Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-09; La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center; Tentative Map (CT) (6)itv of Carlsbad > Planning Department November 25, 1997 Rick Lloyd Fortney Associates, Inc. 2345 East Thomas Road, Suite 490 Phoenix, AZ 85016 LUCKY SAVON SHOPPING CENTER PROJECT CHANCE - CPA 9702 On November 24, 1997 the Planning Department received a proposal to change the project description of the Lucky Savon Shopping Center by the addition of an approximately 480 foot long and 7 foot high earthen mound along San Marcos Creek on the Leucadia County Water District's property. The Planning Department is processing the shopping center redevelopment project under the status of a completed application. Given the change in the proposed project, there is currently not enough information on file with the application to continue the project's environmental review. The Planning Department is requesting that the necessary information be provided with 14 days, or the application should be withdrawn and resubmitted with all the necessary plans and documentation. The proposed earthen mound is considered construction and is located in the San Marcos Creek floodplain. Therefore, the improvement is subject to CEQA environmental review and the requirements of Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Floodplain Management Regulations". Before the Planning Department can begin to process and review the revised project we need the following information: 1. An updated biological analysis to cover the new area of impact created by the grading; 2. An updated "HEC-2 Study" that evaluates the impact of the earthen mound on the San Marcos Creek floodway, floodplain, and the properties along the creek; 3. A revised project description, tentative map, and landscape plan, illustrating the grading improvements, including the quantities of grading and the proposed type of landscaping. 1 hope this letter provides you with the necessary information to proceed with your project and I look forward to working with you on this matter in the future. If you have any questions please contact me at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455. JEFF GIBSON Associate Planner Larry Tucker Grant Tucker Properties, One Corporate Plaza . PO Box 7974, Newport, CA 92658 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1 576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 LEGEND Pedestrian Path tetrieval capmg SW Now A u Large Truck! Route Small Truck+Route -«2' Tw*« B»<Sus Service Area Trash Receptacle Plaza Stop Sign Traffic Signal Fuel Island Bus Stop c ) •:: <Curbside Mail Drop-off -JTVlft Decorative Cap -Stucco Trash Enclosure s> [GROUP INC. ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1201 South Beach Blvd., Suite 207, La Habra, CA 90631-6366 Telephone: (562) 902-8023 Facsimile: (562) 902-8026 BRUCE J.GREENFIELD Managing Architect Associate JOHN W. JOHNSON Architect Co-President November 11, 1997 Jeff Gibson City of Carlsbad Planning Department Established 1966 BRIAN F. ZITA Architect Co-President RE: ARCO am pm Facility #YDX8 El Camino Real @ Shopping Center Access Rd. Carlsbad, CA Revised Traffic Impact Fee / Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee RHLJN: 5146.10 JOHN B. H ICKS Architect Vice President CECIL R. SPENCER Architect Vice President HOWARD G. KIMURA Architect Associate CHRIS LAWTON Regional Manager Associate Jeff, Please find below the revised estimate for the above fees, based on the meetings we've had with David Rick and yourself over the past few months. In determining the fees we have taken into consideration the following facts: 1. This project is not to be included into the CFD (Community Facility District). 2. Credits would be allowed for the prior ARCO station that had existed at the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Ave. at an ADT rate of 750 for Station and 130 for each fueling space (8). 3. The ADTs for the new ARCO Service station w/Food Mart would be calculated based on the SANDAG numbers as provided to us attached to the latest Land Use Review Application. 150 ADTs per fueling space (12). Description ADT x Multiple Credit on old service station bldng 750 Credit on old service station fueling positions 130 Total 750 1040 1790 Credit On Old Service Station JAMES E. PRESTEN Regional Manager Associate GARY M. SEMLING Managing Architect Associate BLYTHE R.WILSON Managing Architect Associate Traffic Impact Fee Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee Charges for new Facility Traffic Impact Fee Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee 1790 ADTs x $34.00 (non CFD) =$60,860 1790 ADTs x $22.00 =$39,380 150ADTs $60,860 + $39,380 = $100,240 x 12 1800 1800 ADTs x $34.00 (non CFD) =$61,200 1800 ADTs x $22.00 =$39,600 $61,200 + 39,600 = $100,800 BELLEVUE, WA PETALUMA, CA SACRAMEN fc\projecAarco\5146.1$bM9Sttna82>l#L E , A Z GROUP INC. The resulting difference between the credit and new charges would be $560.00 total for both the Traffic Impact and Bridge and Thoroughfare Fees combined. Please call me as soon as you have reviewed this letter with confirmation on these calculations. If there are any questions or if you need additional information, please call me at 562-902-8023, ext. 