Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-09; La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center; Tentative Map (CT) (5)City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering August 26, 1998 Federal Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Division Building 105 Presidio of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94129-1250 DELINEATION OF FLOODWAY FOR SAN MARCOS CREEK In accordance with FEMA procedures, please find enclosed an application requesting a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) relative to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa Plaza, located in the City of Carlsbad, adjacent to San Marcos Creek. On the basis of federal and local regulations, the proposed project must be located outside the floodway of San Marcos Creek, which is not yet delineated. The information contained in this application delineates the floodway of San Marcos Creek so that the proposed project may be implemented. The following items are included with this application: Form 1, Revision Requestor and Community Official Form Form 2, Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor Form Form 4, Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form Form 5, Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form Form 7, Bridge/Culvert Form Hydraulic Study for FEMA CLOMR for San Marcos Creek, dated December, 1997 If you have question or need additional information regarding this application, please contact Kenneth Quon of our office/jat (760) 438-1161, extension 4380. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. -OYO B. Public Wocfc6 Director c: Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer Kepneth Quon, Associate Engineer v<feff Gibson, Associate Planner Margaret Purviance, O"Day Consultants 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 431-5769 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANOTEMENT AGENCY REVISION REQUESTOR AND COMMUNITY OFFICIAL FORM O.M.B. BurdenTW3067-0148 \ FEMA USE ONLY Expires July 31. 1997 PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.13 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148), Washington. DC 20503. 1. OVERVIEW 1. The basis for this revision request is (are): (check all that apply) 0 Physical change 0 Existing 0 Proposed Q Improved methodology Q Improved data D Floodway revision fj Other To delineate the floodway Explain,Floodway is not yet delineated 2. Flooding Source: Water from San Marcos Creek 3. Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR for San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad 4. FEMA zone designations affected: A (example: A, AH, AO, A1-A30, A99, AE, V, Vl-30, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name EX: 480301 Katy.City 480287 Harris County 06073C City of Carlsbad County State Harris, Fort Bend TX Harris TX San Diego CA Map No. 480301 48201C 06073C Panel Effective No. Date 0005D 02/08/83 0220G 09/28/90 1034 June 1997 6. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding, structures, and associated disciplines: (check allthat apply) Types of Flooding Structures Disciplines* 13 Riverine D Coastal D Alluvial Fan D Shallow Flooding (e.g. Zones AO and AH) D Lakes Affected by wind/wave action D Yes El No Olher(describe)_ D Channelization D Levee/Floodwall 0 Bridge/Culvert D Dam D Coastal D Fill D Pump Station D None D Channel Relocation D Excavation D Other (describe) 0 Water Resources D Hydrology L53 Hydraulics D Sediment Transport O Interior Drainage D Structural D Geotechnical D Land Surveying D Other (describe) ^~* *-'ullcl VUCOV.1. IV/^J * Attach completed "Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor" Form for each discipline checked. (Form 2) 2. FLOODWAY INFORMATION 7. 8. Does Does If yes the affected flooding source have a floodway designated the revised floodway delineation differ from that shown . give reason: on on the effective the effective FIRM FIRM or or KBPM? FBFM D 0 Yt-s Yes QD No No FEMA, Form 81-69. OCT 94 Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form!Page 1 of 4 Attach copy of either a public notice distributed by the community stating the community's intent to revise the floodway or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions. 9 Does the State have jurisdiction over the floodway or its adoption by communities participating in the NFIP? D Yes 0 No If yes, attach a copy of a letter notifying the appropriate State agency of the floodway revision and documentation of the approval of the revised floodway by the appropriate State agency. 3. PROPOSED ENCROACHMENTS 10. With flood ways: 1 A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development in the floodway? D Yes 0 No IB. If yes, does the development cause the 100-year water surface elevation to increase at any location by more than 0.000 feet? D Yes rj No 11. Without flood ways: 2A. Does the revision request involve fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development in the 100-year floodplain? [3 Yes D No 2B. If yes, does the cumulative effect of all development that has occurred since the effective SFH A was originally identified cause the 100-year water surface elevation to increase at any location by more than one foot (or other surcharge limit if community or state has adopted more stringent criteria)? Q Yes 0No If the answer to either Items IB or 2B is yes, please pro vide documentation that all requirements of Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations have been met, regarding evaluation of alternatives, notice to individual legal property owners, concurrence of CEO, and certification that no insurable structures are impacted. 4. REVISION REQUESTOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 12. Having read NFIP Regulations, 44 CFR Ch. I, parts 59,60, 61, and 72,1 believe that the proposed revision 0 is D is not in compliance with the requirements of the aforementioned NFIP Regulations. - 5. COMMUNITY OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT 13. Was this revision request reviewed by the community for compliance with the community's adopted floodplain management ordinances? H3 Yes D No 14. Does this revision request have the endorsement of the community? KI Yes D No If no to either of the above questions, please explain: Please note that community acknowledgment and /or notification is required for all requests as outlined in Section 65.4 (b) of the NFIP Regulations. 6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 15. Does the physical change involve a flood control structure (e.g., levees, floodwalls, channelization, basins, dams)? DYes Q No If yes, please provide the following information for each of the new flood control structures: A. Inspection of the flood control project will be conducted periodically by entity _with a maximum interval of months between inspections. B. Based on the results of scheduled periodic inspections, appropriate maintenance of the flood control facilities will be conducted by (entity) to ensure the integrity and degree of flood protection of the structure. C. A formal plan of operation, including documentation of the flood warning system, specific actions and assignments of responsibility by individual name or title, and provisions for testing the plan at intervals not less than one year, D has D has not been prepared for the flood control structure. Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 2 of 4 D. The community is willing to assume responsibility for D performing maintenance and operation plans of the overseeing compliance with the (Name) flood control structure. If not performed promptly by an owner other than the community, the community will provide the necessary services without cost to the Federal government. Attach operation and maintenance plans 7. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM FEMA 16. After examining the pertinent NFIP regulations and reviewing the document entitled "Appeals, Revisions, and Amendments to Flood Insurance Maps: A guide for Community Officials," dated January 1990, this request is for a: CLOMR b. LOMR c.PMR d. Other: A letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision (LOMR or PMR), or proposed hydrology changes (see 44 CFR Ch.I, Parts 60, 65, and 72). A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodpluins, flood ways, or flood elevations. LOMRs typically depict decreased flood hazards. (See 44 CFR Ch.I Parts 60 and 65.) A reprinted NFIP map incorporating changes to floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations. Because of the time and cost involved to change, reprint, and redistribute an NFIP map, a PMR is usually processed when a revision reflects increased flood hazards or large-scope changes. (See 44 CFR Ch. I, Parts 60 and 65.) Describe 8. FORMS INCLUDED 17. Form 2 entitled, "Certification By Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor" must be submitted. The following forms should be included with this request if (check the included forms): Hydrologic analysis for flooding source differs from that used to develop FIRM Hydraulic analysis for riverine flooding differs from that used to develop FIRM The request is based on updated topographic information or a revised floodplain or flood way delineation is requested The request involves any type of channel modification The request involves new bridge or culvert or revised analysis of an existing bridge or culvert The request involves a new revised levee/floodwall system The request involves analysis of coastal flooding The request involves coastal structures credited as providing protection from the 100-year flood The request involves an existing, proposed, or modified dam The request involves structures credited as providing protection from the 100-year flood on an alluvial fan D Hydrologic Analysis Form (Form 3) 13 Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form (Form 4) IS Riverine /Coastal Mapping Form (Form 5) n Channelization Form (Form 6) Ef Bridge/Culvert Form (Form 7) D Levee/Floodwall System Analysis Form (Form 8) D Coastal Analysis Form (Form 9) fj Coastal Structures (Form 10) D Dam Form (Form 11) D Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 12) Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 3 of 4 9. INITIAL REVIEW FEE 1 8. The minimum initial review fee for the appropriate request category has been included. D Yes E3 No Initial fee amount: $ Check or money order only. Make check or money order payable to : National Flood Insurance Program. If paying by Visa or Mastercard please refer to the credit card information form which follows this form. or 19. This request is for a project that is for public benefit and is primarily intended for flood loss reduction to insurable structures in identified flood hazard areas which were in existence prior to the commencement of construction of the flood control project. D Yes fj No or 20. This request is to correct map errors, to include the effects of natural changes within the areas of special flood hazard, or solely to provide more detailed data. D Yes D No Note: I understand that my signature indicates that all information submitted in support of this request is correct. 1^4>>-^UN CL-V^--V"~' "Jr Signature of Revision Requester Printed Name and Title of Revision Requester Company Nfime Telephone No. y Date f ) Note: Signature indicates that the community understands, from the revision requester, the impacts of the revision on flooding conditions in the community. / ' jyqnatur&of Community Official Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director Printed Name and Title of Community Official Citv of Carlsbad Community Name 3/2~k/^8/ 1 / Date Does this request impact any other communities? D Yes Efl No If yes, attach letters from all affected jurisdictions acknowledging revision request and approving changes to flood way, if applicable. Note: Although a photograph of physical changes is not required, it may be helpful for FEMA's review. Revision Requestor and Community Official Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 4 of 4 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MA^BEMENT AGENCY CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR FORM O.M.8. Burdemto. 3067-0148 Expires July 31, 1997 FEMA USE ONLY PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average . 23 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148), Washington, DC 20503. 1. This certification is in accordance with 44 CFR Ch. I, Section 65.2 2. 1 am licensed with an expertise in hydraulics [example: water resources (hydrology, hydraulics, sediment transport, interior drainage)* structural, geotechnical, land surveying.] 3. I have 31 years experience in the expertise listed above. 4. I have 0 prepared O reviewed the attached supporting data and analyses related to my expertise. 5. I Shave D have not visited and physically viewed the project. 6. In my opinion, the following analyses and /or designs, is/are being certified: hydraulic study for CLOMR 7. Base upon the following review, the modifications in place have been constructed in general accordance with plans and specifications. Basis for above statement: (check all that apply) a. CD Viewed all phases of actual construction. b. n Compared plans and specifications with as-built survey information. c. d Examined plans and specifications and compared with completed projects. d. D Other • 8. All information submitted in support of this request is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name:Howard H. Chang (please print or type) Title:Consultant in hydraulics Registration No. C22,649 State California (please print or type) Expiration Date: December 31, 2001 Type of License I " Civil Signatu June 15, 1998 Date *Specify Subdiscipline Note: Insert not applicable (N/A) when statement does not apply. Seal(Optional) FEMA Form 81-89A. OCT 94 Certification by Registered Professional Engineer and/or Land Surveyor Form MT-2 Form 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM O.M.8. Burden No. 3067-0148 Expires July 31. 1997 FEMA USE ONLY PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2.25 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148), Washington, DC 20503. Community Name:Carlsbad Flooding Source: Water from San Marcos Creek (One form for each flooding source) Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR for San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad 1. REACH TO BE REVISED Downstream limit: El Camino Real Bridge at River Mile 2.55 Upstream limit: River Mile 2.93 2. EFFECTIVE FIS LU Not studied L"H Studied by approximate methods Downstream limit of study Upstream limit of study D3 Studied by detailed methods Downstream limit of study River Mouth at Mile 0 Upstream limit of study. 1—' Floodway delineated River Mile 15.45 Downstream limit of Floodway _ Upstream limit of Floodway 3. