) MIXED-USE g BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 60 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS AND A NET GAIN OF 3,078 SQUARE FEET OF NEW RETAIL ON A 9 PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED 15.24-ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE 10 WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER 11 CASE NO.: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 12 WHEREAS, Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified 13 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 14 15 16 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, said verified appiication constitutes a request for a Site Development Plan 19 Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development 20 Permit, and a Minor Subdivision as shown on Exhibits "Al - A19", "Cl - C8" and "Ll - LIO", dated 21 April 16, 2014, on file in the Pianning Division, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - SDP 78-03{D)/SDP 13- 22 03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01, as provided by Chapter 21.06, Section 21.53.120, Chapter 21.40, Chapter 21.47, and Title 20 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on April 16, 2014, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to 23 24 25 26 27 28 Parcels "B" and "D" of Parcel Map No. 10283, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on July 30, 1980 as File No. 80- 240721 of official records 16 17 18 19 20 the Site Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision. WHEREAS, on March 14,1979, June 13,1979, February 13,1980, and January 2, 2002, the Planning Commission approved, SDP 78-03, SDP 78-03(A), SDP 78-03(8) and SDP 78-03(C), as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 1501, 1524, 1585, and 5056, respectively. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 9 Carlsbad as follows: 10 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 11 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission APPROVES LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13- 12 02/MS13-01 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 13 Findings: 14 SDP Amendment, SDP 78-03(D) 15 1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, 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 will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the proposed mixed use project complies with the requirements of the Neighborhood Commercial and Qualified Development Overlay zones (C-l-Q) and all other applicable development regulations, except for the height, which can be modified as part of the Site Development Plan for the inclusionary housing pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120. The proposed commercial and residential uses are consistent with and implement the Local Commercial General Plan Land Use designation. In addition, mixed use with a residential component is an encouraged use adjacent to major transportation corridors and in major 21 commercial centers. The front yard setback proposed for the mixed use building, parking structure and parking lot exceed the minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped front yard setback from 22 El Camino Real as established pursuant to SDP 78-03. Furthermore, the surrounding commercial uses will benefit directly by the proposed 60 multi-family rental units; likewise, the proposed 23 multi-family residential use will benefit from having a commercial center in close proximity to serve everyday commercial needs. In addition, as 12 ofthe 60 multi-family residential units (i.e., 24 20%) will be designated as inclusionary units, the project will meet various goals of the Housing Element and contribute towards meeting the Cit/s Regional Housing Needs. 25 The project's enhanced Classical Mediterranean architectural design represents an overall upgrade to the currently underutilized shopping center and is compatible with the commercial architectural styles in the area. Proposed elements, including smooth plaster walls and cornices, a warm earth tone color palette, clay tile roofs, heavy timber wood trellises, -o wrought iron balconies and arched openings, complement the characteristic elements of the PC RESO NO. 7045 -2- 1 „ original center. While the existing shopping center is currently legal nonconforming with 2 respect to parking, the required parking associated with the net gain of commercial square footage and multi-family use has been provided. In addition, all infrastructure needs (full 3 street improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and traffic signals) currently exist along El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. In exchange for the addition of a new driveway off of El 4 Camino Real to access the proposed parking structure, one access driveway into the La Costa Towne Shopping Center located off of El Camino Real will be removed. 5 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in 6 that the subject 15.24-acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed buildings and, with exception to building height, the proposed uses comply with the required 7 development and design standards of the Neighborhood Commercial and Qualified Development Overlay zones (C-l-Q) of Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21, including the 10- foot-wide landscaped front yard setback from El Camino Real which was approved pursuant to SDP 78-03. 8 9 10 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, in that, with exception to the building height, the project has been designed in accordance with all development and design standards of the Neighborhood Commercial and 12 Qualified Development Overlay Zones. Further, a new updated landscape palette proposed adjacent to El Camino Real will soften any impacts associated with the new development. In 13 addition, mitigation measures to comply with the interior noise standards are incorporated into the project. The project has also been conditioned to ensure that the outdoor lighting 14 proposed in conjunction with the commercial project does not adversely affect the proposed residential uses. 15 That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic 16 generated by the proposed use, in that pursuant to the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project, the traffic impacts associated with the new development, 17 791 ADT, will not adversely impact the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and key intersections, which will remain operating at an acceptable level of service. In addition, in 18 exchange for the addition of a new driveway off of El Camino Real to access the proposed parking structure, one access driveway into the La Costa Towne Shopping Center off of El 1^ Camino Real will be removed. Thus, a total of four access points into the shopping center will remain (3 off of El Camino Real and one off of La Costa Avenue). 20 21 26 27 28 Site Development Plan, SDP 13-03 (Multi-Family Rental Dwelling Units and Inclusionary Housing) 5. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, 22 is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed 23 use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the residential component of the proposed La Costa Towne Center mixed use project 24 entails a request to construct 60 multi-family units on top of ground floor retail uses. A total of 12 of the rental units are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing. On December 25 17, 2012, the City's Housing Policy Team recommended approval of the applicant's request to income and rent-restrict 15% of the units (9 total) for occupancy by low income households (with rents set at 30% to 70% of the San Diego County Area Medium Income) and 5% of the units (3 total) for occupancy by moderate income households (with rents set at 30% to 100% ofthe San Diego County Area Medium Income). PC RESO NO. 7045 -3-'A 1 „ With respect to the residential component of the mixed use project, pursuant to the Housing 2 Element, the City recognizes the increasing pressure to encourage smart growth developments; specifically, developments which recognize the importance of sustainability 3 and which balance social, economic, and environmental needs through the development of mixed use commercial projects. The surrounding commercial uses in the La Costa Towne 4 Center as well as surrounding shopping centers will benefit directly by the proposed 60 multi- family rental units; likewise, the proposed multi-family residential use will benefit from having a 5 commercial center in close proximity to serve everyday commercial needs. In addition, as 12 of the 60 multi-family residential units (i.e., 20%) will be designated as inclusionary units, the project will meet various goals of the Housing Element and contribute towards meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs. For these reasons and pursuant to Table 3-7 of the Housing Element, the subject La Costa Towne Shopping Center is an ideal location for high density g housing since it is close to a major transportation corridor and employment areas. 9 Pursuant to the Housing Element, the minimum density for commercial zones in the City is 20 dwelling unit per acre. The dwelling unit yield projected for shopping centers is based on 25% 10 of the center's acreage since it recognizes the importance of maintaining sites for commercial uses in the City. With a net acreage of 10.83 acres for the La Costa Towne Shopping Center, 11 the residential portion of the project (2.7 acres) has a proposed density of 22.2 (60/2.7 = 22.22) dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the minimum goal has been met and the project is 12 consistent with the Housing Element with respect to density. The proposed project is consistent will all other applicable elements of the General Plan. 13 14 15 That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the subject 15.24-acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed buildings and parking for the new uses. With exception to building height, the proposed uses comply with the required development and design standards of the Neighborhood Commercial and Qualified Development Overlay zones (C-l-Q) of Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21, including the 10-foot-wide landscaped front yard setback from El Camino Real which 2y was approved pursuant to SDP 78-03. 18 /• 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 19 maintained, in that, with exception to the building height, the project has been designed In accordance with all development and design standards of the Neighborhood Commercial and 20 Qualified Development Overlay Zones. Further, a new updated landscape palette proposed adjacent to El Camino Real will soften any impacts associated with the new development. In 21 addition, mitigation measures to comply with the interior noise standards are incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to ensure that the outdoor lighting proposed in conjunction with the commercial project does not adversely affect the proposed residential uses. 23 24 8. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that primary access to the shopping center will continue to 25 be provided by a total of four access driveways, including one off of La Costa Avenue and three off of El Camino Real. As discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for 26 the project, the Average Daily Trips (ADTs) generated in association with the project, 791 ADTs, do not result in any significant capacity-related impacts to any road segments or 27 intersections. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -4- 1 9. That, pursuant to CMC Section 21.26.015, the residential use is secondary and accessory to the 2 primary commercial use, in that the proposed 60 multi-family rental units are architecturally integrated into the proposed mixed use buildings, are located at the northern portion of the 3 15.24-acre shopping center and the square footage of the multi-family housing represents 33.7% of the square footage for the overall shopping center. 22 23 10. That, pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120, in order to allow for less restrictive development standards, specifically with respect to the allowable maximum height for the La Costa Town Center project (35-foot maximum height allowed pursuant to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards; up to 45 feet proposed), the following additional findings are required: 4 5 6 ^ - The project is in conformance with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of thei g city, in that the proposed mixed use project, which includes 12 inclusionary rental units, is encouraged near major transportation corridors and employment areas. In addition, g the project provides new, affordable housing opportunities to meet the needs of the current lower and moderate income households. 10 The inclusionary housing would not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety 11 and welfare, in that the on-site inclusionary rental units will not be physically discernable from the standard rental units and the additional 10 feet in height will not 12 adversely impact the public's health, safety, or welfare. 13 As the proposed project has been found to be consistent with the General Plan and the proposed request to exceed the 35-foot maximum height allowed pursuant to the El Camino 14 Real Corridor Development Standards would not affect the public's health, safety or welfare, the proposed modification to the height for the mixed use project can be supported. 15 16 Special Use Permit, SUP 13-01 11. The proposed project conforms to the intent of the Scenic Preservation Overlay in that the 17 overall design theme is enhanced along the El Camino Real corridor. Specifically, the La Costa Towne Center project includes an upgraded landscape palette which significantly enhances 18 the appearance of the shopping center as viewed from the El Camino Real corridor. In addition, the proposed Classical Mediterranean architectural design for the proposed mixed use 19 buildings represents an overall upgrade to the currently underutilized shopping center as viewed from El Camino Real. Proposed architectural elements, including smooth plaster walls and 20 cornices, a warm earth tone color palette, clay tile roofs, heavy timber wood trellises, wrought iron balconies and arched openings. To accommodate the proposed mixed use ^•^ project, which includes a partially subterranean parking structure, a deviation to the standards is required for the proposed height (7710 El Camino Real, 45-foot-tall building) as well as grading for the proposed partially subterranean parking structure (11-foot cut). The proposed setbacks of the mixed use building, parking structure, and new parking lot comply with the setback as a 10-foot-wide front yard setback was established pursuant to the original 24 Site Development Plan for the shopping center, SDP 78-03. The proposed structures exceed this minimum setback and maintain traffic safety along the El Camino Corridor. 25 12. The proposed project implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan in that mixed 26 use projects are encouraged land uses in existing shopping centers which are located adjacent to major transportation corridors such as El Camino Real. In addition, the proposal to 27 construct 60 multi-family rental units, including 12 inclusionary rental units, complies with the minimum density of 20 dwellings per acre and satisfies inclusionary housing goals of PC RESO NO. 7045 -5- 1 constructing new inclusionary units on-site. The project has been designed to meet all of the 2 circulation requirements and will not adversely impacts the level of service at nearby intersections or street segments. Further, a mitigation measure is proposed which reduces 3 interior noise impacts to the proposed residential and commercial land uses to a less than significant level. 13. Compliance with the grading (maximum cut or fill of 10 feet) as specified in Area 5 of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards is not feasible since a partially subterranean parking structure is proposed which requires up to an a 11-foot cut into the existing grade. The proposed parking structure is needed to accommodate the parking for the proposed ^ mixed use project. In addition, because the area of excavation will not be a visible cut slope and the setbacks will be landscaped to soften the impacts, the views from the El Camino g Corridor will be preserved. 9 Compliance with the height restrictions (35 feet) as specified in Area 5 of the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards is not feasible and the 2"'' and 3"* stories of the proposed 10 mixed use building (7710 El Camino Real) accommodate multi-family residential units which assist in achieving the minimum 20 dwelling units/per acre density as required in commercial 11 zones. Further, as inclusionary housing is proposed on-site, the additional height can be permitted as a modification to standards pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120. 12 14. That the scenic qualities of the corridor will continue to be maintained if the grading and 13 height standards are not fulfilled since the proposed project represents a significant upgrade to the La Costa Towne Center as viewed from El Camino Real, including an enhanced 14 landscape palette along the entire shopping center frontage, the demolition of two underutilized buildings and the construction of two new mixed use buildings with enhanced architecture. The proposed height of 45 feet (7710 El Camino Real) will not adversely impact views along El Camino Real in that a majority of the mixed use building is 37 feet tall and is separated by approximately 30 feet of landscaping between the building and El Camino Real. Thus, the scenic qualities of the corridor will not only be maintained but ultimately enhanced. 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 15. That the project, including non-compliance with the grading and height standards, will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety in that non-compliance with either of these standards are not related to the movement of traffic on El Camino Real. Further, The Engineering Department has determined that the project meets all applicable traffic safety requirements. 22 16. That the La Costa Towne Center project is generally designed so as to meet the intent of the scenic preservation overlay zone through the use of an upgraded landscape palette and 22 architectural design for the shopping center. Nonresidential Planned Development Permit, PUD 13-02 17. The granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the code, the general plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans ofthe city and other 25 governmental agencies in that the proposed nonresidential planned development permit for a four-lot parcel map, which includes 3 nonresidential lots and one vertical lot for the multi- 26 family apartments, is consistent with: the Local Shopping Center (L) General Plan Land Use designation; Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Qualified Development Overlay (Q) zones; 27 with a deviation to the standards for height and grading, the El Camino Real Corridor 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -6- 1 „ Development Standards. As there is no minimum lot size pursuant to the C-1 zone, the 2 proposed parcels sizes are consistent with the C-1 zone. 3 18. The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility, which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and the 4 community in that the nonresidential planned development permit, which includes 3 nonresidential lots and one vertical residential lot, will allow for separate ownership of the 5 apartments and retail uses. The proposed mixed use project is compatible with the existing shopping center and surrounding land uses and satisfies a number of General Plan goals and ^ policies with respect to mixed use and inclusionary housing. In addition, the ability for the ^ land uses to be separately-owned will not adversely affect the project's compatibility with the surrounding land uses. 8 19. Such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or 9 working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed nonresidential planned development permit meets all applicable city standards 10 and ordinances and all public facilities and services exist. Further, while the parking for the existing shopping center is legal nonconforming, adequate parking is provided for the 11 proposed mixed use project. In addition, the project has been conditioned to amend the existing reciprocal parking, access and maintenance agreement for the shopping center. 12 20. The proposed nonresidential planned development meets all of mininvum development 13 standards of the underlying zone, in that, there is no minimum lot size pursuant to the C-1 zone, the proposed structures meet the setbacks as established pursuant to SDP 78-03, and 14 the project has been conditioned to amend the existing reciprocal parking, access and maintenance agreement for the shopping center. While the project's height and grading cut depth do not comply with the applicable El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, findings for approval can be supported to deviate from the Standards. 15 16 17 18 Minor Subdivision, MS 13-01 21. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements ofthe General Plan, any applicable specific plans. Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the proposed four lot minor 20 subdivision provides the required public vehicular access in that the proposed four-lot minor subdivision being created satisfies all minimum requirements of Titles 20 and 21 with respect 21 to public facilities, access and parking. The project has been conditioned to amend the existing reciprocal parking, access and maintenance agreement for the shopping center prior 22 to recordation of the map. 23 22. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are developed and are currently designated for either Local Shopping 24 Center (L), or Residential Low-Medium (RLM) or Medium to High (RMH) Density in the General Plan. The subject property is bordered by office uses to the north, single-family uses to the east and multi-family uses to the south. The proposed mixed use project has a density of 22.2 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds the minimum goal of 20 dwelling units per acre in commercial zones. 27 PC RESO NO. 7045 -7- 1 „ 23. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is 2 adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the Local Shopping Center (L) General Plan Land Use designation allows for mixed use 3 at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multi-family residential component of the project (60 units) has a proposed density of 22.2 dwelling units per acre. A 4 deviation to the standards with respect to the height and grading requirements is required pursuant to the El Camino Real Corridor Standards. The findings for approval to support this 5 deviation can be made. 24. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the developer has g delineated and preserved on the parcel map, all existing easements of record. 9 25. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 10 26. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural 11 heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the proposed commercial and residential buildings have an east-west orientation thereby allowing for passive or natural 12 solar heating and cooling opportunities. 14 15 13 27. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources and the project has been conditioned to designate 12 of the 60 multi-family residential units (i.e., 20%) as inclusionary units. Specifically, 15% of the units (9 total) for occupancy will be rent- 2g restricted for low income households (with rents set at 30% to 70% of the San Diego County Area Median Income) and 5% of the units (3 total) for occupancy will be rent-restricted for 27 moderate income households (with rents set at 30% to 100% of the San Diego County Area Medium Income). 18 28. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial 19 environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed development does not contain any significant wildlife or sensitive 20 habitat. In addition, pursuant to the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project, all other non-habitat/wildlife-related environmental impacts can be reduced to a less than 21 significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 22 29. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City's sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 23 24 25 26 30. That the City's Housing Policy Team recommended approval of the request for an allocation 27 for 60 units from the EDUB on December 17, 2012. City Council Policy No. 43, Allocation for Excess Dwelling Units 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -8- *^ 1,. 31. That, based on the proposal to construct a total of 60 multi-family rental dwelling units, a 2 total of 20%, or 12 of the units, are required to be designated as income-restricted units. As required, 12 inclusionary units are included in the proposed La Costa Towne Center project. 3 32. That an Affidavit has been signed by the Applicant/Developer, March 17, 2014, indicating that 4 any rental inclusionary units proposed which are required to comply with Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.85, will not be subject to Civil Code Section 1954.52(a) nor any other provision of the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections 1954.51 et seq.) inconsistent with controls on rents, because, pursuant to Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2), the Developer will enter into an affordable housing contractual agreement with the City of Carlsbad agreeing to the limitations on rents. g 33. That the project location and density are compatible with the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or nearby existing or planned uses in that the proposed mixed use project, g with a density of 22.2 dwelling units per acre, is proposed to be located within an existing local shopping center. The project is internally compatible with and will not adversely impact 10 the adjacent residential uses in that the nearest single-family residential uses are located approximately 100 feet upslope and 200 feet east from the proposed two-story mixed use 11 building. The nearest multi-family uses are located adjacent to the southern corner of the shopping center, approximately 800 feet south of the proposed two-story mixed use building. 12 34. That the project location and density are in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 13 General Plan and any other applicable planning document, in that the minimum density for commercial zones in the City is 20 dwelling unit per acre. Further, the dwelling unit yield projected for shopping centers is based on 25% of the center's acreage since it recognizes the importance of maintaining sites for commercial uses in the City. With a net acreage of 10.83 acres for the La Costa Towne Shopping Center, the residential portion of the project (2.7 acres) has a proposed density of 22.2 (60/2.7 = 22.22) dwelling units per acre. The proposed mixed use project is located in the La Costa Towne shopping center which is specifically 27 recommend for mixed use pursuant to the General Plan as it is located adjacent to a major transportation corridor with transit stops as well as a wide range of employment 18 opportunities. The surrounding commercial uses in the La Costa Towne Center as well as surrounding shopping centers will benefit directly by the proposed 60 multi-family rental units; 19 likewise, the proposed multi-family residential use will benefit from having a commercial center in close proximity to serve everyday commercial needs. 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 California Environmental Quality Act: 35. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California 26 Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and PC RESO NO. 7045 -9- 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 General 1 .. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; 2 and 3 d. based on the EIA Part II, comments thereon and with the incorporation of the proposed Mitigation Measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and 4 Addendum, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5 6 „ 36. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with 7 the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated April 16, 2014 including, but not limited to the following: 8 " 9 A. Land Use - The La Costa Towne Center project includes the demolition of two existing buildings located in the existing La Costa Towne shopping center and the construction 10 of two mixed use buildings and additional parking. The project is intended to revitalize the shopping center with the new residential development and commercial 11 retail uses. The residential component of the mixed use project includes the development of 60 multi-family apartments, including 12 inclusionary units, which 12 will be required to be rented at the low or moderate income level. In addition, the proposed project is located adjacent to a major transportation corridor with bus stops 13 located in close proximity along El Camino Real. The project will fulfill the daily needs of the new residential units by providing convenience goods and personal services within the shopping center. The proposed Classical Mediterranean architectural design will complement and enhance the overall appearance of the La Costa Towne Center as viewed from El Camino Real; and B. Housing - The city's Housing Policy Team has determined that the La Costa Towne Center project is required to designate 20% or 12 of the proposed 60 multi-family units as inclusionary units. Specifically, 15% of the units are required to be income and rent-restricted to low income households at 70% of AMI and 5% at moderate income at 100% of AMI. The applicant has agreed to this requirement and 29 incorporated the 12 units into the project. The provision for inclusionary housing will contribute towards achieving the city's Regional Housing Needs; and C. Circulation - As concluded in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed mixed use project will not adversely impact the traffic circulation in that in exchange for the addition of an entry off of El Camino Real into the proposed parking structure, an 22 existing driveway adjacent to El Camino Real will be eliminated. A total of four access driveways into the development will remain. The parking lot has been designed to 23 meet the minimum fire access requirements and the proposed project (791 ADTs) will not adversely impact the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and key 24 intersections, which are operating at an acceptable level of service; and 25 D. Noise - Pursuant to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts associated with noise generated by vehicular traffic on El 26 Camino Real. Specifically, a noise study will be required prior to issuance of the building permit to confirm compliance with the interior noise requirements for the 27 commercial and residential land uses. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the noise impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. PC RESO NO. 7045 -10- 16 17 18 19 25 26 27 28 The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Encinitas Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. 1 .. 37. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local 2 Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6 and all City public policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all 3 facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government 4 administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, 6 ^ " • The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected g prior to the issuance of building permit. 9 c. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 6 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. 10 d. A growth management park fee for residential and non-residential development will be 11 collected at the time of building permit issuance. This fee will be used to construct recreational facilities to offset demand created by residents and employees within Local 12 Facilities Management Zone 6. 13 38. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50). 14 39. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer 15 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the recordation ofthe Final Map. 20 1- If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained 21 according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or 22 further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to 23 compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Site 24 Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit, and a Minor Subdivision. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit, and Minor Subdivision documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the PC RESO NO. 7045 -11- 1 „ project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any 2 proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3 Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and 4 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 6 7 8 Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Mitigated Negative 9 Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum. 10 6. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and 11 representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, 12 from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit, and a 13 Minor Subdivision, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 17 Developer shall submit to the Planning Division a reproducible 24" x 36" mylar copy of the 28 Tentative Map and Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision-making body. 19 8. Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plancheck, a reduced 20 legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals). 21 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building 22 Division from the Encinitas (elementary) Unified School District and San Dieguito Unified (middle and high school) School District (that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide ^3 school facilities. 10. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 24 25 26 11. This approval supersedes the approval for Site Development Plan, SDP 78-03, and Site 27 Development Plan Amendments SDP 78-03(A), SDP 78-03(B), and SDP 78-03(C) (Planning Commission Resolutions No. 1501,1524,1585, and 5056, respectively). 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -12- 1 12. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 2 24 months from the date of project approval. 3 13. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water 4 service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will 5 continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. 6 ^ 14. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and g CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee 9 for Zone 6, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan 10 and shall become void. 11 15. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape 12 Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, 13 and debris. 16. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plancheck process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 16 17. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and 27 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Director of the 28 Community and Economic Department. In addition, the roof of each of the new mixed use buildings (where tile is not utilized), as well as all of the roof equipment, shall be painted to 19 match the dominant color of the stucco (i.e., tan/light brown) for the new mixed use buildings. 20 18. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of 21 Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, 22 notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit, and a Minor Subdivision by Resolution No. 7045 on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions 25 or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said 25 notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 23 24 27 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -13- 1 „ 19. Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts 2 from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the City Planner and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Division). 3 20. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot-high 4 masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.105. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the City Planner. Enclosure 5 shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 15 16 17 24 25 21. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the City Planner an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 6 7 g 22. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including g parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 10 23. Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to the 11 satisfaction of the City Planner. 12 24. Developer shall construct, install, and stripe not less than 601 parking spaces, as shown on Exhibits "A1-A19." 13 25. Prior to the recordation of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not 14 being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict 12 multi-family rental dwelling units on proposed Parcel 4 of MS 13-01; specifically, nine (9) multi-family rental units shall be deed-restricted as affordable to lower-income households and three (3) multi-family rental units shall be deed-restricted as affordable for moderate income households for 55 years, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall 2g be submitted to the City Planner no later than 60 days prior to the request to final the map. The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on ali future owners and 29 successors in interest. 20 26. Developer shall construct the required 12 inclusionary rental units concurrent with the project's remaining 48 multi-family rental units, unless both the final decision-making authority of the 21 City and the Developer agree within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development. 