209. Sincerely, RHL Design Group, Inc. Forgey \\ I Captain \ cc: Craig Yamasaki - ARCO Joe Zapatoczny - ARCO Tom Riggle - RHL Mike Peterson - City Building Dept. BELLEVUE, WA PETALUMA, CA f:\project\arco\5146.10\westman2.1trSACRAMENTO, CA SCOTTSDALE.AZ November 6, 1997 Mr. Jeff Gibson Project Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: La Costa Lucky/Sav-On Shopping Center, GPA 97-02 Dear Mr. Gibson: North County Transit District (NCTD) has reviewed above referenced project and has the following comments: 1. NCTD operates Routes 309 on El Camino Real in Carlsbad. Route 309 provides corridor service between Camp Pendleton and Encinitas seven days a week between approximately 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Route 309 utilizes an existing northbound bus stop located on El Camino Real farside of La Costa Avenue along the frontage of the project. 2. NCTD requests that the existing bus stop be relocated approximately 70 feet north of the first driveway along the frontage of Lot 2. A bus shelter, bench, trash receptacle, boarding pad, sidewalk and street lighting should also be provided at the bus stop. All facilities should meet ADA regulations and NCTD standards. The shelter can be designed to compliment the architectural style of the development. NCTD recommends the use of perforated metal screening instead of glazing for improved durability. 3. NCTD also requests that the roadway be striped so that the outside travel lane is 20 feet wide including the bikelane (12' travel lane & 8' bike lane). This lane width will permit buses to stop without impeding the flow of traffic, thereby avoiding the need to build a full bus turnout. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 967-2S59. Sincerely, Chris Schmidt Assistant Planner cc: Meg Purviance, O'Day lac luck.doc NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054 7AO-967-2828 CITY OF CARLSBAD Inter-office Correspondence DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT / SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST Engineering Department Review of ADJUSTMENT PLAT ADJ Attached is one Adjustment Plat. Please review and return your comments to within one week (by ////d/9 7 ). Thank you for your cooperation. Reply: ' V^Co Signature Date October 31,1997 COMMENTS ON GPA 97-02, LA COSTA LUCKY - SAVE-ON SHOPPING CENTER This section would like to review street improvement plans when submitted which should include. 1. Traffic signal up grade plans for La Costa and El Camino Real and La Costa and new driveway entrance. 2. Addition of street lights on east side of El Camino Real (200 Watt HPSV with Mission Bell type luminaire ) Additional Comment Two pepper trees to be removed on La Costa (as shown on sheet 5 of plans) are City trees and considered part of City street improvements. Check with Park Division of Public Works Department for replacement guidelines. FROM: PflCIFIC DEUELOPMENT FfiX NO.: 714 760 8584 10-31-97 1 1 : 1 4 fi GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER Post-It:" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 f* °» pages \Tn — — October 31, 1997 Mr. Kenneth W, Quon, P.E, Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: La Costa Plaza Dear Ken: Now that we have the Planning Department and Engineering Department comments, we are already proceeding with redoing of the plan for the Lucky/Sav-On Center. However, the concern set forth in Engineering Department comment 1 regarding the portion of La Costa Avenue which fronts the project will be commented upon separately. We have asked our traffic consultants, Fehr & Peers Associates to respond to comment 1a and 1b. I would like to respond to comment 1c as follows. You have raised a concern about the prospects for failure of the intersections of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, and La Costa Avenue and the project access. Unfortunately, the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, whether our project is redeveloped or not, will by the year 2015 fail at the peak period. As it turns out, with the development of our project, in the year 2015 the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real will also fail, but no worse than it would fail without the development of our project. However, while the intersection of the project access and La Costa Avenue will fail (already does fail) without the development of our project, with the development of our project and the installation of the improvements which we have agreed to make, the project access on La Costa Avenue will perform at level of service "B" in 2015. One Corporate Plaza, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658 (714)720-0297 FAX (714)760-8584 FROM: PflCIFIC DEUELOPMENT FfiX NO.: 714 760 8584 10-31-97 11:14P/P.02/ Mr. Kenneth W. Quon, P.E. Page Two October 31, 1997 Based upon the above, logically, if the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real will fail with or without our development and be no worse with our development, then it is clear that the reason for the failure is unrelated to our project. If our project is not approved, one of two things will happen. Either the existing project will be fixed up, the rents will be lowered, the project will be filled, no road improvements will be installed, and