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Why is the hydraulic analysis different from that used to develop the D Not studied in FIS LJ Improved hvdrologic data/analysis. Explain: FIRM. (Check all that apply) [3 Improved hydraulic analysis. Explain, new bridge at improvement, proposed development El Camino Real, channel Q Flood control structure. Explain: D Other. Explain: FEMA Form 81-89C. OCT 94 Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 1 of 6 3. RIVERINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FORM Models Submitted For areas which have detailed flooding: Full input and output listings along with files on diskette (if available) for each of the models listed below (items 1, 2,3, 4, and 5) and summary of the source of input parameters used in the models must be provided. The summary must include a complete description of any changes made from model to model (e.g. duplicate effective model to corrected effective model) At a minimum, the Duplicate Effective (item 1) and the Revised or Post-Project Conditions (item 4) models must be submitted. See instructions for directions on when other models may be required. For areas which do not have detailed flooding: Only the 100-year flood profile is required. A hydraulic model is not required for areas which do not have detailed flooding; however, BFEs may not be added to the revised FIRM. If a hydraulic model is developed for the area, items 3 and 4 described below must he submitted. If hydraulic models are not developed, hydraulic analyses for existing or pre-project conditions and revised or post- project conditions must be submitted. All calculations must be submitted for these analyses. (See item 6 below) 1. Duplicate Effective Model Copies of the hydraulic analysis used in the effective FIS, referred to as the effective models (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year multi-profile runs and the floodway run) must be obtained and then reproduced on the requestor's equipment to produce the duplicate effective model. This is required to assure that the effective model input data has been transferred correctly to the requestor's equipment and to assure that the revised data will be integrated into the effective data to provide a continuous FIS model upstream and downstream of the revised reach. 2. Corrected Effective Model The corrected effective model is the model that corrects any errors that occur in the duplicate effective model, adds any additional cross sections to the duplicate effective model, or incorporates more detailed topographic information than that used in the currently effective model. The corrected effective model must not reflect any man-made physical changes since the date of the effective model. An error could be a technical error in the modeling procedures, or any construction in the fioodplain that occurred prior to the date of the effective model but was not incorporated into the effective model. 3. Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model The duplicate effective or corrected model is modified to produce the existing or pre-proiect conditions model to reflect any modifications that have occurred within the fioodplain since the date of the effective model but prior to the construction of the project for which the revision is being requested. If no modification has occurred since the date of the effective model, then this model would be identical to the corrected effective or duplicate effective model. 4. Revised or Post-Project Conditions Model The existing or pre-proiect conditions model (or duplicate effective or corrected effective model, as appropriate) is revised to reflect revised or post- project conditions. This model must incorporate any physical changes to the fioodplain since the effective model was produced as well as the effects of the project. When the request is for proposed project this model should reflect proposed conditions. 5. Other: Please attach a sheet describing all other models submitted. 6. Hydraulic Analyses (Only if Hydraulic Models are not developed) Please attach all calculations for the existing or pre-project conditions and the revised or post-project conditions. Proceed to Form 5, "Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form". Natural Floodway D Natural D Floodway D Natural Floodway D Natural Floodway Natural D Floodway D Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 2 of 6 4. MODEL PARAMETERS (from model used to revue 100-year water surface elevation) 1. Discharges: Upstream Limit Downstream Limit 10-year 50-year 100-year 12,000 cfs 12,000 cfs 500-year Attach diagram showing changes in 100-year discharge 2. Explain how the starting water surface elevations were determined From the study for the existing model 3. Give range of friction loss coefficients (Manning's "N") Channel 0.03 - 0 . 035 Overbanks 0.03 - 0.05 If friction loss coefficients are different anywhere along the revised reach from those used to develop the FIRM, give location, value used in the effective FIS, and revised values and an explanation as to how the revised values were determined. Location FIS Revised NA ' Explain:_ 4. Describe how the cross section geometry data were determined (e.g., field survey, topographic map, taken from previous study) and list cross sections that were added. from topographic map 5. Were natural channel banks selected as the location of the left and right channel banks in the model? Q Yes D No If no, explain why not: Ritserine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2Foim4 Page 3 of 6 4. MODEL PARAMETERS (Cont'd) 6. Explain how reach lengths for channel and overbanks were determined: Measured from topographic map 5. RESULTS (from model used to revise 100-year water surface elevations) 1. Do the resu 1 ts indicate: a. Water surface elevations higher than end points of cross sections? KJ Yes L_' No b. Supercritical depth? : D Yes SI No c. Critical depth? '. 0, Yes D No d. Other unique situations D Yes H No If yes to any of the above, attach an explanation that discusses the situation and how it is presented on the profiles, tables, and maps. 2. What is the maximum change in energy gradient between cross-sections? Specify location 3. What is the distance between the cross-sections in 2 above? 4. What is the maximum distance between cross-sections? 220 ft Specify location Sec 2.72 5. Floodway determination a.What is the maximum surcharge allowed by the community or State? 1.0 foot b. What is the maximum surcharge for the revised conditions? 0.8 foot Specify location Sec 2.93 c. What is the maximum velocity? 13.5 fpS Specify location Sec 2.59 d. Are there any negeative surcharge values at any cross-section? 0 Yes D No If yes, the floodway may need to be widened. If it is not widened, please explain and indicate the maximum negative surcharge. Explain: Negative surcharge of -0.4 foot occurs at Sec 2.68. The higher water surface elevation is used for the floodway. Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page 4 of 6 5. RESULTS (Cont'd) 6. 7. Is the discharge value used to determine the floodway anywhere different from that used to determine the natural 100-year flood elevations' |~1 Yes IY! No If Yes, explain: Do 100-year water surface elevations increase at any location? I— 1 Yes I—I No If yes, please attach a list of the locations where the increases occur, state whether or not the increases are located on the requestor's property, and provide an explanation of the reason for the increases. (For example: State if the increase is due to fill placed within the floodway fringe or placed within the currently adopted floodway limits) NA Please attach a completed comparison table entitled: Water Surface Elevation Check (See page 6) 6. REVISED FIRM/FBFM AND FLOOD PROFILES A. The revised water surface elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS Model (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500- year), downstream of the project at cross-section 2.55 within 0 feet (vertical) and upstream of the project at cross section within feet (vertical). B. The revised floodway elevations tie into those computed by the effective FIS model, dowstream of the project at cross section NA within feet (vertical) and upstream of the project at cross section within feet (vertical). C. Attach profiles, at the same vertical and horizontal scale as the profiles in the effective FIS report, showing stream bed and profiles of all floods studied (without encroachment). Also, label all cross sections, road crossings (including low chord and top-of-road data), culverts, tributaries, corporate limits, and study limits. If channel distance has changed, the stationing should be revised for all profile sheets. D. Attach a Floodway Data Table showing data for each cross section listed in the published Floodway Data Table in the FIS report. Proceed to Riverine /Coastal Mapping Form Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form MT-2 Form 4 Page S of 6 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGMENT AGENCY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CHECK COMMUNITY NAME SECNO EFFECTIVE NCWSEL1 FCWSEL*SURC' DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE NCWSEL1 FCWSELJ SURC.3 FLOODIND SOURCE CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NCWSEL1 FCWSEL*SURC.' EXISTING/PRE- PROJECT NAME /IDENTIFIER PROJECT NCWSEL1 FCWSEL*SURC3 REVISED/PROJECT NCWSEL1 FCWSEL'SURC.3 COMMENTS: 1 -1 00-year (natural) Water Surface Elevation 2-Encroachment (floodway) Water Surface Elevation 3-Surcharge Value Include all cross sections in the models between tie-in points. Any interpolated values should be indicated in parentheses. Sheet of MT-2 Form 4 Page 6 o'f 6 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RIVERINE/COASTAL MAPPING FORM O.M.B. Burden No. 3067-0148 Expires July 31, 1997 FEMA USE ONLY PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148), Washington, DC 20503. Community Name: Flooding Source: Carlsbad Water from San Marcos Creek Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR for San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad 1. MAPPING CHANGES 1. A topographic work map of suitable scale, contour interval, and planimetric definition must be submitted showing (indicate N/A when not applicable):Included 2. 3. 4. A. B. C. D. Revised approximate 100-year floodplain boundaries (Zone A) El Yes Revised detailed 100- and 500-year floodplain boundaries Q Yes Revised 100-year floodway boundaries [jjj Yes Location and alignment of all cross sections used in the revised hydraulic model with stationing control indicated 03 Yes Stream alignments, road and dam alignments {Xj Yes Current community boundaries S Yes Effective 100- and 500-year floodplain and 100-year floodway boundaries from the FIRM/FBFM reduced or enlarged to the scale of the topographic work map D Yes Tie-ins between the effective and revised 100- and 500-year floodplains and 100-year floodway boundaries LJ Yes The requestor's property boundaries and community easements C3 Yes The signed certification of a registered professional engineer S Yes Location and description of reference marks D Yes Vertical datum (example: NGVD, NAVD etc.) S Yes Coastal zone designations tie into adjacent areas not being revised D Yes Location and alignment of all coastal transects used to revise the coastal analyses D Yes If any of the items above are marked no or N/A, please explain: E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. n NO n NO D No O No D No 59 No w No D No D No ffl No CU No IS No D N/A D N/A D N/A D 'N/An N/A D N/A LJ N/A n N/An N/An N/An N/An N/A D N/A No D N/A What is the source and date of the updated topographic information (example: orthophoto maps, July 1985; field survey, May 1979, beach pro files, June 1987, etc.)? nrrhophoto map of 1991 What is the scale and contour interval of the following workmaps? a. Effective FIS scale scale 2 footb. Revision Request 1" = 100' _Contour interval Contour interval NOTE: Revised topographic information must be of equal or greater detail. Attach an annotated FIRM and FBP^M at the scale of the effective FIRM and FBFM showing the revised 100-year and 500-year floodplains and the 100-year floodway boundaries and how they tie into those shown on the effective FIRM and FBFM downstream and upstream of the revision or adjacent to the area of revision for coastal studies. Attach additional pages if needed. FEMA Form 81 -890. OCT 94 Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form MT-2 FormS Page 1 of 3 1. MAPPING CHANGES (Cont'd) 5. Flood Boundaries and 100-year water surface elevations: Has the 100-year floodplain been shifted or increased or the 100-year water surface elevation increased at any location on property other than the requestor's or community's ? O Yes O No If yes, please give the location of shift or increase and an explanation for the increase. NA a. Have the affected property owners been notified of this shift or increase and the effect it will have on their property? ! D Yes Q No If yes, please attach letters from these property owners stating they have no objections to the revised flood boundaries if a LOMR is being requested. b. What is the number of insurable structures that will be impacted by this shift or increase? • - 6. Have the flood way boundaries shifted or increased at any location compared to those shown on the effective FBFM or FIRM? '. Q Yes Q No If yes, explain: NA 7. If a V- zone has been designated, has it been delineated to extend landward to the heel of the primary frontal dune? D Yes D No If no, explain: NA 8. Manual or digital map submission: 03 Manual D Digital Digital map submissions may be used to update digital FIRMs (DFIRMs). For updating DFIRMs, these submissions must be coordinated with FRM A Headquarters as far in advance of submission as possible. Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form MT-2 Form 5 Page 2 of 3 2. EARTH FILL PLACEMENT 1. The fill is: D Existing 53 Proposed 2. Has fill been/will be placed in the regulatory fioodway? D Yes S No If yes, please attach completed Riverine Hydraulic Analysis Form. 3. Has fill been/will be placed in floodway fringe (area between the fioodway and 100-year floodplain boundaries)? 0 Yes d No If yes, then complete A, B, C, and D below. A. Are fill slopes for granular materials steeper than one vertical on one-and-one-half horizontal? D Yes §3 No If yes, justify steeper slopes B. Is adequate erosion protection provided for fill slopes exposed to moving flood waters? (Slopes exposed to flows with velocities ofup to 5 feet per second (fps) during the 100-year flood must, ata minimum, be protected by a cover of grass, vines, weeds, or similar vegetation; slopes exposed to flows with velocities greater than 5 fps during the 100-year flood must, at a minimum, be protected by stone or rock riprap.) , 0 Yes D No If no, describe erosion protection provided C. Has all fill placed in revised 100-year floodplain been compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable with the Standard Proctor Test Method or acceptable equivalent method? d Yes EJ No D. Can structures conceivably be constructed on the fill at any time in the future? E Yes n No If yes, provide certification of fill compaction (item C. above) by the community's NFIP permit official, a registered professional engineer, or.an accredited soils engineer. 4. Has fill been/will be placed in a V-zone? D Yes D No If yes, is the fill protected from erosion by a flood control structure such as a revetment or seawall? tH Yes E No If yes, attach the coastal structures form. Riverine/Coastal Mapping Form MT-2 Form 5 Page 3 of 3 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I O.M.B. Burden^T3067-0148 \ FEMA USE ONLY BRIDGE/CULVERT FORM I Expires July 31. 1997 PUBLIC BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 2 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and reviewing the form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3067- 0148), Washington, DC 20503. Community Name: Carlsbad Flooding Source: Water from San Marcos Creek Project Name/Identifier: CLOMR f or San Marcos Creek in Carlsbad 1. IDENTIFIER 1. Name of roadway, railroad, etc.: El Camino Real 2. Location of bridge/culvert along flooding source (in terms of stream distance or cross-section identifier): river mile 2.55 3. This revision reflects (check one of the following): [J New bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS Q Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS Q New analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS (Explain why new analysis was performed) 2. BACKGROUND Provide the following information about the structure: 1 Dimension, material, and shape (e.g. two 10x5 feet reinforced concrete box culvert; three 30-foot span bridge with 2 rows of two 3- foot diameter circular piers; 40-foot wide ogee shape spillway) 188 foot span bridge with 4 sets of piers 2. Entrance geometry of culvert/type of bridge opening (e.g. 30°- 75 "wing walls with square top edge, sloping embankments and vertical abutments) sloping embankments 3. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8)_ HEC-2 If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could not analyze the structure(s). (Attach justification) Note: If any items do not apply to submitted hydraulic analysis, indicate by N/A * One form per new/revised bridge/culvert F E MA Form 81 89 E. OCT 94 Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 1 of 6 3. ANALYSIS Sketch the downstream face of the structure together with the road profile. Show, at a minimum, the maximum low chord elevation, invert elevation, minimum top of road elevation, and ineffective flow widths. The sketch is attached to the report for CLOMR Sketch the upstream face of the structure together with the road profile. Show, at a minimum, the maximum low chord elevation, invert elevation, and minimum top of road elevation. Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form? Page 2 of 6 3. ANALYSIS (Cont'd) Elevations Above Which Flow is Effective for Overbanks Upstream face Downstream face Left Overbank 13 feet 13 feet Right Overbank 13 feet 13 feet Minimum Top of Road Elevation Upstream face Downstream face Left Overbank 13' 13' Right Overbank 13' 13' 100-Year Elevations Upstream face Downstream face Water Surface Elevations 11.54' 11 .25' Energy Gradient Elevations 13.0' 12.84' Discharge Amount of flow through/over the structure (s) (cfs) Low Flow 12.000 cfs Pressure Flow Weir Flow Total Flow The maximum depth of flow over the roadway/railroad (ft.) Weir length (ft.) Top Widths Upstream face Downstream face Total Floodplain Width 184* 184' Total Effective Flow Width 184' 184' Floodway Width 184' 184' Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 4 of 6 3. ANALYSIS (Confd) Sketch the plan view of the structure(s) Show, at a minimum, the skew angle, cross-section locations, distances between cross sections, and length of structure (s). flow Attach plans of the structure (s) certified by a registered Professional Engineer. Culvert length or bridge width (ft) Calculated culvert/bridge area (ft2) by the hydraulic model, if applicable Total culvert/bridge area (ft«) Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 3 of 6 3. ANALYSIS (Confd) Loss Coefficients Entrance loss coefficient _ n , Manning's "n" value assigned to the structure(s) _ 0 . 025 Friction loss coefficient through structure (s) _ Other loss coefficients (e.g., bend manhole, etc.) _ Total loss coefficient 1 . 75 Weir coefficient 3 Pier coefficient 1.05 Contraction loss coefficient 0.2 Expansion loss coefficient 0.4 4. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS 1. A. Is there any indication from historical records that sediment transport (including scour and deposition) can affect the 100-year water surface elevations? •_-.• D Yes SI No B Based on the conditions (such as geomorphology, vegetative cover and development of the watershed and stream bed, and bank conditions), is there a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and deposition) to affect the 100-year water surface elevations and/or conveyance capacity through the bridge/culvert? D Yes ED No 2. If the answer to either 1A or IB is yes: A. What is the estimated sediment (bed material) load? cfs (attach gradation curve) Explain method used to estimate the sediment transport and the depth of scour and/or deposition B. Will sediment accumulate anywhere through the bridge/culvert?Q Yes Q No If yes, explain the impact on the conveyance capacity through the bridge/culvert? 5. FLOODWAY ANALYSIS Explain method of bridge encroachment (floodwav run) Method 1 was used. at 6 fps or less The overbank velocities are maintained Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 5 of 6 5. FLOODWAY ANALYSIS (Confd) Comments (explain any unusual situations): Attach analysis. Bridge/Culvert Form MT-2 Form 7 Page 6 of 6 6052 NORTH 16TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 August25, 1998 V- FEDERAL EXPRESS 7 STANDARD ASSOCIATES, INC.TELEPHONE (602) 955-0999 j FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292 Jeff Gibson , City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive . Carlsbad, CA, 92009- 1576 ; (619)438-1161- RE: Liquor Sales , Proposed Lucky / Sav-On Store #121-283 > La Costa Plaza x -'- , . Carlsbad, CA • ' ' . t ^ •• Dear Jeff: { ". , - - ., " , ^ -. . ' , '• •- \-\ .'.. •*• • v~ ^ -, ' " x As we:recently discussed, we understand that the parking lot lighting plan Was approved as a part of-the recent Civty-approved exhibits for this project. ; % / /x~ _' ~ \ * \' .. ' v' " S ^ " . "^ . .. * > . .- -; ^ . / .', '- ' f . - ' r , ^ We also understand that the sale'pf liquor is an allowed use for grocery stores mthe C-l zone. -- However, in preparation for applying to the ABC for a license, American Stores asks that a city f epresentative sign and return one of the attached forms.- Instructions for return are^cm the bottom of the^form. , - " N -' \ , '., _ Also enclosed are two copies of the final Signage Guidelines, or sign program, fprXa Costa ^ / .Plaza. Your have previously indicated your approval of this fmaf format. Please stamp'and _- return One set to our office to keep things "official.'' v - Thank'you for your assistance in this complex project. \ \^ ; ^ \'':'. '• ' Best Regards,' . .' ^" / .._ . ' "•. /-^ ._-,_. ..:_."." ,' ' '''^ t.^ ' . - - - FORTNEY Associates, Inc. Dorian F. Fortney, AIA 08/04/1998 06:39 7148572706 PAGE 02 ' JUL-31-98 FRI 12:32 Gfl^A POLICE DEPT . FAX NO, 31021^P 02 T KENT 171 • We»T t«£ND »TBCCT / OAaoefMA. CALIFORNIA 9O247-3732 ./ (SlO) David M- 29, 1998 Acting Deputy Cftfyr of Poflco REF: 95-181 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members The City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 Re: ARCO AM-PM Mini Market. Artesia Boulevard/Vermont Avenue, Gardena, CA .Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Craig YamasakJ, ARCO Site Acquisition Manager, has asked to me to recount our experiences with the ARCO AM-PM Mini Market in the City of Gardena, ARCO first approached us more than three ytars ago with their development proposal. The proposed ARCO site at Artesia Boulevard and Vermont Avenue '8 the gateway to ojr city and is in close proximity to severe! densely populated residential neighborhoods. The area residents, along with Gardena's community planning staff, expressed growing concerns of safety, crime, and loitering problems, Mr. Yamasakl and ARCO were very responsive and worked with residents, staff members, end members from our department in addressing these concerns ARCO devised a unique solution to these issues of potential loitering and the attraction of a "bad element* to the area. ARCO created their first police "drop-in' station. A small office was added to the AM- PM Mini Market with a private entrance from the exterior end interior access through the manager's office. Two-way-mirrored windows overlooking the entrance and '.he pump islands ware installed for increased visibility, Workspaces ware equipped with a telephone, a computer/printer, and multiplexing video analysis equipment that allcws officer* to view and analyze crime scene videotapes and print freeze-frame pictures from the crime scene videotape for fast reproduction and distribution. Multiplexing equipment of this type ia very expensive and had not been within our budget This drop-in station is not a police substation, but the workspace, along with the office equipment and video tape analysis equipment has been very useful to the Gardens Police Department, and is a convenient place to fils reports and conduct police business for officers in the fieid. This facility is also frequented by officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department n«afe «<Wrw« all eomrnvfitonfora » tfw CfcW of Pallet, 08/04/1998 06:39 7148572706 PAPF y& m • .&*r\ I ^i i i . rHuc. To; City of Carlsbad 8/03/98 RE: ARCO Page 2 I invite you to v.sit the sit? and sec for yourself the work that bar. been done at th« site m this city. Ple&s* f«el free to contact m« or my staff regarding this project arid our experience with A.RCO and Mr. Yamasaki. Vary truly yours, CommuTiiry Development Director 08/04/1998 06:39 7148572706 PAGE 04 «UG 03 '98 01: 33PM CIJ£! OT GHFttMR w. C'CAB. rfvo MAY V. DO), Cdy C/ortiuoHtrvro F. YIAWHA, civ tf»«»vw Aueust 3, 1998 MfTQHlU. <S. LAN8D1LL. C*x M»n«o»r USA E. KRA.NITZ, Cfly *rter>wy =$ W. AL CEFll-IFPO. C->u/ GWgN City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbfld Village Drive Ctrlrtftd, CA 92008 Subject; ARCO AM-FM in the City of Qardena Mr. Craig Yamasaki of ARCO Products Company has asked me to ^Tite a letter regarding our experience with the ARCO A.M-P.M ninmurr ar.d ARCO Products Company in our community As the Community Development Director for the City of Gardcna, it was rr.y rtfsponsibi'.ity to oversee the zoning entitlement process, issue pfcmiits for the developiwsM" and rnopitor for compliance with the conditions of approval. The location selected prssBiit^d »e\feral obalkngss from a planning standpoint, The site is located adjacent to a Willows Wsiland locawd in our city, which is an important and sensitive habitat area to our community, Theiefore. in addition to the normal :omniunity concerns about the location of this type of facility with regard w potential for cnme and other issues relating to a 24 hour operation. there were concerns about other issues such aa potential ad-verse impacts from noise, light and the presence of gasoline related products on the willows habitat. Mr. Yemssaki ard his staff went to £«*< efforts to ittajce sure that these issues were addressed. Mr Yamasaki personally worked with <he community to understand and try to address their concerns at the time the entitlements were being considered. They designed the parking lot lighting lo avoid any off site light flnd glare. They installed a state of the art vapor recovery system and gasoline tank system. The combination of their security camera system and operational policies has been quite effective in deterring crime and presenting a positive image. To those \uho dr,vr by or use th«." facility, it present)? th= image of a cjean and safe faci'ilv. They also developed a polius "drop-in workstation" equipp«d \vith telephones, computer and fix equipment and video tape crime analysis equipment for use by local law enforcement cffbers. vatcfc it is my tifiderstsocog has been very helpful to our safety personnel. Our overall experience with Mr. Yamasa'ki and ARCO Products Company has been quite positive Since that time, Mr. Yamasaki and ARCO have continued to be responsive to this department and have maintained *c site consistent with their commitment and the conditions imposed on the site. They are approaching :ht» 3'" year since openintr the facility arc we have had no problems or complaints None of ths concerns expressed hov« COIT.C to pass. 08/04/1998 05:39 7148572706 PAGE 01 < JUL-31-98 FRl 12:33 GA^IA POLICE DEPT FAX NO. 310217^ P. 03 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members July 29, 1996 Page 2 The AM-PM Mini Market with the police "drop-in" station, has been a welcome addition to our community, srio" ie a good example of ARCO's commitment to provide solutions to maintain giafaty and deter crime, The AM-PM Mini Market has been operational for more than a year, and there has been no crime or loitering reported at this facility. The presence of law enforcement officers and ARCO'» crime deterrent program with its' extensive interior and exterior video aurvejllanci and strict policy of "no loitering* and "no selling of alcohol and tobacco products to minors", ha$ been very affective. ARCO's operation standard is of the highest order end remains a highly regarded resource to the Gsrdena Foflc<3 Department and our community. Pleas* contact me directly et (310) 217-9602, if you wish further information in this regard. Sincerely, David M. Morgan ^ CITY OF CARLSB FOR ACTION OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Referred to r /wx D Please Handle D Investigate and Report D Draft Reply for D Please Call Requestor M. Respond Directly/Send Copy of Response w/RFA Signature RETURN COMPLETED REQUEST TO Requestor's Name Address 7 1 V O City j^i (J /} Date Phone # Explanation of Request sS) /. /C&^^t- /—, -V-^ / vTx*-g. • / -7 _Received By Action Taken "Jo /! Requestor Notified of Action Taken: Handled By Yes D No t./Div. [ IDept./Di Date (Kclurn original whiii' copy wilh response) gIGERHARD DESIGN GROUP A i INTERIOR July 27, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (760) 720-9461 AND CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis Mayor of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Development at El Camino Real and La Costa Ave. Dear Mayor Lewis: I have been a resident of Rancho La Costa for twenty-five years and have been operating my business in the area for the same amount of time, so therefore, I have considerable interest in the development of the areas surrounding my home. In the past, I have been notified by mail regarding the development of other areas in the vicinity. However, I have recently been informed, not by the City of Carlsbad, of a city council meeting on August 4th in which the use of the land where La Costa Plaza is currently situated will be discussed. I was greatly disturbed as to why I, or any of my neighbors, was not notified by mail of this meeting? Why were we not informed of the meeting before the Planning Commission regarding this property which I understand has already taken place? Is the City trying to slip something through? What I had heard was that another market, drug store and gas station are being contemplated. I find that incredible considering the number of markets in the immediate area. It is also surprising to have a gas station in such an environmentally sensitive area as the lagoon and San Marcos Creek. In my opinion, the current commercial code needs re-evaluation, if this sort of development is allowed. Pl;ua do La CosiU Real • 7740 El Camino Rc;il, Suite K • Rancho La Cosia, CA 92009 (760) 43^3)181 • (760) 436-7945 (facsimile) . Las V*«as (702) 896-4595 The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis July 27, 1998 Page 2 As a taxpayer and long-time resident of Carlsbad, I hope you will give this matter extensive consideration. Postponement of discussion at this time would be highly advisable until proper notification of residents in the area to this objectionable development Very truly yours, AHG:ig c: Jeff Goodsen Carlsbad Planning Department Total Pages (2) J. City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 31, 1998 Andrew H. Gerhard Gerhard Design Group 7740 El Camino Real, Suite K Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LA COSTA LUCKY SAV- ON SHOPPING CENTER Dear Mr. Gerhard: Major Lewis and the Planning Department received your letter dated July 27, 1998, concerning the upcoming August 4tn City Council public hearing for the La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center. The Mayor's office has asked me to look into the matter and respond back to you concerning the legal public hearing notice for the project. The reason you did not receive a public hearing notice in the mail for he Planning Commission and City Council public hearings is because you do not own property within a 600 foot radius around the project site (Plaza de La Costa). The Planning Commission meeting that took place on June 17, 1998, and the upcoming City Council meeting on August 4, 1998, were both publicly noticed in .the local community newspaper, the North County Times, 10 calendar days before the meeting date. As required by local ordinance, all public hearing dates on major development projects located within the City of Carlsbad are published in the community's local newspaper. In the future, when you hear about a development project or read about it