22 27. Prior to recordation of the final map, all parties involved in the joint use of the parking lot shall 23 provide evidence of a Reciprocal Parking, Access and Maintenance agreement for such joint use and maintenance by a proper legal instrument approved by the city attorney as to form and the City Planner as to content. Such instrument, when approved as conforming to the provisions of this title, shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder and copies thereof filed with the City Planner. The Reciprocal Parking, Access, and Maintenance agreement shall 2g run with the land and a transfer of ownership of one or more of the properties shall not affect the enforceability of the Agreement so long as the Non-Residential Planned Development 27 Permit, PUD 13-02, remains in effect. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -14- 1 „ 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the first mixed use building, the applicant shall 2 submit a lighting plan to the City Planner for approval. The lighting plan shall indicate the location of proposed light standards and poles (in exhibit form), along with detailed 3 information outlining illumination and lighting fixture design with the objective of providing adequate and safe parking lot lighting that does not impact residential uses located within the 4 project area or adjacent to the project site. Specifically, the lights shall be shielded downwards and directed away from the residential uses. 5 6 7 27 28 29. Prior to occupancy of the multi-family rental component of the project, the recreation areas which include, but are not limited to, the landscape planters, spa, and gym, identified on Exhibits "Al-A19"shall be completed. g 30. A minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped setback along El Camino Real shall be maintained for all of the buildings, including the parking structure, as well as all parking areas. 9 31. Prior to occupancy clearance of the first mixed use building, a Comprehensive Sign Program 10 shall be approved by the City Planner. 11 32. Truck deliveries at the loading dock area associated with the new mixed use building (7710 El Camino Real) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., to the maximum extent 12 feasible, and to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 13 Engineering: •'•4 NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all ofthe following conditions, upon the approval of this proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a parcel map, grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first. General 15 16 17 .. 33. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within 28 this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed haul route. 19 34. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for 20 the development of the subject property, unless the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the Leucadia Wastewater District have determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are 21 available at the time of permit issuance and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 22 23 24 35. Developer shall submit to the city planner, a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Site Plan, conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. The reproducible shall be submitted to the city planner, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the city's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of 25 the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or parcel map, whichever occurs first. 25 36. Developer shall prepare, submit and process for city engineer approval a parcel map to subdivide this project. PC RESO NO. 7045 -15- 14 15 38. Prior to the recordation of a parcel map, developer shall apply for a demolition permit and all structures crossing existing parcel boundaries shall be removed. 1 „ 37. Prior to the recordation of a parcel map, the developer shall submit to the city engineer an 2 acceptable instrument, via CC&R's and/or other recorded document, addressing the maintenance, repair, and replacement of shared private improvements within this subdivision, 3 including but not limited to private utilities, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, enhanced paving, water quality treatment measures, low impact development features and storm drain facilities 4 located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among ^ the owners of the properties within this subdivision. 6 39. Prior to approval of a parcel map, improvement plans or grading plans developer shall submit to g the city engineer written approval from North County Transit District (NCTD) demonstrating mass-transit improvement requirements for this project have been satisfied. 9 40. Sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City 10 Engineering Standards shall be reflected on the parcel map. The property owner shall maintain this condition. 11 " 12 41. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for 13 recordation, the city's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. Fees/Agreements 42. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement. ^g 43. Developer shall cause property owner to process, execute and submit an executed copy to the city engineer for recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management 27 Practice Maintenance Agreement for the perpetual maintenance of all treatment control, applicable site design and source control, post-construction permanent Best Management 18 Practices prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit or the recordation of a parcel map. 19 44. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, developer shall cause owner 20 to give written consent to the city engineer for the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping 21 District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the city engineer. 22 23 24 Grading 45. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and 25 technical studies/reports, for city engineer review, and shall pay all applicable grading plan review fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 26 46. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the city engineer. Developer shall 27 pay all applicable grading permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule and shall post security per City Code requirements. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -16- 1 „ 47. Upon completion of grading, developer shall file an "as-graded" geologic plan with the city 2 engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contour map 3 which represents both the pre and post site grading. The plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist, and shall be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar or similar 4 drafting film format suitable for a permanent record. 5 48. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the g discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the 9 above requirements. 10 49. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, developer shall submit to the city engineer receipt of a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board. 11 50. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit or building permit developer shall 12 submit for city approval a Tier 3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (TIER 3 SWPPP). The TIER 3 SWPPP shall comply with current requirements and provisions established by the San 13 Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The TIER 3 SWPPP shall identify and incorporate measures to reduce storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 14 15 16 51. This project is subject to 'Priority Development Project' requirements. Developer shall prepare and process a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), subject to city engineer approval, to 27 demonstrate how this project meets new/current storm water treatment requirements per the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP), latest version. In addition to 28 new treatment control BMP selection criteria in the SUSMP, the developer shall use low impact development (site design) approaches to ensure that runoff from impervious areas (roofs, 19 pavement, etc.) are drained through landscaped (pervious) areas prior to discharge. Developer shall pay all applicable SWMP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 20 52. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans, 21 landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, treatment control BMP, applicable hydromodification measures, and Low Impact Design (LID) facilities. 22 23 24 25 53. Developer shall submit documentation, subject to city engineer approval, demonstrating how this project complies with Interim hydromodification requirements per the city's SUSMP, latest version. Documentation shall be included within the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). Dedications/Improvements 25 54. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and 27 larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -17- 1 „ 55. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer 2 approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public 3 improvements shown on the site plan. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Security shall be in posted to the satisfaction of the city 4 engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: 5 A. Olivenhain Municipal Water District water lines, fire hydrants and appurtenances. B. Leucadia Wastewater District sewer lines and manholes. C. City of Carlsbad public street improvements including street light(s), driveway ^ approaches, pedestrian accessibility ramps and signing and re-striping of northbound El Camino Real. 8 Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees. Improvements 9 listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 10 56. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall install sewer services to each unit 11 proposed by this tentative parcel map. Sewer services shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Leucadia Wastewater District. 12 57. Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the city engineer, the structural section for 13 the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with city standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design ofthe aisle ways shall be submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the review and approval ofthe city engineer. 14 15 16 27 58. Add the following notes to the final map as non-mapping data Non-Mapping Notes 28 A. Developer has executed a city standard subdivision Improvement Agreement and has posted security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 to install public 19 improvements shown on the site plan. These improvements include, but are not limited to: 20 1. Olivenhain Municipal Water District water lines, fire hydrants and 21 appurtenances. 2. Leucadia Wastewater District sanitary sewer lines and manholes. 22 3. City of Carlsbad public street improvements: street light(s), driveway approaches, pedestrian accessibility ramps and signing and re-striping of ^3 northbound El Camino Real. 24 25 25 C. Geotechnical Caution Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agencies determine that sewer and water facilities are available. 27 1. Slopes steeper than two parts horizontal to one part vertical exist within the boundaries of this subdivision. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -18- 1 „ The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest 2 has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land 3 subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance. 4 5 6 7 14 15 16 No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards or line-of-sight per Caltrans standards. E. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may g arise through any diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of surface waters or drainage, or the concentration of surface waters or drainage from the g drainage system or other improvements identified in the city approved development plans; or by the design, construction or maintenance of the drainage system or other 10 improvements identified in the city approved development plans. 11 Utilities 12 59. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if 13 proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction ofthe Olivenhain Municipal Water District. 60. Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within easements granted to the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the Leucadia Wastewater District. 27 61. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to all public facilities. 18 62. Developer shall comply with the Leucadia Wastewater District Resolutions and Ordinances and 19 with the procedures, planning, design, construction, inspection, and acceptance requirements for sewer outlined in the Standard Specifications and Procedures for Wastewater Facility 20 Projects, prepared for the Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD Standard Spec), April 2013 or latest edition at the time of plan approval. Approval shall be valid for a period of one year 21 following signed approval, beyond which time an updated review and approval is required. Developer shall be responsible for all costs related to complying with these requirements. 22 23 24 63. Developer shall meet with the Leucadia Wastewater District to determine any existing sewer capacity fee credits and/or need to purchase additional sewer capacity. Purchase of required sewer capacity shall be complete prior to issuance of building permits. 25 64. Connection of drains with potential for surface runoff to sewer are prohibited, including trash enclosure areas. 26 65. Developer shall dedicate and record any required new sewer easements to the Leucadia 27 Wastewater District prior to recordation of Final Map. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -19- 1.. 66. Developer shall post bonds per an approved estimate of construction cost to Leucadia 2 Wastewater District prior to construction of sewer. 3 67. Developer, Owner, and Tenants shall comply with the Leucadia Wastewater District requirements for Food Establishment for Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG), including Best 4 Management Practice Agreements, underground grease interceptors, and plumbing requirements. 5 6 7 8 68. Developer shall cause execution of Private Sewer Agreements for Multi-Unit Lateral, as required by Leucadia Wastewater District Standard Specifications. 69. Developer shall protect the existing sewer from debris during construction including the Leucadia Wastewater District requirements for "plugs and traps." 9 70. The developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Department for 10 processing and approval. 11 71. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations approved by Olivenhain Municipal Water District. The locations of said services shall be 12 reflected on public improvement plans. 13 72. The developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the Leucadia Wastewater District. The locations of sewer laterals and cleanouts shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 15 73 The developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities ^g substantially as shown on the site plan to the satisfaction of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the Leucadia Wastewater District. 17 74. The developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Leucadia Wastewater District 28 regarding sewer infrastructure available or required to serve this project. 19 75. The developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Olivenhain Municipal Water District regarding potable water infrastructure available or required to serve this project. 20 76. The developer shall meet with and obtain approval from the Olivenhain Municipal Water 21 District regarding recycled water infrastructure available or required to serve this project. 22 Code Reminders: 23 77. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Developer shall pay a Public Facility fee as required by Council Policy No. 17. 24 25 26 78. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 6 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050. 79. Developer shall pay a landscape plancheck and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 27 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code. 28 PC RESO NO. 7045 -20-72> 1 „ 80. Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and final mylar of 2 this development submitted to the City: 3 A. The land use designation for this development is Local Shopping Center (L) which has a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per non-constrained acre. The dwelling unit 4 yield is based on 25% of the net acreage. 5 Parcels 1-4 were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also include parcels 1-4 under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code." g 81. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, 9 except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 10 82. The project shall comply with the latest nonresidential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 ofthe California Building Code. 11 83. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code 12 Section 18.04.320. 13 84. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the City Planner prior to 14 installation of such signs. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 85. Developer shall pay traffic impact fees based on Section 18.42 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the site plan are for planning purposes only. PC RESO NO. 7045 -21- 1 2 3 4 5 5 NOTICE 10 11 26 NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal priorto any judicial review. 7 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 8 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you 9 protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 22 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other 23 similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the 14 statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 15 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of 16 the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 16,2014, by the following vote, to wit: 17 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioners Anderson, L'Heureux, Scully, Segall and Siekmann 18 " 19 20 21 22 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JL 23 NEIL BLACK, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 24 25 ATTEST: 27 DON NEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 7045 -22-28 EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Division A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: April 16, 2014 Application complete date: August 20, 2013 Project Planner: Shannon Werneke Project Engineer: Steve Bobbett SUBJECT: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and a request for approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit and a Minor Subdivision to: 1) allow for the demolition of two (2) commercial buildings, (including Vons located at 7710 El Camino Real and 7740 El Camino Real), totaling 45,830 square feet within an existing 123,822 square foot shopping center (La Costa Towne Center); and 2) allow for the construction of a single-story parking structure and two (2) mixed-use buildings consisting of 60 multiple-family residential rental units and 48,908 square feet of new retail on a previously developed 15.24-acre site generally located along the east side of El Camino Real and south of La Costa Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7044 APPROVING a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7045 APPROVING a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 78-03(D)), Site Development Plan (SDP 13-03), Special Use Permit (SUP 13-01), Nonresidential Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-02) and a Minor Subdivision (MS 13-01), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND BACKGROUND SDP 78-03. PC Resolution No. 1501. On March 14,1979, the original Site Development Plan, SDP 78-03, was approved by the Planning Commission for the development of what is currently known as the La Costa Towne Center shopping center. The existing gross floor area of the shopping center is 123,822 square feet. As indicated in the project conditions, approval of SDP 78-03 allowed for a 10-foot-wide landscape setback from El Camino Real. 8 SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 2 SDP 78-03(A). PC Resolution No. 1524. On June 13, 1979, the first amendment to the Site Development Plan was approved by the Planning Commission to allow for modifications to the site plan, including replacing a building proposed adjacent to the eastern slope with an employee parking lot and redistribution of the floor area to other buildings on the site, with no increase to the original gross floor area. SDP 78-03(B), PC Resolution No. 1585. On February 13, 1980, the second amendment to the Site Development Plan was approved by the Planning Commission to allow for the deletion of a project condition which was deemed to be infeasible, to relocate the market and a parking lot, and to remove 14 parking stalls. As concluded in the report, the project still exceeded the required parking calculation based on the breakdown ofthe various uses located in the shopping center. Thus the Site Development Plan Amendment was approved by the Planning Commission. CUP 01-10/SDP 78-03(0. PC Resolutions No. 5055 and 5056. On January 2, 2002, the most recent amendment to SDP 78-03 was approved in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit for the location of a wireless communication facility (WCF) in a new tower, which is still located adjacent to the shopping center's north access driveway off of La Costa Avenue. The approval of the WCF has since been renewed and extended through a Minor Conditional Use Permit, MCUP 07-10(A) (approved 2/18/10, set to expire 2/17/20). Environmental Setting La Costa Towne Center, a 30-year old retail/office neighborhood shopping center anchored by a currently vacant Vons grocery store, is characterized as an infill lot located, in the southeast quadrant of the city and outside of the boundaries of the coastal zone. The site is bounded by La Costa Avenue, a secondary arterial road, as well as an office building to the north, two-story multi-family units to the south, one and two-story single-family uses to the east, and El Camino Real, a prime arterial road, to the west. The existing shopping center is located approximately 15-20 feet above the elevation of El Camino Real. While a majority of the developed area is flat, a large uphill perimeter slope is located along the eastern quarter ofthe property. The slope ranges in elevation from a high point of 180' above mean sea level (AMSL) to 80' AMSL at the base of the slope. Overhead power lines for SDGE traverse through a 50-foot-wide easement, which is located midway up the eastern slope. The uphill perimeter slope is primarily landscaped with non-native, ornamental trees. The existing shopping center is 15.24 acres (gross) in size and spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-124-16, -17). APN 216-124-17 has frontage on La Costa Avenue to the north and El Camino Real to the west. APN 216-124-16 has frontage along El Camino Real to the west. Two parcels, which are separately owned and currently developed with office and commercial uses, are located in the shopping center but are not a part of the proposed project (APNs 216-124-15, -25). Please see pages C-1 and C-2 of the attached civil plans for details. In addition to the Vons grocery store, five, one and two-story multi- tenant retail and office buildings are currently located onsite. As highlighted in Table 1, the shopping center has a zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay (C- 1-Q) and a General Plan Land Use designation of Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS). Proposed Project The applicant/owner. Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC, has submitted applications for a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 78-03(D)), Site Development Plan (SDP 13-03), Special Use Permit (SUP 13-03), Nonresidential Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-03), and Minor Subdivision (MS 13-03) to 1) allow SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 3 for the demolition of two (2) commercial buildings, totaling 45,830 square feet within an existing 123,822 square foot shopping center (including Vons at 7710 and 7740 El Camino Real); and 2) allow for the construction of a single-story parking structure and two (2) mixed-use buildings consisting of 60 multi-family residential rental units and 48,908 square feet of new ground floor retail area. Overall, including the demolition of the two buildings and the proposal to add two new mixed use buildings, a net gain of 3,078 SF of retail space is proposed. The proposed density for 60 residential units is 22.2 dwelling units per acre. The details for each ofthe new buildings are described below. 7710 El Camino Real (existing Vons site), three-storv. 95.078 SF mixed use building: In place of the existing 31,070 SF Vons building, which is located on the northern third of the shopping center, a three-story, 95,078 SF mixed use building is proposed to be constructed. At its closest point, the building is proposed to be setback from El Camino Real approximately 36 feet. The first floor ofthe new mixed use building, comprising 39,584 SF in area, is proposed to be occupied by neighborhood commercial uses such as a pharmacy or small-scale specialty grocery store. At this time, the applicant is proposing to divide this area to allow for up to three tenants. In addition, the existing loading dock adjacent to the north elevation ofthe existing Vons will be demolished and replaced with a new loading dock. The proposed height ofthe three-story mixed use building ranges from 42 to 45 feet. The 2nd and 3rd floors of the mixed use building will be occupied by a total of 48 multi-family rental units (16, one bedroom units, 6, two bedroom units, and 2, three bedroom units on each floor) ranging in size from 700 to 1,391 SF, as well as a common recreation area on the 2nd floor. Although not required, each residential unit in this building will either have a balcony or patio ranging in size from approximately 40 to 150 SF. Furthermore, and also not required, a common recreation area for the multi-family housing is proposed to be located on the 2nd floor. The common recreation area includes features such as an exercise room, barbeque area, spa, fire pit, lounge/kitchen, and a number of landscape planters. Trash service for the residential uses in this building will be provided by a trash chute which connects to a trash enclosure in the basement/parking structure. Trash is proposed to be carted out ofthe structure by a jitney cart and loaded into a waste management truck. Two pedestrian access points are proposed from El Camino Real to the proposed development. 7714 El Camino Real, two-storv. 18,320 SF mixed use building A second, two-story mixed use building is proposed to be constructed approximately 100 feet southeast of the existing Vons building/new mixed use building. The mixed use building is proposed to be located adjacent to a large uphill perimeter slope and in an area which is currently occupied by a surface parking lot, an intermediate manufactured slope, as well as ornamental landscaping. The building will have an overall floor area of 18,320 SF; a total of 9,324 SF of retail area will occupy the bottom floor (five retail tenants, suites range in size from 1,469 to 3,091 SF) and 8,996 SF will occupy the second floor. The mixed use building in this location has a maximum height of 35 feet with a single architectural projection up to 42 feet in height. A total of 12 multi-family units (8, one bedroom units and 4, two bedroom units) ranging in size from 624 to 1,001 SF are proposed on the second floor. The units facing interior to the site (i.e. towards El Camino Real) will each have Juliet balconies while the units facing the eastern slope will have patios that can be accessed by a walkway adjacent to the rear of the building. Trash service for the multi-family units in this building will be provided by a trash enclosure adjacent to the southeast corner of the building. A 16-foot-tall open-air pedestrian bridge is proposed across the main driveway off of La Costa Avenue to link the residential uses and allow the tenants to utilize the common recreation area and access the parking structure. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 4 Parking/Circulation Parking for the new retail and residential uses is proposed to be provided by a combination of surface parking and a single-level parking structure, a portion of which is subterranean, with open parking on top. The parking structure is proposed to be located adjacent to, as well as below (i.e., defined as a basement) the proposed three-story mixed use building adjacent to El Camino Real (7710 El Camino Real). Access to the parking structure will be provided by a new driveway entry proposed off of El Camino Real. In exchange, one driveway, located south of the new driveway and adjacent to Building 7740 (to be demolished), will be removed and replaced with 53 parking spaces, pedestrian access to the site from El Camino Real and landscaping. The front yard setback from El Camino Real for the parking structure and additional parking lot will be 17.5 feet and 14.5 feet, respectively. The visible portion ofthe single-story parking structure is proposed to range in height from 16 to 23 feet tall and span approximately 240 feet along the El Camino Real frontage. Overall, a total of 470 parking spaces currently exist in the shopping center and a total of 601 parking spaces are proposed (99 residential spaces and 99 commercial spaces in the parking structure and 403 surface commercial and guest parking spaces). Therefore, a net gain of 131 parking spaces is proposed to accommodate the additional retail area and new multi-family residential use. Please see Table 3 of this report for a detailed breakdown forthe parking calculation. Architecture The proposed mixed use buildings will continue the Classical Mediterranean style of the existing La Costa Towne shopping center. Proposed elements, including smooth plaster walls and cornices, a warm earth tone color palette, clay tile roofs, heavy timber wood trellises, wrought iron balconies and arched openings, complement the characteristic elements ofthe original center. To provide an updated look, the introduction of stone cladding and earth tone walls and accents will be incorporated into the remaining buildings throughout the shopping center. In addition, as part ofthe overall remodel ofthe shopping center, a number of storefronts will be replaced and ADA upgrades will be completed. New landscaping and signage will also be provided to revitalize the center. Grading Grading for the proposed project includes a total of 54,600 cubic yards of cut for the development of the parking garage, a portion of which is below grade. As no fill is required, a total of 54,600 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the project site. Mapping In order to allow separate ownership for the existing and proposed retail area, as well as the new residential area, a four-lot parcel map is proposed. Parcel 1, which will comprise the new retail area, parking structure and surface parking is proposed to be 7,78 acres in size. Parcels 2 and 3, 6.68 and 0.76 acres in size, respectively, will include the existing retail/office area and surface parking. Parcel 4 is proposed to allow for the new multi-family units to be owned separately. It is proposed as a vertical parcel, above the retail area on Parcel 1, and is 1.39 acres in size. The proposed applications are summarized below. Site Development Plan Amendment. SDP 78-03(D), The existing Site Development Plan for the shopping center, SDP 78-03(C) is proposed to be amended to address the development proposal, A Site Development Plan is required for projects which are located in the Qualified Development Overlay (Q) zone. In addition, a Site Development Plan is required for mixed use developments which propose residential uses in combination with commercial uses. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Pages Site Development Plan. SDP 13-03, A Site Development Plan is required for the 60 multi-family units, including the 12 inclusionary housing units proposed on-site (i,e,, 20% of residential units provided). Included as a component ofthe Site Development Plan is a request to exceed the 35- foot-height limitation of the C-1 zone and El Camino Real Corridor Standards pursuant to CMC Section 21,53,120, CMC Section 21.53.120 allows modifications to standards for projects which incorporate inclusionary housing. Special Use Permit, SUP 13-03. A Special Use Permit is required for projects which are located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is designated as a scenic corridor. The proposed project is located within Area 5 ofthe El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECRCDS). Area 5 of the ECRCDS allow for a maximum building height of 35 feet. As the project proposes a height up to 45 feet, a deviation to the standards is required and will be processed pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.100. No deviation is needed for the proposed front yard setback from El Camino Real since a 10-foot front yard setback was approved as part of the original Site Development Plan. In addition, a deviation to the standards is required for the grading proposed in conjunction with the development of the parking structure. The ECRCDS currently allow for a maximum cut or fill of 10 feet; an 11-foot cut is required to construct the parking structure. Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, PUD 13-03. A Non-Residential Planned Development Permit is proposed for the mixture of residential and commercial units and to allow for reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance of the facilities throughout the shopping center. Minor Subdivision, MS 13-03, The shopping center currently spans two legal parcels (APNs 216- 124-16, -17), A Minor Subdivision is proposed to allow for the property to be subdivided into four parcels. Included in this proposal is a vertical parcel to allow for the multi-family residential uses above the 1st floor retail uses to be separately managed and owned. The project meets the City's standards for planned developments and subdivisions, and as designed and conditioned, is in compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code, Table 1 below includes the General Plan designations, zoning, and current land uses of the La Costa Towne Center project site as well as the surrounding properties, TABLE 1 Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use Site Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS, eastern slope) Neighborhood Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay (C-l-Q) Shopping Center North Local Shopping Center (L) Local Shopping Center (C-L) Shopping Center South Residential, Medium-High Density (RMH) Planned Community (P-C) Multi-Family Housing East Residential, Low-Medium Density (RLM) Planned Community (P-C) Single-Family Housing West El Camino Real, Prime Arterial and Open Space (OS) El Camino Real, Prime Arterial and Open Space (OS) Prime Arterial and Open Space 2 SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 6 III. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, and standards as analyzed within the following section ofthis staff report. A. Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use designations; B. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1, CMC Chapter 21.26 ) and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (as applicable); C. Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q CMC Chapter 21.06); D. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (CMC Chapter 21.40); E. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85); F. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20); G. Nonresidential Planned Developments Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.47); and H. Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21,90), Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6, The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies using both text and tables. A. General Plan The subject La Costa Towne Center property, comprising two legal parcels, has a General Plan Land Use designation of Local Shopping Center (L) and Open Space (OS), The L designation, which covers the south and west portions ofthe project, allows shopping centers that include elements ofthe traditional shopping center. Local shopping centers are required to contain the anchor tenants and secondary tenants that service the daily needs and convenience of local neighborhoods. These tenants include retail businesses, small offices, and a variety of services. Pursuant to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the most common anchor tenant is a supermarket, although a large drugstore, or a combination thereof, would meet the intent of the L designation. The existing OS designation is located on the northeastern half of the project area, which is an existing uphill perimeter slope vegetated with ornamental landscaping. In addition, a 50-foot-wide SDG&E easement traverses in a north-south direction through the open space area. No changes are proposed to the boundaries ofthe OS or L General Plan Land Use designations. The proposed development will occur within the existing footprint for the shopping center. Pursuant to the Housing Element, the City recognizes the increasing pressure to encourage smart growth developments; specifically, developments which recognize the importance of sustainability and which balance social, economic, and environmental needs through the development of mixed use commercial projects. For these reasons and pursuant to Table 3-7 of the Housing Element, the City sees the subject La Costa Towne Shopping Center (also known as the "Vons Center") as a potential location for high density housing since it is close to a major transportation corridor and employment areas. In addition, the Center provides convenient shopping opportunities to address the daily needs of the residents. As indicated in the Housing Element, the minimum density for commercial zones in the City is 20 dwelling units per acre. Further, the dwelling unit yield projected for shopping centers is based on 25% of the center's acreage since it recognizes the importance of maintaining sites for commercial uses in SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 7 ^ the City. With a net acreage of 10.83 acres for the La Costa Towne Shopping Center, the residential portion ofthe project (2,7 acres) has a proposed density of 22,2 (60/2.7 = 22.22) dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the minimum goal has been met and the project is consistent with the Housing Element with respect to density. In addition, as the property is zoned for commercial use (C-l-Q), an allocation for residential dwelling units currently does not exist. Therefore, an allocation from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB) is required. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43, an applicant for an allocation of dwelling units shall agree to provide the number of inclusionary units as required pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.050 and shall execute an affordable housing agreement prior to recordation of the final map pursuant to CMC Section 21,85,140, As discussed in Section E below, the project is consistent with the inclusionary housing requirement established by the City's Housing Policy Team, Further, in approving a request for an allocation of excess dwelling units, the project shall meet the findings identified in CC Policy No, 43, Specifically, the project location and density are compatible with adjacent land uses, are consistent with the General Plan and any other applicable planning document. Finally, as required pursuant to CC Policy No, 43, an affidavit signed by the applicant has been provided (please see Attachment 3) which acknowledges that the request for an allocation from the City's EDUB, triggers the requirement for inclusionary housing. As discussed in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No, 7045, the proposed project meets these findings. In addition, the City's Housing Policy Team recommended approval ofthe request for an allocation for 60 units from the EDUB on December 17, 2012. The following Table 2 describes how the proposed La Costa Towne Center project is consistent with the various elements ofthe Carlsbad General Plan. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 8 TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Land Use Commercial: Goal A.1 Provide a healthy and diverse economic base and quality commercial development to serve the employment, shopping, and service needs ofthe residents. Obiective B.2 Ensure that all residential areas are adequately served by commercial areas by fulfilling daily shopping needs including convenience goods, food, and personal services. Policv A,6 Ensure that commercial architecture emphasizes establishing community identify while presenting tasteful and visually-appealing designs compatible with their surroundings. Residential: Policv C,5 Locate multi-family uses near commercial centers and major transportation corridors Policv Cl Encourage the provision of low and moderate income dwelling units to meet the objective ofthe City's Housing Element Policv CIO Encourage a variety of residential accommodations and amenities in commercial areas to increase the advantage of "close in" living and convenient shopping. Commercial: The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings in an existing underutilized shopping center and the construction of two mixed use buildings and additional parking. The project is intended to revitalize the shopping center with the residential development and new commercial uses. In addition, the project will fulfill the daily needs of the new residential units by providing convenience goods and personal services within the shopping center. The proposed Classical Mediterranean architectural design will complement and enhance the overall appearance ofthe La Costa Towne Center. Architectural details such as smooth plaster walls and cornices, a warm earth tone color palette, clay tile roofs, heavy timber wood trellises, wrought iron balconies and arched openings. Yes Residential: The proposed mixed use project includes the development of 60 multi-family apartments, including 12 inclusionary units which will be required to be rented at the low or moderate income level. In addition, the proposed project is located adjacent to a major transportation corridor with bus stops located in close proximity along El Camino Real. Further, the proposed mixed use project will provide convenient shopping and services for the residential community. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 9 TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE - CONTINUED ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY? Housing Program 2,3 The City will encourage mixed use developments that include a residential component. Major commercial centers should incorporate, where appropriate, mixed commercial/residential uses. Goal 3 Sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in all quadrants ofthe City to meet the needs of the current lower and moderate income households and those with special needs, and fair share proportion of future lower and moderate income households. Policv 3.6 Encourage the development of an adequate number of housing units suitably sized to meet the needs of lower and moderate income households. The proposed mixed use project includes 60 multi-family units integrated into an existing shopping center which is proposed to be remodeled with new retail uses. The city's Housing Policy Team has determined that the La Costa Towne Center project is required to designate 20% or 12 ofthe proposed 60 multi-family units as inclusionary units. Specifically, 15% of the units are required to be income and rent- restricted to low income households at 70% of AMI and 5% at moderate income at 100% of AMI. The provision for inclusionary housing will contribute towards achieving the city's Regional Housing Needs, The project has been accordingly- conditioned to require the approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement priorto recordation ofthe final map. Circulation Obiective B.l Provide adequate circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to the actual demand for such facilities. The proposed project has been designed to meet all ofthe circulation requirements, including internal circulation. As required by the Traffic Engineering Department, the removal of one access driveway off of El Camino Real is proposed to allow for the new access driveway for the parking structure. Yes SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 10 TABLE 2 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE - CONTINUED ELEMENT Open Space & Conservation Public Safety Noise USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM Policv C.4 Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality. Policv C.20 If open space areas are adjusted, the proposed open space shall be equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map. Policv Cl Design all structures in accordance with the seismic design standards ofthe California Building Code (CBC) and State building requirements. Policv B,4 Review new development proposals to consider emergency access, fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements, Policv C.5 Interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residential land uses and 55 dBA for commercial land uses. PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS A storm water management plan has been prepared forthe proposed project. In addition, the project has been conditioned to conform to all NPDES requirements and Best Management Practices, The proposed project does not encroach into the existing General Plan-designated Open Space, The proposed structural improvements are required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, mitigation measures are required for asbestos abatement and to ensure adherence to the recommendations ofthe Geotechnical Report, The proposed project is consistent with all ofthe applicable fire safety requirements. A noise study was prepared for the proposed project. While no significant impacts were identified, a mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the proposed building design will adequately attenuate the interior noise level for each ofthe land uses. Since outdoor recreation areas are not a required component for multi- family residential apartments, the exterior noise standard of 60 dBA is not applicable. COMPLY? Yes Yes Yes B. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1, CMC Chapter 21.26) and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (as applicable) The La Costa Towne Shopping Center is located in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone, or C-1 zone. The C-1 zone is intended for smaller scale shopping centers which meet the daily needs of the surrounding SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 11 residential community. Examples of anchor tenants, which are permitted by right in the C-1 zone, include grocery or drug stores. Examples of secondary tenants include restaurants, banks real estate offices, personal grooming, small retail, and dry cleaners. The applicant has indicated that the commercial component of the mixed use building adjacent to El Camino Real (39,584 SF) has been designed with the intent of a drug store and/or a small scale specialty grocery store occupying the first floor. The names of the prospective tenants have not been disclosed at this time. The second mixed use building, 9,324 SF in size, is proposed to be occupied by a number of smaller retail tenants that would cater to the needs of the new residential community as well as the surrounding residential communities. Pursuant to Table A of CMC Chapter 21,26, residential uses are permitted by right but are required to comply with CMC Section 21,26,015, which requires the approval of a Site Development Plan pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.06 (Q Qualified Development Overlay Zone). The findings for approval of the Site Development Plan are summarized in Section C below and are discussed in greater detail in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045. Table 3 below analyzes the projects consistency with the C-1 zone and the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, where they supersede the standards of the C-1 zone. A modification to the standards pursuant to CMC Section 21,53,120 will be required to vary from the allowable height. TABLE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND THE EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (AS APPLICABLE) STANDARD PROVIDED COMPLY HEIGHT Building height 35 feet Architectural projections: Up to 45 feet with the approval ofa Minor SDP 7710: 45 feet 7714:: 35 foot tall building with architectural tower projection up to 45 feet No - A request to exceed the 35- foot height limitation is requested as part ofthe Site Development Plan for inclusionary housing pursuant to CMC Section 21.53,120, The architectural tower proposed in conjunction with the two-story mixed use building (7714), meets the requirements for an allowable architectural projection pursuant to CMC Section 21.46,020, Please see Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045 for details. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 12 TABLE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD PROVIDED COMPLY SETBACKS Yes - Pursuant to Section VI of the El Camino Real Corridor Front: Front: Standards, "Exceptions," the 7710: 36 feet standards established in this El Camino Real Corridor Parking structure: 17.5 feet document do not affect areas Standards: Southern parking lot: 14.5 feet with valid site plan approvals. 7710 building: 40 feet from ROW or 15 feet from toe of As the original Site Development slope, whichever is greater Plan for the La Costa Towne Parking Structure: 25 feet Shopping Center (SDP 78-03) C-1 zone: None established a 10-foot-wide setback from El Camino Real SDP 78-03: 10 feet (Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1501), the proposed front yard Side: None Side: N/A setback is consistent with the original approval as it exceeds Rear: None Rear: N/A the minimum 10' setback. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 13 TABLE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND THE EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (AS APPLICABLE) - CONTINUED STANDARD PROVIDED COMPLY PARKING Retail: 1 space/200 SF Net gain of 3,078 SF 3,078/200 = 16 spaces Multi-Family Residential: Standard: One bedroom: 1,5 sp/unit (one covered) 42, one-bedroom units 42(1,5) = 63 spaces (42 covered, 21 uncovered) Two/three bedrooms: 2 sp/unit (one covered) 14, two bedroom units & 4, three-bedroom units 18(2) = 36 spaces (18 spaces covered, 18 spaces uncovered) Total covered parking req: 60 spaces Total uncovered parking req: 39 spaces Total spaces required: 99 spaces Guest parking: 0,25 sp/unit 0.25(60) = 15 spaces (uncovered or covered) Original shopping center required parking: 471 spaces (128,922 SF, 3,64 spaces/l,OOOSF), pursuant to SDP 78-03(B)(*) - determined based on breakdown of uses (office, retail, etc.) and combined with a 15% parking reduction. Retail: 16 spaces Multi-Family Residential: 99 covered parking stalls Guest spaces: 16 undesignated stalls provided either in commercial garage or surface parking lot. Overall calculation for Center: Existing: 471 surface spaces (*) Proposed: 99 garage spaces- residential 99 garage spaces- commercial 403 surfaces spaces- commercial and residential guest parking TOTAL: 602 parking spaces Commercial component: 132,000 SF 3.81 spaces/1,000 SF Yes -The existing shopping center is currently parked pursuant to the parking requirements as established pursuant to SDP 78-03(B), which included a 15% reduction in the number of parking stalls (total of 471 spaces originally required). The net gain in retail square footage, 3,078 SF, as well as the new multi-family residential component ofthis project is parked pursuant to the current code requirements for a retail shopping center and multi-family residential uses. Overall, the existing commercial parking ratio for the shopping center will improve from 3,64 stalls/1,000 SF to 3,81 stalls/1,000 SF. ^3 SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 14 TABLE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD PROVIDED COMPLY Compact spaces up to 25% 4.6 %(23 of 502) commercial spaces) Yes Landscaping Per landscape manual/Streetscape Program Yes *The existing commercial shopping center is legal nonconforming with respect to parking. While the proposed net gain in commercial square footage and the new residential multi-family uses are required to be parked pursuant to the current parking requirements, the existing shopping center will remain under-parked pursuant to prior project approvals. C. Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q, CMC Chapter 21.06) The project's proposed Qualified Development (Q) Overlay zoning designation and proposed residential use in combination with commercial uses requires the processing of a Site Development Plan (SDP). The processing of a SDP is pursuant to Chapter 21.06, the Qualified Development Overlay Zone. As discussed in Section II ofthis report, the original SDP was approved in 1979 and three subsequent amendments have since been approved. The proposed project represents the fourth amendment to the Site Development Plan for the La Costa Towne Center (SDP 78-03(D)). As noted in Table 3 above, a 10-foot-wide landscaped front yard setback was established pursuant to the original Site Development Plan, The Q Overlay provides the City with discretion to apply additional design regulations over and above the standards of the C-1 zone to the project to ensure a quality design. Four findings are typically required for the Q-Overlay Zone, Because a residential use is proposed in conjunction with the commercial uses, one additional finding is required pursuant to CMC Section 21,26.015. The required findings with justification for each are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No, 7045 for the project. As discussed in the findings, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe General Plan. In addition, the proposed project will not adversely impact the site or its surroundings, nor will it adversely impact traffic circulation. Further, the existing La Costa Towne Center development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, adequate setbacks are provided and the street system can accommodate the proposed use. With respect to the residential component, as required by the C-1 zone, the residential use is secondary and accessory to the primary commercial use. Thus, the amendment to the Site Development Plan can be supported, D. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (CMC Chapter 21.40) The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECRDS) were adopted in 1984 with the intent and purpose to maintain and enhance the appearance ofthe El Camino Real roadway area. The document is intended to further the goals ofthe Land Use Element ofthe General Plan in its objective of preserving unique City resources as they relate to highways. Development located 300 feet upslope (5 feet higher than street grade), 500 feet downslope (5 feet lower than street grade) or 400 feet deep at grade (within 5 feet of street level) along the El Camino Real Corridor requires the approval of a Special Use Permit. As the proposed two-story mixed use building (7714 El Camino Real) is located greater than 300 feet upslope of El Camino Real, the standards only apply to the proposed three-story mixed use building addressed as 7710 El Camino Real. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 15 The La Costa Towne Center shopping center is located within the boundaries of Planning Area 5, which extends from Cassia Road to Olivenhain Road. In addition to being the longest ofthe five segments, this Area contains the most diverse land uses and expansive views. The community of La Costa is predominantly located on the east side of El Camino Real and includes a mix of residential, commercial, office and visitor-serving land uses. Much of La Costa reflects an "Old California/Hispanic" architectural theme. Table 4 below identifies the standards which are intended to be preserved along the corridor. Where compliance is not achievable (height, grading) in Area 5, the deviations to the standards are summarized in the Table and discussed in more detail in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045 TABLE 4- EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR STANDARDS COMPLIANCE PLANNING AREA 5 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROJECT STANDARD ADOPTED CRITERIA PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY? Design Theme Old California/Hispanic The proposed architectural theme is consistent as it includes Spanish/Mediterranean features such as a warm earth tone palette for the stucco, heavy timber trellises, decorative iron work for the parking structure, clay tile roof, as well as arches and towers which complement the Spanish theme. Yes Sidewalks As determined by staff at the time of adjacent development Sidewalks currently exist along the entire La Costa Towne Center frontage Yes Signs Freestanding monument, not to exceed 7 feet above street grade, 12 feet long; materials- wood and stucco only; wall signs-wood only No signs are proposed at this time, A comprehensive sign program will be processed separately. Yes Building Height Maximum 35 feet from pad grade. The maximum height for the three-story mixed use building is 45 feet. No, The project requires a deviation to the standards. As inclusionary housing is included in the project, a modification to the standards is requested pursuant to CMC Section 21.53,120. The findings for approval can be found in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045, SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 16 TABLE 4 - EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR STANDARDS COMPLIANCE - CONTINUED PLANNING AREA 5 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROJECT STANDARD ADOPTED CRITERIA PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY? Grading No cut or fill exceeding 10 feet from original grade. The grading for the proposed parking structure includes cutting into the existing grade approximately 11 feet. No. A deviation to this standard can be supported. In order to meet parking requirements, a parking structure is required. Therefore, compliance with this standard is infeasible. In addition, the scenic qualities of the corridor will be maintained and the grading will not have an adverse impact on traffic safety. Setback from roadway Upslope (7710 Building): 40 feet from ROW or 15 feet from toe of slope, whichever is greater At grade: 30 feet for the parking structure 7710: 36 feet Parking structure: 17,5 feet Southern parking lot: 14.5 feet Yes, Pursuant to Section VI ofthe El Camino Real Corridor Standards, "Exceptions," the standards established in this document do not affect areas with valid site plan approvals. As the original Site Development Plan for the La Costa Towne Shopping Center (SDP 78-03) established a 10-foot-wide landscaped setback from El Camino Real (Condition No, 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No, 1501), the proposed front yard setback is consistent with the original approval as it exceeds minimum setback. Thus, the scenic quality of the corridor will be maintained. Street Furniture Wrought iron, wood or combination thereof No street furniture is required or proposed in conjunction with this project. Yes (N/A) Street Light Spacing City Standard No additional street lights are required or proposed. Yes(N/A) SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 17 TABLE 4 - EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR STANDARDS COMPLIANCE - CONTINUED PLANNING AREA 5 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROJECT STANDARD ADOPTED CRITERIA PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLY? Roof Equipment If structures are downslope, or can be seen from adjacent developed or potentially developable areas, no roof equipment shall be visible. The La Costa Towne Center site is located approximately 80 feet downslope from an existing single-family residential neighborhood. Yes. All roof equipment will be screened from El Camino Real. However, given the extensive change in elevation over a relatively short distance, it is not feasible to screen the equipment for the three- story mixed use building from the single-family residences to the east. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the roof equipment is painted the same color as the roof. In addition, as currently proposed for the three-story mixed use building, the roof equipment has been consolidated to three areas. Given the extent of existing trees located on the slope and location of the HVAC unit for the two- story mixed use building, the equipment is not anticipated to be visible. E. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Pursuant to CMC Section 21,53.120, multi-family residential developments having more than four dwelling units or an affordable housing project of any size require the approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP). The development shall be subject to the development standards of the zone in which the development is located except for affordable housing projects as expressly modified by the SDP. Specifically, the SDP may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity with the general plan and adopted policies and goals ofthe city and it would not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. The residential component of the proposed La Costa Towne Center mixed use project entails a request to construct 60 multi-family units, 12 of which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary units. Included as a component ofthe Site Development Plan is a modification to the 35-foot maximum height standards as required pursuant to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, As discussed in Planning Commission Resolution No, 7045, the modification to the height can be supported. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 18 The City's Inclusionary Housing regulations (CMC Chapter 21.85) require that a minimum of 15% of all proposed units in any residential project (i.e., ownership or rental) be restricted to lower income households. In addition, pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.010, developments which provide ten or more units affordable to lower income households, at least 10 percent of the lower income units shall have three or more bedrooms. As discussed above, the applicant proposes to designate 12 of the proposed 60 multi-family residential units as income-restricted. Therefore, 20 percent of the units are proposed to be affordable to low or moderate income households. On December 17, 2012, the City's Housing Policy Team recommended approval of the applicant's request to income and rent-restrict 15% of the units (9 total) for occupancy by low income households (with rents set at 30% to 70% of the San Diego County Area Medium Income) and 5% of the units (3 total) for occupancy by moderate income households (with rents set at 30% to 100% ofthe San Diego County Area Medium Income), Pursuant to the attached Affidavit (please see Attachment 3), in exchange for an allocation of 60 units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, the applicant has agreed to comply with the inclusionary housing requirements. In addition, the project has been conditioned to require approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to recordation ofthe final map. F. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20) The La Costa Towne Center shopping center currently spans two legal parcels (APNs 216-124-16, -17). In order to allow separate ownership for the existing and proposed retail area, as well as the new residential area, a four-lot parcel map is proposed. Parcel 1, which will comprise the new retail area, parking structure and surface parking is proposed to be 7.78 acres in size. Parcels 2 and 3, 6.68 and 0.76 acres in size, respectively, will include the existing retail/office area and surface parking. Parcel 4 is proposed as a vertical parcel and will allow for the new multi-family rental units which are proposed to be located above the new ground floor retail space (i.e.. Parcel 1) to be owned separately. More specifically. Parcel 4 is 1.39 acres in size and includes levels two and three of Building 7710, Level 2 of Building 7714, and the pedestrian bridge which connects the two buildings. The parcel line separating Parcels 1 and 4 is proposed to be located midway through the concrete slab which separates the first and second floors (elevation is approximately 73'). The design ofthe proposed minor subdivision and the improvements as conditioned are consistent with and satisfy the requirements of the General Plan, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act. Public vehicular access is provided and the lots will be suitable for future residential and commercial uses within the La Costa Town Center. In addition, the design of the subdivision and the required improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All easements have been identified and none are affected by the proposed subdivision. G. Nonresidential Planned Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.47) Pursuant to CMC Section 21.47.020, a nonresidential planned development permit is required for separate ownership of units within multiple buildings or upon a parcel of land containing more than one unit. Because the proposed project includes a request for a vertical parcel map to allow for the multi- family residential and retail components of the project to be separately owned, a Non-Residential Planned Development Permit is required. Pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045, the findings for approval to allow for separate ownership can be made. In addition, to address the changes to the layout of the lots, the project will be conditioned to require an amendment to the existing reciprocal parking and access agreement for the shopping center. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 19 H. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6 in the southeast quadrant of the City, The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 5 below, TABLE 5 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration 208.60 sq. ft. Yes Library 111.25 sq.ft. Yes Waste Water Treatment 33.75 EDU Yes Parks 0.42 acres Yes Drainage 69.5 CFS/Drainage Basin D Yes Circulation 791 ADT Yes Fire Station No. 2 Yes Open Space n/a Yes Schools Encinitas (E=ll, M/HS = 12) Yes Sewer Collection System 9,450 GPD Yes Water 18,660 GPD Yes IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVI EW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, and Noise. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was published in the newspaper. The requisite 20-day public review period for the MND occurred from December 24, 2013 to January 12, 2014. At the request of Everett DeLano, the review period was extended until January 21, 2014. Two public comment letters were received at the end of the notice period. A comment letter from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians was received on January 21, 2014 requesting minor changes to the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures as it pertains to Native American involvement in the grading activities. In addition, a comment letter dated January 21, 2014 was received from Everett DeLano, on behalf of the North County Advocates, contesting various conclusions made in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response letters addressing the concerns of both the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and the Everett DeLano/North County Advocates were sent on February 13, 2014 and February 26, 2014, respectively. Both letters are included as attachments to the back ofthe MND, An addendum has also been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA to include the revisions to Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures No. Cultural-1 and Cultural-2. This revision has no new significant environmental effects not analyzed in the previously circulated MND, and none ofthe circumstances requiring recirculation or a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER April 16, 2014 Page 20 ATTACHMENTS: 1, Planning Commission Resolution No. 7044 (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Response to Comments) 2, Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045 (SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01) 3, Affidavit for Allocation of Dwelling Units from Excess Dwelling Unit Bank 4, Location Map 5, Disclosure Statement 6, Reduced Exhibits 7, Full Size Exhibits "Al -A19", "C1-C8" and "Ll-LlO" dated April 16, 2014 \00 SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 1889 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081 760-724-8505 • FAX 760-724-2172 www.slrmissionindians.org January 21, 2014 Shannon Werneke City Planner VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Division Shannon,wemeke@carlsbadca,gov City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER (SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01) Dear Ms, Werneke: We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"), have received and reviewed the City of Carlsbad's ("City's") Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and all of its supporting documentation as it pertains specifically to the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources that may be located within the parameters of the La Costa Towne Center Project's ("Project's") property boundaries. After our review, the Tribe believes that with the incorporation of additional measures of mitigation for cultural resources as proposed in this comment letter, the Project should be allowed to proceed as proposed. As you are aware, we are a San Diego County Tribe whose traditional territory includes the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido, as well as the unincorporated communities of northem San Diego County, such as, but not limited to, Fallbrook and Bonsall, The Tribe is resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within all these jurisdictions. It is the Tribe's understanding that the Project will consist of the demolition and excavation of two (2) existing structures established within the Project's boundaries and allow for the construction of two (2) mixed used buildings, including 60 multi-family residential units, 12 of which are proposed to be designated as inclusionary housing and a single-story parking structure, which is partially subterranean. The Tribe further understands that the Project is located on the east side of El Camino Real, south of the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue, addressed as 7710-7770 El Camino Real, APNs 216-124-16-17 ("Project Site"). As the City is aware through previous govemment-to-govemment consultations, this area is of significant SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 1 |0l cultural importance to the Tribe and the Luiseno people due to its close proximity to known cultural resource sites and/or sacred places. As stated earlier, the Tribe has reviewed the associated environmental documents for this Project, including but not limited to the MND Initial Study Checklist for Cultural Resources (Section V) and Mitigation Measures Cultural-1 and Cultural-2. Although the majority ofthe Tribe's concems are addressed within the MND, several concems still remain for the Tribe that the Tribe would like the City to address. I. THE PRESENCE OF A LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR DURING ALL EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IS JUSTIFIED, AND AS SUCH, LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS SHOULD BE CONTRACTED WITH DURING THIS PROJECT. As discussed in our previous communications, the Tribe is in agreement with the City that Luiseiio Native American monitors should be utilized during ground and/or earth disturbing activities for this Project. As stated earlier, the Tribe has reviewed the MND for this Project, as well as conducted our own research of the Tribe's Sacred Land Files, and has spoken with our Tribal Elders regarding the significance of the Project Site. Several significant and sacred Native American sites are known to be within a mile radius of this Project Site, therefore it is possible that during excavation activities subsurface resources may be discovered at the Project Site. Hence, the Tribe supports the MND's Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures Cultural ("CUL- 2") in requiring the presence of a Luiseiio Native American monitor. In addition, the Tribe respectfully requests that the following language of CUL-1 and 2 be modified and/or amended prior to the adoption of this MND, Currently, the CUL-1 states, "If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed." The Tribe suggests that the sentence and/or mitigation measure in CUL-1 be clarified, and/or restated in CUL-2, that both the archaeological monitor and/or the Native American monitor may halt ground disturbing activities if a cultural resource and/or archaeological artifact deposit or cultural feature is discovered,,," It is imperative that Native American monitors share in the responsibility of temporarily halting ground disturbing activities when a cultural resource or archaeological resource are discovered in order for the resource to be properly identified and not destroyed by heavy machinery. Therefore, the Tribe respectfully requests that the language authorizing the temporary halting of ground disturbing activities be modified as herein stated, II. SLR STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AND REQUESTS THAT ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF MITIGATION BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN ORDER TO LESSEN ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACT TO OUR KNOWN NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCES. Furthermore, the Tribe strongly recommends and requests that additional measures of mitigation be adopted by the City in order to lessen any additional negative impact to our known Native American cultural resources. SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 2 \0 A. The Tribe Must Be Consulted If A Significant Cultural Resource And/or Unique Archaeological Resource Is Discovered During Ground Disturbing Activities. If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed during ground disturbing activities for this Project, the Tribe respectfully requests that they be notified and consulted with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those resources. The Tribe's preference will always be for avoidance and that the resource be protected and preserved in perpetuity. If however, relocation and/or a data recovery plan is authorized by the City as the Lead Agency, the Tribe respectfully requests that as a condition of any authorization, the Tribe be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any such recovery. These resources are evidence of our ancestors' lost history and, as such, we must have a voice and be a part of how those resources are treated and preserved for future generations. Moreover, when cultural resources are discovered during the Project, if the archaeologist collects such resources, a Luiseiio Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Additionally, if the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseno Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the Tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe's cultural and spiritual traditions. Currently the MND is silent in regards to "what" is to happen to those items not collected, yet documented by the project archaeologist for SCIC purposes. Therefore, it is the Tribe's recommendation that these items be given to the Tribe so that they may be repatriated at the site on a later date. B. When Suspected Native American Remains Are Unearthed. Those Remains Should Remain In Situ And Protected Until The Most Likely Descendant Can Be Determined Bv The Native American Heritage Commission. CUL-1 (second paragraph) addresses the possibility of the discovery of Native American Human Remains, If Native American remains and/or associated burial goods are unearthed during the Project, and prior to a Most Likely Descendant being determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, it is the Tribe's request that the ancestral remains be kept in situ (in place), or in a secure location in close proximity to their discovery and that a forensic anthropologist perform their analysis of die remains on-site in the presence of a Luiseiio Native American monitor. Any transportation of the ancestral remains would be considered by the Tribe as disrespectful and undignified treatment. Therefore, the Tribe requests that in addition to the strict adherence to the protocol stated in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050,5 and Califomia Public Resource Code Section 5097.98, the Final MND reflect that if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and that the analysis of the remains occur only on-site in the presence of a Luiseno Native American monitor. C. Onlv "Clean Fill" Should Be Utilized During This Proiect SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 3 Lastly, the Tribe is opposed to any undocumented fill being used during the proposed development. We are aware that the MND stated that no fill will be imported to the site and that die soils from the site, would instead, be exported. However, in the event the "fill" will be imported into the Project area, the Tribe requests that any proposed use of fill be clean of cultural resources and documented as such. It has been a practice of many in the constmction profession to utilize fill materials that contained cultural resources from other "unknown" areas thereby contaminating the potential cultural landscape of the area being filled. This type of fill material is unacceptable. Moreover, if the fill material is to be utilized from areas within the Project boundaries, then we ask that that fill be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and/or Luiseno Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural resources. Lastly, if any of the soils are to be exported to the site, we ask that those soils be free of any cultural resources, as to avoid any cross-contamination of resources at a different site. Therefore, a requirement that fill material be absent of any and all cultural resources should be included as an additional mitigation measure of the Final MND. The Tribe is aware that the Project Site contains varying levels of in-fill soil; however, the vertical depth of the fill soil is unknown and the native soil may still be intact below the fill soil. Therefore, regardless if "fill" soil had been previously utilized at the Project Site, Native American monitors must still be present during ground disturbing activities in those locations if it is determined that native soils may still be penetrated. HI. CONCLUSION The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians appreciates this opportunity to provide the City of Carlsbad with our comments and recommendations on the La Costa Towne Center Project. The Tribe hopes the City will adopt the mitigation measures for Cultural Resources as herein requested and that they will appear in the Final MND. As always, we look forward to working with the City to guarantee fliat the requirements of the CEQA are rigorously applied to this Project and all projects. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our invaluable Luiseno cultural resources. Sincerely, Merri Lopez-Keifer Tribal Legal Counsel cc: Melvin Vernon, Tribal Captain Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Relations and President of Saving Sacred Sites SLR Comments Regarding the La Costa Towne Center, Carlsbad, CA Page 4 <#/^^ CITY OF VICARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov February 13, 2014 Ms. Meri Lopez-Keifer San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Vista, CA 92081 RE: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Thank you for your comment letter dated January 21, 2014 responding to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the La Costa Towne Center project. Pursuant to your request, we have revised the proposed Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures, CUL-1 and CUL-2, to address the items of concern in your letter. The changes are reflected below in underlined text. Ultimately, an addendum to the MND will be prepared to reflect this revision and the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program will be accordingly revised. CUL 1- Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities uniess otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit In the event arty ootontial cultural rcsourco is iinrnvorpH rinrinrj thr, rnnrm njFthr praject can::truction, ground disturbing activities in tho vicinity nfthn fmH rhniihn mHimrtnrf ,,ntii thr nntiirc and drtcnt ofthe find can bo evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor, in consultation with a Native American monitnr, shall direa the contractor to avoid ail work in the Immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifact materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 February 13, 2014 Page 2 // any human remains are discovered, ali construction activity in the immediate area of the discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medicai Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CULTURAL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. In addition, if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where thev were found until an analvsis is done on-site, in consultation with a Luiseno Native American monitor. CUL-2 Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services ofa Luiseno Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit Prior to Implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shaii attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements ofthe program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground- disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect aradina/trenchina while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If the resource cannot be avoided, the Native American tribe .•thgfl be consulted reaardina the testing cataloaina. drafting and finalization ofthe recovery of anv resources. We thank you forthe time to provide us conriments on the La Costa Towne Center project and hope that we have addressed all ofyour concerns. Should you have any additional questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke(5)carlsbadca,gov. Sincerely, SHANNON WERNEKE Associate Planner SW:sm Cc: Mr. Geoff Sherman, Excel La Costa, LLC, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300, San Dlego, CA 92128 Mr. Richard Benson, Benson & Bohl Architects, 3900 S'" Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92103 Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner File I Ob DELANO & DELANO January 21,2014 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Shannon Wemeke Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: La Costa Towne Center proiect: SDP 78-03(DVSDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13- 02/MS 13-01 Dear City of Carlsbad: This letter is submitted on behalf of North Coimty Advocates in connection with the proposed La Costa Tovrae Center project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). The Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); A^o Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a 'manner required by law.'" Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward iinO) 106 Cal.App,3d 988,1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts. The MND adopts an incorrect baseline for much of its discussion, reasoning that the "existing" environment includes occupancy of the vacant Vons store. See Traffic Report at 4-1. However, CEQA specifically provides that an agency must consider the existing conditions. See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4* 310, 322 (describing analysis that used the maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline as "'illusory' comparisons that 'can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert the full consideration of tiie actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with CEQA's intenf). As the MND acknowledges, the Vons store is vacant. See MND at 1. As such, the existing on-the-ground conditions do not include use of the store. This assumption invalidates the MND's analysis of traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise impacts. I? a. ja S' " O O SL m f ^ 3 z S' o o a o S g. > in o o o <p Ul Ul ^2 ft Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND January 21, 2014 Page 2 of 3 The Project will lead to significant impacts to community character, aesthetics, and land use. • The Project is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The Project violates applicable standards for building height and street setback. 5eeMNDat26. • There is insufficient evidence to support a deviation from the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. • Additionally, deviations are not supported by the Municipal Code. Section 21.85.100 requires an affordable housing agreement, yet there is no indication of such agreement. Section 21.85.120 requires the Project to be in conformity mth "adopted goals and policies of the city," yet the Project is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. • The MND discusses "modifications ... to offset the cost of affordable housing," yet there is no evidence such modifications are necessary or what costs need to be offset. See Pacific Corp. v. Cily of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168,178. • The MND fails to analyze applicable standards fbr park and recreation facilities. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and ttie General Plan Parks and Recreation Element each contain standards, yet, as the MND acknowledges, "the project does not include any public recreational facilities." MND at 33. The City is not currently meeting the applicable standards for park and recreation facilities in the Southeast Quadrant. As such, the addition ofthe Project's population will only increase the burden on akeady failing park and recreation facilities. The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality. • The MND attempts to separate air emissions into four phases. MND at 23. However, it fails to account for the fact that such phases can, indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time. The Project will lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. • The MND averages constmction emissions over the life of the Project. MND at 20. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending V. San Diego Unified School Dist. (20i3) 215 Cal.App.4*^ 1013, 1049. The Project will lead to significant impacts to noise. • The analysis discusses potential impacts to nearby residences but fails to address the fact that the applicable noise standards apply to the property line, See Noise Report at 17. While the MND and Noise Report discuss 108 Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND January 21,2014 Page 3 of 3 construction noise, they fail to account for the fact that grading will occur v^dthin feet of the property lme. The Project's Demolition Plan, for example, notes constmction as close as 8.8 feet from the property line, a location that includes a public sidewalk. The Noise Report acknowledges sound levels of "typical construction equipmenf can be as high as 95 dBA "at 50 feet from the source." Noise Report at 13. Obviously, since the equipment will be considerably closer, the noise will be considerably greater. • Furtiiermore, noise mitigation is msufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4''' 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence ofany measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced"). Additionally, tiie MND inappropriately defers mitigation. Sacramento Old City Assn. V. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011,1029. For example, tiie MND punts the preparation of an interior noise analysis. MND at 30. In Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4* 70, the court observed: Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for fiiture mitigation after completion of tiie CEQA process significantiy undermines CEQA's goals of frill disclosure and infonned decisionmaking; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. Id. at 92 (citations omitted). Thank you for your consideration of these concems. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, iverett DeLano V-CARLSBAD CITY OF Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov February 26, 2014 Mr. Everett DeLano DeLano & DeLano 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 SUBJECT: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER Dear Mr. DeLano, Thank you for your comment letter dated January 21, 2014, submitted on behalf of North County • Advocates, responding to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Towne Center project. The following provides a list of your comments (In /fo//c) and staffs response to the assertions made In your letter. 1- Comment; The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oii Inc. v. Cltv of Los Anaeles (1975) 13 Cal.Sd. 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a "manner required by law." Friends of "B" Street v. Citv of Havward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts. Response: The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to the release ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA § 21080(C)(2)], With the Implementation of the mitigation measures, the project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required. 2. Comment: The MND adopts an incorrect baseline for much of its discussion, reasoning that the "existing" environment includes occupancy of the vacant Vons store. See Traffic Report at 4-1. However, CEQA specifically provides that an agency must consider the existing conditions. See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coa<:t Air Qualitv Manaaement Dist. (2010) 48 310, 322 (describing analysis that used the maximum permitted operational levels as a Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUp*'"li-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE'^IO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 2 ^ baseline as "illusory" comparisons that 'can only mislead the public as to the reality ofthe impacts and subvert the full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,'a result at direct odds with CEQA's Intenf). As the MND acknowledges, the Von's store Is vacant. See MND at 1. As such, the existing on-the-ground conditions do not Include the use of the store. This assumption Invalidates the MND's analysis of traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise Impacts. Response; As noted in the comment, the "Von's store" was vacant at the time existing counts were conducted for the traffic analysis (TIA). No artificial adjustment was made to the existing condition as studied in the TIA. The comment Incorrectly refers to page 4-1 of the traffic study and implies that an adjustment was made tb the existing conditions of the TIA to include the vacant Vons store. Page 4-1 ofthe TIA discusses the project trip generation and is used for "with project" conditions and not for establishment of the existing condition. Contrary to what the comment implies, the existing baseline condttion was indeed based on the existing counts as discussed on page 3-1 of the TIA. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15125, "Environmental Setting" which states that "an EIR must indude a description ofthe physical environmental conditions in the vidnity of the project, as they existed at the time of the notice of preparation is published, or If no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced." For the La Costa Towne Center trafflc study and assodated environmental analysis, existing traffic counts were obtained consistent with CEQA Guidelines and fonned the basis for the environmental setting in the MND. This is typical for all projects in the San Diego region. As stated in the SANTEC/ITE publication. Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) on the San Diego Region, the existfng condition should be established In the following manner: "document existing traffic volumes and peak-hour levels of sen/ice In the study area. The existing deficiencies and potential mitigation should be Identified." The TIA did precisely this. The use of existing traffic counts for traffic studies and CEQA analysis is well established and is a correct method for establishing baseline conditions. Typically, existing traffic counts are taken mid- week both over a 24-hour period and during peak hour conditfons fn the AM and PM time frames. This is done to establish "average" conditions as used in the term "average daily traffic" which is utilized in the TIA. The existing baseline is intended to represent the typical condition experienced by the community. As such, a certain amount of vacancy would be expected and likely. The Institute of transportation Engineers (ITE) statistics show that a shopping center can have rather extreme hourly, daily and monthly variations In traffic with January through April showing lower than normal traffic compared to the monthly average and December showing a much higher than normal amount of traffic compared to the monthly average. With these statistics In mind, the month of August and the day of the week of Wednesday were selected to conduct existing counts. Counts were taken during non-holiday weeks representing normal conditions with no precipitation. According to ITE statistics, both the month and day of the week used are the most representative of "average" conditions for a shopping center. Although the Von's store was closed at the time of the counts, the potential difference In traffic is well within the average. 41% monthly and 34.6% daily variation for a shopping center. Therefore, existing counts appropriately represented the typical condition at the time the NOP was prepared and environmental analysis commenced consistent with CEQA. Thus, the baseline utilized for the subject MND is correct; therefore, the condusions reached with respect to the traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emission and noise analyses are valid. \\\ ('.... (. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/St)P 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE'TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26,2014 Page 3 3. Cpmmentj The projea will lead to significant Impacts to community charaaer, aesthetics, and land use. Response; As detailed in the staff responses below, as well as in the MND, there are no significant Impacts associated with community character, aesthetics or land use. a. Comment; 77je Projea Is Inconsistent with the El Camlno Real Corridor Development Standards. The projea violates applicable standards for bulldlng height and street setback See MND at 26. Response; As discussed on page 26 ofthe MND, the shopping center was developed through a Site Development Plan wherein a 10-foot-wide front yard setback was established. Pursuant to Section VI ofthe Development Standards, Exceptions, "The standards established here shall also not effea areas with bullding permits or valid site plan approvals from the City." Thus, the originally-approved Site Development Plan, which allowed fora 10-foot-wide setback, supersedes the El Camlno Real Corridor Standards. The proposed project does not encroach any closer than that which was originally permitted. In addition, as further discussed on page 26 of the MND, pursuant to CMC Section 21.85,100, modification to standards such as height can be permitted to offset the cost of affordable housing. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.140, such modifications are subject to approval by the City Coundl through an affordable housing agreement. The requirement for art affordable housing agreement will be Included as a standard condition for the Site Development Plan for the request to construct 12 inclusionary rental units on-site. b. Comment; There Is Insufficient evidence to support a deviation from the El Camlno Real Corridor Development Standards. Response; Pursuant to CMC Sectfon 21.53.120(B), a site devefopment plan for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underiining zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity with the genera! plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. As discussed in the MND (pages 25-27), the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. In addition, any modifications to the standards requested through the Site Devetopment Plan for the indusionary housing project may supersede the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Therefore, a deviation to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards can be supported. c. Comment; Additionally, deviations are not supported by the Municipal Code. Seaion 21.85.100 requires an affordable housing agreement, yet there Is no Indication of such agreement. Seaion 21.85.120 requires the Projea to be In conformity with the "adopted goals of the city," yet the projea Is Inconsistent with the El Camlno Real Corridor Development Standards. Response; Pursuant to CMC Sectfon 21.85.140(A), the approval and execution of an affordable housing agreement shall take place prior to final map approval and shall be recorded upon final map recordation. Further, the afl=ordable housing agreement shall stipulate any approved offsets by the dty. In additfon, pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120(6), a site development plan for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive devetopment standards than specified in the underiining zone or elsewhere SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP^i3-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE^^rU COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26,2014 Page 4 provided that the project Is in conformity with the general plan and adopted policies and goals ofthe city. As discussedin the MND (pages 25-27), the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and adopted polides and goals of the city. The requirement for an affordable housing agreement will be included as a standard condition for the Site Development Plan forthe request to construct 12 inclusionary rental units on-site. d. Comment; The MND discusses "modlficatlons...to offset the cost of affordable housing," yet there Is no evidence such modifications are necessary or what costs need to be offset. See Pacific Corp. v. Cltv of Camarillo (1983) 149 CalApp.3d 168,178. Response; As discussed in the MND, the cun-ent height limit in the C-1 zone and El Camlno Real Corridor Standards Is 35 feet. A modification to the height standards is necessary as the project proposes a height up to 45 feet to accommodate the mixed use project. The applicant has indicated that the construction of the affordable housing will cost approximately $1,299,720 (20 subterranean parking stalls, $84/SF) Due to the parking and minimum density (20 du/ac) requirements, as well as the existing site layout ofthe shopping center, an increase In height (i.e., to accommodate a 2"" and 3"* floor residential above ground floor retail use) Is required to justify the cost of constructing 12 indusionary units, which will be rent-restricted. As mixed use Is an encouraged use and the proposed Increase in height will offset the cost ofthe Indusionary housing, staff is supportive ofthe request. As Indicated above, the offset will be required to be specified In the affordable housing agreement which is subject to approval by the City Council. e. Comment; The MND falls to analyze applicable standards for park and recreation facilities. The Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plans and the General Ptan Parks and Recreation Element each contain standards, yet, as the MND acknowledges, "the projea does not Include any pubtic recreation facilities." MND at 33. The City Is not currently meeting the applicabte standards for park and recreation facilities In the Southeast Quadrant. As such, the addition of the Project's population will onty Increase the burden on already falling park and recreptton fadlities. Response; The proposed project is not required to provide public recreation facilities on-site. As stated on page 32 of the MND, the proposed project will be subject to the conditions and fadlity service level requirements within the Local Fadlities Management Plan for Zone 6. As such, a standard condition will be applied to the project which requires the payment of park-in-lieu fees'as required pursuant to CMC Chapter 20.44. The fee will be collected prior to Issuance of the building permit. In additton, pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report for July 1, 2012- June 30, 2013 (please see link below), the city is currently meeting the applicable standards for park and recreation fadlities in the Southeast Quadrant. http://www.carisbadca.gov/services/departments/planhIng/Documents/GMMonttorlngReDort.pflf Therefore, as conduded In the MND (page 32), no Impact is assessed with respect to public services. ( ( SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/sbp'13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE'TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 ' Pages 4. Comment; The projea will lead to significant Impaas to air quality. The MND attempts to separate air emissions Into four phases. MND at 23. However, It falls to account for thefaa that such phases can. Indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby Increasing amounts of emissions at any given time. Response; The potential impacts to air quality are discussed on pages 10-13 ofthe MND. Pursuant to the Air Quality Technical Report prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (October, 2013), the analysis of construction emissions conducted for the project was based on the schedule of construction for the proposed project. The phasing information that was provided by the project applicant indicated that devetopment would occur sequentially; no overlap of construction phases would occur because existing leases would require that construction be conducted sequentially. The construction for each phase provides for access and new improvements for the tenants. The work on each phase must be complete for each segment prior to commendng the next phase. The analysis of construction impacts was conducted using the CalEEMod Model, which Is the current air quality tool for land use projects. The CalEEMod Model calculates maximum daily emissions for each phase, which is presented in the Air Quality Technical Report. Thus the CalEEMod Model calculates the effect of combining constructfon activities such as building construction, paving, and architectural coatings to estimate maximum daily construction for each construction phase. The CalEEMod Model does envision a maximum daily constructfon scenario where both demolition and grading, whtoh have the most use of constructfon equipment and therefore the highest emissions, would occur simultaneously. Therefore, the analysis presented in the Air Quality Technical Report provides a conservative estimate of maximum daily emissions during construction. As identified in the MND, impacts to air quality are less than significant. 5. Comment; The projea will lead to significant impaas to greenhouse gas emissions. The MND averages construaion emissions over the life ofthe project. MND at 20. Such emissions should be calculated as they will aaually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Dieao Unified School Dist (2013) 215 Cal.App.4^ 1013 1049. Response; Table 5 of the Global Climate Change Evaluation prepared by Scientific Resources Assodated (SRA, October, 2012) presents a summary of the total greenhouse gas emissfons antidpated from construction of the project. These emissions are calculated "as they will actually occur." Pursuant to SRA, it is standard and accepted practice throughout the state of California to amortize constructfon emissions over the lifetime of the project. As stated in the Evaluation, amortizing constructfon emissions over the lifetime of the project takes Into account their contribution to annualized greenhouse gas emissions. The significance threshold is based on annualized emissfons over the lifetime ofthe project. Furthermore, as stated in the Evaluation on Page 23, amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year perfod is standard practice based on written guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego. As identified in the MND, impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant. ( ( SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Pages ' 6. Comment: The projea will lead to significant impacts to noise. a. Comment: TTie analysis discusses potential Impaas to nearby residences but falls to address thefaa that the applicable noise standards apply to the property line. See Noise Report at 17. While the MND and Noise Report discuss construaion noise, they fall to account for the fact that grading will occur within feet of the property line. The Projects Demoiitlon Plan, for example, notes construaion noise as close as 8.8 feet from the property line, a location that includes a public sidewalk. The Noise Report acknowledges sound levels of "typicat construaion equipment' can be as high as 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source." Noise Report at 13. Obviously, since the equipment will be considerably closer, the noise will by considerably greater. Response; The city does not limit construction noise levels at property lines, residences, or publto property as the Impacts are temporary in nature (see page 29 of MND). The proposed demolition and new construction are located a minimum linear distance of 175 feet as well as 85 feet downslope from the adjacent residential properties to the east (i.e., homes are located at an elevation of 165' above mean sea level and proposed building 7714 is located at 80' above mean sea level). As discussed on pages 28-29 of the MND, the project will be required to adhere to the standard construction hours pursuant to Section 8.48.010 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code. Specifically, construction activity and delivery of constructfon materials and equipment would be limited to non-holidays, between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. In addition,' should any issues arise, the building official, city engineer, or other official designated by the city manager may shorten the hours of constructfon. Further, pursuant to CMC Sectfon 8,48.030, signs are required to be posted at the jobsite entrance indicating the hours ofwork as prescribed bythe Muntoipal Code. Therefore, as conduded in the MND, the impacts with respect to temporary noise are not significant. b. Comment; Furthermore, noise mitigation Is Insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. Otv of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4*'' 1323, 1341 ("there Is no evidence ofany measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effeaively monitored and vigorously enforced"). Response; It is standard and acceptable practice to include mitlgatton measures with specific performance standards (i.e., compliance with intertor noise thresholds). See Sovc Coyomo Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App4th 1059, Endangered Habitats League V. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App4th, 777, 993, and Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App4th 260. With respect to the proposed project, the foltowing mitigation measure is required to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level: Prior to Issuance of the building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent with City standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the proposed bulldlng design will limit interior noise for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55 dBA. The bulldlng plans shall Incorporate the recommendations in the report to satisfy the requirements. \\t> SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 7 Specific enforceable performance standards with a timing mechanism are induded in the above-noted mitigation measure. As indicated above, staff will be verifying thatthe building plans incorporate the required materials and details recommended in the noise analysis to attenuate the interior noise to 45 dBA for the residential land uses and 55 dBA for the commercial land uses. Once the building plans are approved and the buildings are constructed, the building inspectors will verify in the fleld that the construction conforms to the approved building plans. The verification on the building plans as well as the inspection ensures that the mitigation measure Is enforced. Therefore, the noise mitigation is sufficient. 7. Comment; Additionally, the MND Inappropriately defers mitigation. Sacramento Old Citv Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011,1029. For example, the MND punts the preparation ofan Interior noise analysis. MND at 30. In Communities for a Better Environment v. Otv of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^ 70, the court observed: Numerous cases Illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and Informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on Judicial review as constituting Improper deferral of environmental assessment. Response; Pursuant to Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App4th, 777, 993, if mitigation is feasible but impractical at the time of initial project approval, it may be suffident to specif/ performance criteria and make further approvals contingent on finding a way to meet them. As discussed in No. 6 above, the project specifies performance criteria to be confirmed at the time construction plans are submitted as well as a timing mechanism for enforcement ofthe mitigation measure, which is prior to the Issuance of a building permit. Thank you for providing comments on the La Costa Towne Center project. Should you have any additional questions, please contact the project planner, Shannon Werneke, at (760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke@carisbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:SW:bd c: Mr. Geoff Sherman, Excel La Costa, LLC, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Ste. 300, San Dlego, CA 92128 Mr. Richard Benson, Benson & Bohl Architects, 3900 Sth Avenue, Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 92103 Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Debbie Fountain, Housing & Neighborhood Services Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner File Copy Data Entry E\CEL TDTTCT TRUST Affidavit for Application for Excess Dwelling Units APPLICANT: Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC PROJECT NO./NAME : LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER, SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/ MS 13-01 MflA^&r\ PvAiUij ^ as the authorized representative of Applicant /Developer for E:>^\ 4? N LA G>srbL Of Jfiey / ^/a — do swear or affirm: 1. That I am the authorized representative of Excel GIV La Costa Owner. LLC, which is the Applicant/Developer for the La Costa Towne Center project, located at 7710-7770 El Camino Real. Carlsbad, CA ("Project"). ' 2. That said Project will consist of 60 multi-family rental dwelling units. Including 12 inclusionarv rental dwelling units. 3. That pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43, Applicant/Developer is requesting that the Planning Commission approve an allocation of excess dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank which will trigger an inclusionary housing requirement for the Project. 4. That Applicant/Developer acknowledges the allocation of excess dwelling units is an "incentive" as defined in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.86.020 A.12 and Government Code Section 65915(k). 5. That Applicant/Developer understands and agrees that any rental inclusionary units proposed by the applicant to comply with Carlsbad Municipal Code, Ciiapter 21.85, will not be subject to Civil Code Section 1954.52(a) nor any other provision of the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civil Code Sections 1954.51 et seq.) inconsistent with controls on rents, because, pursuant to Civil Code Sections 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2), the Developer will enter into an affordable housing contractual agreement with the City of Cadsbad agreeing to the limitations on rents. I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING RESPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY iNFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. Date: ^'M- ]^ Date: Signature: \^^A ' Signature:. Printed Name: NlaAWtv Printed Name: Title: VP Title: For (Entity): B/.cz.\ 6>N LaCc^Ag^ Ou>rer LVC For (Entity): (Proper notarial affiant statement by Applicant/Developer must be attached.) 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92128 (858) 6134800 • Fax (858) 487-9890 \\1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of San Diego On \\nrrl 1» \til^ before me, Sharon Filbig personally appeared h\f,4Ln,A l^'illn (insert name and title ofthe officer) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactq/y evidence to be the personC^fwhose nameCs) is/s»fe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/&he/ti)ey executed the same in his/h€f7ttreir authorized capacityties), and that by his/|*ei7Tt)etr signatureis)'on the instrument the person(s^ orthe entity upon behalf of which the personfs) acted, executed the instrumenl. 