the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real intersection will fail. Alternatively, a smaller scale development plan will take place on the property, which will probably encompass less square footage than what exists today. The developer probably would contend that the use of the property is not being intensified at all, and therefore additional street improvements should not be required of that developer (and, there would be some validity to that position), the site would be redeveloped and the intersection at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue would fail anyway. The amount by which the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue would fail would be the same under all three scenarios (our project, the existing project, or a new smaller project). The reason for the failure is clear and regional. There is a great volume of traffic that is funneled into this one area and the redevelopment of a 10 acre shopping center from 69,000 square feet to 86,000 square feet will have absolutely no measurable impact on this intersection when compared to the thousands of residential units which are forced to circulate via La Costa Avenue. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me, Very truly yours, GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES By:. Larry Tucker General Partner LT:jv cc: Jeff Gibson Jim Kilcoyne Kareem Ali Tom Hageman Rick Lloyd Takeshi Kinoshita Grace Mitsuhata, Esq. Steve Grant City of Carlsbftl 97396 Fire Department Bureau of Prevention Plan Review: Requirements Category: Fire Conditions Date of Report: Thursday, October 30, 1997 Contact Name Jeff Gibson Address City, State CA Bldg. Dept. No. Job Name Sav On Shopping Cntr Job Address La Costa Ave/EI Camino Real Reviewed by Planning No. GPA97-02 Ste. or Bldg. No. KI Approved - The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans; information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifica- tions, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements. D Disapproved - Please see the attached report of deficiencies. Please make corrections to plans or specifications necessary to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. For Fire Department Use Only Review 1 st CFD Job# 97396 2nd 3rd File# Other Agency ID 2560 Orion Way Carlsbad, California 92008 (619) 931-2121 Requirements Category:Conditions 97396 Deficiency Item: Pending 01 Building Permits Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be approved by the Fire Department. Proposed language: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans for conformance with applicable fire and life safety requirements of the state and local Fire Codes. Deficiency Item: Pending 02 Hydrants Additional on-site public water mains and fire hydrants are required. Proposed change for Industrial and multi family: Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 300 feet along public streets and private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway. Proposed change for single family residences: Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and/or private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway. Deficiency Item: Pending 03 Site Plan/Hydrants Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project. Deficiency Item: Pending 04 Site plan/access Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and traffic circulation for Fire Department approval. Deficiency Item: Pending 05 Access during construction An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operations cease until the condition is corrected. Deficiency Item: Pending 06 Combustible construction materials on site All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. Deficiency Item: Pending 08 Fire lanes Prior to building occupany, private roads and driveways which serve as required access for emergency service vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the requirements of section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Page 2 10/30/97 Requirements Category:Conditions 97396 Deficiency Item: Pending 09 Brush clearance Native vegetation which presents a fire hazard to structures shall be modified or removed in accordance with the specifications contained in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. Applicant shall submit a Fire Suppression plan to the Fire Department for approval. Proposed new condition Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. more below Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete, and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance with an approved wildland fuel management plan. Deficiency Item: Pending 10 Fire protection systems- sprinklers, alarms, standpipes Plans and/or specifications for fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fire sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction. Proposed language All buildings having an aggregate floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet must be protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Plans and specifications must be approved by the fire department, and a permit obtained prior to installation. Proposed multifamily residential buildings must be protected by fire alarm systems. Plans and specifications must be approved, and a permit obtained prior to installation. Deficiency Item: Pending 11 Sprinklers required for buildings over 10,000 sq ft in area An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in buildings having an aggregate floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet. Delete Deficiency Item: Pending 13 Monument sign A monument sign shall be installed at the entrance to the driveway or private street indicating the addresses of the buildings on site. Page 3 10/30/97 f?Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Transportation Consultants 3685 Mt Diablo BlvdSuite 301 Lafayette, CA 94549 510 284-3200 FAX 510 284-2691 October 30, 1997 Mr. Richard Lloyd Fortney Associates 2345 East Thomas Road, Suite 490 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Subject: Carlsbad Lucky Store #121-283 Traffic Study- Response to City Engineering Department Comments Dear Mr. Lloyd: Fehr & Peers Associates reviewed the City Engineering Department's comments dated October 27, 1997. As you requested, specific responses to comments la and Ib follow. Comment la Comment: Response: The lengths of the left-turn pockets proposed for the two intersections on La Costa Avenue (El Camino Real and the Project entrance) are inadequate to handle the traffic volumes in this area. If adequate length is unavailable, double left-turn pockets should be considered. Fehr & Peers Associates prepared a supplemental traffic study (dated August 11) to refine the analysis of La Costa Avenue between El Camino Real and the project driveway. Vehicle queuing, signal timing, and signal phasing were evaluated using the Corsim micro-simulation software package. Figure 1 summarizes the operational analysis. Based on the operational analysis the lengths of the proposed left turn pockets are adequate. The proposed 100 foot long left-turn bay on La Costa Avenue for vehicles entering the project driveway will provide adequate storage for the 95th percentile vehicle queue length. In addition, the shortened 185 foot long left-turn bay at El Camino Real will provide adequate storage for the 95th percentile vehicle queue length. (£) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Transportation Consultants Mr. Richard Lloyd October 30, 1997 Page 2 Comment Ib Comment: Response: The new right turn lane from westbound La Costa Avenue to northbound El Camino Real should be extended so that it begins just west of the project's entrance on La Costa Avenue. Figure 1 shows the proposed striping and geometries on La Costa Avenue. As illustrated, the new right-turn lane provides 260 feet of vehicle storage and an 80 foot bay transition extending to the project's entrance. The right-turn lane can not be extended without reducing or eliminating the bay transition. The bay transition enhances traffic flow near the project's entrance and enables the pedestrian crossing distance across La Costa Avenue to be minimized; therefore, reducing or eliminating the bay transition is not recommended. Please contact me with any questions or additional comments. Sincerely, FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Matthew Manjarrez Transportation Engineer /mm Project #971-1006 <u SNOIlVOIdliaOIAI 3nN3AVVlSOO VT \o-n-vxi I ajnBy ,os=.t N I S Si •oas 09 = •oas •oas Qfr = 'oas/2 -oas ssaoov joafojd / ejsoo •oas 021- =•oas 2f = •oas |.t? -oasf 'oasei 'o -oasgi.- OUIIUBQ 13 / ejsoo City of Carlsbad Engineering Department October 27, 1997 Mr. Larry Tucker Grant Tucker Properties One Corporate Plaza PO Box 7974 Newport Beach, CA 92658 LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER CT 97-09/CUP 97-03/GPA 97-02/SDP 97-07/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/SUP 97-03/ZC 97-02 As a follow-up to the City Planning Department's letter of October 15, 1997, the Engineering Department has completed its review of the resubmitted project application for completeness and engineering issues. The project application is now or was previously found complete for the purpose of continued engineering review. The project application does contain some engineering issues or concerns which remain to be resolved by the applicant. All engineering issues should be fully resolved or addressed prior to resubmitting the project for our review. The outstanding engineering issues or concerns are as follows: 1. The City has several concerns regarding the portion of La Costa Avenue which fronts the project site, including: a. The lengths of the left-turn pockets proposed for the two intersections on La Costa Avenue (El Camino Real and the project entrance) are inadequate to handle the traffic volumes in this area. If adequate length is unavailable, double- left turn pockets should be considered. b. The new right turn lane from westbound La Costa Avenue to northbound El Camino Real should be extended so that it begins just west of the project's entrance on La Costa Avenue. c. There is a general concern that the combination of a short length of road (La Costa Avenue) and two heavily utilized intersections is unable to accommodate traffic demands, which will ultimately cause both intersections and this stretch of roadway to fail, even if both intersections are signalized and interconnected. 