in a newspaper article and it is of particular interest or concern to you, please contact the Planning Department and we will place your address on the project's public hearing notice list. This will ensure that you are sent a public hearing notice in the mail, no matter how far away you live from the project site. If you have additional questions about project processing, please feel free to call me at the Planning Department, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4455. Thank you for your interest in the La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center project. Sincerely, JEFF GIBSON Associate Planner c: Mayor Lewis 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 & GERHARD DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTURAL INTERIOR DESIGN July 27, 1998 COPY VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (760) 720-9461 AND CERTIFIED MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis Mayor of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Development at El Camino Real and La Costa Ave. Dear Mayor Lewis: I have been a resident of Rancho La Costa for twenty-five years and have been operating my business in the area for the same amount of time, so therefore, I have considerable interest in the development of the areas surrounding my home. In the past, I have been notified by mail regarding the development of other areas in the vicinity. However, I have recently been informed, not by the City of Carlsbad, of a city council meeting on August 4th in which the use of the land where La Costa Plaza is currently situated will be discussed. I was greatly disturbed as to why I, or any of my neighbors, was not notified by mail of this meeting? Why were we not informed of the meeting before the Planning Commission regarding this property which I understand has already taken place? Is the City trying to slip something through? What I had heard was that another market, drug store and gas station are being contemplated. I find that incredible considering the number of markets in the immediate area. It is also surprising to have a gas station in such an environmentally sensitive area as the lagoon and San Marcos Creek. In my opinion, the current commercial code needs re-evaluation, if this sort of development is allowed. Plaza de La Costa Real • 7740 El Camino Real, Suite K • Rancho La Costa, CA 92009 (760) 43^3)181 • (760) 436-7945 (facsimile) • Las Vegas (702) 898-4595 The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis July 27, 1998 Page 2 As a taxpayer and long-time resident of Carlsbad, I hope you will give this matter extensive consideration. Postponement of discussion at this time would be highly advisable until proper notification of residents in the area to this objectionable development. Very truly yours, Andrew H. Gexhard Jeff Goodsen Carlsbad Planning Department Total Pages (2) ELAINE CRYSTAL 2003 Costa Del Mar Chateau 657 Carlsbad, CA 92009 July 27, 1998 Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis Carlsbad City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis: I am the owner of two chateaus in La Costa immediately adjacent to the (760) 931-0743 Fax: (760) 931-9073 that is up for consideration by you on August 4 at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Camino Real. I was out of the state at the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission in June and wish to make known my thoughts on the proposed development at this time. My husband and I have a permanent home in Jackson, Mississippi; but we have made a substantial investment in the condominiums we own at La Costa and anticipate spending a majority of our time here as he retires. I have been on the Planning Board in Jackson and served as its Chairman for seven years so I appreciate the importance of your decisions in the area of planning and zoning as it regards city development. I have visited the Planning Department of the City and am familiar with the proposed development. In my opinion the development does not enhance the City of Carlsbad nor is it needed in that particular location. There is a shopping center directly south across the street on Camino Real that badly needs rehabilitation and could be used for similar purposes. At the same time, there is crying need for an upscale shopping area in that part of Carlsbad. With the assets of La Costa and the Four Seasons Hotel and the many tourists that they attract, as well as the residential development taking place, the opportunities and need for such a development is obvious. At the present time, shopping excursions to Del Mar, La Jolla and downtown San Diego take place as part of the planned activities for tour groups and Hwy 5 is further clogged with traffic to those destinations by Carlsbad residents seeking fine shopping and dining opportunities while tax dollars are lost in Carlsbad. If you wish to insure the continued success of The Four Seasons and La Costa and encourage other fine developments, then it is important to take these factors into your consideration. I appreciate the constraints of the property but know that these can be largely overcome to allow for additional small scale retail and restaurant development in the only area that is within walking distance of major tourist attractions. "Big box" retail and certainly gas station development are not appropriate for this area and certainly already available in Carlsbad and Encinitas at this time. Your commercial codes need to be expanded to insure quality development, in my opinion. If there is additional opportunity to meet with you or hear your deliberations on this matter, I can be reached at 931-0743 for most of August or can be located at 601-969-6910, ext. 225. Thank you for your considerations of this important matter for the future of Carlsbad. Sincefely, Elaine Crystal cc: JeffGoodsen Carlsbad Planning Department £itv of CdTrlsbad Planning Department July 22, 1998 American Stores Prop, Inc. 348 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SUBJECT: CT 97-09 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER Enclosed please find revised Resolution 4311. Condition Number 23 previously did not have modifications as recommended at Planning Commission. Sincerely, L MICHELE HARDY Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4311 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-O894 \ 6052 NORTH 16TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 ASSOCIATES,June 11. 1998 FEDERAL EXPRESS / PRIORITY x x ' • Jeff Gibson ' / .- > , City of Carlsbad 2075' Las P alma's Drive "' >' Carlsbad^ CA. 92009-1576 (619)438-1161 '-'---'-'- . . .. RE: Color Exhibits ^ - ; .. \ . . Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283 La Costa Plaza - Intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real .";., Carlsbad, CA/ - ' / ,\, •< '.'/•-- . . TELEPHONE '(602) 9554)999 FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292 X - , \Dear Jeff: ~ ' - ' / • ~: ^ • v The following color exhibits are attachedTor your use at the upcoming meetings: xl. Corner Perspective (shows old sign that has been deleted from current plans) ^ 2. Central Retail Perspective. .: ' ^ < '/ , 3." Lucky;/ S;av-on Perspective -. 7 ; " / - > . • ' , "J 4. Retail elevations (3 sheets) •'.-.. ' '^.^ v' ~ - ~/' -'• , , ... v - . • \ The architect is coloring a new set of Lucky ^elevations, with tne added landscaping, which will ^be sent direct to your office by Monday, along with color and materials boards. Please let me know if you need anything else for the upcoming meetings. If changes ;are absolutely necessary for City Council, weca'n discuss those next week. ' ' >'] -See you1 on the 1.7"'. ( , ^ • ' - V , • ' f ' y"• . ;: >• • ' ... , ' ' • .• \.^- 'Best Regards, , \. . ' ' ' - • nc. - NDorian F. Fortney, AIA President - Enclosuresv ''"'".. /Cc: Larry Tucker KareemAli ' A t June 12, 1998 AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. REPRESENTING ACME MARKETS / JEWEL FOOD STORES / JEWEL OSCO LUCKY STORES / OSCO DRUG / SAV-ON Mr. JeffGibbson CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Proposed Lucky Store #121-283 Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Gibbson: Enclosed is the American Stores Properties, Inc. general roof plan that should be similar to the City's requirements. It needs to be included with the package you will be receiving or have already received from Dorian Fortney of Fortney Associates, Inc. Please attach it for future reference and/or any changes you may have. Should you have any questions and/or comments, please contact me after June 22, 1998, when I return from vacation. I can be reached at (714) 739-7490. Respectfully, AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. Kareem Ali Entitlements Manager - Western Region cc: Dorian Fortney - Fortney Associates, Inc. File-121-283 061298 l.doc CORPORATE OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH A Subsidiary of American Stores Company FORTI)EY 6Q52 NORTH 16TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 June 11, 1998.ASSOCIATES, INC. FEDERAL EXPRESS / PRIORITY TELEPHONE (602) 955-0999 ^FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292 Jeff Gibson City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive" Carlsbad, CA> 92009-1576 (619).43 8-1161 RE: Color Exhibits ( ' ^ /.' , Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283 , ..i La Costa Plaza - Intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real ; Carlsbad, CA,.;. - .- • ',',''/ : -. ^ * ' j \ \ JDear;Jeff: - ,,- v . . , • ": \ \ !•I •. • • ' ••!/•, ' ~ . ' ' \ . ' " - A ' l '' • • ' ' ' The following color exhibits are attached for your use-at the upcoming meetings: ' • -^ , ' 1. -'Corner Perspective (shows old sign that has been deleted from current rjlans) 2. Central Retail1 Perspective^ . '_ . •. •' \ '-" v 3. Lucky / Sav-on Perspective ^ / ^ ^ , ,.. '-\ ,/ 4. Retairelevations (3 sheets)-" \ l '•• ', / -, . • '' ^., .The- architect is coloring a new set,of£ucky elevations, with tb^ added landscaping, which' will be sent direct to your office r|y Monday, along with color and materials boards. • ~ . • •••-••, - ; " '' ' ' ' ' •' V " ' y ^ .,-Please let me know if you need anything /else for the upcoming meetings/ If changes are absolutely necessary for City,Council, we can-discuss those next week/ - > -' ' • _ • - - V ^ ^ ' ''• • \' ^ " > • v ; . • See you on the 17th. , ' • -, ^": ,.''.;. , .- v ' ; ^;.\ - •; » ,:• • Best Regards, ' / .'FORTNEY Associates, Inc.- ^~> ' \ Dorian F. Fortney, AIJ 'President \ " Enclosurs .Cc: Larry Tucker Kareem Ali GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER June 10, 1998 Mr. Jeff Gibson Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Redevelopment of La Costa Plaza Dear Jeff: All of the resolutions and conditions for the above referenced project should now be in form acceptable to the applicant, with one exception. We would like condition 3 of Resolution 4315 (SUP 97-02) rewritten as follows: "The berm to be located on the La Costa Resort & Spa Corporation site shall be landscaped with native vegetation and irrigated temporarily until the native vegetation is in a healthy and thriving condition." During the negotiations of the American Stores Properties, Inc. ("ASPI") acquisition of less than an acre of land from Leucadia County Water District ("LCWD"), LCWD discovered that some of its facilities (including sewer pumps) were well below the level of the 100 year flood plain. LCWD requested, and ASPI agreed to place a low profile berm on a portion of property owned by La Costa (which was also agreed to by La Costa). The sole purpose of the berm is to provide some additional level of flood protection for LCWD facilities. The berm is not part of our retail development. The area in which the berm will be located is east of our proposed center and is in a natural state at the present time, with natural materials growing around it. In our opinion it is unnecessary, and furthermore, it would look unusual for non native plants and shrubs to otherwise be located in this natural area. We believe that it makes more sense to vegetate the berm area with native materials, irrigate those materials until they have taken hold and then let the area return to a natural One Corporate Plaza, 2nd Ffoor, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658 (714)720-0297 FAX(714)760-8584 Mr. Jeff Gibson Page two June 10, 1998 condition. We would like the planning commission to consider our request at its meeting of June 17, 1998. Very truly yours, GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES Larry Tucker On behalf of American Stores Properties, Inc. LT:jv cc: Jim Poynter Kareem AN Dorian Fortney Steve Grant Perkowitz + Ruth architects inc. Architecture / Planning / Interiors To: Mr. Jeff Gibson, Associate Plan: CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project: Carlsbad, CA Regarding: Roof Plan 0 Enclosed D Under Separate Cover Description: D Site Plans D Elevations D Sketches D Working Drawings TRANSMITTAL Date: June 5, 1998 D By Hand 0 Via FED EX D Shop Drawings D Specifications D Correspondence D Literature Job No.: 97-107.11 D Via Mail D Via Messenger D Prints D Mylar D Sepias D Vellums Copies Description 1 Half Size Plan of Roof and Equipment Similar to the Luckys in our Site Plan Difference Being the Different Loading Dock Configuration. Remarks: D At Your Request D For Your Approval D For Your Signature As per the request of Dorian Fortney. For Review & Comment ! For Your Use/Info For Your Files D For Distribution D For Bidding D Other cc: File Vasilis Papadatos, Design Manager S:Vasilis\trn\June\0605-3.doc 911 Studebaker Road Long Beach, CA 90815 562/594.9333 Corporate Office: Long Beach, CA Regional Office: Newport Beach, CA CTP STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER JuneS, 1998 GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES Ms. Kateri Luka Arco Products Company 4 Center Pointe Drive La Palma, CA 90623-1066 Re: Former Arco Station 1939 7654 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California Dear Kateri: It was a pleasure meeting with you, Marci Richards of Secor and Nasser Sionit of the County of San Diego, at Nasser's office on May 28, 1998. We discussed the following during the course of our meeting: 1. Nasser indicated that at the present time the County did not intend to require Arco to remove anymore soil from the site, and if any contaminated soil were encountered during our construction that Arco and American Stores Properties, Inc. would need to deal with it as they saw fit (but in all events in accordance with legal requirements). That is, no further remedial action on soils would be required. 2. Nasser stated that the Regional Water Quality Control Board deemed the ground water under the site as unusable for drinking water purposes and therefore now that the free product has been removed, the County intends to only require periodic monitoring by Arco to ascertain that the plume is stable. Marci stated that it was her belief that the plume was very small and stable. Accordingly, the County does not intend to require any further ground water remediation at this time. One Corporate Plaza, 2nd Floor, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658 (714)720-0297 FAX(714)760-8584 Ms. Kateri Luka Page Two JuneS, 1998 3. In order to meet County monitoring requirements, Arco wanted the right to have the three existing monitoring wells remain on the site. In order to determine whether the location of the monitoring wells would potentially interfere with our site work or building construction, I agreed to have a copy of our grading plan delivered to Marci and Marci agreed to plot the location of the monitoring wells on our site plan and provide a copy to us. Hopefully the monitoring activities will be concluded before the shopping center construction is completed, since apparently it is necessary to have a drill rig on the site in order to remove the monitoring wells. If the monitoring wells will interfere with our construction, we will request the wells be relocated. 