1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the foreqoinq paragraph is true and correct, , ~ . , , SHARON FILBIG I WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signati SHARON FILBIG COMM. #2041711 _ Notary Public • California 2 San Diego County -» My Comni. Bipfes Sep. 17,2017 [ (Seal) SITEMAP AA WOT TO SCALE La Costa Towne Center SDP 78-03(D/SDP 13-03/ SUP 13-01 / PUD 13-02 / MS 13-01 erf™PMT Deve/opment Services 4 CITr Of STATEIVIENT planning Division /^Ani CnAI-X P- 1(A) 1635 Faraday Avenue CARLSBAD ^ ' {760)602-4610 www.cadsbadca.gov 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 proiect 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, fratemal 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" ' Agente may sign this document; however, the legai name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. r r j 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 oartnership include the names, titles, addresses of ail 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 publi'clv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers (A separate page may be attached if necessary,) Person M^tri l^^^W Corp/Part Excel GIV La Costa Ovmer, LLC Title Au^ciA',^^ ^I'l^H^W Title Authorized Signatory Address ^ Address 17140 Bernardo Center Dr, #3 00 San Diego, CA 92128 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 corporatinn nr oartnership. include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses ofthe corporate officers, (A separate page may be attached if necessary,) Perscn MtUl/nh fliUnm Corp/Part Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC Title ^uU/ri2^J S\\ani,-h>n/ Title Authorized Signatory Address ' Address 1714 0 Bernardo Center Dr. #3 00 San Diego, CA 92128 p-1 (A) Page lot 2 Revised 07/10 \10 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a tmst list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director ofthe non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary ofthe, Non Profitrrrust__ Non Profitn-fust 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? ^ ^ • ves g No If yes, please ndicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all theabove information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. of owne Signature of o^ner/dM Signature of ai/plicarMTe Nathan Hilbig Nathan Hilbig Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P"''('°*) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 S I 3 ] 1 I H D a V iHoa^MosNaa < UJ (J LU o \ i 1^; 1 s i 1^; 1 il I §1 SSJ si 5 Is «Ss.Ssl.l* i' 1 i \ i B 1 s i 1 s [ S s 1 s a 5i 6 J iisfll! iSi i iliil 0) (D O CD 'C o h- 05 (/) Q O CO c/3 I- ssi 1 > i PARCEL B] PARCEL D; o g ^ £ Q 8 il t S ^ r- z W/ QUALIF REAL SCE il si < < lij 2 W O ^ "2 < iu iii lis SSOR AREA: PARC PARC N o; Sf CD O *^ i?l ASSl i EXIS NEIG ANO o 3 £5i 5 I 5 i z a 11 BKCK EE t ?iii|iiiiiiiiliiss S 6 S ii: £ S I s aiiiiiiiii 3 a 3 3 u 13 5 g a § oassaapE m III sst, iii ill ii.i if i °S pi |i II 11 ill I i ssa lllllll if 21 * =i 13 1° S!||s| iiiiSi pli fi'li- pi is ////) 'Will /ijjiji ''/)// hi .',7 /7 w o o UJ o X lil < O •xS CO XI _w s ro O B c o H-ro to o O ro z < } a Kij Al (D s i < u -Q _y u OJ d OJ U o H 4-1 O U (« 0 u < H 8 u <; w u X < U -a c/3 tc U I 01 U o H rs cn O U tfl h-1 2 < CH W H cn u l-l < H cn O U < w u 2 U -a Xl cn tC U I ;H CU u o H tfl -i-> cn O U tfl 2 < ci< w H c75 < < c Q w O < 2 w (D < H cn O U < < U tfl cn tfl u dl d QJ u d o H tfl .*-* cn O U ffl \m fill liif m iftiii iitiii j!iii|f I i mi m lib if si III i e! Ji u (fl cn tfl u I u cu d u d o H ffl .w cn O u ffl o 2 PH tu H c75 el il ii ii I il i pi i ii ii ip I ii lii 111 1 ii i;i ill ffSllff-ffSllff- —t— 3 o I < u ffl Xl cn VH tfl U r S-l OJ -4-t d U d o H tfl +-1 cn O U tfl ( irni ) • • Ml 1 < .ii 0 s < u tfl cn tfl u I u Q; d U d o H tfl .t-l cn O U tfl i 0 u u w u X < u tfl cn 1^ tfl U I CU d U d o H ffl +j cn O U tfl O O O 2 (D © < I < u ffl Xl cn TH tfl u t-l OJ d OJ U d o H tfl cn O u ffl IB rf"' • ii H u|g ilsj i"..,ir.-ifv .1 0 © i I < u tfl X cn l-l tfl u ) SH CU •4-> d O) U d o H cn O U ffl 2 <; CH tl. O o i fi i I I i i i i 1 5 i i i .. a s 3 = iiill 5855: liiiii pis SSi I e Is 11 Q000000Q0©©®©©©©©©©©©® S3 © 3 < u < U TT to r—( IH ffl u I OJ -4-1 d tu U o H tfl 4-' cn O U tfl ilh . 1 I i i i i i 11 s i 1 i I. i I. i f p 1 i 1 s I i 1 a ill 6 B 5 • 000000000®©©©©©©©©©®©® ^1 .IS |9| ! ^ iiiii liiii © 3 I © u tfl X cn tfl U I S-l O) -4-> d 01 U o H tfl 4-> cn O U tfl S 8 S ? i M E i I Hi liiiii § i t I i 8 9 3 9 I * I i 111 11 s 6 s i i 81 i i S S S E § S 1 S I ilii 00©©©©00©©©©©®©®©®®®©® S i « S ^ g iiill I g ffi I ^ ? ? R S y ? efl I ® ® 1 < u tfl X cn "TH tfl U I SH 0) d 01 U o H cn- O U tfl ® o©©©©®©©©®©©©©©©©®©®©® ll i 1 i E F i I s ; a H 8 i i I I I i i I i i I f i i i sis ' = I i I i ifii ? i s I 5 ? 5 5 iiii ill liiiii © @ (s) rr I -1 i s 0 u < H cn O U < •J Ul u X U T3" ffl X cn TH tfl U I IH O) 4-1 d 0) U o cn O U tfl 2 O H < > PJ i . i I I s - i i S S 3 iiil liiiii ES -i 0©000©000©©©©©©©©©©©©® (TK ® © ® ® © 09 O TS efl X> c« IH cfl U I IH U U o H cfl C« O u cfl I I sa If { ® u < o u tu u X tLI < U ffl X cn TH tfl u I cu d 01 U o H tfl 4-1 cn O u tfl >.it ...... 2'..": ti:::d t::: i ii-i^ S:::S — • jiiiii '! © tte 0 0 1 .CTJ P ' i ii r p 1 ill ia:i: // f \\ 0 0 u < H cn O U < u X tll < U -cs" tfl X cn TH tfl U I SH QJ d 01 U d o H tfl 4-* cn O U ffl 2 O H U tu cn a.'!/)(/) a I'0Nia3aNtON3OlS3a3-SN3A31S 11 viNUOdiivo avasiuvo aaiNBO 3N/V\0i ViSOO VT 133HS 31111 dVW 130aVd 3AUViN31 o ; < <1 2 o 0 0.11.' aotaf^reoiMt- -SM tMllEEWIDNa CUS3IO SNaAUS viNUOdnvo 'avflsiavo a3iN30 3NM01 ViSOO VI ±iaiHX3 dvw n30dVd aasodond dVW 130aVd 3AliViN3i CM I o jOO JO 2 do.'a.' 3d li"! -3NI •oNnaaNiwa 0153113 - iNaAoii viNuodnvo 'avasiavo a31N30 3N/V\01 ViSOO VI Nvid Ainiin s ONiavao AavNiwn3ad/nvnid30Noo dVW n30aVd 3AI1V±N31 <1<1<1 rt I o Wo Wo WoH Mo Wo Woo 30 S'o gSgo Wo W^O Wo WdO WOo Wo Wo -ii' ti hi h hi is is isi Is 2s "ss is f sS Ha SSE sss ss sse see a iHS SH H £ oooo 2S2 — 1 viwia viNuojnvo 'avasiavo a31N30 3N/yft01 VISOO VI NVHd Ainiin "8 ONiavao AavNiwnaad/nvnidsoNoo dVW 130aVd 3AI1V1N31 <]<K1 O 3d 3 0.'l/i (A 5 viNUOdnvo 'avflsiBVo y3iN30 3NM01 ViSOO VI SNOIIOBS 31IS dVW n30yVd 3AliViN3i in o ooo -f \ ll ii VJ i -I? SIS 'if! I"; Inn I mwd iv3a oimvz " IS §M5 "I ;i9f oils vis 1 ! i TP \^5 nci-Eziu wwjaoNW 3Aftia XIV31K3H} sn. ONI'0Nna3NI9N3 0153013' S>aA3XS a3iN30 3NAA0i ViSOO VT SNOIIIONOO 3NI1SIX3 dVW 130aVd 3AliViN3i (O 000 i-o J33HS 33S i. u o ^'11= 5 5: <i lis |S i \ Mi • i;! J 5 § - ii^^: j .5 £S8 SI §2° E= a- 52= ss §2 -22 g2 Sgs .gff |g2 g| 2^ ig2 5^ ^i2 g-S 21 i;"H B0 HHH HHH BB s iHBsHBsi IWrH9»SB w. gOiaMlfKCWl HBWVTl 'BaBflgtfHT«] M11Q3NI9N3 0153113' SNaAllS DZElXint ViNUOdnvo 'avasiuvo a3iN30 3N/V\0i ViSOO VT SNOIliaNOO ONIiSIXS dVW n30aVd 3AliViN3i 000 '7 t I f I i I s 5 a I - i" if li 111 11 iiiiiliilhiiiilsiiii i s ! s5 s 5ii:;ss Is=s * liiililiilliil5S3i|| iS3 = ;ES,S£o; Ss = = Oa:¥g sssodSSslo-esoii^^iSsS 5" Si Is i 5 ' «S3 I ii »5 il H"S; S- S ..g o 5a Sa 5o« HK og 5;.^ ^» Sd .1.. f" 5< . 8dS id fg »d3 6d 5S Iso Sd .fld old Sd i Ii a III a 5 I, ;5 e 0 s5S Sa »S Sis Sd s •° =5 sii IS S» s '.ss -s s,- a°. s~ S„. „| :» . sJs |.5 ss „, ,j ,„ isi ll|<i 1= li H |s li II Is II lsl |6<= r yj / V i§ 4 M Ss isl is is isl is is iss ii Is ils is is is iy iy iss ise is is t-^J// Ij.-Q H0 HHH HHH BHs H B s H a ' ? S.- \] 3 fVi V 3iii - •4 •;a3 1 i I S" oOoo womuut csti-atantxiaiows mTTiifnTnrrn nnftrmi nmnnrmnn mmm/ viNuodnvo 'avasnavo SS300V / ONiNani lot'-snai 3/01? SNvanvo Z g 1 8 «> I da; a.' milts a3iN30 3NM0i ViSOO VT dVW 130aVd 3AUViN3i s a. -O I dd li »^ 0." lrt tri 3 /'Sl 0 0 0 5 t LU LU O LU O h- O o < CL LU O o o LU CL < o w Q liiiii liiiii ipiil sSsags i ii §5-S3U Iliiili Ql z: LU o LU O < o o < _1 CL < > LU CO z O o o: LU H < < 3 I- CL UJ o 2 o o ii 'ill \5o - i i I « iiiii s a 2 £ g g i i i § S 3 1 ? I 3 li] h II i 9 5 8 i i 7 ij , /.I \ •\. -f. t. •i"t 'S-' '* I 1 i '( ''I i' < 1^ ..V'^i ' 1:1 'I- u •I o '-^^s ^ i ^ i .1^. ! 6 -il >' '1 LU ^ UJ QL > t- ^ -7 CO UJ o LU O 1- < o O LU UJ CC \- o z h- co X UJ NVTdONUNVTd liBHCNm/0~B 3aiM33 3«CU ViSOO VI H ll iii ip m 1 1 S 1 1 s 1 i • ° WTdONUNVTd VO ovasiyvo "hOaClNlAWDTa ^Ml^ao 3M0i vjsco vn liiBzsa-a^noiwi 3SivHd3anind NVTdONUMTld vo'ovBsiaoo 3H1N30 3NW0J. ViSCO VI 01 A B "9. •Bjme P wcswBa HOIK (MU1» Bl niv> amnm MoOnl As oj tilantuilm a fdiu^ «)LCKBd fca iBraufai A/IU D CO BEQ ijr^Bi Bffgp up] ^ AID pQbif tu pD nu 6u|i«i> 114 IE NVTdSNUhWTd TsQaONIAWO"H 3HIM3D 3MVOi ViSCO VI NVldONllWTd VO'OoaSTMVO TsaaONIAWOTB aaiwao 3>woi visoo vi "9. l-l J33HS 01 iBdaa - agnHDiviAi 1tjuii| i£)icud hm fn Hi w won amiw "Jdwe "« B« U IB cut EUMO «. NVTdONUhT/ld VO'OsaSTdVO •ysaanmoia 3HiN30 3M0± ViSOO VI IP iw a) 111 IU « iu au (M P adixis IW Hsn'Bro<4 «Ma(>'uM A« ^>BUtMu> SaiDN S CM3031 SNUNVld VO a\!HSTa<o TV3H0NIAW0T3 3aiw30 ggvoi ViSOO VI o I, If 8! Sr. ii i 5 K 6 S ! G m 9 i i 1 ill 1 I i 111 i i ^ ami ii i P p I ill P 1^^ 1 is III m lis i4. m Wi m il I ill ii Im i ii !!s il i!l li 1 ii iiii is 1 i ml ^1 ii ill m ii ii i il ss iliil 9 = i i iiii 11 S „ I S 5 i 8 h Iii n i S i I ? i i i 3 I i * 3 s i i i 1 i 3 ; 0oe@O0»(i)®@00 ® ® ®(?)Q®@0©©©©®©©0®|2®®©©0 1 » i 1 I i I I i i 11^ s i I i ll i i 1 i» i hi I i O in Sc io ili i i , iii i m ill 1 isis ill ll "ill §11 mi M sill 11 te ip 2 ill u>», I 1^ IB M 00 — EXHIBIT 5 Planning Commission l\/linutes April 16,2014 Page 4 Chairperson Black stated he can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7043 approving CUP 13-08 fora period of 10 years, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commission Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Black closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 2, asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 3. 3. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/IVIS 13-01 - LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER - Request for approval ofa Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and a request for approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Plan, Special Use Permit, Nonresidential Planned Development Permit and a Minor Subdivision to: 1) allow for the demolition of two (2) commercial buildings, (including Vons located at 7710 El Camino Real and 7740 El Camino Real), totaling 45,830 square feet within an existing 123,822 square foot shopping center (La Costa Towne Center); and 2) allow for the construction of a single-story parking structure and two (2) mixed-use buildings consisting of 60 multiple-family residential rental units and 48,908 square feet of new retail on a previously developed 15.24-acre site generally located along the east side of El Camino Real and south of La Costa Avenue within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. The City Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Shannon Werneke would make the staff presentation. Ms. Werneke gave a detailed presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Black asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall asked ifthe proposed residential units are apartments. Ms. Werneke stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked for clarification regarding the access for those residents in Building 2. Ms. Werneke provided clarification directing the Commission's attention to a slide on the screen and indicating where the residents would access Building 2. Commissioner Segall asked if the pedestrian bridge is covered or uncovered. Ms. Werneke stated it is uncovered. Commissioner Anderson asked if the lobby area for the residents will be keyed or open to the public. Ms. Werneke deferred the question to the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2014 Page 5 Chairperson Black asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. William Stone, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, San Diego, representing Excel GIV, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Richard Benson, Benson & Bohl Architects, 3900 5th Avenue, San Diego, also part of the applicant team, gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner L'Heureux asked what would be used to screen the roofs from the residents that live adjacent to and above the center. Mr. Benson stated the new buildings will be lower than the existing building. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that he is having difficulty making the findings needed to approve the project and asked what type of tenant the applicant is proposing for the existing Vons building to comply with the zoning. Mr. Stone stated one of the tenants will be a specialty grocer. For the existing zoning on the site, it is a requirement to have a tenant such as a specialty grocery store. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that unless there is tenant that is committed or there is a condition that requires that, he cannot make the findings. Mr. Stone stated the zoning is set-up in a way that requires a daily-use tenant. Commissioner L'Heureux asked what the facades will look like on the buildings fronting El Camino Real. Mr. Stone stated those buildings will look much more modern and upgraded with a Mediterranean look. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Benson to explain the parking. Mr. Benson stated that residential parking is below grade in an underground parking garage. There will be designated spaces for the residents, and the project is parked per code. Commissioner Anderson asked about guest parking. Mr. Benson stated there will be 16 guest spaces generally absorbed in the grade level parking. Commissioner Anderson stated her concerns regarding the proposed new location of the driveway. Mr. Benson stated the driveway will function like it is currently, with a right in/right out only, and it will be moved north to be more in the middle between the signalized intersections. The parking garage has been designed such that there will be free-flowing traffic entering the structure. Commissioner Anderson stated she is concerned with traffic backing up on El Camino Real. Mr. Benson commented that the traffic will not be any better or any worse than it is currently. Commissioner Anderson asked about the architecture. Mr. Benson stated that with fresh paint, stone, and landscaping, the look and feel of the site will improve considerably. Commissioner Anderson further stated she is concerned about the truck loading docks located below the living units. Mr. Benson stated there are ways to use insulated glass to mitigate the sound. Commissioner Siekmann asked where the inclusionary housing will be located. Mr. Benson stated those units will be in the second, smaller building and will be the same units as the others. Commissioner Siekmann asked if Parcel No. 4 was included in the total acreage of the project. Mr. Stone stated yes. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the applicant would consider putting the closest existing residential neighbor in the noise study to ensure the outdoor noise levels will be mitigated properly. Steve Fiedler, 9909 Unican Street, San Diego, stated the noise study that will be performed at a later date for the interior noise. Commissioner Siekmann stated she was referring to the mitigation and asked if the closest existing resident can be included so that the outdoor noise can be mitigated if necessary. Mr. Fiedler stated that was already reviewed as part of the noise study that was performed for the project. Commissioner Siekmann clarified that she would like the noise study performed after the project is complete. Mr. Fiedler stated that was acceptable. Mr. Stone added that after the project is complete, the noise levels can be checked. Ms. Werneke clarified from a Planning standpoint that is a difficult thing to monitor because there is not a timing mechanism to conduct a study. Building permits will have already been issued at that point. The original noise study did take all of these issues, such as noise from traffic, air conditioning units, and loading docks, into account. It was determined that at the property line, the noise levels did not exceed the 60 dBA limitation. Mr. Neu added that that type of monitoring is not a standard practice. Staff could work with the applicant if there are issues in the future and at that point there would need to be a determination as to the source of the additional noise. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the project will be constructed in phases. Mr. Stone stated it will be constructed in phases. Commissioner Siekmann also stated her concern about the ingress and egress for the underground parking and if something could be done on El Camino Real to address that. Mr. Stone stated that the proposed design of the driveway and parking garage will create a safer driveway than what currently exists. Commissioner Segall asked what a specialty grocery store is. Mr. Stone stated some examples of specialty grocery stores are Whole Foods or Traders Joes. Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2014 Page 6 Commissioner LHeureux asked about the impact to the current tenants. Mr. Stone stated it will be a sequential process. Commissioner Anderson asked where the moving trucks will be entering the site when residents are moving in and out Geoff Sherman, representing the applicant, stated the trucks will be able to park in the loading dock area or along the east side of the current Vons building. Commissioner Siekmann asked who the anticipated occupants will be. Mr. Stone stated young adults or empty-nesters. Commissioner Siekmann asked if there any plans to turn the apartments into condos in the future. Mr. Stone commented that the apartments will be built to condo spec but their intention is to keep them as apartments. Chairperson Black asked how many underground parking spaces are proposed. Mr. Stone stated there are 100 spaces. Chairperson Black asked if there any further questions for the applicant Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Chairperson Black opened public testimony on Agenda Item 3. Dave Voss, 7743 Lucia Court, Carlsbad, stated he is concerned about the project and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. He stated the General Plan has requirements for how much open space and parks are in each quadrant of the city, and currently the southeast quadrant does not meet those standards. He further stated his concern about the sight lines for the new driveway in regard to bicyclists. He commented that good facilities should be provided for bike parking for both residents and consumers. Everett DeLano, 220 West Grand Avenue, Escondido, commented that he raised a number of issues in his comment letters from January as well as late last week. He stated he differs from staff in a number of issues with this project. One issue seen repeatedly in the response from staff is the notion of affordable housing. There is already a requirement for affordable housing so the notion that that is sufficient to the meet the finding requirements identified in his comment letter is simply not there. Regarding the response to his letter from Urban Systems Associates, specifically issues regarding traffic, is the idea that there is a misunderstanding or confusion in his letter. He stated it is a very good way of dismissing his letter. Mr. DeLano stated there is no misunderstanding or confusion in his earlier letters. He stated CEQA is very clear. There is a project and the existing environment is considered, not what could happen, not what might happen. There is no question that that existing environment includes a vacant store. There is no question that that store is not operating. It is not generating anything other than cockroaches. There are no traffic trips associated with that store. Julie Marshall, 7631 Rustico Drive, stated her concern is the potential noise from the project and asked what was included in the noise study. The noise at night is strange with leaf blowers and street sweepers. She commented that she does not know how the residential units will impact the noise of the center. Richard Barnes, 7623 Rustico Drive, also stated he is concerned with noise. He commented that there should be some kind of delivery hours for the trucks as well as for the cleaning and maintenance of the site. Mr. Barnes also asked if there is a limit to the number of people per bedroom or unit Pat Knox, 2002 Pintoresco Court, Carlsbad, asked if the site is being redone or demolished. She stated her concern with the driveways, and asked why the buildings will be taller. Chairperson Black asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to respond to the issues raised by the speaker. Mr. Stone stated that they are trying to retain as many of the existing tenants as possible and relocating them. Only two buildings will be demolished with this project one is the existing Vons building which will be replaced and the other is where the dance studio is currently located. There will be bike stands throughout the property, and for the residents there will be a secured bike storage area in the parking garage. In regard to the number of tenants per unit, he stated he is not sure there is much he can do legally. 11^ Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2014 Page 7 Justin Schlaefli, Traffic Engineer with Urban Systems Associates, 8451 Merlani Drive, San Diego, stated that they have received and responded to two letters from Mr. DeLano. Mr. Schlaefli stated the existing baseline is based on the existing counts, and with their existing counts, the Vons store was closed, the traffic was not there. From a CEQA perspective, there is an existing baseline that does not include traffic from that Vons store. With the proposed project, that building will be demolished and a new 3-story structure built and the retail space would return. He stated maybe that is where the confusion lies as the traffic study trip generation table calls out existing uses, and the Vons building, from that perspective does exist. It does not generate traffic today but if this project does not move forward that Vons building would be re-occupied with a different tenant and it would generate traffic. He further stated that when determining the trip generation for this site, they looked to see if the vacancy rate for this center was within the reasonable range of vacancies, and it was determined that it was. Mr. Schlaefli also commented on the relocation of the right-in/right-out driveway location, from a traffic engineering standpoint, driveways that are mid-block tend to work better as they tend to cause the least amount of disruption to traffic and traffic signals. The parking garage is designed such that there is plenty of room before cars reach an impediment such as a gate. This will help alleviate traffic from blocking the driveway. To address any concerns regarding traffic backing up on El Camino Real at La Costa Avenue and blocking the driveway, there is a potential solution that the City Traffic Engineer has proposed for restriping El Camino Real in the area where the new driveway is proposed. Commissioner Siekmann asked about the potential restriping along El Camino Real and if the striping would be broken for the bike lane. Mr. Schlaefli stated that the striping would have to be designed to standards and that would be something that they can explore. Commissioner Segall asked if the northbound right turn lane is a dedicated right turn lane. Mr. Schlaefli stated that it is actually a shared right turn lane. Mr. Stone stated that, relative to the noise, the proposed operational uses should not cause any one to be maintaining the center at odd hours of night They will work with the city regarding delivery truck hours for the proposed specialty grocery store. Commissioner Scully stated the staff report claims deliveries after 10:00 p.m. will not be allowed. Mr. Stone stated that was correct and typically deliveries occur in the morning hours. Commissioner Scully asked what the dedicated times are for the cleaning and maintenance of the center. Mr. Stone stated typical hours for cleaning are in the morning between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if there will be an onsite manager for the apartments. Mr. Stone stated not initially, but it could be something they look into. Commissioner L'Heureux suggested that they look into it as it could solve many of the potential issues that might arise. Commissioner Anderson commented that it was her understanding that there can be a limit to occupancy as long as it is consistent Mr. Stone agreed and stated that it is in their best interest to limit the unit occupancy. Commissioner Siekmann suggested that they could have a manager onsite during the day and hire a security guard for the nighttime hours. She also suggested providing the neighbors with a contact name and phone number during the construction phase. Mr. Fiedler stated that the noise study found that the noise levels generated from La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real onto the new residential units was within the city's noise standards. The study also provided future exterior noise levels at the building facades so that exterior to interior noise can be studied when the building plans are complete to ensure it complies with Title 24. Mr. Fiedler further commented that the study also analyzed future project noise including HVAC units and loading dock activities, and it is projected to be in compliance with the city's 60 CNEL at the project property line. Construction noise at the residential property line to the southeast was also discussed in the study and it was noted the city limits the hours at which construction can occur but not the noise levels generated from it. Nighttime noise generation from street sweepers or delivery trucks was not studied as it was not brought up until this evening. Commissioner Siekmann asked if the HVAC was modeled at night Mr. Fiedler stated yes. Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2014 Page 8 Commissioner L'Heureux asked if Mr. Fiedler modeled the noise anticipated to be generated from the outdoor recreation area. He commented that if the demographics are younger adults, the fire pits, barbeques, and jacuzzis will most likely generate quite a bit of noise. Mr. Fiedler stated that those issues were not specifically addressed as those are more isolated incidents; however the way the project is designed is the best use of space as those areas are within a courtyard shielded by two levels of residential units which will essentially block noise from reaching the residents on the hill. Commissioner Segall asked if the specialty grocery store will be open 24 hours. Mr. Stone stated no. Chairperson Black asked staff to respond to the issues raised during public testimony. Ms. Werneke replied to Mr. Voss's comments regarding the adequacy of open space and parks in the southeast quadrant, stating that pursuant to the last fiscal year's Growth Management Plan and Monitoring Report, the city is adequately providing open space and parks forthe quadrant Ms. Mobaldi added that Mr. DeLano's comment was that inclusionary housing would have been required in any event and therefore it should not be an incentive for these variations in development standards, but in fact the city can no longer by law require, as a mandate, inclusionary housing based on the construction of market-rate rental product because of the Palmer decision. However If there is an incentive or concession that is given to the applicant by the city, then in return for that the inclusionary housing may be required. That is exactly what happened in this case and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to include 20 percent inclusionary housing in the project In light of that, the applicant is receiving the concessions in the development standards. Ms. Werneke also stated that bike facilities will be provided on the site and it is a standard requirement under the Green Building Code. With respect to the project exceeding the height limit Ms. Werneke stated the two specific findings can be met and an incentive for providing affordable housing is less restrictive development standards. Ms. Werneke commented on noise generated by leaf blowers or other maintenance equipment she pointed out that Condition No. 32 of the resolution limits the delivery hours to between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to the maximum extent feasible. The Commission could modify that condition if it they felt it necessary to include hours for maintenance and cleaning of the site. Commissioner Scully asked if limiting the hours for cleaning and maintenance of the facility could be included in that condition. Ms. Werneke stated yes however she feels the issues might eventually police themselves because of the nearby residents. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if the restriping of El Camino Real could also be added as a condition. Ms. Werneke stated that Condition No. 55c "requires the developer to prepare and process public improvement plans including street lights, driveway approaches, pedestrian accessibility ramps, and signing and restriping of northbound El Camino Real." It was her understanding that this condition applied to the removal of the driveway, however it could be applied to the new striping of the driveway. DISCUSSION Commissioner Segall stated he supports the project as it is a great addition to the community and he feels the proposal fits with the vision of Envision Carlsbad as well as the General Plan update. He commented that it will afford the residents opportunities to shop and live in the community. Commissioner Siekmann stated she can support the project and looks forward to seeing it complete. She thanked staff and the applicant for their work on the project. Commissioner Anderson stated she is concerned about not being able to see the street restriping and with the placement of the new driveway and stated she is not thrilled with the height of the buildings as she feels they will be towering structures along El Camino Real. Commissioner L'Heureux thanked staff for their hard work in bringing this project forward to the Commission. He stated he can support the project. Planning Commission Minutes April 16,2014 Page 9 Commissioner Scully stated she can also support the project and stated her concurrence with her fellow Commissioners. Chairperson Black commented that he can also support the project Commissioner Anderson stated that there was discussion about including hours for the site maintenance. Mr. Neu stated it could added to Condition No. 32 or it could be a separate condition. Commissioner Anderson asked why that condition pertains only to Building 7710. Ms. Werneke stated that is where the loading dock is located and it is not anticipated to have deliveries at night for the smaller retail tenants throughout the site. Commissioner Segall stated he is fine with self-management and he does not want to overregulate this project. He feels the residents living onsite will be the first to bring up any issues. Commissioner L'Heureux commented that he would like more clarity in the condition regarding the restriping of El Camino Real but he could leave it up to the Traffic Engineer to review and make any modifications needed. Commissioner Siekmann asked if Staff feels the condition regarding the restriping of El Camino Real is appropriate given the comments from the Commission. Ms. Werneke stated that she feels there is enough flexibility in the condition to address the issues from the Commission and she stated she would follow up on the issue when it is appropriate. Commissioner Scully stated she is agreeable to not adding any more conditions to the project regarding the cleaning of the site. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Scully and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7044 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum; and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 7045 approving a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 78-03(D)), Site Development Plan (SDP 13-03), Special Use Permit (SUP 13-01), Nonresidential Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-02) and a Minor Subdivision (MS 13-01), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 6-0 AYES: Chairperson Black, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Segall and Commission Siekmann NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Black closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 3 and called for the 5-minute recess. RECESS Chairperson Black called for a 5-minute recess at 9:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Black called the meeting to order with all Commissioners present and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item and opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4. Oity of Carlster^i^r RECEll^H'^'"'' ^ 2 5 2m BAD Office- of tl-»e> Oity Clerk APPEAL FORM ! I (We) appeal the decision of the City ofCarlsbad Planninq Commission ^r- To the Carlsbad City Council. " Date of Decision you are appealing: April 16, 2014 , Subject of Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: If the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project G.,^ has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part ofthe whole action, please state that here, North County Advocates hereby appeals the Planning Commission's decision to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7044 Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program and Addendum; and to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 7045 approving a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 78-03(D)), Site Development Plan (SDP 13-03), Special Use Permit (SUP 13-01), Nonresidental Planned Development Permit (PUD 13-02) and a Minor Subdivision (MS 13-01). Reasonfs^ for Appeal: • Please Note • Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or loc^al laws, plans, or policy? Ptease see attacnments. Nortn uounty Advocates reserves the ngr^t to suomit additional materials prior to the City Council's consideration ofthe appeal. SIGNATURE Everett DeLano, on behalf of North County Advocates NAME (please print) April 25, 2014 DATE PHONE NO. DeLano & DeLano, 220 W. Grand Ave ADDRESS: Street Name & Number Escondido, California 92025 City, State, Zip Code 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 Attachment 1: Reasons for Appeal 1. The Project is inconsistent with Growth iManagement Plan standards, including standards for open space and parks. 2. The Project is inconsistent with applicable development standards, including standards for height, grading and setbacks required by the Municipal Code and El Camino Real Corridor Standards. 3. 'I'he Project is inconsistent with coastal resource protection requirements. 4. There is inadequate basis to support the findings, including findings required by- the Municipal Code and El Camino Real Corridor Standards. 5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is insufficient and an Environmenta! Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared. 6. The MND illegally defers mitigation. 7. The enclosed comment letters (dated 1 ./21 /14 and 4/11/14) provide additional reasons for appeal and are hereby incorporated by reference. Appellant's Protest of Appeal Fee The Cily"s appeal fees violate Appellant's rights of due process and equal protection, arc an illegal tax. and are inconsistent with CEQA's public participation requirements. DELANO & DELANO January 21, 2014 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Shannon Wemeke Associate Planner City ofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: La Costa Towne Center proiect: SDP 78-03fDVSDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13- 02/MS 13-01 Dear City of Carlsbad: §- < 5" 7- ni rr, o r a •s^ •U S" rri l> Si. _ I- This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates in connection with the proposed La Costa Towne Center project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). The Califomia Environmental Quaiity Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); A^o Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles {1975) 13 Cal.3d 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project mi^t have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a 'manner required by law.'" Friends of "B " Street v. City of Hayward (,mO) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts. The MND adopts an incorrect baseUne for much of its discussion, reasoning that the "existing" environment includes oQcupancy of the vacant Vons store. See Traffic Report at 4-1. However, CEQA specifically provides that an agency must consider the existing conditions. See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality .Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4* 310, 322 (describing analysis that used the maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline as "'illusory' comparisons that 'can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert the full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent"). As the MND acknowledges, the Vons store is vacant. See xMND at 1. As such, the existing on-the-ground conditions do not include use of the store. This assumption invalidates the MND's analysis of traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise impacts. 5- P 2 > ^ C. "1 Ul o > Ul Si Comments re La Costa i owne Center Project and MND January 21,2014 Page 2 of 3 The Project will lead to significant impacts to community character, aesthetics, and land use. • The Project is inconsistent mth the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The Project violates applicable standards for building height and street setback. See MND at 26. • There is insufficient evidence to support a deviation from the El Caraino Real Corridor Development Standards. • Additionally, deviations are not supported by the Municipal Code. Section 21.85.100 requires an affordable housing agreement, yet there is no indication of such agreement. Section 21.85.120 requires the Project to be in conformity with "adopted goals and policies of the city," yet the Project is inconsistent with the Ei Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. • The MND discusses "modifications ... to offset the cost of affordable housing," yet there is no evidence such modifications are necessary or what costs need to be offset. See Pacific Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168,178. • The MND fails to analyze applicable standards for park and recreation facilities. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan and the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element each contain standards, yet, as the MND acknowledges, "the project does not include any public recreational facilities." MND at 33. The City is not currently meeting the applicable standards for park and recreation facilities in the Southeast Quadrat. As such, the addition of the Project's population will only increase the burden on already failing park and recreation facilities. The Project will lead to significant impacts to air quality. • The MND attempts to separate air emissions into four phases. MND at 23. However, it fails to account forthe fact that such phases can, indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby increasing the amounts of emissions at any given time. The Project will lead to significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. • The MND averages construction emissions over the life of the Project. MND at 20. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending V. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4* 1013, 1049. The Project will lead to significant impacts to noise. The analysis discusses potential impacts to nearby residences but fails to address the fact that the applicable noise standards apply to the property line. See Noise Report at 17. While the MND and Noise Report discuss Conunents re La Costa 1 owne Center Project and MND January 21, 2014 Page 3 of 3 constmction noise, they fail to account for the fact that grading will occur within feet ofthe property line. The Project's Demolition Plan, for example, notes construction as close as 8.8 feet from the property line, a location that includes a public sidewalk. The Noise Report acknowledges sound levels of 'typical constmction equipment" can be as high as 95 dBA "at 50 feet from the source." Noise Report at 13. Obviously, since the equipment will be considerably closer, the noise will be considerably greater. • Furthermore, noise mitigation is insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4'^ 1323, 1341 ("there is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively momtored and vigorously enforced"). Additionally, the MND inappropriately defers mitigation. Sacramento Old City Assn. V. City Counal i\99\) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011,1029. For example, the MND punts the preparation of an interior noise analysis. MND at 30. In Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4* 70, the court observed: Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for fiiture mitigation after completion ofthe CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of fiill disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. Id. at 92 (citations omitted). Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, • DeLano DELANO & DELANO April 11,2014 VM E-MAIL & U.S MAIL Planning Commission City ofCarlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Planning Commission April 16. 2014 meeting> agenda item # 3: La Costa Towne Center proiect: SDP 78-Q3(DVSDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Dear Honorable Members of the Carlsbad Plarming Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates in connection with the proposed La Costa Towne Center project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). As my January 21,2014 letter explained, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; tihe Project is likely to lead to several significant impacts. A Febmary 26, 2014 response fi-om the City to my letter attempts to justify the failure to prepare an EIR, but that response is both insufficient and misleading. For example, the City's response asserts that my January 21'' letter incorrectly "implies that an adjustment was made to the existing conditions of the TIA ['Traffic Impact Analysis'] to include the vacant Vons store." The City's response also claims that "the existing baseUne condition was indeed based on the existing counts as discussed on page 3-1 ofthe TIA." This is simply wrong. Page 3-1 ofthe TIA does discuss "existing conditions" on street segments; it does not, however, discuss existing traffic generated at the La Costa Towne Center site. Rather, page 4-1 of the TIA states that "existing uses are shown in the top portion of Table 4-1." And the top line of Table 4-1, found on page 4-3 ofthe TIA, attributes 3,728 Average Daily Trips ("ADT") to "Retail (7710 Bidg) - 1 story." This building is the vacant Vons store. Accordingly, contrary to the City's response, the TLA incorrectly attributes traffic generation to a vacant building. And because that assumption carries through into other analyses, it invalidates the MND's analysis of traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise impacts. See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48Cal.4'^310,322. My January 21 ^ letter also noted constmction noise would be generated less than 10 feet from a public sidewalk, which could mean noise louder than the noise of an > m a m rr. 3 r- I O _ r> — o — s- a' ^ f J s, 5: 2= 5- Vl Vl to no Comments re La Costa Tovme Center Project and MND April 11,2014 Page 2 of 2 ambulance siren 100 feet away. Rather than acknowledging the significant noise impact to the public, the City's response claimed that it "does not limit constmction noise levels ... as the impacts are temporary in nature." But the temporary nature ofa noise impact does not make it insignificant. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4* 1344,1380 - 81. And it would be no more appropriate to use the lack of a City standard as a basis to ignore significant eflfects than it would be to apply "a threshold of significance or regulatory standard 'in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect.'" Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4* 322, 342 (quoting Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) I03Cal.App.4'^98,114). Also, a table on page 19 of the Planning Report to you claims that the Growth Management Plan Open Space standard is "n/a" and claims the City is meeting the Growth Management Plan Parks standard. These assertions are incorrect. Among other things, Municipal Code Sections 21.90.040 and 21.90.130 require consistency with the applicable Local Facilities Management Plan. These include requirements for both adequate open space and adequate parks. Yet evidence in the record indicates that the City is not complying with either standard in the applicable zone. Additionally, the Project is inconsistent with applicable standards for height, grading and firont yard setbacks. Municipal Code Sections 21.06.020 and 21.53.120 require fiuidings of fact, which cannot be supported here. Furthermore, the El Camino Real Corridor Standards require additional findings for any deviation, which also cannot be supported. Indeed, one unsupportable finding is that "compliance with a particular standard is infeasible for a particular project." There is no such evidence of infeasibility. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 21.203 contains applicable coastal resource protection requirements, which have not been met here. Among these are requirements for drainage, erosion, sedimentation and habitat protections in Municipal Code Section 21.203.040(B)(3), yet no evidence of compliance with these requirements has been provided. Accordingly, North County Advocates requests that you reject die Project and MND. Thank you for your consideration of these concems. I'erett DeLano cc: Shannon Wemeke, Associate Planner EXHIBIT 7 URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC ^PLANWNS & TMFBC ENGINEERING, MARKETINQ & PROJECT SUPPORT GONSVLTANTS TO INOASTRY AND GOVERNMENT A/TTNi. E-Mail: W Jm^f. Sjhlaefli, PE, m Cover): TIME: MhllPM JOB NmiSEM: mSM 1+A(6achjtteait isfiivil%ed %ifo«tW30n. ttyou ais not the mteddeJ wsdjjtent do not disdose, dc^y, distribute or use tfiis infoiTOatton. lF yo«.«mVedi' to transmission h error, pleas?* nnti% us inanediately by tieilfephone, at pur expense aad desttoy Ifce iflfcnteition. Aiiidlli. J<)i4 tifette Traffic As wehave discussed, I have reviewed the Delano & Delano letter dated April 11,2014 commenting on the La C6sta Towne Ceartor MND and traffic study (TIA), It appears that the comments related to trafiac continues to 9fgue that the TIA u§ed an incorrect baseline and that the TIA should have used existing conditions without fhe Von'^ stcfre beins oec^pied. Uiiferteiately, tus comment seems to be based on amisunderstaading of what trif generatitffi istised for Versus how l3he ifesisftog basislSae is establised. As el^ai% disscussed th Secifion 3.0 of th« TIA ahd in the City of Caiisbad*s:i&spnse letter dsitM Febfuary 26,2014, the existiiig baseline uses existing traffic couats. TMs is well StflpfiW0ibrr^^ (SANTEC/ITE) md industry practice. Tfepse exfeting:tia|Efe not ladijde trafflc firom the Von *s store since l3ie Von'^s s was vacant at the ttme. Therefere, the existing ba§sliaf from a traffic perspective did not include any Von's traffic contrary to what the comment tmpliesi. The confiision seeiiis te stem fi-om the label "Existing Uses" contained in tihe trip generation table found in SiectiGtt 4,0 of liie TIA. As (isGus:sed in Seetioa 4.1, "Table 4-1 shows lhe vehicle trip generatibn expected firom, flje La Costa Towne Cartter Project" (emphasis added). Thereforei, it should be clear fi:om the plain text of the "TIA iffiiat the trip geaeradbn is utilized not to establish the existing baseline (whieh is instead based on counts) but IS instmd usei to estimate future project traffic. Future project traffic is used to determine the actual project impaets. As such, it is inherently a comparative analysis (i.e. with project vs. without project). In other words, the eomfadson wotild be an analysis of conditions with the project versus conditions; as they would be ifthe prcgecJtwert not approved. For a vacant project site, this comparison is easy. TTie future project traffic would be compared to a site which generates no trafiSe. However, for a re-use or revitalizatjon an exi^ng site^ the eoinparisQn is slightly more complicated. In such a case, all existing uses must be considered. An existing building Ofl a project; site cannot be ignored simply because ofa temporary vacancy. In the case of La Costa Towne Center, these existing uses include tbe Von's store because it was actually constmcted and generated traffic for over 20 years before being I m2312-041614-Ememo-j'ps_v.2 8451 Miralmi Drive, Suite A • Sm Diego. CA 92126 'Phone (858) 560-4911 Doug Bilse ® ^rban Systems Associates, Inc City ofCarlsbad 4/16/2014 closed more recently. This is supported by the fact that if the proposed project ware not approved, the Von's space would simply be re-occupied with a different user also generating traffic. Therefore, the trip genaration table shown in Table 4-1 is appropriately a comparison of conditions if the proposed project were approved versus conditions ifthe project were not approved (including the Von's store). The diffa-ence between these conditions reflects the net new traffic which the community would experience with the proposed project versus leaving the existing center as it is currently constmcted. This is the tme effect ofthe project. The question then becomes whether utilizing Sandag trip generation rates was appropriate to analyze fhe existing uses and fiiture center. An answer was previously provided in fhe City of Carlsbad's response to Mr. Delano. This response mentions an "average 41% monthly and 34.6% daily variation for a shoppmg center". These fi^gures were intended to illustrate the fact that trip generation rates are based on actual shopping centers with normal vacancies. As fhe City's earlier response to comment noted, "a certain amount of vacancy would be expected and likely". It is well documented that Shopping Centers generate less traffic during non-peak periods. For example, the Institute ofTransportation Engineers publication. Trip Generation, 9 Edition indicates that traffic firom Shopping Centers is up to 41.8% higher in December than the average month. This is due in significant part to vacancies which Shopping Centers inevitably experience during typical months. Expaience will bear fhis out because vacant storefironts are often occupied during peak shopping season over the holidays. The Manual of TrafBc Engineering Studies notes, "Shopping traffic is, of course, higher at Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas and during special events or sales". Since trip generation studies are not conducted during these abnormal conditions reflecting peak sales and peak occupancy, some amount of shopping center vacancy is assumed when using trip generation rates to estimate future traffic. Just as the existing Shopping Center was not 100% occupied, the fiiture project will not be 100% occupied during typical conditions. In-fact, fhe Sandag piiblication, 'Traffic Generators" which was used along with the national ITE hip generation statistics to establish local suggested trip generation rates included counts fi-om shopping centers with vacancy rates of 14% or more. The vacancy of tiie Von's store, is typical for tiiis type of shopping center and is well within the anticipated seasonal variation noted in the publications discussed above. Therefore, no adjustment to existing counts or trip generation rates is appropriate or warranted. Requested Analysis A Letter firom North County Advocates dated April 9,2014 was also received. This letter mentions fhe vacancy at the Von's building and requests a revised analysis be prepared for the April 16,2014 Planning Cominission Hearing. Based on this request, our firm has prepared a supplemental analysis with a "modified baseline" condition reflecting conditions as if fhe Von's building were fiilly occupied. This analysis is limited to fhe intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real which would experience the hi^est traffic level and would be the most likely to experience a project impact. As shown in the TIA, all other intersections and street segments operate at LOS "C" or better. This modified baseline analysis was also carried through the rest of the scenarios presented ia the TIA in order to proVide a conservative analysis. These results are presented m attachments to this memo. As shown in these attachments, the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real would experience an increase in ICU of 0.01 but would continue to operate at LOS "D" in the PM peak hour. In fiiture conditions, the operation of this intersection would also change imperceptibly, hi Year 2030 with tiie proposed project during tiie PM peak hour, the anticipated intersection delay would be 54.6 seconds with an acceptable level of service "D". This would be a change of 0.4 seconds in average control delay versus what is presented in tiie traffic study. 2 002312-041614-Ememo-jps_y.2 4540 Keamy Villa Road. Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 i 1^ Doug Bilse ® Urban Systems Associates, Inc. City ofCarlsbad 4/16/2014 Based on these results, it is apparent that the vacancy of the Von's store has littie effect on the operation of surrounding intersections and street segments. Any artificial adjushnent to the existing condition made to reflect occupancy ofthe Von's store would be improper as discussed above because it would artificially iucrease baseline tiraffic conditions above tiiose typically experienced by tiie community. Such an adjushnent would also not significantly alter the results or conclusions ofthe TIA or the MND. The additional analysis requested by the North County Advocates support the conclusions ofthe earlier TIA, 002312-0416I4-Ememo-jps_v.2 4540 Kearny Villa Mood. Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 ATTACHMENT 1 Intersection Levels of Service (Witli Vons) Modified Existing AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Nuinber Intersection Control ICU LOS ICU 1 LOS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 3 La Costa Avenue / El Camino Real Signalized 0.78 C 0.86 1 D Modified Existing -f Project Number Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Number Intersection Control ICU LOS ICU LOS ^^^^ ^ '„ ^^^^ w.Tr.v.-...-.....v.v«v.....w..... 3 La Costa Avenue / El Camino Real Signalized 0.78 C 0.86 D Modified Near Term -i- Project Number Intersection Control AM Peak Hour Delay LOS PM Peak Hour Delay LOS i 1* ^^^^^ — .-.•.w.w.-i-..|-y.-.-.-.-,;^;.y.;.^ La Costa Avenue / El Cainino Real Signalized 47.7 D 53.1 D Modified Year 2030 + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Number Intersection • iiiuiiiiLmii.il. mil •.ii.i.i.i. •••• ••i.u.i.u.i 11.I.U Ai.'.iJ.'J.U^^^ Control Delay LOS Delay LOS La Costa Avenue / £1 Camino Real Signalized 52.4 D 54.6 D Notes: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service Modified Existing Analyst: Jacob Swim Intersection: La Costa Ave. / El Camlno Real Future Condition: Modified Existing Date: 4/15/2014 Company: Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Project Number: 002312 Intersection Control: Signalized Intersection 3 E/W Street Name: La Costa Ave. N/S Street Name: El Camlno Real Tum Existing Existing Vons Vons Modified E Modified E Movement turn (v) AM tum (v) PM turn (v) AM turn (v) PM turn (v) AM turn (v) PM NLT 220 246 6 19 226 265 NTH 719 1,092 9 28 728 1,120 NRT 21 67 3 9 24 76 SLT 119 299 4 9 123 308 STH 1,032 1,270 13 28 1,045 1,298 SRT 724 908 0 0 724 908 ELT 763 836 0 0 763 836 ETH 269 604 4 9 273 613 ERT 299 321 13 28 312 349 WLT 118 107 0 0 118 107 WTH 532 381 6 19 538 400 WRT 208 185 3 9 211 194 AM 724 1,045 123 J i 763 211 273 538 312 f 118 t r 226 728 24 PM 908 1,298 308 J I* 835 194 613 A— 400 349 r 107 t r 265 1,120 76 Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.78 0.86 Project Only Analyst Jacob Svwm Intersection: La Cosfa Ave. / El Camlno Real Future Condition: Project Only Date; 4/15/2014 Company: Urban Systems /Associates, Inc. Project Number: 002312 Intersection 3 EM Streel Name: La Costa Ave. N/S Street Name: El Camino Real Note: Project traffic manually distributed. Direction of Projeci V/ ADT AM Peak PM Peak V/ ADT # In Out # In Out. 3728 149 89 60 373 186 186 Proiect Onlv Distribution Pernpntanes WeslL i south Leg: tastteg:: 30% S^tumn^ht 10%9oe thra 10%tvril^lBft ^ -::ia% gofes thru & 5% turn rigm; ^ 0 AM 13 4 0 PM 28 9 J J i 0 3 0 9 4 6 9 19 13 0 28 0 t r T r 6 9 3 19 28 9 Turn Project Only | Project Only j Project Only Intersection 3 /Analyst: Jacob Swim Intersection: La Costa Ave. / El Camino Real Future Condifion: Project Only Date: 4/15/2014 Company. Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Project Number 002312 E/W Street Name: La Costa Ave. N/S Street Name: El Camino Real Note: Project traffic manually distributed. Direction of Project ADT AM Peak PM Peak ADT # In Out # In Out 790 46 16 30 75 44 31 'roject Only Distribution Percentages 1 r f •t./c.-:.;{!.j^ :(foesthru:: 20% .... a^gobsVvu . :jouth-tea: i* * Jl •i ^ — K Bi Leg 30% < ^>%4 turn fight 10%goe thru 1(n^ tum left •: .16% goes thru & 5% tum right. :•• 0 2 1 J i 0 1 1 3 2 0 t r 3 4 1 PM 0 7 2 J 0 _> 1 2 -> <— 3 7 ~> r 0 'I t r 3 4 1 Project Only | Project Only Turn Modified Existing Witli Project Intersection 3 Analyst Jacob Swim Intersection: La Costa Ave, / EI Camino Real Future Condition: Modified Existing + Project Date: 4/15/2014 Company: Urban Systems /Associates, Inc. Project Number: 002312 Intersection Control: Signalized E/W Street Name: La Costa Ave. N/S Street Name: El Camlno Real Turn Modified E Modified E Project Only Project Only E + P E + P Movement turn (v) AM turn (v) PM turn (v) AM turn (v) PM turn (v) AM tum (v) PM NLT 226 265 3 3 229 268 NTH 728 1,120 4 4 732 1,124 NRT 24 76 1 1 25 77 SLT 123 308 1 2 124 310 STH 1,045 1,298 2 7 1,047 1,305 SRT 724 908 0 0 724 908 ELT 763 836 0 0 763 836 ETH 273 613 1 2 274 615 ERT 312 349 2 7 314 356 WLT 118 107 0 0 118 107 WTH 538 400 3 3 541 403 WRT 211 194 1 1 212 195 AM 724 1,047 124 J i I. 763 212 274 641 314 118 t r 229 732 25 PM 908 1,305 310 J 836 195 615 403 356 r 107 t r 268 1,124 77 ICU LOS ICU LOS 0.78 0.86 Modified Near Term + Project Intersection 3 Analyst Jacob Swim Intersection: La Costa Ave. / El Camlno Real Future Condition: Modified Near Term + Project Date: 4/15/2014 Company: Urban Systems /Associates, Ino. Project Number: 002312 Intersection Control: Signalized E/W Street Name: La Costa Ave. N/S Street Name: El Camino Real Turn E+OP E + OP Project Only Project Only E + OP + P E + OP + P Movement turn (v) AM turn (v) PM turn (v) AM turn (v) PM turn (v) AM turn(v)PM NLT 226 265 3 3 229 268 NTH 728 1,120 4 4 732 1,124 NRT 24 76 1 1 25 77 SLT 162 359 1 2 153 361 STH 1,045 1,298 2 7 1,047 1,305 SRT 724 908 0 0 724 908 ELT 763 836 0 0 763 836 ETH 316 690 1 2 317 692 ERT 312 349 2 7 314 356 WLT 118 107 0 0 118 107 WTH 567 478 3 3 570 481 WRT 230 246 1 1 231 247 AM 724 1,047 153 J i 763 231 317 570 314 r 118 t r 229 732 25 PM 908 1,305 361 J I 836 247 692 • 481 356 r 107 t r 268 1,124 77 Delay LOS Delay LOS 47.7 53.1 Modified Year 2030 + Project Intersection 3 Analyst Jacob Swim Intersection: La Costa Ave. / El Camlno Real Future Condition: Modified Year 203O + Project Date: 4/15/2014 Company: Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Project Number 002312 Intersection Control: Signalized E/W Street Name: La Costa Ave. N/S Street Name: El Camino Real Factored Turns Tum Near Term + P Near Term + P NT+P BO+P Increase BO+P BO+P Movement turn (v) AM tum (v) PM .ADT ADT % tum (v) AM tum (v) PM NLT 229 268 38,810 40,000 103% 236 276 NTH 732 1,124 52,497 55,000 105% 767 1178 NRT 25 77 21,704 23,000 105% 26 82 SLT 153 361 21,704 23,000 106% 162 383 STH 1,047 1,305 33,562 43,000 128% 1341 1672 SRT 724 908 38,810 40,000 103% 746 936 ELT 763 836 52,497 55,000 105% 799 876 ETH 317 692 21,704 23,000 106% 336 733 ERT 314 356 33,562 43,000 128% 402 456 WLT 118 107 33,562 43,000 128% 151 137 WTH 570 481 38.810 40,000 103% 587 496 WRT 231 247 52,497 55,000 105% 242 259 AM 746 1,341 162 J i 799 242 336 587 402 r" 151 'I t r 236 767 26 PM 936 1,672 383 J i 876 -> 259 733 496 456 r 137 t r 276 1,178 82 Delay LOS 52.4 Delay LOS 1151 Toil Catiiiftq Re^^i .at. La Casta Av^nue LtafcCon'ffgul'ati'oii fpf [tttetssctttin Capacity yfiiiz&tibn Pk, Ht, Time Piafiod ;• 8.:(70AJvI .ta •9;O0AM S6iitltA-p6r(i<r3') , Left- Thni . Right Config- .Urati'pti? tnslde (ieit), Outside; 1 2 •3 4 S -.i f NoHhApprCSB) VfestAppr(EB). Lsft Tfau Right, P.age-.2 pfa East;^ppr(WB.i Left . thni Ri^t^ ..360d S(56&- 0 : 2. 3, 1 2 i 1 1 ?! 0 3^65: -^Oao ffOO 4P6'0 I#p J;SQ.d WjD 1.80(1 LaneSetfiiigs' Oflggeitr Afeit.ii0 E^t/Wfest ^shasesrsfilit j^VM? HoxirV Volume "=3-^i2r 4^ ai. 1^ 724 7^3 AdiitsifilliHoiifiy-Vbtoiiie ;M ?4t 6 3t5( 5d7 5W .... t;tijiiaffoa.F4Gtor "^D.Ofi- -^0.12 '^O.QO '^0,03 -^Cl.T-^OViS: >/p3:i •'^Q:q7 *^ b47 >^Q.t)7 '^O.i3. "^fl.l.i CtitiealiPaiWJS / 6.0d (/OiZS^^C.'zX / q.^ m 29? ,118. SJ? 208 idtj'Ratio «=•• j3;78. / JL.QS= iX l/ •Turning: Movements atThtenectloji of: ElCajjtiihb Real. .arid. La Costa AVetfue e & \ A •P I I3m-e; 8;£)!?AM fo 5:00 D%e,.i :0.S/P3/n Oay.: Wednesday- .ElCairiifioTlenl 2807 Sftb- totitfS . .U75 1875 7;?4 1032 763; 259 .1 S-ubtbtafe 1451 139 Nortf)- 719 9^-0 2411 Soilth ApprcSach 1^8S •31 208- 53'? Subtetala totafe 858 409 La-Costn-Avenue Totals B s t A r Mate! tjeft-tLimvQlum.esi!icl^4e frtums. UH-uros in bold.. i!0y[fE.TOK..r?'tactIoii u.seil te gfiBJs El Caiiiinp Real iat X^a Co$ta Avenue JLafle'Coiifigui-atim fo.rlttrersectlsfi Capaeity l/tyization Page .3. of3 Pli;. Hri Tittle PeH'bd j 5:15 PM to 6:ISPM. Latte ponfjig - uratiiftis Ihsjde Outside ,1 2 "i 4 « 7 Latte.'?iStt3Ji|;s Cap'aojty ATethel!^'orth/Sauth.ph6ses;spl5t Ai«tiw:Ei!iSt/We'Sf.pha;sl!S,.'sj:5lit^t¥</l^ South ADoriNB) NorthA-Dt>rfSB) West Appr (EB) East Appr ( WB) Left-. Thf-Li Rkht Left iTinv. Ri'ght Le-ft Thm Kig^it Left Thru Rieht 1 1 1 1. t 1 L I. 1 1. 1 I I I 1 1 - 1 I I I 1 ai- %• iJ. 2 3: 1 •2 2 1 I. % I •H 3600 -SOM -l^OO- 3S.0fif 4.00P iSOj) l.?Q.O 40QO 1?1XI 3^ EiaefetlC;y tsst Factor ti.;Yff y/20 :jo ? ^ / ^/;J ^y? :54S 11551 o: IjS?' ^ 1^ .utilisation Fattar Critical Fatt6i-S -299 W '9SS Pfr m ^ m -im m *3,^ 321 15? m AdjDstfed'llBui'iyWtoe. S-n. .....^ v. — — -.»,/•••/- 0.35 mo. II MS Lf).S« TumingMovefflenia at foteisectiDn of; .ElGgmfno^eal .iyid La Cdsta Ayettue T*m{;:;§:I5PM tq-5:I?W. .Pate;.: OKWJ:! Day tW-eSiiesday NprftApproadh El CjinjinbRea! •4^90 2477 Total •gilbtotala. e t A. P i? Totgb 32?4 S.ub.- •jtcitais" 1533 s?5 ^Q4 321 Subtotals., tbia] .. -908 lagiQ 599 Nortft^ 17(30 245. '1 •3 It) 5 {•692 140^ SoutR Approach 1 f ^ t .r 67 1«S 367 0 67i §70. E a .s t A P 1 Note; Left'tum volum«i Ipcluflp t]-.ttira,s-. Urtyrns i't) b.oji 1^3 EI d.aiuijii9 Beai .at La Cftsta Ayeaue Ltoe Qdn-fi'gurStiou ftf Inter^'ecticSn Capafiirf ytitiz&tion Pk Hf, Tiriife RefiOd ;• 8.:0OAM ta L^ni Inside Cohfig- (Ip). firati'pris Oatside- •Pres-flbvy south AT'&r(i<IB') •Leii: Thtu . Riglit 1 1 2 1 3 4 •:6 •f Laae Settihp l>Jon1i Appr (SB) Left. Thm . Jiight I 2. 1 \yfestAppr(EB). Left Tfa-il toghf. P!ige;2 of3 Bast Appr (WBi Left Thra .fei.dit S- a 0 •esgseit}; .3500 606&- O ' ^000 l^OD" U!)'6 4PO'0 !^® J:S.QP 400.0 1J.QCI AkWe-Ntiith/South pfeseis-split Of*})? 3R' .fiffictericy LbSf-Fatter Hourlv: Yfiluinb '^^'ifor m si- m Wl 724 7S3 -50 1^ +3 AdjilsireliHbiirly-Vbteme 229-. -?4S- Q tirftiealfaStofS a.K lfl52 '507 %% m W'9 us. SJ? zg?: '^^.06- -^O.r? -^0,® ^-OM ^^0:18. -/o^;! -^0.07 W7 -^lO? "^pi '^fl.i? / S.Od • ffvZS; ^ 0.'2L / •Q-.I'J rdURatioi ;0';7S. / Turning-Mp-yera.ents at thtersei5tio;i of': El Cainino Real, .aiid La'Costa AVeaus W e .s { •A •P •p r Time; S;.0.0.4,M t'o5r00.4LE«I Date.;. O.S/p-S/lt .Clay.! 'Wbdnes.day l^riig; Osparr flOiiajTjj^, }Sli?£ K.bi1hAppip4ch ,E1 CaWrho Real Totals 2SP7 Sub.- to'tall 1476 ••1.33'1 753; 259 Subfofafe To'fal •7^4 •*1 1451 1.875 1032 .3,56? 0 i:i9 1684 North' 2-20 3. •2411 71.9 •960 SoOth A.pprqacl-1 •f •31 2Ci& 532' lie -fot'at StlbtMiilS: S'lib--.. . totais 8.5'8 40S Lit Cpstn-AYTOue Totals E •a s t A ? P Hat's.! Left-titm volumjis^ inqliick:. D-tums. U-turn,'! in bold.. iOVf rtTOR.i-.ttiiuctiou (uei far SEilUs.. El C^Snino Real at La Costa. AvenBE Lafia'CoiifigumtloS fo.r toterjectio'ii' fiapaeity Utilization Page 3. of 3 P.i;.HnT"itti6Peri'dd; 5:15 PM JO 6:15 PM uf&tioh's fnijde birtSide 1 •2 > 4 5 1S 7 L^e.'S%tti'ft|S Areti\ei*5fllj/Saitbphsse5:sp'lli.,(Y^^^^^ Ars tke:E'a5tA^«sr.phesss.^littVM)3 Egicii"eri(^yLtiStFact6r-f^ <5;i'D Uzo AdJiist6d'Bcmi1y''J'''o"i:utoe. 34S llSS> Litiliation i?tor South Ap'pr^{KB) Nortb-Appr(SB) WestAppr (SB) East Appr (WBI Left. Thru Right Left Thra. Right Le-ft thru Klght Left Thru l^ieht 1 •1 •'i 1. I 1 L t. 1 1 L I I 1 I I • 1 I 1 1 1 a * U . 2 3: I ,2 2 1 1, 2 J 6. S o: 3e00 SOM iSOQ' 350-0' 4009 IS®. IS.DJ 4050 .fa ^0 il y HOO /?y 10:7 ^ iSS m 3i? l«5 Critical Factore i'Gt;:iuitia = MS a. fC LO.S = TIS? V • ^/5 37? laTfi^ 938 -aSfr P4 321 m im m /^.^ ssi •^(J.0« :O.SL "'^0,55 "^0.23 -^0.15 o;if ,0,g§ •^Q.IO ;ft4f-e.// .y 0.35 / Q.t3 Q-i^ o.H y IMmin-gMoveirientaat loterssc.tlDn of; .BlGamri}'6l?.cal .imd La Cos'ta'Avenue e S t A P P •r •Tiji).e:;5:K-TlVI .t)St^: .O?/03./n IvJaijie..: Q's|!^rj.I^pjiat).h.e,,,RlaeU .North APi'cb'^'.'jh ElCaaiiiilijfeal Totate 32,94 Sub.-- .:.ti)tal-5, 15-53 17,6/ ^^ '6 • ' 504, h Siibtetals. .Tota.. 4590 1700 SoutIS Approach 2477 m J 12-70 299 m J u A ^ •Nortfr t 1 246. 1 t5'92 .1 67 1405 •31.05 zi).3 lg5^ 381 i07 Total •gUbtOlals, totals 573 La Cost'a Av.eniie 0 Totals xm E a .s t A ? tiote; Lefi;"ti.iro vqlumts. teluilc tJ-tunis. Urtiirns i'tj bdld, 3Q»/f Jtltill.reilBCtiQn use^ for- ^BRTS. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real Modified Near Term + Project AM 4/1S/2014 Lane Coniigurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) . Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prol^ " Fit Permitted .&atd. Flow (perm) ^^5 763 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.8§ 0.95 317 1900 4.0 0. 95 1.00 1.O0 3539 1. Q0 f 314 1900 4,0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1683 118 1900 40 1.00 1 00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 H 570 1900 4,0 0,95 1.00 1,00 3539 1,00 3539 f 231 1900 4,0 1,00 0 85 1.00 1583 1,00 1583 229 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 m 732 1900 4.0 0.91 I.oo: 1.00 5060^ 1,00 5060 25 1900 153 1900 4:0 0,97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 1047 1900 4.0 0,91 100 1,00 5085 1,00 •5085 Peali-houf faQtor.PHF m Turn Type .Permitted Phases Sbi^jpTmiS (sj , f(s) Clearance Time (s) ^etiicle Extension fs) Prot 40.8 40.8 0.29 4.0 30 54.0 54,0 0,39 4,0 3:0 Perm 2 54.0 54.0 0.39 4,0 3.0 724 1900 4.0 1.00 0 85 1.00 1583 1.00 • 1583 Pro! Perm Prot Prot pm+ov 6 7 4 • '"S % 4 14,5 27.7 21J 12.8 46.1 42.7 83,5 14,5 27.7 27.7 12.8 45.1 10.4 427 83,5 0.10 0.20 . 0:20 0,09 0 32 '0 07 0.31 0.60 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 / 3,0 183 700 313 314 1630 255 1551 989 0,.07 CO. 17 cO.07 0.16 0-Q5. P-.22 0.07 0.25 0.68' 0 86 0.36 0.77 0.49 0.63 0.71 0.76 60.5 54,2 48,5 62.1 38.2 62.9 43.2 20.9 1.20 1.13 . 1 68 0.98 1.13 0 98 0,94 1 14 8.4 9,0 0.6 10.6 1.0 , 3.6 2,0 2.5 81.3 70.5 82.1 71.7 44.0 65.0 42.4 26.3 F E F E D K C? & 74.8 E 50.5 D 38.5 D m Lane Grp Cap (vpli) 1000 1365 611 v/s Ratio Prot cO.23^ 0.09 v/s Ratio PerfTJ 0.11 v/c Ratio " ' • '0.80'" O"^^ (j.28 Uniform Delay, d1 .45.9 29.2 29.6 Irogression Factor . 1,00 • 1.00 1.00 incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.1 0 2 |elay(s) 50.6 29.3 29.8 Level of Service DCC Approacfi Delay (s).,.._, _ --ill Approach LOS D HCIVl Average Controi Delay lICM Vpiiime tb^ Capacity ratef: Actuated Cycle Length (s) Interseetion Capacity U tiiizatidh.^ Analysis Period (min) fidentical Lar^e Qrpup • • 47.7 0.78 140^0 •:77.6% 15 Sum of lost time (s) (GU.Level of Service 12.0 D: Baseline %usef name% Syrichro 7 -Report Page j HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real Modified Near Term + Project PM 4/15/2014 Lane Configurations '^^ ff f ff f 'I'j ffl* 'i'! fff Ideal lf low (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor Fit Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 ^1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 O.S tj5o''*^i.bo 0.95 1.00 1.00" bfs LOO 0,97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fit Permitted IS 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95^ 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 Wm "" *' Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0,95 0.95_ 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Turn Type ^^^^^^^ Effective^ Qreen,^s) Clearance Time (s) Lane GrpCap (vph^ v/s Ratio Perm Prot 1072 1388 621 169 622 278 329 1378 427 1536 1018 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ ' '^^^^ ~ ^g'^-S^^^^^^^^^^^^^p Level of Service D C C E D D E" E * ' ' *D ApproachLOS D D E D 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Baseline %user_name% Synchro 7- Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Interseetion Capacity Analysis 3: La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real Modified Year 2030 + Project AM 4/15/2014 —#*• > r ^ t V MoveroenttA^'Ja • '- EBL.. EB i-v tBB.- WBL;., WBTJ'riWBR^'-tlNlB!:' NBl ,NBRi^'ki^BbsSpSSBTli.!. SBR Lane Configurations 11 ff f ff ffl* 11 fff r 799 336 402 151 587 242 236 767 26 162 ' 1341 idea! Flovif (vptipl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 . 4,0 : 4.0 .4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 4.0 4,0 4.0 Lane UtiLFactor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0,91 0.97 0,91 I.OO Frt ^ ^ i 1.00 1.00 0.85 • 1.00 100 0 85 1.00 100 100 1 00 0,85 FItProteclSjJ 1.00 1,00 0,95 1,00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1,00 •' 313? 3539 1583 -1770 3539 1583 3433 5061 3433 , 1583 fltPermittetf 0.95 1,00 1.00 0,95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0,95 1,00 1.00 •Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 -: 3433 5061 3433 5085-1583 Peak-hour {actor, PHF^ 0.95 0.95 0,95 0,95 • 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 423 159 618 255 248 807 27 :i71 4 RT<5RRecluc8<jn{vph} 0 0 124 0 0 120 0 3 0 0 " 11 tSne' cw fvo!') f4"f' "m^'wrnm.. 135'^"24g Perm PemfilttedPhases eflfeBfiv?^ri6en,g(s) Clearance Time (s) ti^teExtension (s) 35.7 36.7 Prot 3 S 12.6 47.2 12.6 47,2 0,09 0 34 4,0 4,0 3.0 3.0 Prot 11,2 11,2 4,0 30 45.8 45,8 "0,33 4,0 3.0 4 8T.5 81.5 0.51 4.0 3.0 Lane GrpCap (vph) vfe Ratio-Perm v/c Ratio ' Uniform Delay, d1 Incremental belay, d2 Level of Service Approach Delay;! /Approach LOS 875 GO.24 51 5 1 00 21,4 72.9- E 1269 0,10 'd.28 32.0 1.00 0.1 32.1 C 54.4 D 568 0.19 35:5 • 1.00 0.9 36.4 D 195 0.09 ' o:82 60.9 0.91 19.7 75.2 E 756 cO.17 0';82 52.4 1.14 5.9 66:0 E 69,5 338 0.08 m 47.3 1 56 0.7 .74.5 E 309 cO.07 0.80 62.5 1 14 13.6 ,84,5 F 1706 0.16 36.8 1 29 1.0 48,3 D 56.6 275 0.05 •;s:#fo.'6T 62.3 100 3,0 .65.0 E 1664 cO.28 ' Ws" 43.9 0,97 3,9 46.4 D n 967 0.20 0.28 0.80 22.9 1.08 3.3 28.0 C HCiV! Average Control Delay UBM Volume to Capacity ratio.-^,: Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) p^-Critical Lane Group 52.4 . 0,87 140.D •85:oi,: 15 HOf»l Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU LSyllpfSefviiJe D 16,0 Baseline °/qUser_name:|'o- Synohro?- Report^ Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis^ 3; La Costa Ave. & El Camino Real Modified Year 2030 + Project PM 4/15/2014 > Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util, factor.« , Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fll Permitted Satd. Flow Ipertn) 11 876 1900 12 4.0 0.97 1.00 0 95 3433 0 95 3433 ff 733 1900 •12 4.0 *0 98 1,00 1.00 3651 1 00 3651 i* 456 137 1900 1900 13-12 4.0 4,0 100 1.00 0 85 1.00' 1 00 0 95 1636 1770 ^ ff f 11 ffT» 82 1900 12 11 383 1900 12 4,0 0.97 1^0 095 3433 0.95 3433 fff 1672 1900 12 4.Q: '0 loo 1.00^ 5476 1 5476 f 936 1900 1? 4.0 m 0.85 i.o6 1636 1636 Lane (Sroup Flow (vph) 1240 $6 0.95, 403 0b5 096 403 17$0 Tum Type Prot Perm " 'Prot Perm 'Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 A ' •2 -• 6 •ji--..i.--J^^i::--!!-U<^^'i ^<^!^i Actuated (^n, G ft] 38.0 46,5 46.5 16.1 24.6 24.6 13.8 41.8 196 "47T"' 65.6 Iffective'Sp^^^^" ' 38:d 46 5 46 5 16.1 24.6 24.6 13.8 418 ' " i'9.e"' '47.S'' ' 85.6 Actuated g/(i Ratio 0,27 0.33 0,33 0,12 0,18 0.18 0.10 0,30 0.14 0,34 0.61 40 40 4,0-4,0 4.0 -4.0 40 4,0 4.0 40 m Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3-0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3,0 3.0 3,0 3.0 , 932 1213 .543 204 642 287 48? 1b62 mi V/S Raier fret C().27 0.21 0.08 c0.14 0.08 0.24 c0.12 }M v/s Ratio Perm"' 0^19 ao7 o.si v/e Ratio 0.99 0.64 0.57 0.71 0.81 0.37 0.86 0.82 0,84 0,95 0 93 50.8 39,6 38 5 : 59.7 55,5 50.9 62 2 45 5 58,7 44 9 24 6 Progression Factor 1,00 1,00 1.00 0.86 0,97 1.25 1.27 0.91 1,01 1.05 0.92 ttlifl.talQel?y,d2 26,5 1 1 1.5 9.2 6,7 0.7 17.3 4.0 9.8 9.5 12.0 77,3 40,7 40.0 60,3 60,3 64.4 96.4 45,7 m 56.6 34.6: Level of SeWice E D „,D, E E E C ^proacb Delay (s) ^ 56.1 61,5 54,8 51.3 . E • E D -. D; HCM Average Control'Delay HGIVI Volume to Capacity ratio Intersecfion Capacity Utilization Analysis Penod (mm) c Critical Lane Group '54.6 0.89 140.0 92,2% 15 Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service Baselirie %user name% Synchro ? - Repori Page 1 3. INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS Intersection turn movement counts were collected in Sumnner 2013 at forty-riine (49) major intersections around tine City. Ttie locations of the intersections included in the 2013 Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) Report are sfiown graphically in Figure 3-1. Ttie turn movement counts were conducted during the AM peak period (6:30 to 9:30 AM) and the PM peal< period (3:30 to 6:30 PIVI). The data from each three-hour period was divided into fifteen-minute periods to accurately identify the peak hour that occurs within the AM and PM peak periods. The counts were collected mid-week on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. The intersection tuming movement count data is provided in Appendix B foliowing this report. During the count period, RBF staff monitored traffic conditions and noted locations where capacity or signal timing resulted in queues or operational deficiencies that may not be readily obvious using the ICU methodology. Field observations of peak period traffic conditions are described in detail later in thiis chapter. The forty-nine (49) intersections were analyzed using the ICU methodology using calculation worksheets developed in an Excel spreadsheet. The count data was provided in Excel format, and imported directly into the ICU calculation worksheets. The peak hour volumes, peak hour factors, and ICU calculations are included in the worksheets for the forty-nine (49) intersections evaluated in the.2013 Report, The ICU calculations performed assumed the foilowing lane group capacities: Lane Group Capacity Thnj Lanes 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane Tum Lanes 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane Dual Turn Lanes 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane The ICU methodology reports level of sen/ice (LOS) based on volume-to-capacity ratios ranging from 0.0 to 1.0: Ratio LOS 0.0-0.60 A 0.61-0.70 B 0.71 - 0.80 0 0.81-0.90 D 0.91-1.00 E Greater than 1.00 F One of the limitations of the ICU methodology is that it does not account for closely spaced signalized intersections where traffic volumes are heavy and queues spili back to adjacent intersections. The ICU methodology assumes that each intersection operates in isolation of other intersections; therefore, signal coordination, progression of through traffic, and queue spillback are not accounted for in the analysis. Using the ICU methodology at closely spaced intersections with heavy peak hour traffic may result in calculated leveis of service that are better than what actually occurs at these intersections during the peak hours. 1^0 OF FILE copy V CARLSBAD EXHIBITS Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov February 26, 2014 Mr. Everett DeLano DeLano & DeLano 220 W. Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 SUBJECT: SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER Dear Mr. DeLano, Thank you for your comment letter dated January 21, 2014, submitted on behalf of North County Advocates, responding to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the La Costa Towne Center project. The following provides a list of your comments (in Italic) and staffs response to the assertions made in your letter. 