2. With regard to the left-turn pocket in the median on El Camino Real, please clarify on the preliminary striping plan if this pocket is to be striped, or is to be constructed as a raised curb. At this point, the City prefers the west side of the pocket to be striped. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894 3. The raised median improvements fronting the site on El Camino Real, and which are to be constructed as part of this project, should be shown as joining the existing median located just north of the site. 4. Please show on the plans the location of the bus stop in front of the project site on El Camino Real. We recommend the applicant contact North County Transit District to determine whether the existing bus stop location is adequate, or whether it will need to be relocated. 5. Please revise the site layout to avoid offset intersections, such as the aisle openings located just north of Building C, which are offset from the opposing aisle. 6. Please add to the preliminary signing and striping plan the proposed striping within the project site for the entrance areas on both La Costa Avenue and on El Camino Real, as well as striping for the gas station driveway. 7. The parking spaces proposed to be located in front of Building C back out into a main traffic aisle, and should be relocated. 8. A minimum clear distance of 5' is required at the ends of parking aisles containing parking stalls located perpendicular to each other. Some parking stalls in the east parking lot do not meet this standard. 9. Please provide on the plans a detailed drawing of the proposed detention basin. 10. Please clearly delineate on the plans the 100-year flood line for the before and after conditions. It is difficult to see the line in some areas of the plan'. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at (760) 438-1161, extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON, P.E. Associate Engineer c: City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner Rick Lloyd, Fortney Assoicates, Inc. Margaret Purviance, O'Day Consultants GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES STEVEN P. GRANT UMWY TUCKER October 15, 1997 Mr. Ken Quon Engineering Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Los Paleros Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: La Costa Plaza Dear Ken: During the course of the meeting which we had at the City Planning Department on September 22, 1997, attended by you, Jeff Gibson, Pat O'Day, Steve Grant, Jim Kilcoyne of American Stores and myself, we indicated to you representing the City that we did not believe that our development proposal impacted San Marcos Creek or any contiguous areas delineated as wetlands by virtue of a study conducted by Planning Systems. Subject to your verification, it was my understanding that it was the City's position that the plan itself did not need to be submitted to either the Army Corp of Engineering or the California Department of fish and Games, since our plan does not contemplate imposing any greater drainage burden on San Marcos creek or surrounding wetland areas than what occurs today under existing conditions (and, indeed, with the addition of a detention area, we in fact believe that we are improving existing conditions). If there is any additional information which you need with regard to the above topic, please let me know. Very truly yours, GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES -7Larry Tucker \ General Partner LT.jv cc: Jim Kilcoyne Pat O'Day v/Jeff Gibson Kareem Ali Grace Mitsuhata One Corporate Plaza, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92668 (714)720-0297 FAX (714)760-8584 xatiai ZS-BZ-QT »8S8 092 MZ :-ON xoj iNawdinanaa ouioud *City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 15, 1997 Grant Tucker Properties One Corporate Plaza PO Box 7974 Newport Beach CA 92658 SUBJECT: LA COSTA LUCKY SAVON SHOPPING CENTER - GPA 97-02/ZC 97- 02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 97- 32/PUD97-13 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Carlsbad Tract Map, Special Use Permits, Conditional Use Permit, Sign Program, and Planned Unit Development, application nos. 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, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Carlsbad Tract Map, Special Use Permits, Conditional Use Permit, Sign Program, and Planned Unit Development, application no. 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 complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/S 32/PUD 97-13 OCTOBER 15, 1997 PAGE 2 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP /CUP 97-03/PS 97- Please contact your staff planner, Jeff Gibson, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:JG:vd c: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Ken Quon Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide Rick Lloyd Fortney Associates, Inc. 2345 East Thomas Road, Suite 490 Phoenix, AZ 85016 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. La Costa/Savon Shopping Center - 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 Planning: 1. The El Camino Real Scenic Corridor (ECR) Standard's prohibit walls that exceed 6 feet in height when located within 25 feet of the public right-of- way for ECR. This standard applies to the arched entryway structure located at the corner of ECR and La Costa Avenue. 