4. From a schedule standpoint, I indicated that we hope to receive City approvals by the end of July, 1998 and that it would take approximately 26 weeks from the date of the approval to the date of commencement of construction. Construction, therefore is expected to commence late January to early February, 1999. However, demolition will probably occur as early as December, 1998. 5. Marci was to provide to me a copy of the first quarter monitoring wells report which was delivered to the County. I also request that Marci provide a copy of such report directly to Dale Patton, American Stores Properties, Inc., P.O. Box 26948, Salt Lake City, UT 84126-0948. I also request that Marci send a copy of each subsequent quarterly report to both Dale and me. I appreciate your continuing cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES By:. Larry Tucker General Partner cc: Nasser Sionit Dale Patton, ASPI Robin Edwards, Esq. Debbie Felt, Esq., Arco Jim Poynter, ASPI Kareem Ali, ASPI Steve Grant Jeff Gibson, Carlsbad Planning Department Marci J. Richards, Secor Eos Nmos ^thrilte^ of La Costa Valley move SANDRA HAZELTINE STAFF.WRITER , . • , , •CARLSBAD/- Los^Ninbsi Preschool and- Kindergarten*' may be one of the first resi- dents to move to south Carls- bad's recently opened LalCosta. Valley development. : ,; ' The preschool, which lias; been serving the community • from the same La Costa build- ing for eight years, is negotiat- ing with the developer of the master-planned community to ^operate a* public tday care that 'will open there later this year. Officials >at the preschool hope , to have a deal in place within a - . v ,,>< Los Ninos occupies about 5,000 square feet of space in La' Costa Plaza, at El Caniino Real and La Costa Avenue. There are plans to demolish the plaza and build a new cen- ter anchored by a Lucky super- market and Sav-On drug store in its place. •„,,,..„,„. ': '•- The pres^Bbf 'wSs frnalizing' a lease agreement to: remain at the plaza after it was renovated when the offer came through for the La Costa Valley proper- ty "The opportunity just came up and we're very thrilled about it," said Cindy Cesena, co-owner of Los Ninos. "If everything works out, this would allow La Costa Plaza to incorporate more retail space. It just seems to make sense for everyone involved." Officials with Grant Tucker Properties, developers of La Costa Plaza, said Los Ninos' 'Continued froilB- The new building will feature 5,700 square feet, and will be designed specifically as a day care. "•- What makes the move even more attractive is that it is lesswhere, we're happ^; f6r th^nii" ^ „ Plans for •ttiepla^a*fi4ve been•*; than a mile away from the cur- submitted to the city, anil'••'a^e''^:.vjrent facility, so parents won't •nnt*+£*rt *A 'rrrv' VhA&Y*a» t-li iv*1EJ1 ofi-tvt-ri «^-; . T-ioira *-'ri tT*Oir£il •ffai* *-fi /^TWI"» frll^-iT*.have to travel far to drop their children off, Cesena said. tKe> •;' '*' Parents were alerted of 'the 'possible move and negotiations ' week, and, most seemed' . ,?,-As it staffidspteafel^/Sav^6n^and an ARCO gas" station'" aridy ininimart are the only confirmedtenants. ,',. •,^^---^--~-:^j~-^ •••- '..;.. Los Nmps^hppes^o^moye intp^ this fall 'wh'en^i|tni^teSjfe6af6.>..,.-,. . --»,..'• :• ^ffi^anff^iff^f:.f ,i-r. ••'.'facility is scheduled to be com- pleted. . ^ ' ?i . La; Costa Valley held its grand ' bpenihg and first home sales on Sunday. Located just east of El Camino Real along Calle ;,f Barcelona, it will feature; a mix ;/ of public trails, residential homes, schools arid community amenities including the public day-care facility. withdrawal from the negotia- tions table would have little ef- fect on their plans to build the new center. The space that was set aside for the preschool will still be built, though it is not known who will occupy it. "If Los Ninos wants to be a tenant in our center, that's' great," said Larry Tucker, gener- al partner of Grant Tucker Properties. "If they want to go else- > MOVE, B-4 A AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. REPRESENTING ACME MARKETS / JEWEL FOOD STORES / JEWEL OSCO LUCKY STORES / OSCO DRUG / SAV-ON May 28, 1998 Mr. Jeff Gibson, Assistant Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Disclosure Statement Lucky Store #121-283 NEC La Costa & El Camino Dear Mr. Gibson: Attached you shall find the Amended Disclosure Statement for the above referenced store. Should you have any questions and/or comments, please contact me at (714) 739-7490. Sincerely, AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. Kareem Ali Entitlement Manager - Western Region 0528 l.doc CORPORATE OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH A Subsidiary of American Stores Company City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 26, 1998 Dorian Fortney Fortney Associates Inc. 6052 North 1 6th St. Phoenix AZ 85016 SUBJECT: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-04/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97- 03/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you on Friday, May 26, 1998, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on June 8, 1998. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:00 am. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Jeff Gibson at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455. CITY QF CARLSBAD E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:JG:kc File Copy 2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ~f\ May 6, 1998 TO: KATHLEEN CASO FROM: Associate Engineer Quon REVISIONS TO ENGINEERING CONDITIONS LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER CT 97-09/CUP 97-03/GPA 97-02/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/ZC 97-02 1. Condition No. 42 should be listed as the first engineering condition. 2. Add condition No. 48: 48. The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&R's). "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street- Design Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this condition." 3. Replace condition no. 65 and the + condition with: 64. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. Public right-of-way dedications required of this project are: a. A public utility and access easement for access to the Leucadia County Water District property. b. Along the project frontage on El Camino Real to accommodate a 12' wide deceleration lane. c. Along the project frontage on La Costa Avenue to accommodate a 14' wide dedicated right-turn lane. 4. Replace condition no. 67 with the following: 67. Direct access rights for all lots abutting El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue shall be waived on the final map except for the approved driveway locations shown on the tentative map. 5. Replace the + condition following no. 67 with the following: • The developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that lot line adjustments have been accomplished with the adjacent property owners so that lot lines conform with those shown on the tentative map. 6. Replace condition no. 71 b with b. Dedicated right-turn lane on La Costa Avenue at El Camino Real for westbound to northbound traffic. 7. Delete condition no. 76. 8. Replace condition no. 78a with the following: a. All improvements are private and are to be privately maintained with the exception of fire system water lines. 9. Delete condition no. 78b. Thank you for your assistance. If you have questions, please contact me at extension 4380. COMMUNITY: LUCKY ENG CONDITIONS MODIFIED Date: May 5. 1998 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 TO: FROM: Jeff Gibson Kelly Efimoff CMWD NO.97-277 SUBJECT: La Costa Plaza (Luckv/SavOn) The District is responding to your request for conditions on the subject project dated April 7. 1997. In response to your inquiry of May 4, 1998, the District has reviewed the subject project. Based on our review of the project, we have the following conditions regarding potable water, recycled water and sewer systems: 1. The Developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for any meter installation. 2. The Developer shall provide detailed information to the District Engineer regarding water demand, irrigation demand, fire flow demand in gallons per minute, and projected sewer flow in million gallons per day. 3. The entire potable water system, recycled water system and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail by Developer and District Engineer to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met. 4. All District pipelines, pump stations, pressure reducing stations and appurtenances required for this project by the District shall be within public right- of-way or within easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad -'Page two Planning Department Date: May 5, 1998 5. Sequentially, the Developer's Engineer shall do the following: A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. B. Prepare and submit a colored recycled water use area map and submit this map to the Planning Department for processing and approval by the District Engineer. C. Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and recycled water improvement plans, the Developer shall submit preliminary system layouts to the District Engineer for review, comment and approval. 6. The following note shall be placed on the final map. "This project is approved upon the expressed condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District serving the development has adequate water and sewer capacity available at the time development is to occur, and that such water and sewer capacity will continue to be available until time of occupancy." 7. All potable water and recycled water meters shall be placed within public right of way. 8. The following items shall apply if checked: D No more than 19 homes shall be served on a single potable water distribution pipeline. For those locations with more than 19 homes, a looped potable water pipeline system shall be designed. ^ A public fire flow system shall be required for this industrial or commercial development, and it shall be constructed as a looped pipeline system. 9. The looped potable water system shall connect to the existing potable pipelines for the 318 H.G.L. pressure zone. The loop shall include a minimum of one (1) connection within La Costa Boulevard, a minimum of one (1) connection within El Camino Real and fire hydrant runs shall be limited to a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) feet. 10. All irrigation meters for this project shall be placed within the El Camino Real right-of-way for future connection to reclaimed water mains. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of all water pipelines (onsite and offsite) as necessary to serve this development and to provide onsite easements, therefore. All existing water pipelines shall be abandoned and removed. Subsequent to abandonment and removal, all existing easements will be quitclaimed. Page three ^^ Planning Department Date: May 5, 1998 If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Kelly Efimoff Associate Engineer KJE:sjs •City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 30, 1998 Larry Tucker Grant Tucker Properties One Corporate Plaza P.O. Box 7974 Newport Beach, CA 92658 SUBJECT: GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT 97-09/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97- 03/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03 - LA COSTA LUCKY SAVON SHOPPING CENTER Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on June 17, 1998. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by May 21, 1998, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled' hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. Please submit the following plans: A) 13 copies of your (site plans, landscape plans, building elevation plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into SVz' x 11" size. B) One 81/2" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans. 2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/CT^-09/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/CUP 97^/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03 LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER APRIL 30, 1998 PAGE 2 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. C) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners and/or occupants within a 100 and/or 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an apartment or suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the street address line. DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Airal Rounded MT Bold 9 pt .Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt,), and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: UNACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith Mrs. Jane Smith MRS JANE SMITH 1 23 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 123 Magnolia Ave. APT 3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Apt. #3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE Carlsbad, CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 C) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1 " = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. D) Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad) shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash and credit cards are also accepted. Sincerely, JEFF GIBSON Associate Planner JG:mh Attachment I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: APR-17-98 08:42AM FROM-PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUPDEVELC 714-760-8584 T-056 P.02/02 F-545 RICHARD AND KAREV BARNES 7623 RUSTICO DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PHONE (760) 632-0821 4/13/98 MRS. ANNE KULCHm CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR.CARLSBAD, CA 92008-19S9 RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF LA COSTA PLAZA DEAR ANNE: WE ABE PLEASED WITH THE DEVELOPER'S EFFORTS TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS AND THE» WILLINGNESS TO RESPOND WITH PROPOSED CHANGES. THE PROPOSED PLAZA IS DESIGNED TO BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND BASED ON THE SITE PLANS WE HAVE SEEN, THE PROJECT APPEARS TO MEET OUR EXPECTATIONS, THE PROPOSED ROOFING MATERIAL WILL BE AN EARTH TONE COLOR CALLED "SUMMER SAGE". EACH OF THE AH* CONDITIONING UNITS WILL BE CAMOUFLAGED WITH A BROWN ANODJZED FRAMEWORK WITH BROWN ANNODIZED PERFORATED MESH. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LUCKY BUILDING WD-L BE LINED WITH TREES D7 LEUCADIA WATER DISTRICT VfJLL PERMIT THEM OR VINES SHOULD THE TREES POSE A PROBLEM FOR THE DISTRICT. BEST REGARDS, RICH & KARJN BARNES 7623 RUSTICO DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 t Jo Vw\6/V\fl,KsL_ From ^)'\ Jp Date 17 19 D Reply Wanted * Reply Necessary f CITY OF CARLSBAD Interoffice Correspondence FROM: SUBJECT: OFFICE: Planning DATE: 3- ATTACHEMNTS: X REPLY REQUESTED: ' X SIGNATURE REPLY: DATE:SIGNATURE: FORTNEY .-< ' j 6052 NORTH 16TH STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 ASSOCIATES,, TELEPHONE (602) 955:0999 ' FACSIMILE (602) 955-9292 March9,1998''" ^ , ' - ( ) _ _/- /"A ,1 _/ ' / HAND DELIVERED _ "— X ~~ - "-- • •- ,' ^- - \ ' r ' . JeffGibsbn '^ ' ' • ' ' ' ' • . .-.' ^ ' ' City of Carlsbad / N / ,2075 Las Paimas Drive "^ * - i; ^ ' Carlsbad, CA. 92009-1576 - . .