1. Comment: The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Publlc Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a 'fair argument" that significant environmental Impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d); No Oil. Inc. v. Cltv of Los Anaeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d. 68. If there is "substantial evidence that the project might have [a significant Impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure preparation of the required EIR, the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by falling to proceed In a "manner required by law." Friends of "B" Street v. Cltv of Havward (1980) 106 Cat.App.3d 988, 1002. Here, the City should prepare an EIR before proceeding; the Project Is Ukely to lead to several significant impacts. Response: The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project identified potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to the release ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA § 21080{C){2)j. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required. 2. Comment; The MND adopts an Incorrect baseline for much of its discusston, reasoning that the "existing" environment includes occupancy of the vacant Vons store. See Traffic Report at 4-1. However, CEQA specifically provides that an agency must consider the existing conditions. See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Qualitv Manaaement Di<:t (2010) 48 C0/.4"' 310, 322 (describing analysis that used the maximum permitted operational levels as a Planning Division \^{ 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® SPf 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE fO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 2 baseline as "Illusory" comparisons that 'can only mislead the publlc as to the reality of the Impacts and subvert the full consideration ofthe actual environmental impacts,' a result at direct odds with CEQA's intent"). As the MND acknowledges, the Von's store is vacant. See MND at 1. As such, the existing on-the-ground conditions do not Include the use of the store. This assumption Invalidates the MND's analysis of traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise. Impacts. Response: As noted in the comment, the "Von's store" was vacant at the time existing counts were conducted for the traffic analysis (TIA). No artificial adjustment was made to the existing condition as studied in the TIA. The comment incorrectly refers to page 4-1 of the traffic study and implies that an adjustment was made to the existing conditions of the TIA to include the vacant Vons store. Page 4-1 ofthe TIA discusses the project trip generation and is used for "with project" conditions and not for establishment of the existing condition. Contrary to what the comment implies, the existing baseline condition was indeed based on the existing counts as discussed on page 3-1 of the TIA. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15125, "Environmental Setting" which states that "an EIR must include a description ofthe physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they existed at the time of the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced." For the La Costa Towne Center traffic study and associated environmental analysis, existing traffic counts were obtained consistent with CEQA Guidelines and formed the basis for the environmental setting in the MND. This is typical for all projects in the San Diego region. As stated in the SANTEC/ITE publication. Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) on the San Diego Region, the existing condition should be established in the following manner: "document existing traffic volumes and peak-hour levels of sen/ice in the study area. The existing deficiencies and potential mitigation should be identified." The TIA did precisely this. The use of existing traffic counts for traffic studies and CEQA analysis is well established and is a correct method for establishing baseline conditions. Typically, existing traffic counts are taken mid- week both over a 24-hour period and during peak hour conditions in the AM and PM time frames. This is done to establish "average" conditions as used in the term "average daily traffic" which is utilized in the TIA. The existing baseline is intended to represent the typical condition experienced by the community. As such, a certain amount of vacancy would be expected and likely. The Institute of transportation Engineers (ITE) statistics show that a shopping center can have rather extreme hourly, daily and monthly variations in traffic with January through April showing lower than normal traffic compared to the monthly average and December showing a much higher than normal amount of traffic compared to the monthly average. With these statistics in mind, the month of August and the day ofthe week of Wednesday were selected to conduct existing counts. Counts were taken during non-holiday weeks representing normal conditions with no precipitation. According to ITE statistics, both the month and day of the week used are the most representative of "average" conditions for a shopping center. Although the Von's store was closed at the time of the counts, the potential difference in traffic is well within the average 41% monthly and 34.6% daily variation for a shopping center. Therefore, existing counts appropriately represented the typical condition at the time the NOP was prepared and environmental analysis commenced consistent with CEQA. Thus, the baseline utilized for the subject MND is correct; therefore, the conclusions reached with respect to the traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emission and noise analyses are valid. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SU> 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 3 3. Comment; The project will lead to significant Impacts to community character, aesthetics, and land use. Response: As detailed in the staff responses below, as well as in the MND, there are no significant impacts associated with community character, aesthetics or land use. 0. Comment: The Project Is Inconsistent with the El Camlno Real Corridor Development Standards. The project violates applicable standards for bulldlng height and street setback. See MND at 26. Response; As discussed on page 26 of the MND, the shopping center was developed through a Site Development Plan wherein a 10-foot-wide front yard setback was established. Pursuant to Section VI ofthe Development Standards, Exceptions, "The standards established here shall also not effect areas with building permits or valid site plan approvals from the City." Thus, the originally-approved Site Development Plan, which allowed for a 10-foot-wide setback, supersedes the El Camino Real Corridor Standards. The proposed project does not encroach any closer than that which was originally permitted. In addition, as further discussed on page 26 of the MND, pursuant to CMC Section 21.85,100, modification to standards such as height can be permitted fo offset the cost of affordable housing. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.140, such modifications are subject to approval by the City Council through an affordable housing agreement. The requirement for an affordable housing agreement will be included as a standard condition for the Site Development Plan for the request to construct 12 inclusionary rental units on-site. b. Comment: There is insufficient evidence to support a deviation from the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Response; Pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120(B), a site development plan for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlining zone or elsewhere provided that the project is in conformity with the general plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. As discussed in the MND (pages 25-27), the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. In addition, any modifications to the standards requested through the Site Development Plan for the inclusionary housing project may supersede the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. Therefore, a deviation to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards can be supported. c. Comment; Additionally, deviations are not supported by the Municipal Code. Section 21.85.100 requires an affordable housing agreement, yet there Is no Indication of such agreement. Section 21.85.120 requires the Project to be in conformity with the "adopted goals of the city," yet the project Is Inconsistent with the El Camlno Real Corridor Development Standards. Response: Pursuant to CMC Section 21.85.140(A), the approval and execution of an affordable housing agreement shall take place prior to final map approval and shall be recorded upon final map recordation. Further, the affordable housing agreement shall stipulate any approved offsets by the city. In addition, pursuant to CMC Section 21.53.120(B), a site development plan for affordable housing projects may allow less restrictive development standards than specified in the underlining zone or elsewhere ( (• SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSt lO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 4 provided that the project is in conformity with the general plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. As discussed in the MND (pages 25-27), the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and adopted policies and goals of the city. The requirement for an affordable housing agreement will be induded as a standard condition for the Site Development Plan forthe request to construct 12 inclusionary rental units on-site. cf. Comment; The MND discusses "modlflcatlons...to offset the cost of affordable housing," yet there Is no evidence such modifications are necessary or what costs need to be offset. See Pacific Coro. v. Cltv of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168,178. Response: As discussed in the MND, the current height limit in the C-1 zone and El Camino Real Corridor Standards is 35 feet. A modification to the height standards is necessary as the project proposes a height up to 45 feet to accommodate the mixed use project. The applicant has indicated that the construction of the affordable housing will cost approximately $1,299,720 (20 subterranean parking stalls, $84/SF) Due to the parking and minimum density (20 du/ac) requirements, as well as the existing site layout ofthe shopping center, an increase in height (i.e., to accommodate a 2"'' and 3"* floor residential above ground floor retail use) is required to justify the cost of constructing 12 inclusionary units, which will be rent-restricted. As mixed use is an encouraged use and the proposed increase in height will offset the cost ofthe inclusionary housing, staff is supportive ofthe request. As indicated above, the offset will be required to be specified in the affordable housing agreement which is subject to approval by the City Council. e. Comment; The MND falls to analyze applicable standards for park and recreation facilities. The Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plans and the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element each contain standards, yet, as the MND acknowledges, "the project does not Include any publlc recreation facilities." MND at 33. The City Is not currently meeting the applicable standards for park and recreation facilities In the Southeast Quadrant. As such, the addition of the Project's population will only Increase the burden on already falling park and recreation facilities. Response: The proposed project is not required to provide public recreation facilities on-site. As stated on page 32 of the MND, the proposed project will be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Fadlities Management Plan for Zone 6. As such, a standard condition will be applied to the project which requires the payment of park-in-lieu fees as required pursuant to CMC Chapter 20.44. The fee will be collected prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report for July 1, 2012- June 30, 2013 (please see link below), the city is currently meeting the applicable standards for park and recreation facilities in the Southeast Quadrant. http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/GMMonitoringReDort.pdf Therefore, as conduded in the MND (page 32), no impact is assessed with respect to public services. 1^^ SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECURATION, \A COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 ' Page 5 4. Comment: The project wilt lead to significant impacts to air quality. The MND attempts to separate air emissions into four phases. MND at 23. However, it falls to account for the fact that such phases can. Indeed are likely to, overlap, thereby Increasing amounts of emissions at any given time. Response; The potential impacts to air quality are discussed on pages 10-13 ofthe MND. Pursuant to the Air Qualtty Technical Report prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (October, 2013), the analysis of construction emissions conducted for the project was based on the schedule of construction for the proposed project. The phasing information that was provided by the project applicant indicated that development would occur sequentially; no overlap of construction phases would occur because existing leases would require that construction be conducted sequentially. The construction for each phase provides for access and new improvements for the tenants. The work on each phase must be complete for each segment prior to commencing the next phase. The analysis of construction impacts was conducted using the CalEEMod Model, which is the current air quality tool for land use projects. The CalEEMod Model calculates maximum daily emissions for each phase, which is presented in the Air Quality Technical Report. Thus the CalEEMod Model calculates the effect of combining construction activities such as building construction, paving, and architectural coatings to estimate maximum daily construction for each construction phase. The CalEEMod Model does envision a maximum daily construction scenario where both demolition anct grading, which have the most use of construction equipment and therefore the highest emissions, would occur simultaneously. Therefore, the analysis presented in the Air Quality Technical Report provides a conservative estimate of maximum daily emissions during construction. As identified in the MND, impacts to air quality are less than significant. 5. Comment; The project will lead to significant Impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The MND averages construction emissions over the life ofthe project. MND at 20. Such emissions should be calculated as they will actually occur, not averaged over a longer period of time. See Taxpavers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Dlego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4"' 1013, 1049. Response; Table 5 of the Global Climate Change Evaluation prepared by Scientific Resources Associated (SRA, October, 2012) presents a summary of the total greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from construction of the project. These emissions are calculated "as they will actually occur." Pursuant to SRA, it is standard and accepted practice throughout the state of California to amortize construction emissions over the lifetime of the project. As stated in the Evaluation, amortizing construction emissions over the lifetime of the project takes into account their contribution to annualized greenhouse gas emissions. The significance threshold is based on annualized emissions over the lifetime of the project. Furthermore, as stated in the Evaluation on Page 23, amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year period is standard practice based on written guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego. As identified in the MND, impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 6 \ 6. Comment; The project will lead to significant Impacts to noise. a. Comment: The analysis discusses potential Impacts to nearby residences but falls to address the fact that the applicable noise standards apply to the property line. See Noise Report at 17. While the MND and Noise Report discuss construction noise, they fail to account for the fact that grading will occur within feet of the property line. The Project's Demolition Plan, for example, notes construction noise as close as 8.8 feet from the property line, a location that Includes a publlc sidewalk. The Noise Report acknowledges sound levels of "typical construction equipment" can be as high as 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source." Noise Report at 13. Obviously, since the equipment will be considerably closer, the noise will by considerably greater. Response: The city does not limit construction noise levels at property lines, residences, or public property as the impacts are temporary in nature (see page 29 of MND). The proposed demolition and new construction are located a minimum linear distance of 175 feet as well as 85 feet downslope from the adjacent residential properties to the east (i.e., homes are located at an elevation of 165' above mean sea level and proposed building 7714 is located at 80' above mean sea level). As discussed on pages 28-29 of the MND, the project will be required to adhere to the standard construction hours pursuant to Section 8.48.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Specifically, construction activity and delivery of construction materials and equipment would be limited to non-holidays, between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. In addition, should any issues arise, the building official, city engineer, or other official designated by the city manager may shorten the hours of construction. Further, pursuant to CMC Section 8.48.030, signs are required to be posted at the jobsite entrance indicating the hours ofwork as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Therefore, as conduded in the MND, the impacts with respect to temporary noise are not significant. b. Comment: Furthermore, noise mitigation is insufficient. See Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. Citv of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4^ 1323, 1341 ("there Is no evidence of any measures to be taken that would ensure that the noise standards would be effectively monitored and vigorously enforced"). Response: It is standard and acceptable practice to include mitigation measures with specific performance standards (i.e., compliance with interior noise thresholds). See Sove Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App4th 1059, Endangered Habitats League V. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App4th, 777, 993, and Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App4th 260. With respect to the proposed project, the following mitigation measure is required to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level: Prior to issuance of the building permit, an acoustical analysis consistent with City standards shall be prepared by a registered professional to demonstrate that the proposed bulldlng design will limit Interior noise for the residential land uses to 45 dBA and commercial land uses to 55 dBA. The bulldlng plans shall Incorporate the recommendations In the report to satisfy the requirements. SDP 78-03(D)/SDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LA COSTA TOWNE CENTER February 26, 2014 Page 7 Specific enforceable performance standards with a timing mechanism are included in the above-noted mitigation measure. As indicated above, staff will be verifying that the building plans incorporate the required materials and details recommended in the noise analysis to attenuate the interior noise to 45 dBA for the residential land uses and 55 dBA for the commercial land uses. Once the building plans are approved and the buildings are constructed, the building inspectors will verify in the field that the construction conforms to the approved building plans. The verification on the building plans as well as the inspection ensures that the mitigation measure is enforced. Therefore, the noise mitigation is sufficient. 7. Comment: Additionally, the MND Inappropriately defers mitigation. Sacramento Old Cltv Assn. v. Cltv Council (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011,1029. For example, the MND punts the preparation ofan Interior noise analysis. MND at 30. In Communities for a Better Environment v. Cltv of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4^'' 70, the court observed: Numerous cases Illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting Improper deferral of environmental assessment. Response: Pursuant to Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App4th, 777, 993, if mitigation is feasible but impractical at the time of initial project approval, it may be sufficient to specify performance criteria and make further approvals contingent on finding a way to meet them. As discussed in No. 6 above, the project specifies performance criteria to be confirmed at the time construction plans are submitted as well as a timing mechanism for enforcement ofthe mitigation measure, which is priorto the issuance of a building permit. Thank you for providing comments on the La Costa Towne Center project. Should you have any additional questions, please contact the project planner, Shannon Werneke, at (760) 602-4621 or by email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:SW:bd c: Mr. Geoff Sherman, Excel La Costa, LLC, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Ste. 300, San Diego, CA 92128 Mr. Richard Benson, Benson & Bohl Architects, 3900 Sth Avenue, Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 92103 Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Debbie Fountain, Housing & Neighborhood Services Director Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner File Copy Data Entry TRUST ii i^eceive - Agenda Item # 'H For the Information of the-^ CITY COUNCIL ACM_v^CA__v^CC_-' • Date 2hktC\ty Manager July 7, 2014 Mr. Steve Sarkozy City Manager City of Carisbad 1200 Carlsbad Viliage Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92000 Re: City Council Hearing - Agenda Item # 7 (AB #21,674, Resolution 2014-169) Dear Mr. Sarlcozy, I apologize for mai<ing this request so late, but Excel GIV La Costa Owner, LLC the Owners of La Costa Towne Center need to request a postponed ofthe appeal scheduled for tomorrow evening. The ownership has been exploring some changes to the project that would affect the entitlements for the project and potentiaily affect the appeal. The ownership thought that all the investigation would be completed by this time, but things have beeh delayed and more study time is needed. Would you please move the appeal hearing until next month. Nathan Hilbig, our head of Asset Management, will be attendihgthe hearing for the partnership tomorrow evening. Thanldng you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Spencer Plumb President Excel Trust S. Werneke G. Sherman R.Benson S. Benos Date:_ Distribution: City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book 17140 Bernardo Centei-Drive, Suite .300 San Diego. CA 92128 (858) 613-1800 » Fax (858) 487-9890 DELANO & DELANO VLi E-MAIL & U.S MAIL City Council City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 3,2014 All Receive - Agenda Item # i For the Information of the- crry COUNCIL ACMJ^CA_S^CCJ^ Date •'/T 1,1^ City Manager .•^ City Council July 8.2014 meeting: La Cnsta Towne Center proiecf SDP 78- 03(DVSDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 134)T Dear Honorable Members of the Carlsbad City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates in connection with the appeal ofthe proposed La Costa Towne Center project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). At the hearing before the Planning Cominission, Deputy City Attomey Jane Mobaldi disagreed with the contention that there is inadequate evidence to support deviations from the Municipal Code and El Camino Real Corridor Standards, claiming the court's decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4 1396, precluded the City from requning compliance with tiiese requirements. But the Palmer decision is inapplicable to the Project. The Palmer court determmed the city's requfrement ("to provide 60 affordable housing units at regulated rent levels that must be preserved for the life ofthe dwelling units or 30 years, whichever is greater") was "hostile or inimical to [Costa-Hawkins Act] section 1954.53 by denying Palmer the right to establish initial rent rates for the affordable housing units and by° preservmg thefr regulated rent levels ...." 175 Cal.App.4* at 1410. Here, there is no restnction on rents or any other condition that would implicate the Costa-Hawkins Act Accordmgly, as prior comments noted, the evidence does not support deviations from applicable requirements, and the Palmer decision is inapplicable to the Council's consideration of the Project. Additionally, during the Planning Comniission hearing, City staff and the applicant's consultant asserted that the traffic analysis for the Project was sufficient. However, as the attached comments observe, the traffic study for the Project is insufficient. I'S a- -! 5. > * Z a O I I-I 5 a' a, rrt > i 2 s- O a a. w to O O 9-5." o P 3 ^• w. D I: L A ,\ O A N D D E L A N O . Date: l/l/ffji Distribution: City Clerk Asst. City Clerk Deputy Clerk Book 0 o 1 I Ul U) • 0\ Os Ul to n Coniments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND July 3, 2014 Page 2 of2 Accordingly, North County Advocates respectfully requests you reject the Project and MND. Thank you for your consideration of these concems. , , . . . , Sincerely, • Everett DeLano cc: Shannon Werneke, Associate Planner •SJBO; imitudhiziQ i ?h9l0 yliO .teaAi noo& I engineering group Jnc. transportation pianning * iraffic en§ini^ring Juiy 3 2014 acoLisiical engineering • parking studies Mr. Everett DeLano DELANO & DEL^kNO 220 West Grand Avenue Escondido, CA 92025 Subject: La Costa Town Centre Traffic Study Review, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. DeLano: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC (RK) is pleased to submit this preliminary review of the traffic impact study for the proposed La Costa Town Centre project in the City of Carlsbad RK has reviewed the Traffic Study and has the foilowing initial comments; 1. Page 3-2 La Costa Avenue is mentioned as having been modified as part of a road diet to reduce the number of through lanes. The study should consider the affect of this improvement on the saturation flow rate of the single westbound lane The roadway segment analysis assumes 1,800 vehides per hour per lane for all studv area segments. Due to the traffic calming nature a road diet can have on flovv patterns, a lesser saturation flow rate may be more appropriate. 2. Table 3-1. The street segment analysis is based on peak hour traffic volume as opposed to the daily traffic volume, which is more typically analyzed. 3. Page 3-2. Intersection traflic volumes for two (2) study area intersections, including La Costa Avenue at El Camino Real, were talcen in 2011. These counts are over two years old at the time the study was published. Typically traffic counts that are over one year old are not used for analysis, or if they are used, an adjustment factor is applied to the existmg traffic volume to account for recent growth. The traffic studv should have obtained new counts for the analysis or considered an appropriate adjustment factor. KF uHucie 4. Table 3-2 The intersection Levei of Sen/ice (LOS) analysis is based on Intersection Sfnir . TT 5^u^ -methodology. This methodology is inconsistent with ^u^.^ ''^"'^ '^''"''^ '^^^^ °f the Highway Capacity Manual , (HCM) rnethodology. HCM analysis methodology uses a much more in-depth method ,or calculating LOS, induding pedestrian and bicyde crossings ICU tends to under estimate LOS when compared to HCM. 4000 westerly place, suile 280 nevtTXJrt beach, California 92660 iel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 http://www.rkengfneer.com Mr. Everett Delano DELANO AND DELANO Julys, 2014 Page 2 of 2 5. Page 4-1/Table 4-1. Project trip generation should be based on net new trips resulting from the proposed project, as compared to existing uses that were in operation when the existing traffic counts were taken. Assuming that all currently vacant uses within site would one day again be occupied, should the proposed project not be completed, inaccurately estimates potential impacts. Existing trip credits should not be taken for uses that were not generating traffic when the existing counts were taken. The traffic study should be revised to show the potential impacts resulting from the project based on the actual net new trip increase. To provide an even more accurate analysis of project impacts, existing driveway counts could be taken to measure the shopping center's trip generation. 5. Section 6.0. For the near term without project analysis, the traffic study shows no change in traffic volume along El Camino Real, south of La Costa Avenue, and along Levante Street, east of El Camino Real. This does not seem realistic when compared to the growth expected along other roadways within the study area. It appears the SANDAG Combined North County Transportation Model accounts for growth along these segments, as indicated in the Year 2030 Without Project analysis, so it would seem reasonable to see some growth in near term projections. It would be helpful if further explanation is given as to how near-term traffic volumes were calculated. 7. General comment. The traffic study does not address any site spedfic traffic issues such as; shared paridng, internal drculation, unsignalized project driveway analysis, and sight distance. 8. General comment. The study does not address how the proposed project will comply with the goals and polides of the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Specifically, the City of Carisbad wants to promote, encourage and accommodate a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile. The traffic study should provide recommendations as to how this project can help achieve the City's goals and promote alternative modes of transportation, such as by providing pedestrian and bicyde fadlities, and improved access to public transit. Ifyou have any questions regarding this review, please call our office at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC Bryan Estrada Senior Transportation Planner RK:dt/RK10488.doc JN:2390-2014-01 DELANO & DELANO vu E-MAIL & U.S MAIL City Council City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave.. Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 4,2014 Re: Citv Council Julv 8. 2014 meeting: La Costa Towne Center proiect: SDP 78- Q3rDVSDP 13-03/SUP 13-01/PUD 13-02/MS 13-01 Dear Honorable Members of the Carlsbad City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates in connection with the appeal ofthe proposed La Costa Towne Center project ("Project") and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND"). I. The City Must Meet the Parks and Open Space Performance Standards The requfrements ofthe Carlsbad Growth Management Plan ("GMP") stem from a 1986 local mitiative (Proposition E) and are codified both in the City's General Plan and its zoning ordinance. Among other things, the GMP sets "performance standards" for public facilities, including parks and open space within the City ofCarlsbad. The GMP requfres: "Three acres of community park or special use park per 1,000 population within the Park District, must be scheduled for construction within a five year period." Res. No. 8796, Att. A; Proposition E, a copy of which is attached hereto. Regarding open space, it requires: "Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone exclusive of environmentally consfrained non-developable land must be set aside for open space and must be available concurrent with development." Id. For each zone, a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) was developed; The LFMP for Zone 6 requires that all development within the zone comply with die Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan as adopted by City Council Resolution 8797 on September 23,1987. 'w. D E L A N O A N D D i: L A N O .com 7/7//^ Date:. DistribiitibfK^ City Clerk Asst. City Cierk Deputy Clerk Book 5=- m a- H ^ a r-' > Z o »• a I > m a Si. tn 1^ z s- o § Si. in to O 3 O. Cu p n > o to Ul a p 3 3 o o Ul Ul 3^ o p" Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND, Parks and Open Space July 4,2014 Page 2 of7 A. Parks The Project site is located within Park District Number 4, which is the Southeast Quadrant ofthe city. La Costa Town Center Initial Sfridy, p. 33. The Initial Sfridy correctly repeats the applicable performance standard for parks: tliree acres per 1,000 people within each district. However, it then states that all development within Zone 6 is "conditioned to pay a park-in-lieu fee to satisfy the performance standard established by the GMP." Initial Study, p. 33. The staff report asserts that the proposed project is in compliance with the performance standard for parks. Staff Report, Table 5. During the Planning Commission hearing, staff asserted the Project was in compliance with the performance standards for parks. The City's Response to Comments, Mitigated Negative Declaration, La Costa Towne Center, also reference a "park-in-lieu" fee, and state: "pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report for July 1,2012-Jtme 30, 2013..., the city is currently meeting the applicable standards for park and recreation facilities in the Southeast Quadrant" Response to Comments, p. 4. The conclusion that the southeast quadrant is in compliance with the standards for parks is incorrect. 1. There is a Shortfall of Park Acreage in the Southeast Quadrant a. Current ShortfaU The City of Carlsbad Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report (GMP Monitoring Report) states that 115.7 acres of park land is required in the southeast quadrant to meet the performance standards, but that only 114.9 park acres exist in the quadrant. GMP Monitoring Report, p. 15, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto. Thus, there is a shortfall of 0.8 acres according to that report. However, the numbers in the GMP Monitormg Report are flawed, and the true shortfall is even greater. According to the City of Carlsbad Development Monitoring Report dated May 2014 (acopy of which is attached hereto), there are currently 16,151 dwelling units in the southeast quadrant, which translates to a population of 39,247. Thus, 117.74 acres of park land would be required in order to meet the perfomiance standard in this quadrant.. The City's Draft General Plan lists only 114.9 acres of park land in the southeast quadrant. However, acreage for La Costa Canyon Park (14.7 acres), and for half of Leo Carillo Historic Park (13.7 acres) should not be counted towards the performance standards because the City counts those acres as hardline Habitat Management Plan (HMP) land. Community parks are those areas designed to serve the recreational needs of several neighborhoods, and contain facilities such as group picnic areas, turfed ogen space areas for free play, tot lot areas, multipurpose playfields, and Other sfrucfrjres. City of Carlsbad General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element,- p. 3. Those types ofnftfSSQaSrohibited within HMP open space areas. Muni. Code Chapter 21.3^f^|^^5fllflyh?^eas designated as HMP open space are subtracted, the southeast quadrant isTettw'rtn a Shortfall of 31.24 acres of park spaee. This is depicted in the table below: >neiD ytiD >helO yJiO AaeA )he\0 ytuqsQ >(ooai Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND, Parks and Open Space July 3,2014 Page 3 of7 Quadrant Population Park Acres Required Existing Park Acres Shortfall South East (SE) 39,247 117.74 86.5 Commumty parks: 74.3 Special use areas: 12.2 31.24 acres b. Future Shortfall The City estimates the future poptilation of the southeast quadrant at 41,785, which would requfre 125.4 acres of open space in order to be compliant with the performance standards.' However there are no additional park acres planned within the southeast quadrant The present shortfall of 31.24 acres will increase to a future shortfall of 38.9 acres. In its recent cityviade analysis of future park acreage, the City has counted Veteran's Memorial Park as a "citywide" park, and proceeded to divide the 90 acre park between the four quadrants, adding 22.5 acres of "future park areas" to each quadrant City of Carlsbad Draft General Plan. With those additional acres, the City concludes that each ofthe quadrants will be compliant with the park standards at "buildout" Draft General Plan, Table 4-7. However, this reasoning is flawed and the conclusion is incorrect Veteran's Memorial Park is fri the Northwest quadrant of the City. There is nothing in the voter approved Growth Management Plan that allows for a park to be counted in the acreage of a different quadrant The City does have the authority to change the standards put in place by an initiative approved by the voters. The Califomia Constitution defines an initiative as "the power ofthe electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them." Marbleheadv. City of San Clemente (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1504, 1509 (citing Cal. Const., Art. H, §8). Voters have the authority of fhe local legislative body. Legislature of tke State of California v. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal.3d 658,675. The Califomia Supreme Court has explamed: "The initiative and referendum are not rights 'granted the people, but... power[s] reserved by them.... If doubts can reasonably be resolved in favor of the use of this reserve power, courts will preserve it'" Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4* 688,695 (citations omitted). 2. The City's "Threshold" is Inconsistent with Proposition E The GMP Monitorfrig Report, and its conclusion that the City is currently meeting the performance standards for parks, contains a flawed analysis. It states that, despite the current shortfall of park acreage, the southeast quadrant is "not out of compliance with the performance standard because neitiier the time frame nor dwelling unit thresholds have been reached." GMP Monitoring Report, p. 15. The report goes on to state that the ' This population estfrnate appears in the City's Draft General Plan at Table 4-7. Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND, Parks and Open Space July 4,2014 Page 4 of7 have been reached." GMP Monitorfrig Report, p. 15. The report goes on to state that the "threshold" for triggering construction of a new park is either five years or "before the cumulative construction of 1,562 dwelling units, whichever occurs later." GMP Monitoring Report, p. 15 at fii2. It also states that "scheduled for construction" means that "the improvements have been designed, a park site has been selected, and a financing plan for construction of the facility has been approved." Id. This arbifrary "threshold" set by the City is inconsistent with the standards mandated by the voters in Proposition E. A threshold of 1,562. dwelling units completely annihilates the time firame requirement contained in tiie yoter-approved GMP. Under tiiat standard, park districts, or quadrants, could be failing to meet the requisite 3 acres of park per 1,000 people for years, or even decades, until that arbitrary threshold of dwelling units has been built. Furthermore, the City's definition of "scheduled for constniction" provides no assurance of when the park would actually be constmcted; it requires only an approval of design and financing. A shortfall of paric acreage could continue for years under such a definition. This is not consistent witii either the letter or the spfrit of Proposition E. B. Open Space 1. The City Must Analyze Open Space Acreage City staff asserted at the hearing that the open space standard does not apply to Zone 6. The Staff Report lists tiie impacts of tiie Project on the open space standard as non-applicable. Staff Report, Table 5. At tiie Planning Commission hearing. City staff Don Neu pointed out that when the initial LFMP was created for Zone 6, it was determined to be complaint with the performance standards for open space. He asserted that therefore there was no need for City staff to analyze open space compliance at this time. This assertion, as well as the reasoning behind it, is incorrect and imsupported. Zone 6 is obligated to comply with the performance standards for open space just as all the other Zones are, and the City has failed to analyze whether the project is in conformance with those standards. Pursuant to the 1986 Growth Management Plan ("GMP"), a Local Facilities Management Plan ("LFMP") was prepared for Zone 6? The LFMP states: "Existing open space meets the adopted performance standard." However it also noted: "An ^ Proposition E (and Ordinance 9824 which implemented Prop E), provides: "The City Council or the Planning Commission shall not find that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need as requfred by the Public Facilities Element and the City's 1986 growth management plan unless the provision of such facilities is guaranteed." Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND, Parks and Open Space July 4,2014 Page 5 of7 ongoing work program will assure the open space perfonnance standard is maintained through build out" The LFMP also lists three Special Conditions for Zone 6 Open Space. The thfrd Special Condition includes tiie following requfrement: "Prior to approval of a proposed development in Zone 6, tiie approving autiiority shall be requfred to find tiiat the development contributes to meeting tiie open space facility performance standard at build out and tiiat the development does not preclude the provision of performance standard open space at tiie build out of Zone 6." 2. Zone 6 Does Not Meet the Performance Standards The applicable perfomiance standards requfre fifteen percent of tiie total land area in tiie zone, exclusive of envfronmentally constrained non-developable land, to be set aside for open space. The LFMP for Zone 6 states tiiat the total acreage for the zone is 2,674.1. Thus the amoimt of non-consfrained open space requfred to meet the Performance Standard is 401.1 acres. The City's GIS data reveals tiiat tiie total amount of open space inthe category of "Open Space for the Preservation of Natural Resources" is 454.59 acres. A copy of an exfraction of the City's GIS data related to Zone 6 is attached hereto. The GIS data also shows tiiat there are 269.8 acres of envfronmentally constrained land witihin Zone 6. Subfracting the consfrained land from the open space total reveals that there is a shortfall of 131.3 acres of open space in Zone 6. This is shown on the table below: Total Acres m Zone 6 15% (requfred to meet Open Space Performance Standards) Total Open Space in Zone^ Constrained Open Space in Zone Amount of Open Space Shortfall 2,674.1 401.11 454.59 269.78 131.33 n. The Project Should Not Be Approved Unless the Perfonnance Standards for Parks and Open Space Have Been Met Proposition E, passed by the City's voters m 1986'* stated; NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED by tiie City of Carlsbad unless it is guaranteed that concurrent with need all necessary public facilities be provided as required by [the 1986 growth man^ement plan] ' This is the total for Category 1 open space, which is tiie category of "Open Space for tiie Preservation of Natural Resources." The total amount of open space listed in the City's GIS data for all four categories is 917.46 acres. ^ On December 2,1986, tiie City certified the passage of Proposition E at tiie November 4,1986 election, and adopted and ratified the proposition as Ordinance No. 9824. Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND, Parks and Open Space July 3,2014 Page 6 of7 with emphasis on ensuring good fraffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities; It also stated: The City Council or the Planning Commission shall not find tiiat all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent witii need as requfred by the Public Facilities Element and the City's 1986 growth management plan unless the provision of such facilities is guaranteed. Thus Proposition E cemented the requfrement that the Public Facilities Standards laid out in tihe City's 1986 Growtii Management Plan must be guaranteed before development can be approved.^ The Carlsbad Municipal Code codifies this requfrement, stating: "no development permit shall be approved unless the approving authority finds that the permit is consistent with the city-wide facilities and unprovements plan and titie applicable local facilities management plan." Muni. Code Chapter 21.90.040. The Code fiirther provides tihat if at any time the performance standards established by a LFMP are not met, "then no development permits or building permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met..." Muni. Code Chapter 21.90.080. The 1986 Guidelines for Preparation of Local Facility Management Plans states that if tiiere is a shortfall in park space, tiie plan for parks shall eitiier "provide a plan for eliminating the shortfall, or indicate the intent to suspend development in the zone for a period of time, until the necessary facilities are constmcted."^ The LFMP for Zone 6 specifically provides that, if the City Council determines that a non-conformance exists, tihen "no future building or development permits shall be issued until those facilities are brought into conformance with the adopted performance standard." Condition 7 ofthe LFMP states: "no building permits will be allowed unless the performance standards are complied with." * The Grovrth Management Plan was adopted in a series of Resolutions: Resolution No. 8796, establishing the clarified Performance Standards for tiie Growth Management Program; Resolution No. 8797, approving the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; Resolution No. 8798, establishing the guidelines for the preparation of tiie Local Facility Management Plans; Resolution No. 8799, establishing a Local Facility Management Plan Processing Fee. ^ On April 14,1987, the City provided policy dfrection to staff by confirming the residential performance standards of the Growth Management Plan only affect residential development, and not other types of development such as commercial and industrial. Thus for parks, if tihe standard is not met then only residential development is stayed, for open space, all development is stayed. Comments re La Costa Towne Center Project and MND, Parks and Open Space July 4,2014 Page 7 of7 Because the City is not currentiy meeting the applicable standards for park facilities in tiie Soutiieast Quadrant, no residential development can be allowed. Because tiie City is not currently meeting tile applicable standards for open space in Zone 6, no development can be aUowed. To approve tiie Project would violate Proposition E, tiie City's Municipal Code, and the LFMP for Zone 6. Accordingly, Nortii Comity Advocates respectfiilly requests you reject tiie Project and MND. Thank you for your consideration of these concems. Sincerely, Everett DeLano Enclosures: City ofCarlsbad Proposition E Resolution No. 8796 City ofCarlsbad Growth Management Program Development Monitoring Report, May 2014 City ofCarlsbad Fiscal Year 2012-13 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report, July 1,2012 tiirough June 30,2013 Spreadsheet extracted from GIS data showing open space m Zone 6 Spreadsheet exfracted from GIS data showmg environmentally consfrained lands in Zone 6 CD containing data extiiactions from City's GIS files re open space cc: Shannon Wemeke, Associate Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD I Proposition E . - | RL 0 - 1.S 1.0 RLM 0 - 4.0 3.2 RM 4 - 8.0 B.0 RMH 8 - 15,0 11.5 RH .15 - 23.0 19.0 . (Confinued on neia page] pft-eoi.i *>S-38 I {This proposition w8l appear on the l^allot In the foHowing form.) E Shan an ordinance lae adopted tgj^oyida as a part of the 198» grcnvth managemont plan tiiat 1) NO DEVELOPMENT SHMi. BE' . APPROVE fay tha^ of Carfsbad unlesa H is guarmtned that concufreiil wiSi need al necessaiy puUp facffiaes l»e provided as reqdred bf said ptari iMflt omphaf^ 6n ensuring good traffic drculation; schools,'parfo. Ibrarias, epen space and recra^ioiai amenllies; and 2) the City Councfl shafl not approve residentiai development which would increase the number of dwalflng units beyond the bnit in sohf ordinance WITHOUT AN AFRRMATIVE VOTC OF THE CmZENa Tl»a Cty may add additional pubOe (acSties. Tha City shaB not rscAjca pufaiSc fadlities without a correspondng reduction tn the residential dwelGng unit imit. PROPOSEO ORDINANCE The People of the City of Cartsbad do ordain es follows: A. That the Carload general plan shall be amended by the amsndoiem of U» PubSc Fadlities and Land Use Elements to add tha folowinj: Tha Oty of Cartsbad in in^letnenang Its pubSe faciBties eiemeni md growth management plan has made an estimate of tha number of dwalBng urats that wiB be buSt as a result of the application of the den^ ranges in the Land Usa Element to intSvkSua projact^ The CUys Capttai Improvement Budget, growth management plan, and pubCe facilities plana ara aB based on tMs estimate. In order to ensure that ti neoassary put^ fadlitias wH be avalabie concunent with naed to serve new dev^pment H is necessaiy to Mt the naribef of re^dentfal dw^ng urats which ean be constiucted in tha City to ittat estimate. Fbr tfiat purpose tha City has bean efividad into four quadrants along El Camino Real and Pak)mar Airport Road Tha rnaxirnum nuniber of iBsidentiatdw^ to bd constructed or approved in the City after November 4, 1986 is as follows: Nortiiwest Quadrant 5,844: Mortheast Quadrant 6,166; Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southeast Quadrant 10,801. The City sliall not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, terAseve svbdMsion map or other dscretionary approvei for a development which couid re»j!t in devetopment above the Hmit in any quadrant, in order to ensure that development : does not exceed the imit the (ollowing growth management control point? are estabSshsd fbr the Land Use Element density ranges. ALLOWED DWELUNG UNnS PER ACRE I ! GeneralPlan Growth Managemeat I Densitv Ranges Control Point . / I T?ie shaB not approve any residential development at a density th« exceeds the I gowfii managetiiem control point for tiia. applicabiB density, range wfthout maldng tha J foliowing ancBngs: ^, 1. ThM the project wili {»ovideaufiiclam8ddl&6nBlpub&e fadlities for the density in ' e>Rsss of tha control point to ensure ttat ttia adequacy of the City's public fadlities plans > wiBnotbejadvarsalympaeted.. -:. » 2. Tftat there have been sufildera davetopmens approyed In the quadrant at cfen^ties b^qfw the contrd point to cover tira units bi the prajact ^va the coiifroi point so y» ap|>ro«8l WiB not rasult in exceeding the quadrant limit Thd CSty Manager shaJJ monitor an approvate and report to fl» Planning Commission and^ CouiKi on an annuai basb to ensure ths the construcSoh of residential units within eadi quiadrant, on a cumulafiva bads, win be at or below the growth management controi pdnts arKi ttai the overall quadrant Onits are b^ng maintained.' If the annual {^Oftintfpates In any way that it is Hceiy that the limit may be exceeded, the Council shall tsk» a^MOpiia^ aeSon t>y reviang the growm management plan and tha City's zoning coda to eitstttB thA ttie caOngs vviB be msintained. ,Th»^C6uiKa or the Planning ConvTfesion ShaB not fiifid that a^ nacessary^^rj;;B]^ ladia^s WiB ba av^t^ concurrent )pi need aareguH^ by the PubBc FadSiies Bement and tie CIt/s 1986 growth managematlirplsi linlsMlJia provi^n ot such facilities is guvantaed. In guaranteeing^tat'fl)^ facSfies win be provided emphasis. shaH be gven K> ensuring good traffic drculafiop, §s6«5j3^J?(^s%c%PBg?.r«Be^ recreational amenities.- PubBc latStiieamiv be added. The City Cc>unal,^^aB not misteclaSy reduce pubflc fadHties vrilhout making corresponding reducforia in re^Sntiai danaitias.. Nottnng in liss secfon staB be construed as d»n^ng the requirement ^al any apedfic laddeniSal density abova the minimum aitowed by the Land Use Etemerd der^ity ranges and the appBcabia zorring shall be jusfilied according to the requirements of the apja'oprtala General Plan and zoning prowslons. (CoiiinuBd on next page) 1 B. Tha zoning map of ^Cltyof Carlsbad ShaU be amended to proWde that Ixiitding permits Issued or improved tor residenlial dwoBlng unlta In tho City atter November 4, 1986 ShaB not exceed the iimlls established In the map in this section. Tha numbers on the map ShaH not be Increased without an afiirmativa vote of the people. < • * • * . i • • • ;• f ! li ' - -t —J C The Oty Coundl abas adopt amandments to Chapter 21.90 of the Cartsbad Munidpal Code (Growth ManagemenQ as necessaiy to inclement the General Plan amendment of Section A and the M^} of Section B. 0. TTtIs onHnanee b inconsistent with and intended as an attemaSve to any {ntilatlve ordinance which would place an annual numerieai fimiiaiion on the rsSa of ra^danSd constmction. If this or<finanee and any such inWative oridlnanca are both passed by a majority voting thereon then the ona with tha most votossSwH prevai." 4tS-40 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RBSOLQflON KO. 8796 A RESbLTJTIOKr OP THB CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITiT OP CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MINOR REVISIONS TO THE POBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BB USED IN IMPLEMENTING THB GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NO." 9808 tGROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE). WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986, the City Council adopted ordinance So. 9808 which established a Growth Management Ordinance for the City of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, one of the-primary purposes of Ordinance No, 9808 was to prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and services to serve the growth is provided when t^ey are needed in a phased and logical way; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 1986, the City Coui^cil adopted the ... . • i . . Public Facility and Service Perforaiance Standards to be used in preparing the Citywide Facilities and Improveaieitts Plan as part of the Growth Management Program; «tnd WHEREAS, these standards are being redefined or rephased bo clarify the specific meaning and purpose of each; and WHEREAS, the intent of the original standards will remain Intact and that the clarified standards are needed to be able to sideguately determine the timing for public facilities aad services and to assess whether they are being provided in a phased and Logical way; and WHEREAS, standards are needed to provide a mechanism to continually monitor the adequacy of public facilities and services as growth occurs; and WHEREAS, Section 21.90.080 of Ordinance No. 9808 requires bhe adoption by City Council Resolution of Performance Standards; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, that the Public Fjacility and Servio- Performance Standards as contained on attached iExhibit "A" are hereby adopted and shall be used in the implemejntation of Ordinance No. 9808 - The Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad city Council held on the 23rd day of September . 1986 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin. Chick and Pettine NOES: None ABSENT: Nona T r ^t^'tM^ MARY H.^CASLER, Mayor ~~ ATTEST: RLETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cl^rJt (SEAL) -2- EXHIBIT "A" RESOLDTION m, 8796 PUBLIC FACILITY AND SWflCS PERFORMftNCB STANDARDS Facility/Service City Administrative Facilities Library Wastewater Treataaent Capacity Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Distribution System Standard i 1500 square feet per 1,000 population must be scheduled for coitstruction within a five year period, 800 square feet per 1,000 population most be scheduled for construction within a five year period. Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least a five year period. Three acres of comratinity park or speci2d. use park per 1,000 population within the Park District, must be scheduled for c(»tstruction within a five ^ar period. Draitiage facilities must be ^ovided as required by the City concurrent with devejlopBient. No road segment ox: intersection in the sone ix>r any road segment or intersecticst out of the zone %^ich is inqpacted by development in the stone shatll be projected to exceed a service level.c during off- peak hottrs, nor servi<» level p dtiring peak hours. Is^cted means «3iere 20% or sore of the tiraffic generated by the local facility managaooent zone will use the rosid segment or intersection. No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five minute response time. Fifteen percent of the total ^and area in the zone exclusive of enviromsentally boostrained non- developable land mnst be set <9side for permanent open space eutd must be avallalsle concurrent with develbpitent. Scdtool capacity to meet: projected enrollment within the zone as detemined 1^ the appropriate school district must be provided pri^r to projected occupan^. Trunk line capacity to meet demand as detemined by the «^propriate sew^ disttict must be provided concurrent vith development. ' Line capacity to meet demand as detenolned by the appropriate m.ter district must be provided con- current with development. A minimum 10 average day 3tor4ge capacity must be provided concurrent with development. tn 45. o I-* o o O O O to M (-» l-» tn tn O O o> tn n n 03 03 IO to Ji. in 01 00 M O O o o n n 03 C3 O [O o o to to a-1 CD CT) Ofl o o n n t33 a: ro cn o o to IO cn cn i-» CTl to O I-' Hi VO CO n n 03 03 O o N) ro Hi I-> ai cn CT> cn U) n n 03 03 NJ to I-» l-» cn cn to tn O IO o o n n 03 03 to IO cn ff» w 4i» o 4a. O O O O to n n 03 03 cn o to tu o o IO to cn tn cn <JD iM ^ o o o o n 03 03 N> IO l-i I-* cn cn to Ol o o 03 03 O O n n OD 03 IO IO tn I-* H* O O IO to o W IO o o o o o o 03 03 IO to »-» l-» tn CTt ID cn to IO v-l. IO Ul OJ IO cn o o 03 O O n n 03 03 CO CO O O O O o n 03. 03 IO to IO l-» I-* tn Ol tn tn js> tn CTl cn 01 i-» v-» i-» to to NJ *. to o o o o o o oon 03 03 03 IO IO ai ai 45. tn ai u3 O IM to to j-i (-» tn cn f-» 4^1 o tn o o cn w I-* tu o o o 03 03 I-» O cn 4S. O O O O; 03 03 Ul H C C ?0 30 m > m m m ^ 5q ^ ^ 3 5 2 >! § rn iri iri ^ I— r- r- 1 5S ^ o o o a m rn m S ^ ^ > > > 30 33 33 <m<w<ro<>mO<<^rom^ Ht7^3>to<o5o3"^'" 33 33 > > < 03 5 o 3 = z o 33 m > I— 33 o c/1 > > > i o > > Z > z > o m s c z > o o 5 i z o 33 m > < > > Z > n > r-m ''^ ^ < 9 > 5 ^ 2 ^ ^ O ^ ^ E > d >* S > z > > 2 2 m 5|5 z 5 z o > o z 2 z > z > > IP >: S 2 O > > 33 O S2 Z li/i > Im 33 33 33 ooa •vl O vl vl O O NJ vl O CD 03 O O 00 o 33 to trt tn 33 o 'A NJ IO IO tn vj vl N) ib s vl l-» ooo NJ CO tu vl ^ ID sis CD U5 U3 ID §§§§§ I-* OOO trt tn Ul OOOO tn to Crt tn vl tn cu tn to to O o '•O CD !2 IO ttJ NJ o o w CO to 00 vl to cu NJ to 5q (U 33 Q O H Itrt -I c nn fm C NJ NJ Ul " 5 S to vo CD S S K isi tsJ g K hi VD VD vl l-> l-» NJ OOOOO lrt tn tn trt trt OOO trt Crt t/l OOOOOO tn trt trt tn trt trt CT a n o P5 « CO N o CT 0\ o p tu to 00 CD 00 tn O 4S. vl NJ o 2 o S o S o S o o o o b i-» CO to tn go 4» o cu tn tu tn ooooooooo o o o o o o (D vl cu in lU 4:> 00 tu CTl 00 CD cu o tn to ooo ooo ooo ooo tu S NJ 00 vo o 00 tn NJ CD o o o o o vo VD tn (_» U3 UJ vo 4i Ol O NJ o 9 o 9 o 9 ° 9 o o NJ o tn l-» M vo o o Vj in Ol o 9 ° 9 o o to l-» tn o o o o o o o o o fa Vj Ol 00 NJ (O tn to o a w O VD cn lu 00 VD O VD o b Ol cn vn o cn o o o o o o o o o o o o fa fa UJ vo 4S> 4> vl oo tn in NJ o o o io o NJ 1-4 00 NJ o o o o o O CTl i-* 00 vo i-» tn vj 4!> NJ 00 00 9 o 9 o 9 o o o o o o o o b i-» tu to tu vl 00 cn vl CD in vl o o fa b O 00 NJ lU to NJ CO cn o to S o o o o o o tn 00 lu U) to cn o o o o o o o p o -l 4:^ vJ (D to 00 " 00 CJU l-» Ol o o o o o 9 ° 9 o o cn cn cn cn cn CTl cn aioioiCTioioioiCTioicioioioiaioioioioicnoioioioiCTioiCTiliM hi CT NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ to NJ NJ to NJ NJ NJ NJ to NJ NJ NJ N) to to NJ NJ JO IO NJ to NJ NJ NJ to NJ NJ NJ 1-4 1-4 t-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 NJ 1-4 f-4 1-4 1-4 f-4 f-4 to I-4 IO f-4 1-4 1-4 M t-4 1-4 i-4 f-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 tu tu Ol Cl Ol cn cn Ol cn tu ai cn cn 01 0^ 01 CJJ cn UJ tn cn CTI 01 01 cn Ol 01 Ol cn tn 01 cn cn •t!. •Pi tn 4^ 45^ 4i. cn 1-4 cn 4i f-4 4i 4S> cn 01 tn 01 1-4 tn 45. tu UJ tn 4^ 4^ 45. *4 tn 45. i-» cn cn ID CTl ai 01 o 00 o o NJ O O o l-» VD M M CD CTl vl VI 00 0^ 01 Ol CTI 01 cn vl vl M to o 1-4 o O o o o to f-» NJ to o vl o vl O O M O O o O VU 1-4 f-4 tu NJ NJ N) I-' NJ NJ 4s> o NJ o o to O O o O 1-4 NJ cn O H' O o o to O 1-4 f-4 IO 1-4 M o CTl 00 M to ID NJ NJ cn tn 01 O tn 45. i-> 01 01 NJ i-» OJ 4i UJ NJ 45> 00 OO tn vJ CTl cn o o O O O O O O o o o o O o O o o o O o o o tn 45> O O O o o O O o o O o O o o O o o o o O O O o o o O o o o 00 f-4 O o O o o O o o o n n o o o O o o n o o o n n o o o o o o O O O O o O O o o (33 03 03 CO 03 03 00 03 03 03 03 CO 03 CO 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 00 2 £> U3 03 33 33 > 33 > 33 < rn Z 3 < > > Z > < > > z < > trt 33 m > > z > 2 > n > o m > 2 O > > 33 m Z > r- tn m trt trt Z o 33 m > O O z z 33 33 > > > 33 m Z > 33 > z n X o trt > Z •n m 8 a m f— > 33 03 33 > 33 O m > 33 O (75 33 > < > D m •T3 > i trt C < 52 < < Crt > a o > 2 > z > > 2 > o m Z o z > U, cq 33 O O O NJ to O cn to 1-4 CAJ >0 U3 iS S vo IS S fo IO g IO Ili K o ooooooo Crt tn to trt tn tn tn 5 Q (8 O NJ NJ VO VD tn CTl 00 JP> 33 33 tn 33 33 o o -I O O O O O vl O O NJ Ol > < m 01 NJ vl vl vl vl (D Ol op 5 tn tu NJ NJ NJ s 00 in iS Ol tn to UJ I n o p in % CL t/3 N o 3 CT Ol H* VO 00 bl t-4 NJ tu vl vl CTl 9} NJ 9 o O o 9 o 9 o 9 o o o o o o o p i-4 fa fa fa J-4 cn tn vo CTl UJ 00 f-4 1-4 UJ tn 01 tn vo VD vl Q? NJ tn NJ cn cn tu tu o NJ VD to o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 01 cn cn cn cn to vl 1-4 Ol NJ o o o o o p I-.4 O p f-4 UJ fa t-4 f-4 o O o Vl o f-4 tn 00 NJ tn vl o VD to Ol O O lU to o O CM o o O 45> o o O O o o O a o o O o o CTl Ol cn Ol t-4 in O 1-4 1-4 O O 1-4 tn o vl CTl tn Q vi o o o o o o 2 1-4 vl cu cn 8 8 O 45. tn 45. VD 00 to O NJ vo tn 00 O O o o o o fa 4^ f-» 1-4 1-4 01 VO o o o o p J-4 vl o vl t-4 UJ CO 00 ^ UJ O o o o o o o f-4 O VD fa in UJ O Ol fS ^ vo VD 9 ° 9 o 9 ° 9 o o o o o vl to 4s> vl ooo tu NJ O NJ t-4 vl vo (O lU O O O O O O O O tn UJ o o o o o o CTI 1-4 00 vl § o o fa 45. cn 23 00 GO O O O O Ol Ol 01 OltnOlOlCTlCTlOlCTlOlCTlOlCTlOlCTlOlCTlCTlOlOlCTlOlOlOlOlOlOlOl 01 CT NJ NJ to f-4 f-4 cn cn 4^ (AJ cn UJ to NJ 00 45. o o o o n 03 03 NJ IO to NJ i-4 t-4 UJ Ol cn to tn 4^ VD vo 01 tn O 1-4 1-4 to 4^ 1-4 o o o o oon 03 03 03 NJ NJ NJ f-4 UJ 01 NJ 45. tu t-4 o o vl NJ NJ tn VD O O 03 03 NJ NJ to f-4 f-4 1-4 CTl CTl 01 1-4 cn " N» O 4!> O to O tn UJ o o o o ooo 03 03 03 45. CTI O CU O O O to to f-4 1-4 01 01 1-4 45. NJ Ol 45. O 1-4 N) vl O to NJ 1-4 f-4 tn 01 tn *. Ol CTl 1-4 o o O NJ tn o o o o 03 03 o o 03 03 NJ NJ 1-4 1-4 cn cn 45. 45. Ol cn tu 1-4 O H. VD 00 O O o o o o 03 03 M NJ i-x i-l ai Ol 4^ 45. 01 cn NJ 1-4 ou NJ O NJ NJ NJ 1-4 M tn 01 tn *. cn cn 1-4 o o o o o 03 03 00 O O o o to NJ f-4 t-4 CTI tn tn tn ID Ol NJ 1-4 O f-l NJ NJ 1-4 1-4 cn 01 f-4 4i NJ 01 4^ O cn o o o o oo NJ 1-4 o o o o CO 03 03 03 03 03 NJ NJ NJ f-4 1-4 1-4 CTl CTl tn tu t-» 03 cn f-4 O NJ O NJ UJ vl O O OOO CO 03 03 1-4 in 1-4 NJ O O NJ NJ t-» vl f-4 VO O o NJ 1-4 UJ cn Cl 4S. CT) 1-4 NJ 00 o o to NJ to f-» tu cn 01 4i. o NJ 1-4 vl o o o o 03 (33 vl NJ UJ O O O O 03 03 Tl tn o > O O Z > o S 33 > 33 < > 2 > Z > m Z > 33 m Z > <m<m<crt<><m< Z o 33 m rn > 2 > z o 33 m > > 2 > z > 5 =i tn > O O m Z I— m m I— -0 O > 2 > z > < C O i m m < •D > O ^ > 2 > Z > m £D Z e z > z H o o z > 33 o > o > o m z o > < g > 2 > z > 03 33 > > 33 O 33 > I 3 tn 33 -i O o o ° Prf 00 IO tn UJ 1-4 q to vl U3 vl NJ g f-4 ro tu q 5 q NJ UJ N) NJ NJ fU 00 1-4 00 ID (Jp QO f-4 O Ol 1-4 -fe . O tn 5 vl VD CD VO 03 NJ tn 33 (rt o -< trt NJ NJ VO O NJ VU in tn 00 lU tn o o oo tjj NJ NJ cn ooooooooooo biirtUitntntntntrtCrttntn vl 1-4 00 Ol in vl tn Crt trt OOO trt Crt trt CT a o 3 t/l i- CT r n CL CO N o as NJ O VO fa 00 to NJ vl VO VO to tn o o o o o o o fa 5 il O o o o Ol CD lU vl vl M O o o o o UJ 45. cn tn NJ tn o tn tn O o o o o o fa f-4 00 (D NJ 4:> cn tn tn cu 01 CD NJ O o o o o o fa NJ vl NJ UJ to W O O O O O O fa fa 03 tn tu o tn NJ o fa vl o tu to O Q 03 10 f-4 H vl 1-4 Vj o o o o fa o Ol UJ 00 ooo o o o . 8 to vo tn ooo - o o o o o o 1-4 f-4 NJ 45. lu in CTI VD o o o o o 00 00 ai tn vl O 00 J-4 tu ° R Ul o o 9 ° 9 o 9 o o o o o o fa fa UJ CTI tn h* O 01 _ o to VD tn cn CO in 45. - o o o o o o o o in f-4' o o o o vl vl o VD o o o o o fa o . o 00 NJ 4:^ 01 UJ f-4 o o o o o tn tn cn o o Ol Ol cn aiOlOlCTlOlOlOlOlCTlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOl 1-4 o in 1-4 vl 00 o o o o o o o o fa CTI in o o iu CO 1-4 UJ to UJ cn CTl Ol - vl tn NJ to ° 9 o o o o o 9 o o s in o o o o ai 01 CTl 01 SB OQ CT to NJ NJ NJ NJ to NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ to NJ NJ to to NJ NJ to NJ NJ to to NJ to to NJ to NJ to to f-» NJ 1-4 f-4 1-4 1-4 f-4 1-4 1-4 M f-4 f-4 fT4 1-4 t-4 f-4 1-4 t-4 f-4 NJ 1-4 !-4 f-4 1-4 1-4 f-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 t-4 NJ CT) UJ in cn in 01 tn 01 tn tn 01 cn cn cn tn 01 tn 01 Ol UJ 01 cn 01 CT) tn cn tn cn CTI tn UJ 45. cn 1-4 45. tn 45. 1-4 tn M tn to tn tn 4i. f.4 4S. 1-4 f-4 tu f-4 45. UJ 4i 454 1-4 UJ 1-4 45. tn cn Ol 1-4 f-4 cn cn o 1-4 ID l-> 01 VD 00 vo Ol !-» CTI 1-4 to 00 VO O 00 cn CTI ro r-4 NJ CT) cn cn f-4 UJ vl o 00 1-4 NJ o UJ o f-4 O o o 1-4 o UJ o 1-4 o o NJ o 1-4 to o o o 1-4 o 1-4 Vl to 1-.4 Ol f-4 M o CTI O Ol to 45. o o to Ol 1-4 tn f-4 1-4 NJ O 1-4 45. UJ 45. 1-4 UJ NJ NJ t-4 o CO 00 UJ NJ tn 1-4 cn oa tn O vl 1-4 f-4 tn NJ tn VI Vl 4i cn UJ CT) tn 1-4 tn cn tn UJ NJ 4i. 00 o o o o o o o O O o O o o o o o o o 00 NJ o f-4 o o o o o O O o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o O O tn o o VO o o o o o O O o o o o o o O o o o O o O o o o o O O O O o o o o o o o O O O o o 03 03 0(3 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 w 03 03 CO 03 03 on o > o m Z o > o > 1— m m Z r- m 33 > m r- T3 > H O O z o 33 > o > r— m o > I— m H > O m > 33 G) O 1— O z o 33 > ^ m > o i o m r— > 33 > 2 > Z > o > r- m m Z o > r— m 03 O O Crt -4 o o z > 33 5 trt o z o 33 > il O I z > 33 O > m z m o > 33 > O O t— > 33 m 33 5 < § > 2 > z > i > 2 > m o ^ > O O m Z o > 3 tn H q q o o o o to to O VD NJ vl cn o g q cq (q NJ NJ O NJ VO O O id w 00 Ol O 33 O cn O 33 O O 33 to NJ NJ to to vl t-» (JP o VO o tn S o 1^ M Vl i3 tn f-» i-» tn tn tn O tu to vl l-l vo >J ^ cn 00 01 00 v^ tn O r- r- M z z NJ s CO to q ^ NJ NJ tn UJ OOOOO t/l tn trt tn tn CT O o 3. m i. 3 CT p. r £2 3 Cu t/3 N o 3 CT C5N o vo p p o p o o o o o fa vl f-4 J-4 fa J-4 (U fo cu fa fa tu Vj CTI *. tn UJ f-4 o tu VI o NJ o 00 f-4 O Ol tn tu NJ Ol o (D tn tn tn tn 1-4 UJ U) UJ to 45. 00 vo *. M 1-4 1-4 Ol 4i. o tn to o o t-* (O CD NJ vl VD in o 00 f-4 o o o tn O o o o VD o o o o O O O o o o o tn o o o O O O o o o o 00 o o o o O O o o o o o o o o o O O o o o o o cn cn Ol Ol Ol cn Ol cn cn 01 01 f-4 Vl o O O o o NJ O fa fa to to NJ 45. NJ O UJ tn O to O VD 9 o 9 C3 9 o o O OOO 00 Ol vl cn vo vl O o o o o o o o o 00 f-4 ou to o f-4 o vo i o o o o o o o o 1-4 to tn f-4 NJ vl o o o o o i UJ tn NJ o o o o o o o fa fa vl tn 00 NJ tn o gg o o o o o o o o o o cn 00 fO o VD o o o o o fa O O O O 45. o 00 cn 00 NJ vl 03 00 1-4 o o o o 1-4 NJ 4^ O O 00 vl 1-4 UJ 00 o UJ 00 to 00 1-4 NJ (O tn ^ in in o 0 0 4^0 oooo oooo oooo oooo OQ CT Ol cn Ol cn Ol cn (n NJ NJ NJ 1-4 UJ CTI Ol 45. 1-4 tn vl tu 1-4 vl O O tu o o o o o 00 cn to NJ 1-4 f-4 cn cn in tn vo vo UJ o o o vl NJ o o o o o o 03 03 NJ NJ f-4 f-4 cn Ol 45. to cn vo UJ o 4^ 454 o 4^ 1-4 1-4 O o O O 03 DO H O > 3D m m Z Z o > 1— m 8 S O m ^ m 5q I- 33 Z O CT 3 OOOOO' vl tn o 00 vo to o o vo , VD vo vo VD (D to NJ to NJ to N; o o 3 t/3 ET B 5" CT CU I p- co N o CJl OOOOOO trt trt trt tn tn tn to o^ _ ID cn vl fa 00 tn UJ i-» 00 UJ 00 00 o o VD to vo l-> >J o f-4 tu fa o 1-4 O 00 cn tu . 00 CO UJ vl 1-4 9 00 UJ 9 009 009 009 O Q o o 8 tn o to o to 01 vl UJ 000 vl 00 vl o o (n cn CTl 01 (31 cn h3 OQ CT V^ lrt on trt trt NJ O UJ UJ UJ UJ ou f-4 UJ 01 Ol 01 CTI cn cn cn CTl CTI cn cn 01 Ol Ol CTI Ol cn cn CTl Ol Ol cn 01 Ol cn CTl Ol cn Ol Ol CTl cn CTl NJ 1-4 tn tn Ol 1-4 O 00 O O to 1-4 2 cn N) o vl o o NJ 1-4 tn tn Ol 1-4 NJ 01 o O O DO O DO O DD NJ to t-4 I M Ol cn tn NJ VD 4i 1 O l-» I NJ Ol I O O 1 O O O o o 03 OD. NJ •• ro t-4 OiO DD { CD NJ 1-4 in f-» to O o o NJ 1-4 cn NJ CO UJ o tu o 03 o DD > G) O r-o z D Z > o > I— m m 2 D > m trt m Dm m i in 33 I m O > 33 > o o m 33 m N 00 I 33 tn 'a i-l lrt I o ! 33 33 I > O NJ VO vl UJ tn vl in UJ tn VO to 8 vo VO NJ O O (D UJ to VO NJ O O to (O to O O VD ii oa f-> VD VD VO W I NJ O I O O I O CD I VD VD VD NJ ! to O i O VD VD to NJ O O vp (30 NJ vo VO NJ O O ip (Jl f-4 00 to o o (O i to f-4 i tu I f-4 4:4 4i UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 45.l4^jUJi4^ UJ o o 1-4 vl tn i-» 4i 00 o o -£2_ CTI cn o fa o o o CT) 00 tn 01 UJ 01 <J1 o fa o o o l-» VO 00 vo 00 VD o_ cn CTl o; NJ bl i fa U): vl NJ ; to O 1-4 H. O O o o CTl I 01 cn CTl CTl 01 CTl 00 o NJ O I 45. O j o oiin 00 00 01 01 cn 01 o o o o o o cn 01 01 I Ol 01 cn 01 CT) o i o 1 CTl 'k 18 01 i 01 011 cn 01 i CTl CTl VD ! U) 00 i VD 01 UJ 00 O O JQ. CTl cn o fa o NJ O vl 1-4 .t» M O O SX. cn o 03 DO trt o NJ NJ to 1-4 UJ tn to to vl to f-4 O IO NJ cn VD o o o o n o 03 03 33 tn O NJ tn vl • cn CT) UJ (n I (n NJ NJ r4 tn 01 f-4 UJ to vl o O 45. O 03 00 O tn O 00 o O 03 03 to NJ O O VD I cn 1-4 1-4 Vl tu cn I cn 01 trt Ol o fa tn o I i-» o o o S2. UJ o fa o NJ cn 00 f-» 00 UJ o o NJ to NJ NJ 1-4 NJ UJ in UJ to tn to vl (Jl 1-4 to 1-* 1-4 o 1-4 1-4 00 o o o o o O o o o 03 03 03 to NJ 1-4 ' 01 Ol Ol Ol o fa o o o VD ^ 4^ U) vl cn cn cn to to to NJ to 1-4 UJ UJ in NJ NJ VO vo 1-4 1-4 O o UJ 45. 45. vl vl O O O O O O O o O 03 DD 03 o trt to NJ tn 1-4 tn tn to o vo tn O NJ tn 1-4 vl *. O f-4 O 00 O o 03 CO NJ to VO to N> o O o O vp VO vl l-> NJ to l-» ! VD ai 01 vl tu vl O < > m I trt to 1-4 tn tn 00 UJ O 00 O o IO I-* UJ NJ UJ I-* NJ tn o o < > e 2 O 33 E o DD < m > — 2 m VD ID NJ NJ O O O o VD VD to NJ O VO O fa Ol o 45. vJ O O O O o J2. 01 01 to iu tu t-4 VD vl o o o o o o CTl Ol UJ 01 o fa o o o tn VD NJ 00 45. Ol O O O NJ UJ VO vl NJ VD O to io vl vo vl ID O O O O O O cn 01 Gl UJ 01 cn q to vo UJ 03 VO to O O VO I Ol cn o to vo NJ o o vo VD NJ VD tu O fa O O to O 4i O tn vl o 3 I-. in Ol 00 45. O O O 1-4 tn N> ° o o •a CT 3 t3 to O CT o S3 I i' 3 o a a N o 3 CT P CT o^ca-QJ cn cn CT) cn CTl cn NJ I-* 01 NJ 00 s o o i C3 NJ NJ NJ NJ to f-4 H> to lU tn tn UJ NJ f-4 tn CTl VO f-> 00 1-4 tn o OJ vl UJ vl CT) NJ o ID NJ UJ o o o O o o o O o o o O 03 03 03 03 o trt m O vo to ID 1 tu NJ NJ NJ f-4 f-4 to tn tn UJ to IO cn NJ NJ f.4 O o vl o NJ NJ f-4 1-4 f-4 o o o o o o o o o 03 03 03 tn UJ I-* tu CTI NJ tu ° Ol CTI to NJ NJ to NJ N) tu NJ ai tn f-4 vl cn vl o o NJ NJ O 1-4 00 o O o o O o o O o 03 CD 03 Lrt Ol CTI cn o o cu CTl cn Ol tu vo ID to NJ O O O O vo vo m O O CD 03 O 4i fa tu O NJ O 00 o cn O VD O o o o tu I o tu cn Ol cn i Ol oi o -o > oo cn cn t-4 Ol ai O 03 03 o <^ Q 03 03 VD ID NJ NJ UJ 1^ O i O I Q-4-Q- —I NJ NJ UJ 00 NJ CTI O O o 03 00 vl o O NJ 00 00 UJ VD i VO NJ NJ O 1 o O Q VO vo VD I NJ ! ° VD ID VD vo ro to IO o o o VD I cn !0o vl ! 1-4 O _ . tu I OO tn : NJ to iQ 45. Ol Oliol Ol 01 Ol 0l|CTlj01 Ol 01 OljOl Ol Ol 01 Ol tu O-^O. >\ m o > trt tu VD NJ o VD o •a CT, 3 GQ CT o a p i o CL §' 3 s CG d p N o g OS NJ vl I-' <=> C3l •T3 p OQ CT OS NJ NJ U) M vl 1-4 O to O O NJ M tn ID to O NJ cn o o to 1-4 tn tn UJ 1-4 o vl o o o 03 o OD O DD O > 33 "tJ > O > m m > 33 o O 33 33 O NJ NJ UJ to ^» o to I tn vl to O I O O i O O I o 03 I 03 tn 33 i -O trt O O O CD D3 > > 2 2 O I O i o 03 I CD i CD trt > 2 vl NJ 45. O cn 00 Ol ID cn i4 00 on CTl vl *>IO O ' 00 vl VD 00 O 00 VD to 8 ID O ID VO NJ O O VD I vl 00 M NJ ID NJ O f-4 f-> ii o tn Ol to to o o vo ii 00 o NJ VO NJ O O VO VO to o o vo I 00 , 00 tn Ji to 00 vl vo ro o o VD vo vo NJ to O I O o VD I Ol cn o NJ vo I vo ' oo 1-4 45. 1-4 t-» 1-4 oo UJ f-4 45. 454 00 Ji Ji l-J Ji o fa o 1-4 cn tn 00 Ji VO O O cn o I fa o o § tu vl tn _ ^ _0_£2_ O fa vl O to tn O NJ o o o O iO O ! i-» 0 i NJ NJ I vl tn! Ol NJ i 00 01 M Ol O o o o o o o o o ; O ai o J2^(DJJ3.^0 . O- cn 01 cn Ol ! Ol i Ol cn CTl o, O- cn cn 01 01 cn 00 I vo o; o cn cn cn Q i Q ( CTl 01 CTI Ol 00 O tn vl 5^ 00 o o o _8_o Ol; cn w I I ro fe ( Q I.O IC (Jl i CTI CTl -Q,0 !o |0 • CT) 011 cn i cn 101 01 01 cn NJ to NJ NJ to -4 t-4 fJ 1-4 1-4 Jl CTl Ol cn tn tn 4:* in NJ UJ cn 00 CD ID NJ NJ f-4 tu o o o 1-4 O UJ (O tn VO 00 vl o o o o o o o o 00 o o O o o o DD DD 03 03 CO tn to (D 01 NJ NJ to f-4 f-» 1-4 tn tn tn to NJ NJ 45. NJ to O o o Ji to fo t-4 tn lU o o O f-4 o o o o o 00 CO 03 5 o vl vl Ji to vp cn (T) tu (n cn cn 00 m NJ to 1-4 OJ 01 Ol Ol ID §8 to (O 00 tu o Ol ! Ol CTl O OO O 03 03 CTl i Ol cn CTl CTI f-» f-4 CTl 00 IO to 1-4 1-* tn in fj tn UJ 01 o t-» tn 00 1-4 VD o o o o o O CD DO tn 00 01 01 01 1-4 1-4 Ol CT) 01 cn 01 oi|oi 01 01 Ol CT) cn 01 cn 01 tu 1-4 Vl O o 9 to 1 o •~ to CTl 00 o o o o 1 10 VD to to ro M tn O tn O vl VD O o NJ 1^ tn f-. NJ o 00 tn o o IO I to i to l-» i to f-4 tn to tn VD NJ O O tn O O f-» I 45. tn I vo i-» 1-4 00 O O NJ to I Ol i tn NJ f-4 to f-4 tn UJ Ol 1-4 O 00 o o o DD O OD o o 03 03 o o < m > 33 m O O CD OD O DD m m O 33 o ^ !33 O m > rvo I o 03 I CD I CD o CO m O tn > li T3 m > 33 vl f-4 o o vl M in f-4 NJ !01 i VD i to ! O i 00 tn I vl O vo to O o VD vo NJ o o vo VD to o vo ro o o VD I cn vl o 1-4 VD NJ O o vp cn NJ Ji vl tn vl I Ji tn tn O O O O O Ol I OOi vo Ji o i o i tn vl VD NJ O o vp I (31 i 45. I O vl O to tn NJ to 1-4 45. VD to o o VD VD NJ O O VD I ai to 45. tn VO ro o o vo NJ (D 00 to 00 tu Ji 00 Ji ! 1-4 00 00 Ol 00 vo tn o o o o _o_ Ol o fa o VI 00 00 00 vl Ol o o o fa o VD vl Ji M O o o fa o K in vl VD to O o -Ci4JQ-_0_ o o O 00 00 tn t-> o O vl tn i NJ vl I NJ Ji O JQ.LQ. N I to Ol I tn is R io !QiQ- cn Ol cn Ol 1 cn i Ol cn Ol Ol Ol oolc o o o' o O ; O CTl cn M I M I cn Ol Ol cn oi Ol cn -Q^Q- cn cn p j M t-4 i-4 tn Vl 0 vl vl ! vl tn . to 01 I o o Ig O I o o ig o;9 o o o UJ ; Vl i O , O : 00 • ro i (O I 00 00 j VD tn M to O I ai Ol l£LL cn j cn I cn o vl O cn (O in Ol o o o Ol NJ 1-4 tn f-4 ro o 45. vl O O NJ M Ol 00 1-4 o 1-4 Vl O O NJ to 00 NJ ID f-4 00 Ji O O ro NJ f-» M tn tn to NJ NJ I M 00 j tn NJ I 00 VD CT) fo; to NJ NJ f-4 cn M to 00 O O to NJ tu 1-4 tn o o UJ o o o DO o 03 o DD Olo 03 i 03 o o 03 i 03 o 03 O > 33 > o o > < m 33 D m DD ! 00 I DD ol? o o i m > < m •o O tn O tn IS lO tn H > T3 I tn r- I —I m 8 ?! SI > • 33 jQ t— m O o m 2 O > > r-m o c 03 33 m 33 o m 33 > < m o jq ro o NJ ID tu 00 4^ 1-4 I VI Vl lo 100 00 vl I vl NJ vliCTi j O 00 ! vl f-» 10 00 454 NJ O M 1-4 VI cn to f-4 ID NJ O O VD VD NJ O O i VD to ! to NJ I NJ O O O 1 o vo I vo to NJ O O VO vo to VD NJ O O VO I cn M M 00 (D NJ O O VO I cn VD 45. 00 VD NJ O O VO I vl tn 00 O tn to i VD to 1 NJ to VD i VD VD VD ro NJ to NJ to O O I O I O ! O O , O VO VD I I Ji I vl 00 ; 00 ro tn Ji VD VD I VD I to NJ NJ I to ; ro o, _ 0 i o VD VD 1 < Ol 00 00 ; tn to to UJ o QIO I 00 NJ H» 1-4 vo NJ o o vp 00 tn o ro lO NJ o o vo cb tu Ji 03 tu t-4 M f-. Ji t-4 J» Ji 00 00 tu i l-> tn vJ M tn vl o o o o o fa o o o ro in VD UJ tn o 01 Ol o fa o o LU Ji Vj 00 in tn o Ol Ol o fa o NJ 45. o M Ji vl o o o fa o vu NJ vl tn 00 10 o . o cn i Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol cn Ol cn Ol Ol I cn Ol cn o., o. cn cn Ol cn OjO NJ fa VO IO CTl i Ol Ol cn Ol I tn 101 i Ol! cn cn cn o fa o o o tn ^ cn 1-4 to cn n CT o p I CT CL o O I—I cc O a p N o 3 CT Os 13 CT N-) NJ 1-4 tn VD NJ cn NJ tn tn o tn tn O 00 o o O 03 m trt m O O < m > Crt -4 00 o o 00 to ro vo to to o o VD VD ro o o to t 00 00 m Ji NJ to 1-4 00 t-4 o tn tu 00 o o o o o o cn o to VD ro NJ o o o o VD I vp ii Vl O fa O 1-4 Ol o 19 cn Ol 00 o 03 03 o Ji 45. IOO o o o o, cn tn CT) cn f-. 45. OO 2 H I O Q- oi cn j 01 j cn i cn Ol o i > I m I 2 i Q 1 >l i UJ O i UJ cn o fa o 00 cn tn 00 I o o X2. o |o fa; fa o iO o j o O I Ji i ro vo VD vo Ol 1 ai Ol Ul vl tu 1 14i o I o ; o i o ID NJ O O ID M ' O O i O QJXJ-LO c ! VD : to ;o o vo ID ! vo ! VD NJ i to I ro O . O I o O ! o o VD I vo i VD t-. I UJ Ol i cn Ol 45.1 Ji IOIO o '9 o o O I o i n ! o I o UJ to VO NJ NJ o o o o vp VD cn vl to f-4 NJ UJ cnicnjcnoiicnioiloi Ol