2. The City's Parking Ordinance prohibits the placement of compact sized parking spaces in the same aisle with standard sized parking spaces (see site plan for location). 3. The Planning Department recommends that the westerly lot line for Lot No. 8 be placed at the top of the manufactured slope (see tentative .map for details). This large cut slope faces the proposed parking lot of the shopping center, and therefore, should be owned and maintained (landscaping and erosion control) by the owner of the shopping center. 4. To visually soften and break-up the long row of parking along Buildings E-G, please provide several landscaped dividers between the parking spaces (see site plan for details). 5. The parking space numbers in the site plan parking tables still need some refinement (see site plans for details). 6. To further enhance the main ECR project entryway the Planning Department recommends a 3 foot high garden wall along the south side of this driveway to visually screen the parking area for Building C. 7. The sign exhibits for the Arco gas station/mini-mart are not consistent with the proposed sign program for the entire project. In addition, the Arco monument sign exceeds the maximum 12 foot length standard as required by the ECR Scenic Corridor Standards. 8. The Arco floor plan shows an area of food preparation adjacent to a customer service counter. If this area is intended for fast food service (i.e. A&W) then it should be indicated on the site plan description (see site plan for details). The square footage of this area has a different parking demand ratio of 1 parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area per the City's Parking Ordinance (restaurant less than 4,000 sq. ft.). On the site plan this information must also be indicated in the parking calculation table. By parking the site accordingly and providing the information as part of this application, it will save you a future Conditional Use Permit Amendment if and when the fast food land use is disclosed or added to the mini-mart land use. 9. The proposed sign program still exceeds the City's Sign Ordinance sign square footage allowance of 1,255 sq. ft. for the shopping center (see sign program for details). The ordinance allows 1.5 sq. ft. of sign area for every linear foot of building frontage. 10. For your information, the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) file for the existing Los Ninos preschool facility (CUP 90-01) indicates that the facility is State licensed to operate with 135 children. The file also indicates that the State requires 75 sq. ft. of play area per child which equals a total requirement of 10,125 sq. ft. The proposed site plan shows 7,569 sq. ft. of useable play area which does not meet the State standard. Is Los Ninos proposing to operate at less than 135 children or has the State's play area standards been reduced since 1990 when the CUP was originally approved? 11. Please provide a trash enclosure elevation detail which meets the Engineering Department's design standards for enclosures. To enhance the design, the Planning Department recommends a wood trellis roof element over top of the enclosure, similar to the enclosures at the Plaza Paseo Real shopping center. 12. See the attached marked-up set of plans and documents for additional comments. GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES STEVEN P. GRANT LARRY TUCKER October 1, 1997 Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: La Costa Plaza Dear Mr. Holzmiller: During the course of a meeting which we had with Staff on September 22, 1997 concerning our application regarding the redevelopment of La Costa Plaza, one new issue came as a surprise to us. While Staff indicated that no decision had been made, and would not be made until our application was deemed complete and the environmental review of the property had been completed, Staff indicated to us that it was possible that a "focused" EIR (pertaining to traffic) could be required in connection with the redevelopment of La Costa Plaza. We believe that the circumstances of our redevelopment of La Costa Plaza should not merit the imposition of a focused EIR, but rather a mitigated negative declaration would seem to be the appropriate vehicle, based upon the following: First, we are not aware of any legal requirement that a general plan amendment which results in a modest increase in intensity of traffic must be supported by an EIR or focused EIR. We have been involved in many land use issues before where a general plan amendment has been sought and a mitigated negative declarations has been the environmental documentation of choice. One Corporate Plaza, P. O. Box 7974, Newport Beach, California 92658 (714)720-0297 FAX (714)760-8584 Mr. Michael Holzmiller Page Two *•—- October 1, 1997 2. The amount of land which is being changed from PU to a commercial use general plan designation is approximately 1 acre of land added on to an existing 10.5 acre project. Based upon our traffic study, Staff apparently computed an increase in ADT's related to our project of only 18%. We have not yet verified this computation (nor the underlying assumptions of the Master EIR), but assuming it is true, this is not a particularly significant increase, and