--, '• i < ", ^ '! (619)438-1,161 rj ~ • ; .' - ' - '4~>' vJ - - -^ . ' " RE: Response to City Comments v ^ - \- _ / Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283 ) i La Costa Plaza ^ Intersection of La Costa Avenue and Eltamino Real Carlsbad, CA .s ; '•- \ '; ' -, ' - V ' Dear Jeff: ' \ „ _ / The following are responses, to City Comments "Issues of Concern" of (l'0/l 5/97 (Planning Department), and 10/27/97 (Engineering Department) as well as redliiied Landscape comments fromXarry Black, dated 11/4/97. /Redline sets are also, attached for your reference. ,.,''- RESPONSES TO ISSUES OF CONCERN, dated 10/15/97: \ '.' \ '''--. _. •'' ' , 1. The Arched entry plement previously interpreted as a wall has been Eliminated. •' . . ^ ' \ • -, ' / ' -, 2. The site' plan has been revised to separate standard'from compact space's with landscape 1 planters, thereby providing both separation and enhancement. , 3. The westerly lot line for Lot No. 8 has been moved to the top of the slope, •=- \ 4. Landscape planters have been added along buildings E-G. , " 5. Parking numbers have been revised to reflect all past and^current revisions. / v. _/ ' - . -~". ' \ ""-'"•• 6. --. A continuous hedge has been provided'in lieu of a wall along the south side of the drive north of Building C, as discussed \yith planning staff. x ; ^ 1 'l ' '' - • - - '~ • / • ' f7. The signage proposed for the Arco .building is well within the allowable area restrictions^ Trademark logos and lettering have been utilized for a consistent national image, and are not x inconsistent with other channel lettering proposed throughout the "center. The monument sign serves a dual purpose, withj'modest" identification of the business, and posting of v competitive pricing. Internal illumination of this information is a legal requirement in the / State of California. The length of this.sign has beer) reduced to 12 feet,N as requested by staff. - .. x -, '. -' • -- ••>'1"' ' ( - \ ,•-'.'•' ' ' •" 1 .... , v , v ' '' .-'• ' < • . . v ' 1^ --.'•-... 'W • • . v __ -• N ,. • / " . ' 1 . Jeff Gibson ) ; - • - . -^ \ ' ' ^ ^ N March 9,: 1998'' 7 ,> V ^ x ' '•- "' ,. > '' i \ - ' •-Page Two v~ ^ > ;, , ' ; 1 : . , " •• - . ' " X -•- ; / • , ' - -•• ' /1 ' ' .-'.\ • -^ ;. .•• > ' ^ - i o • - ' • .. v •' >.- ^ • -V ' - . f ^ . . -; ; /We feel that the proposed-sign is similar in scale and design to others proposed within the center. .8. ARCp attests that^Fast food partnering program 'is no longer apart of.Arco facilities. The ^ ' . '\ area in question on the floor plan is for Deli foods as part of the mihirmart and will not be \ used for fast food preparation. Parking recalculation and revision is not necessary.x ( - N • r 1 '• 9.t The revised sign program complies with/the maximum allowed area of, 1300 square feet. - , v This cajculated maximum includes the frontages of all stores, including the loading frontage ;7 on the Lucky store, which has been communicated to staff. x x . \.' ' •• ; _, -' \ v' ( /:- " - ' . • ' •' 'V '• v ' {> - ,. / i / • -. " \10. The Los Ninos preschool^will operate with a maximum of 100 children at^this location, L ~- which can be supported by the ^proposed play area^ '• > \ \ i \'~ . , - ,11. The City has provided the referenced design element via\a rendering of a similar design. The A trash detail, with trellice, is now^epresented in the 'revised drawings. , 12. The site plan has been revised to incorporate City redline comments. -"',.'••••'• /•''•' .,'. ^ :',, ' : ,> ^ •':.\ • . . -~ ' . r -•' . f - ^ RESPONSES TO ^ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS", dated 10/27/97:- ' ! v- :^ - ; '. . > • •-• x - • ~ - //, la. The traffic^ engineer, Ifehr & Peers, summarized the results of a supplemental study,x dated August I'l,' 1997 in their Jetter ofx ^October 30, 1997. They conclude thatjbased on the •operational Analysis, the lengths of the proposed left turn pockets areyadequate. A copy of ' ' • their letter is attached. ' x .; " . ' -~ -. " " . ~ , , / ^,' • ' A ' ' v \ ' • ' ^v ^ " ' ' ' ' ' ; '- • .. ,lb! The same consultan,t summarizes his response to this item by statirig that the right-turn cannot be exiended without reducing or /eliminating the bay transition* The bay transition^ enhances traffic flow near the project's entrance and enables me pedestrian crossing distance ^ across La Costa Avenue -to be minimized;- therefore,; reducing or eliminating the bay/ ' transition is not recommended.1 7 , <''•'. ^ ' ' ^" " "•' 7 "-• •... ,, . - .. -lc. This item , referenced the^pefformance of thex site intersections, and has been addressed in an October 31, Jl 997^ letter from Grant Tucker Properties. Anticipated future intersection ^ performance's no worse .with the development of this project, and in fact improved xj performance will result at;the project,entrance on La Costa Avenue due to the project improvpmehtsi A copy of the referenced letter is attached. / "r 2. Xsvpreferred byjthe City, the west side of the turn pocket in the median on El Camino Real is to/be,striped. .''•>.-.•';,,'• , } . " -•'|',.'; •.,'"' ^, . ^ x- ^ I I .x Jeff Gibson March 9, 1998 Page Three ' \ , >.;••-:' < ' ' > . - M / ' v v ' \ l >' \.3. The raised median improvements fronting the site>onEl Camino Real will be terminated at ;x the project; boundary, as- there are no raised medians beyond. Striping (alignments will be ' -' '"' ' ' ' ' "Vcoordinated. , , _; f ,- ;V/ .''_ ' f.'S ' •'" ' "" (< " C ' VN ' 4. A Bus stop has been added in a location advised/by NCTDr , 5, The angled alignment of the drive north bf Building/Qdoes, roughly align with ,westerlyvdrive /serving Building C. Any further realignment of obtain direct east- westj relationship, would / • <- . offset-;adjacent drives, reduce parking spaces or both. We do not anticipate significant cross \; traffic at this location,)and feel that the current design is workable. ~ . /x .x access to SDG&EytowerA structures.'"•••""•'.' 2. Palm trees within the SDG&E easement area have not been added due to SDG&E height restrictions. -.x' <•• '. \ ' , s •' '\ • - ;-, '•; i .,V ~'/y ' v/ V 7/ ''"- ' • A; '' '" , s ' [/i' V " '•" '" - 3. Vine pockets have been provided at columnl locations in lieu of larger plantings, for the same reason as noted above, and^s agree, d^ wjjji ^ff. ^ , ^'" ^ , ' \ % . "V - ^ -.l\^, ' - -\ A'^..-' v -s '•:• : ,''•'' >.. /••••': I' '/ ') -' ' ' ''-. "{ '. .: '• '-'. I -•• •(>':•> ' -, : ^ «' • ;"' •::'-"V' •, '•>•• ,'^ ' , \ • - . , .' \ .'/•>- '" < -. , / • i. / V "v (, ^ - "" ;Y> '- L ' ^' ' •... -'." 'I'' . ,' '" 1 6. Proposed striping within^the;project, site has vbeen-added for the entrance areas on both La Costa Avenue^and on El Carhino Real, as well as striping for the gas station' .driveway. ^ 7. We feel it isvimportant to maintain the parking spaces p front of Building C. These are, ' similar to and, should^ present 'no mo^e' /significant an' issue than those ^parking spaces / adjoining isles in frontof Buildings D, E and F. ^ We have\widened,and eliminated parking A on the main aisles, which arelhose serying'the La Costa Avenue and El Camino^Real drive '; entries.' • i - . ^ '• \- \ , • ^'' ^ ^._ • , -\ ' '," 8. The east parking lot has been revised per City concerns. ^ 9, Detailsfof the 'proposed detention basin have' been provided. t ' ( / '' i ' ~ N- • " v . • , \v i / - ' i ' ~~' ' ' ^ ~ .10. We have delineated on the plans the 100-year flood line for\"before" and "after"1 conditions.' J ' ^ • "^* / —'-, ^ ^ j/\ ' ^ ' ^' . '' - • ' \ RESPONSE TO LANDSCAPE REDLEVE COMMENTS: " ^ >' « ) ' ' • ~~ ~ " ' / -/All issues on^the landscape plan redlirie dated 11/4/97 have been addressed or resolved through \-' subsequent meeti'ng with LarryvBlack. The following notes clarify^the final revisions: A . / ' \ " ' '' •' ' ~ • / ' '' -'.A ' V ' ' \\ - '.. —(- ' i ] \ • • 1\ i ' ^ x •'.''-••'. ^ / ' /-, i L Continuous screening at the perimeter of the parking lot must>be broken at the required , "> I ; I ( r . Jeff Gibson .' . ' ..' March9, 1998V ' --Page Four . ' '• ' - x J • ' ' / . - •^ ~ . . v ^ • • .• . • v ,.-'-- ' 4. Further restriction/ on the access to the Lucky loading area, would severely restrict truck." ••" N \ i ' /i ' -- ; v i N ^\ • • / movements, while not accomplishing, significant screening. The landscape additions have'therefore not been required by s^taff. - ARCO plan revisions will be submitted separately.; However; many of the re'dlirie comments on / their\ plans have been addressed through SL revision to the master sign^program and site plan.f• ' .. .. .:-..'., ^ / ^. ',.:/;. - . ^ •.' . - ; ~ ', . \: We appreciate your assistance with this complex project. Please feel free to call if you have any questions! And please notify us "of any. upcoming meeting dates so that we might schedule travel for several representatives." , \ '. ; " -\''. \ x, ^ J x \ ' < ' •' ' ""\;: - ' "'\ ^ • ] >' - ' '" ; Best Regards, .', >/x ^ .. / \- • . \ ,. t . '-• .-.' ,/) ' ^r FORTNEYAssociates, Inc: / " ^ , \ ,. ' _ ; vI i .si S I- i I - - ' • ( J ^ , . . /-- i ' v • ', i / • *~ \. \ j / Dorian F. Fortney,v / • v PC:' KenQuon - • - A ' " \ i / Larry Tucker v/ / i ^' / 7 •,/•'. J '-- *' . ' ', KareemAli _, i "\ / , •-' i ^ ^ - Jim Kilcoyne .-''•' ^ - '• x • • i - - J •/- j- - " ' Meg Purviance \~" • v , • ' Greg'Evans ( > f l , Craig Yamasaki x \ MikeRiggle / ^ ' v / I . Signage Guidelines Imaging Identification Prepared by: FORTNEY Associates, Inc. 6052 North 16* Street Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 604-8066 March 1998 \ TRANSMITTAL LETTER To: See below Attn: Date: 03/13/98 Job No.: 961033 Project: Lucky #121-283 Re:: Resubmittal for GPA 97-02/ZC 97- 02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 97-32/PUD 97-13 T.M..-CT 97-09 Dwg: City of Carlsbad HAND 760-438-1161 760-438-0894 Jeff Gibson 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Enclosed: 1 Redlines of previous submittal 1 Copy of City comments (Planning-10/15/97 and 11/25/97, Engineering-10/27/97) 1 Narrative response to Planning and Engineering comments 3 Tentative map 3 Site plans 3 Landscape plans 3 Building elevations and trash details 3 Fixture plan 1 Reduced site plan 3 Updated preliminary Title Report 1 Sign program 1 Scale map Remarks: Enclosed is submitted for your review and approval. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you. -\*h By: Meg purviance cc: Kareem All, ASPI Dorian Fortney, Fortney Larry Tucker, Grant/Tucker Paul Loubet, ARCO 7220 Avenida Encinas Suite 204 Carlsbad, California 92009 760-931-7700 Fax: 760-931-8680 Civil Engineering Planning Processing Surveying E-mail:odayconsul@aol. com R-13-98 02:11PM FROM-PACIF1C DEVELOPMENT GROUP 714-760-8584 T-416 P-02/02 F-004 A JO6L M GJTVlCf March 13,199X VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS D. Richard Rudolf Assistant City Attorney CttyofCwlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Re: #121-283; Carlsbad, California Dear Richard: Enclosed arc TWO (2) fuUy executed original copies of the Indemnity and Defense Agreement Regarding Commercial Devdopmentljof La Costa Plaza for the above-referenced property. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly-y - — Jell H. Guth Mr. Kareem All (with enclosure) Mr- Larry Tucker (without enclosure, by fax: to (714) 760-8584) ««<EAS7 lOOSOUTv, -Si^Tt. TO BO* *7»4? / SdCT LAKS C'TV UTAM &-l?T-Oo*7 TOTflU PRQE.002 March 16, 1998 TO:Jeff Gibson via Planning Director FROM: City Attorney LA COSTA PLAZA DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT Attached is a fully executed original of the "Indemnity and Defense Agreement Regarding Commercial Development of La Costa Plaza (#121-283)". Please keep it in your files in the event of a lawsuit. D. RICHARD RUDOD Assistant City Attorney rmh attachment INDEMNITY AND DEFENSE AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LA COSTA PLAZA (#121-283) This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Carlsbad, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and American Stores Properties, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Applicant"), is entered as of the /p?-" day of HA^L : 1998. RECITALS A. City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with Applicant's redevelopment of commercial property located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad, California, hereinafter referred to as "La Costa Plaza". B. Applicant and City's Planning Director believe that CMC Chapter 19.04 and CEQA allow preparation of a mitigated negative declaration rather than a Subsequent or Supplemental General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report under the factual circumstances of this Project, and Applicant is willing to enter into this Agreement to defend and indemnify City in the event of environmental litigation on the terms set forth herein. C. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as imposing any constraint or limitation on, or contractual commitment of, City's legislative or administrative discretion regarding La Costa Plaza or the conduct of the public's business. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these Recitals, the parties hereby agree as follows; 1. Definitions. The "Environmental Approvals" governed by this Agreement are the approvals required in connection with the environmental documents (the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa Plaza by Applicant. "Environmental Litigation" as used herein shall mean any lawsuit filed by third parties for the purpose of attacking the adequacy of the above-described environmental documents, or nullifying, invalidating or setting aside any or all of the Environmental Approvals, except to the extent such lawsuit is based upon the alleged sole negligence or intentional misconduct of the City's officers, agents and employees. 2. Payment for and Defense of Environmental Litigation. The City, upon receipt of written notice of any Environmental Litigation, promptly shall tender defense of the City therein to Applicant. Applicant, at its election, shall defend such action, and if Applicant elects to defend such action Applicant shall defend the City, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from and against Litigation Costs in the Environmental Litigation, as provided herein, at Applicant's sole cost. If Applicant elects not to defend such action, Applicant shall be responsible for any award of attorneys fees and costs entered in connection with an immediate default without appearance by City in such action, provided that Applicant shall have the right to contest, in its own name or in the name of the City, any such award of attorneys fees and costs. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. Following an initial election to accept tender of defense, Applicant may at any time thereafter, upon five (5) days prior written notice to the City elect to withdraw such defense, and Applicant shall thereupon be released from all further obligations of such defense. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the City hereunder, Applicant shall have sole discretion to determine the appropriate strategies and tactics employed in defense of the Environmental Litigation; provided however, that (a) settlement of any Environmental Litigation and any appeal of any trial court decision or request for reviews of any appellate decision may not be effected, taken of dismissed without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed; (b) such tactics and strategies shall not violate any state or federal law, regulation promulgated thereunder and/or City ordinance or written policy; and (c) in the event that the City reasonably disagrees with any such strategy or tactic, the City may terminate Applicant's defense of the City and any and all obligations thereafter to defend or hold harmless the City under this Section 2 and the City shall be entitled to retain its own counsel, at its own cost, and take whatever action or inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in defending its interests in the Environmental Litigation. Applicant shall also have the right to defend its own interests in the Environmental Litigation with its own counsel and, if it elects to defend the action, to have the City's interests represented by separate counsel (reasonably acceptable to the City, including representation by the City Attorney, if the City so requests). Applicant shall pay all Litigation Costs (as defined in Section 3 below) through the time frame and events described in Section 4 below. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the action and/or pay for the defense of the City in connection with Environmental Litigation and said defense has not been terminated under subsection 2(c) above, the City shall fully cooperate with Applicant in that defense. 3. Payment of City's Litigation Defense Costs. Subject to the provisions of Section 4 below, Applicant shall pay and/or reimburse to the City the reasonable costs ("Litigation Costs") incurred by City in defense of the Environmental Litigation. Litigation Costs shall include: (i) as to services provided by other counsel or the City Attorney in defending the City, reasonable attorney's fees as charged by such other counsel or the City Attorney; and (ii) all other reasonable costs incurred by the City Attorney or other counsel in connection with defending Environmental Litigation. Prior to incurring Litigation Costs, the City shall obtain the prior written approval of Applicant as to billing rates of the law firm (or City Attorney) working on such litigation, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City and Applicant shall endeavor to obtain a budget for the Litigation Costs expected to by incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs within thirty (30) days of receiving an invoice, and other supporting documentation reasonably acceptable to Applicant, therefor. 4. Termination of Litigation. Applicant shall reimburse Litigation Costs incurred (a) by City through the date when the City receives Applicant's written notice of Applicant's decision not to defend, or to withdraw and cease such defense of the Environment Litigation, or (b) by the City through the date the City delivers its notice terminating Applicant's defense of the City pursuant to Section 2(c), above. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated herein, if Applicant elects not to defend, or to withdraw and cease defense of the Environmental Litigation at any time, the City thereafter shall be entitled in its sole discretion to pursue or terminate the Environmental Litigation, without, however, any right of further contribution of Litigation Costs or otherwise from Applicant. 5. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications (collectively, "Notices") hereunder shall be in writing and given by (i) established express delivery service which maintains delivery records, (ii) hand delivery, or (iii) certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses, or at such other address as the parties may designate by Notice in the above manner: To Applicant: American Stores Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 27447 Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0447 Attention: Legal Department (121-283) Fax no. (801)961-5595 To City: Attention: Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlbad, California 92009 Fax no. (760)438- 0894 Notices may also be given by fax, provided the Notice is concurrently given by one of the above methods. Notices are effective upon receipt, or upon attempted delivery if delivery is refused or impossible because of failure to provide a reasonable means for accomplishing delivery. 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the Environmental Approvals and the Environmental Litigation. Wherefore, the parties hereto execute this Agreement on the date first set forth above. CITY OF CARLSBAD, a Municipal corporation By: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation Its. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: . ASSISTANT SECRE APPROVED AS TO FORM ASPI LEGAL A AMERICAN STOIBS PROPERTIES, ING. REPRESENTING ACME MARKETS / JEWEL FOOD STORES / JEWEL OSCO LUCKY STORES / OSCO DRUG / SAV-ON March 11, 1998 Jeff Gibson CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 Re: Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center Enclosed you shall find the EIAF for the La Costa Lucky Sav-on Shopping Center. I have signed it persuant to the City's request. If there are any questions or comments, please call me at (714) 739-7490. Sincerely, \AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC. jxareem AH Entitlements Manager cc: Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Prop. Dorian Fortney, Fortney Assoc. Jim Kilcoyne, ASPI KA/crw 031198.doc CONSTRUCTION DEPT. - 6565 KNOTT AVENUE, MAIL DROP #5914, BUENA PARK, CA 90620 CORPORATE OFFICE SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH A Subsidiary ot American Stores Company RONALD R. BALL CITY ATTORNEY D. RICHARD RUDOLF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JANE MOBALDI DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (760) 434-2891 FAX: (760) 434-8367 March 3, 1998 Joel H. Guth Director of Legal Affairs American Stores Properties, Inc. 444 East 100 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 RE: LA COSTA PLAZA (CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA) Dear Mr. Guth: Mr. Rudolf asked that I return to you the four original "Indemnity and Defense Agreement Regarding Commercial Development of La Costa Plaza (#121-283)" documents which have been signed by Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director and Approved as to Form by Mr. Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney. Once the Agreement has been executed by American Stores Properties, Inc., please return a fully executed original for our file. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this regard. I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter. Vefly truly yours, RANDEE HARLIB Secretary to the City Attorney rmh enclosures c: Planning Director Jeff Gibson INDEMNITY AND DEFENSE AGREEMENT REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LA COSTA PLAZA (#121-283) This Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Carlsbad, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and American Stores Properties, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Applicant"), is entered as of the day of , 1998. RECITALS A. City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with Applicant's redevelopment of commercial property located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad, California, hereinafter referred to as "La Costa Plaza". B. Applicant and City's Planning Director believe that CMC Chapter 19.04 and CEQA allow preparation of a mitigated negative declaration rather than a Subsequent or Supplemental General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report under the factual circumstances of this Project, and Applicant is willing to enter into this Agreement to defend and indemnify City in the event of environmental litigation on the terms set forth herein. C. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as imposing any constraint or limitation on, or contractual commitment of, City's legislative or administrative discretion regarding La Costa Plaza or the conduct of the public's business. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these Recitals, the parties hereby agree as follows; 1. Definitions. The "Environmental Approvals" governed by this Agreement are the approvals required in connection with the environmental documents (the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa Plaza by Applicant. "Environmental Litigation" as used herein shall mean any lawsuit filed by third parties for the purpose of attacking the adequacy of the above-described environmental documents, or nullifying, invalidating or setting aside any or all of the Environmental Approvals, except to the extent such lawsuit is based upon the alleged sole negligence or intentional misconduct of the City's officers, agents and employees. 2. Payment for and Defense of Environmental Litigation. The City, upon receipt of written notice of any Environmental Litigation, promptly shall tender defense of the City therein to Applicant. Applicant, at its election, shall defend such action, and if Applicant elects to defend such action Applicant shall defend the City, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from and against Litigation Costs in the Environmental Litigation, as provided herein, at Applicant's sole cost. If Applicant elects not to defend such action, Applicant shall be responsible for any award of attorneys fees and costs entered in connection with an immediate default without appearance by City in such action, provided that Applicant shall have the right to contest, in its own name or in the name of the City, any such award of attorneys fees and costs. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. Following an initial election to accept tender of defense, Applicant may at any time thereafter, upon five (5) days prior written notice to the City elect to withdraw such defense, and Applicant shall thereupon be released from all further obligations of such defense. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the City hereunder, Applicant shall have sole discretion to determine the appropriate strategies and tactics employed in defense of the Environmental Litigation; provided however, that (a) settlement of any Environmental Litigation and any appeal of any trial court decision or request for reviews of any appellate decision may not be effected, taken of dismissed without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed; (b) such tactics and strategies shall not violate any state or federal law, regulation promulgated thereunder and/or City ordinance or written policy; and (c) in the event that the City reasonably disagrees with any such strategy or tactic, the City may terminate Applicant's defense of the City and any and all obligations thereafter to defend or hold harmless the City under this Section 2 and the City shall be entitled to retain its own counsel, at its own cost, and take whatever action or inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in defending its interests in the Environmental Litigation. Applicant shall also have the right to defend its own interests in the Environmental Litigation with its own counsel and, if it elects to defend the action, to have the City's interests represented by separate counsel (reasonably acceptable to the City, including representation by the City Attorney, if the City so requests). Applicant shall pay all Litigation Costs (as defined in Section 3 below) through the time frame and events described in Section 4 below. In the event that Applicant elects to defend the action and/or pay for the defense of the City in connection with Environmental Litigation and said defense has not been terminated under subsection 2(c) above, the City shall fully cooperate with Applicant in that defense. 3. Payment of City's Litigation Defense Costs. Subject to the provisions of Section 4 below, Applicant shall pay and/or reimburse to the City the reasonable costs ("Litigation Costs") incurred by City in defense of the Environmental Litigation. Litigation Costs shall include: (i) as to services provided by other counsel or the City Attorney in defending the City, reasonable attorney's fees as charged by such other counsel or the City Attorney; and (ii) all other reasonable costs incurred by the City Attorney or other counsel in connection with defending Environmental Litigation. Prior to incurring Litigation Costs, the City shall obtain the prior written approval of Applicant as to billing rates of the law firm (or City Attorney) working on such litigation, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City and Applicant shall endeavor to obtain a budget for the Litigation Costs expected to by incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs within thirty (30) days of receiving an invoice, and other supporting documentation reasonably acceptable to Applicant, therefor. 4. Termination of Litigation. Applicant shall reimburse Litigation Costs incurred (a) by City through the date when the City receives Applicant's written notice of Applicant's decision not to defend, or to withdraw and cease such defense of the Environment Litigation, or (b) by the City through the date the City delivers its notice terminating Applicant's defense of the City pursuant to Section 2(c), above. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated herein, if Applicant elects not to defend, or to withdraw and cease defense of the Environmental Litigation at any time, the City thereafter shall be entitled in its sole discretion to pursue or terminate the Environmental Litigation, without, however, any right of further contribution of Litigation Costs or otherwise from Applicant. 5. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications (collectively, "Notices") hereunder shall be in writing and given by (i) established express delivery service which maintains delivery records, (ii) hand delivery, or (iii) certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses, or at such other address as the parties may designate by Notice in the above manner: To Applicant: American Stores Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 27447 Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0447 Attention: Legal Department (121-283) Fax no. (801)961-5595 To City: Attention: Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlbad, California 92009 Fax no. (760) 438-0894 Notices may also be given by fax, provided the Notice is concurrently given by one of the above methods. Notices are effective upon receipt, or upon attempted delivery if delivery is refused or impossible because of failure to provide a reasonable means for accomplishing delivery. 6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the Environmental Approvals and the Environmental Litigation. Wherefore, the parties hereto execute this Agreement on the date first set forth above. CITY OF CARLSBAD, a Municipal corporation Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation By: Its: Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY Bv: Deputy City Attcfcaey ATTEST: By: Its: February 17, 1998 TO: Planning Director FROM: City Attorney LA COSTA PLAZA DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT Enclosed, please find four copies of the Indemnity and Defense Agreement I have negotiated on your behalf with legal counsel for American Stores Properties, Inc. (Lucky Stores) with regard to the mitigated negative declaration for the project. As we discussed last Friday, please execute all four copies, insert the appropriate fax number for your office at the top of the signature page, but do not insert a date on the first page of the Agreement. I have signed approval on behalf of the City Attorney's office. Please ask the project planner, Jeff Gibson, to return all four signed copies directly to Mr. Guth, their Director of Legal Affairs (at the address I wrote to him on February 10, 1998, with a copy to Jeff Gibson). Please make sure Jeff requests the return of at least one signed original back from Mr. Guth, so we have a contractual document to rely on in the event environmental litigation does occur. D. RICHARD RUDOLF Assistant City Attorney rmh attachments c:Jeff Gibson RONALD R. BALL CITY ATTORNEY D. RICHARD RUDOLF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JANE MOBALDI DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE i^ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989/~> (760) 434-2891 FAX: (760) 434-8367 February 10, 1998 Joel H. Guth SENT BY FACSIMILE ONLY Director of Legal Affairs American Stores Properties, Inc. 444 East 100 South Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 RE: YOUR FILE NO. 121-283; CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (LA COSTA PLAZA) Dear Mr. Guth: This is in response to our telephone conversation and your follow-up revision of the draft Indemnity Agreement forwarded by your cover letter of February 5, 1998. This appears to be getting excessively cumbersome for our mutual purposes. I suggest an alternate, short form replacement for the current draft agreement as amended to date. It would clarify that Environmental Litigation would not include any lawsuit otherwise meeting the definition of Environmental Litigation, if it was based upon the alleged sole negligence or intentional misconduct of the City's officers, agents and employees. If that was the basis for the suit, American Stores would have no duty to defend and indemnify. In addition to the clarifying definition, it would have one provision as a replacement section two to read as follows: "2. Applicant's Indemnification and Defense of City. Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees against all costs, expenses, attorneys fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in defending Environmental Litigation, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Applicant, shall at its expense, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action against the City, its officers, agents or employees." Our concern is that the City not spend any money defending either a spurious or meritorious suit to set aside the Environmental Approvals. My proposed provision will allow the City to require American Stores to pay any legal costs the City incurs in the defense (or non-defense) of such an action. Additionally, it will give the City the ability to tender defense to American Stores, if it chooses to do so. That is the City's choice, and in either event the City would be in control of making that decision. If the City decides to defend itself (at American Stores defense), American Stores, of course, has the legal ability to involve itself in the suit as the real party-in-interest. The more likely scenario is that the City will tender defense to American Stores, which tender will be accepted, and the entire expense of defense of both the City and the real party-in-interest will be absorbed by American Stores, and American Stores will be in charge of the litigation, with a duty upon the City for reasonable cooperation. If you agree with this approach, I suggest 1. amending the following changes: the title of the Agreement to read: "Indemnity and Defense Agreement Regarding Commercial Development of La Costa Plaza"; 2. changing the first Recital to read: "A. City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with the redevelopment of commercial property located at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad, California, hereafter referred to as "La Costa Plaza". 3. Change the word "enters" to "enter" in the next to the last line in Recital B; 4. 4. change paragraph one to read as follows: "1. Definitions. The "Environmental Approvals" governed by this Agreement are the onvironmontal roviow approvals required in connection with the environmental documents (the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of La Costa Plaza. 'Environmental Litigation' as used herein shall mean any lawsuit filed by third parties for the purpose of attacking the adequacy of the environmental documents or nullifying, attacking or setting aside anyl or all of the Environmental Approvals, except to the extent such lawsuit is based upon the alleged sole^negti^&nce^gtKM^^Ql misconduct of the City's officers, agents and employees." With my new paragraph two and the "entire agreement" concluding clause, and signature block, I believe we would have a reasonable, adequate agreement for our purposes. Alternatively, if you want to stay with the basic scheme of the current version, please make all the same corrections to the Title, Recitals, Definitions in Section One, and the following changes to the existing balance of the Agreement: 1. In Section Two, at the top of page two, change it to read: "tender defense of the City therein to Applicant". 2. In paragraph two, after the sentence relating to Applicant's ability to withdraw defense upon five days written notice, insert the following new sentence: "If Applicant determines not to defend such action, but that judgment should be entered against the City (and/or Applicant), Applicant shall indemnify City for any litigation expenses, costs, or Plaintiffs attorneys fees awarded against or agreed to be paid by City." 3. In the middle of Section Two after the reference to the City's right to terminate Applicant's defense of the City, please insert after the phrase "any and all obligations" the word "thereafter". 4. Near the end of that same very lengthy sentence, please make the concluding phrase of the sentence read as follows: "... and take whatever action or inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in defending its interests in the Environmental Litigation." 5. In the next sentence please change the reference to the "City" in the phrase "if it elects to defend the City" to "action"; and change the parenthetical phrase relating to the reasonable acceptance by the City to read as follows: "(reasonably acceptable to the City, including representation by the City Attorney, if the City so requests)." 6. In the next to last "sentence, in Section Two, please change "Litigation Cost" to Litigation Costs". In the last sentence, please insert the words "the action" in the introductory phrase so that it reads: "In the event the Applicant elects to defend the action and/or pay for the defense of the City..." 7. In Section Three, line two, please change the word "and" to "and/or". In line five, please change it to read: "provided by other counsel or the City Attorney in defending the City, reasonable attorneys' fees as charged by that Counsel...". 8. At the top of the next page, please re-insert the parenthetical reference to the City Attorney, and change the period at the end of the last sentence to a comma and add the following concluding phrase: "or provide a revolving deposit fund to City consistent with a Litigation Costs budget, as agreed when such a budget is formed." 9. Please add the following new Section Five establishing the names and address of persons to administer the Agreement and renumber Section Five as Section Six: "5. Contract Administration. The name of the persons who are authorized to administer and give written notice and/or receive written notice on behalf of the City and on behalf of the contractor in connection with this Agreement are as follows: For City: For Applicant: Title: Title Name: Name: Address: Address: My preference is the "short form" discussed above. In either event, I hope that the above suggested changes are acceptable to you and we can finalize this Agreement soon. Very truly yours, D. RICHARD Assistant City Attorney afs c: Jeff Gibson JAN-19-98 F10N 16:56 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 6194348367 P. 01 January 19, 1998 TO: Jeff Gibson A FROM; Randee Harlit(jj( LA COSTA PLAZA I have transcribed Rich's notes and they are attached. He was not able to review this since he was out of the office all afternoon. I will leave him a copy and if he has any problems with my transcriptions he will contact you. Basically, he wants this to be a true indemnification agreement. Please call if you have any questions. JAN-19-98 MON 16:57 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 6194348367 P, 02 January 19,1998 TO: Jeff Gibson, Planning Department FROM: City Attorney LA COSTA PLAZA In response to your Request for Legal Advice dated January 7, 1998,1 have the following comments regarding the "Agreement Regarding Commercial Development at the NEC El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, California ("La Costa Plaza")": A. RECITALS 1. Recital A should be changed to read as follows: "City is considering certain land use approvals in connection with the redevelopment of La Costa Place (the "Project"). 2. Recital B should be changed to read as follows: "Applicant and City's Planning Director believe that CMC Chapter 19.04 and CEQA allow preparation of a mitigated negativs declaration rather than a Subsequent or Supplemental General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report under the factual circumstances of this Project, and Applicant is willing to enter into this Agreement to defend and indemnify City in the event of environmental litigation." 3. Recital C - no change. B. Now Therefores 1. Section 2 should be changed to read as follows: "Payment for and Defense of Environmental Litigation. The City, upon receipt of written notice of any Environmental Litigation, promptly shall tender defense thereof to Applicant. Applicant shall defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees in the Environmental Litigation, as provided herein, at Applicant's sole cost. Applicant shall be entitled to appear in and defend the Environmental Litigation as real party in interest, using counsel of Applicant's choice. In the event that Applicant also defends the City hereunder, Applicant shall have sole discretion to determine the appropriate strategies and tactics employed in defense of the Environmental Litigation; provided, however, that (a) settlement of any Environmental Litigation and any appeal of any trial court decision or request for reviews of any appellate decision m.ay not be effected, taken or dismissed without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed; (b) such tactics and strategies JAN-19-98 MON 16:58 CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 6194348367 P. 03 shall not violate any state or federal law, regulation promulgated thereunder and/or City ordinance or written policy; and (c) in the event that the City reasonably disagrees with any such strategy or tactic, the City may terminate Applicant's defense of the City under this Section 2 and the City shall be entitled to retain its own counsel at Applicant's cost, and take whatever action or inaction it deems in the best interests of the City in defending the Environmental Litigation. Applicant shall also have the right to defend its own interests in the Environmental Litigation with its own counsel and, if it also defends the City, to have the City's interests represented by separate counsel (reasonably acceptable to the City). Applicant shall pay all Litigation Costs (as defined in Section 3 below). In the event that Applicant defends and/or pays for the defense of the City in connection with Environmental Litigation and said defense has not been terminated under subsection 2(c) above, the City shall fully cooperate with Applicant in that defense." 2. Section 3 should be changed to read as follows: "Payment of City's Litigation Defense Costs. Applicant shall pay and reimburse to the City the reasonable costs ("Litigation Costs") incurred by City in defense of the Environmental Litigation. Litigation Costs shall include (i) as to services provided by other counsel in defending the City, reasonable attorney's fees as charged by that other counsel; and (ii) all other reasonable costs incurred by the City Attorney or other counsel in connection with defending Environmental Litigation. Prior to incurring Litigation Costs, the City shall obtain the prior w ritten approval of Applicant as to billing rates of the law form working on such litigation, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City and Applicant shall endeavor to obtain a budget for the Litigation Costs expected to be incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs expected to be incurred. Applicant shall reimburse the City said Litigation Costs within thirty (3) days of receiving an invoice therefor." 3. Delete section 4 and renumber section 5. These are my suggested changes to the Agreement. D. RICHARD RUDOLF Assistant City Attornay rmh January 13,1998 Mr. Timothy Jochem General Manager Leucadia Water District 1960 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009-6810 RE: Proposed Lucky/Sav-On Project Dear Tim, This letter is in response to a North County Times article dated January 6, 1998 in which you were quoted "My Board of Directors wants the developer to make peace with the community before building this." Assuming this to be a factual statement, you should be aware that we are not satisfied with the answers (or the lack of answers) we have had from the developers to date. Larry Tucker was considerate enough to meet with us at our home, which overlooks the proposed building site, to discuss our apprehensions. We were told that he would look into our concerns and provide solutions. Our concerns follow: • The proposed Lucky building is slated to be 36 feet higher than the existing parking lot. Why does it need to be so high, especially since it is to be a one story building? Additionally, we understand that the sides of the store are to be constructed of 30 foot tall block walls. Our view would be of those block walls. This is not in keeping with the image of the community and will most certainly negatively impact property values. • The roof of this building and all of the proposed structures are currently designed as flat roofs, with all the heating/cooling/other equipment, etc. on top. This is a significant departure from the current structures and will certainly impact the views currently enjoyed by all of us who overlook this property as well as those traveling west on La Costa Avenue. Leucadia Water District 01/13/98 • The orientation of the AmPm Minimart in the northwest corner of the site will increase the level of noise for those of us on the hill. We suggested that the building be located at the southwest corner of the proposed gas pump site so as to orient the store door towards the northeast. It is our understanding in speaking with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department that this is feasible. Larry Tucker promised he would address these concerns and get back in touch with us. We have called him since our meeting, but he has not had any answers, nor did he indicate that he would address these issues in the future. We do not believe that the proposed plans to use this site for a Lucky/Sav-On and Arco AmPm gas station is the best use for the property. It will not enhance property values nor be an attractive gateway to our fine community of La Costa. If this shopping center must go in, its design, at a minimum, should try to enhance the community and be less offensive than what is currently planned. Sincerely, x^> Richard and Karin Barnes 7623 Rustico Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 CC: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad - Planning Department Ann Kulchin, City Counsel GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER Januarys, 1998 Mr. Jeff Gibson Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: La Costa Plaza Dear Jeff: We expect to meet early next week with Larry Black to go over the preliminary landscape plan comments. After that meeting is complete, we will have the landscape plan revised, making any site plan changes which are necessary as a result of the landscape plan comments and be in a position to submit to you our revised plans which should address virtually every concern described as "issues of concern" attached to Michael Holzmiller's letter to Grant Tucker Properties of October 15, 1997, with one exception. That is, we would like the sign program which we have proposed to be accepted by the City for this project. We will comply with the monument sign requirements of the City, but as for the building signs, we are hoping to have a sign program which allows us the amount of signage that other contemporary centers have in the City (i.e. the center at El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway). Also, we would like to have a planning commission hearing date set as soon as possible. One Corporate Plaza, 2nd Floor, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658 (714)720-0297 FAX(714)760-8584 Mr. Jeff Gibson Page Two Januarys, 1998 If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES Larry Tucker General Partner LT:jv cc: Jim Kilcoyne Kareem Ali Ken Quon Dorian Fortney Steve Grant