should not result in the requirement of a focused EIR. 3. We have already performed a traffic study of the impact upon the surrounding community of our proposed development, in accordance with city guidelines. As it is, our traffic study recommends a widening of La Costa Avenue from the entryway into our project to El Camino Real (westbound lane), installation of a traffic signal on La Costa Avenue at the entryway into our project (which also happens to solve a traffic problem at the entry point of the shopping center to the south of us, across La Costa Avenue), the installation of a deceleration lane on El Camino Real into the main entry to our project and the installation of median improvements in El Camino Real. If we performed a focused EIR (traffic), we are not certain what other traffic improvements could possibly be suggested since there is virtually no portion of surrounding roadways which we are not improving. If we are not legally required to do a focused EIR, then what purpose will a focused EIR serve when all pertinent improvements are already scheduled to be made (and are already shown on our plans). In short, no fair argument can be made that our development will result in significant traffic impacts after completion of the mitigation measures described above. 4. Finally, we submitted this project to the City in May 1997, and have communicated with City Staff and met with City Staff, most notably an all hands meeting on June 11, 1997. Had we heard of this apparent City policy earlier, we probably would not have objected to doing a focused EIR, since it is not so much the concept of doing a focused EIR, but rather the time involved. Mr. Michael Holzmiller Page Three '—- October 1, 1997 *~— At this point, we are running out of time. We must close our escrow with the La Costa ownership by the end of November. If this technical requirement is placed upon us at this late date, American Stores and Grant Tucker will not be able to close on the land with a new issue which could result in considerable delay, being outstanding. We appreciate your consideration in not imposing the focused EIR condition upon our project. Thanks for your help. Very truly yours, GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES By:. Larry Tucker General Partner LT:jv cc: Steven P. Grant James Kilcoyne, American Stores CONSULTA N T S Mr. Ken Quon City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 September 18, 1997 J.N.: 96-1033-1 RE: PROPOSED LUCKY DRUG/GROCERY STORE #121-283 FEMA CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION CT 97-09 Dear Mr. Quon: Please find enclosed two (2) sets of the hydraulic study prepared by Dr. Howard Chang for a FEMA conditional letter of map revision at the referenced site. This is being submitted to you for your review and further processing by FEMA. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC. Meg Pu: Project MP:cea Enclosures cc: Mr. Rick Lloyd, Fortney Associates Mr. Kareem Ali, ASPI Dr. Howard Chang RECEIVED SEP 2 5 1997 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. F:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\96-1033\Quon.ttr 7220 Avenida Encinas Civil Engineering Suite 204 Planning r ,!;(„*„;„ 00/1/10 rWi,v>ccm" September 12, 1997 HAND DELIVERED Jeff Gibson City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA. 92009-1576 (619)438-1161 RE: Response to City Comments Proposed Lucky Shopping Center -Store 121-283 La Costa Plaza - Intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA Dear Jeff: The following are responses to City Comments "Items to Complete Application" and "Issues of Concern" of 1/2191 (Planning Department), and 7/10/97 (Engineering Department): RESPONSES TO "ITEMS TO COMPLETE APPLICATION", dated 6/2/97: 1. City comment: A non residential tentative map that creates separate ownership lots/units that rely on reciprocal agreements for primary vehicular driveway access, along with shared parking facilities under common use and maintenance, requires a non-residential planned development permit (Municipal Code Title 21.47). The city suggested postage stamp lots for buildings with a larger common area lot for parking. Response: The Project is requesting a Non-Residential Planned Development Permit (Municipal Code Title 21.47). Enclosed you will find the Permit Fee of $5.510.00. Refer to the original Application, provided with original submittal. As agreed only the additional fee is required, no additional application documents are required. The developer does not want to subdivide the property into postage stamp lots since there will be no association formed to cover the common area. Rather, CCR's and permanent easements will control common areas. These documents will be provided to the City of Carlsbad for review. This is standard operating procedure in other jurisdictions and in the financial marketplace 2. City comment: Provide floor and roof plans for Buildings C-G. Response: 3. City comment: Response: 4. City comment: Response: 5. City comment: Response: Tenants for pad sites are undetermined. This will be true into the latter stages of the project. As agreed, the floor plans will not be required at this stage of the process. However, the Pad Site roof plans are provided. Refer to Pad Sites Roof Plans, prepared by P + R architects provided with this submittal. Indicate top and bottom elevations of retaining walls and screen walls. Show these elevations at each end of the wall and in the middle. Show the worst condition elevation. Retaining wall and screen wall elevations are provided. Refer to the revised Tentative Map-Grading and Drainage Plans, sheets 3 and 4, provided with this submittal. Label all drainage facilities entering San Marcos Creek as either existing or proposed. Labels of existing or proposed drainage facilities have been provided. Refer to the revised Tentative Map-Grading and Drainage Plans, sheets 3,4 and 6, provided with this submittal. Answer Question 5 on a Disclosure statement. The answer to question 5 has been provided. Refer to the completed original Application pages, provided with this submittal. 6. City comment: Response: 7. City comment: Response: The Public Facility Fee Agreement required the signature of a secretary or assistant secretary when the owner is a corporation. Add the La Costa owner, "Secretary or Assistant Secretary" signature and notary. The signature and notary has been provided. Refer to the completed original Application pages, provided with this submittal. Provide an estimate of the yearly amount of irrigation water to maintain Landscape Zones. It is estimated that 1,929,106 Gallons/year of irrigation water will be required to maintain the landscaping of the entire project. Refer to the revised Landscape Concept Plan, provided with this submittal. 8. City comment: Supplement the project description with the number of acres to be converted within each General Plan land use designation. Response: Refer to the Scale Map provided with this submittal. APN Portion 216-123-06 216-124-01,02, 03,18 Portion 216-124-05 Portion 216-124-19 Existing General Plan O-S c u T-R Proposed General Plan N N N N Existing Zoning P-C C-2 C-2 P-C Proposed Zoning C-l C-l C-l C-l Area (Acres) 0.14 10.51 0.93 0.20 9A. City comment:EIA form-Part 1 under VIII. Biological Resources statement. The proposed drainage facility leading from the parking areas into San Marcos Creek will impact Baccharis Scrub, Wetlands Ruderal, and Freshwater Marsh habitat. Impact to wetland areas creates the need for additional biological analysis by a biologist qualified to determine the significance of the habitat impacts and appropriate mitigation, if applicable. Response: Drainage Facility Plans have been revised. The revised plans incorporate on-site storm water retention facilities so that flows off of the site are maintained at existing levels. Additional delineation of Wetlands Mapping has been provided. Refer to revised Tentative Map-Grading and Drainage Plans, sheets 3,4 and 6 provided with this submittal. Refer to the Wetlands Delineation Map provided with this submittal. 9B. City comment: Section IX Hazards; Checklist to be supplemented with potential Environmental impacts/hazards associated with the removal of the sewage detention basin and redevelopment of the area. Response: The existing LCWD facility is a holding pond for reclaimed water. Refer to the letter from LCWD describing the historical use of the detention basin, provided with this submittal. Based upon the contents of the LCWD letter, dated 7/25/97, there is no environmental impact associated with the removal of the holding pond. 10. City comment: See the attached marked-up set of plans for exhibit inconsistencies. Return marked plans with re-submittal. Response: The City has provided red-line mark-up plan copies to the developers for review. These have been returned with this submittal. Revisions have been made to the plans according to the comments and red-lines provided by the City. Refer to the revised plans, provided with this submittal. RESPONSES TO ISSUES OF CONCERN, dated 6/2/97; 1. City comment: Response: Site Plan A and B, choice needed. The Future Building Pad "G" (2100 S.F.) is displayed over the proposed day care playground area. The Developer has performed all studies assuming that the 2100 S.F. Pad G will be built. If the deal with the day care school does not come to fruition, the developer wants to be able to build the 2100 S.F. pad in the future without the need for future discretionary approvals, except for; review of building elevations, signage, landscaping, and a building permit, (or if a CUP is required for the use in question). Refer to the revised Site Plan, sheet C-l and Tentative Map, provided with this submittal. 2. City comment: Response: 3. City comment: Response: Clarification is needed as to the storage tank portion of the site. What the project boundaries? are The proposed project contemplates separate parcels for the Chabad house and the Shopping Center parking lot area contiguous with La Costa Avenue. LCWD has determined that it will not require the construction of a new reclaimed water storage tank. This area is now proposed as parking. Refer to the revised Site Plan, sheet C-l, and Tentative Map, provided with this submittal. The SDG&E easement is a concern. What guarantee is there that SDG&E will not require the parking be removed at some time in the future? The enclosed Grant of Right-of-way document for the 150 foot wide SDG & E easement clarifies that the grantor and its successors have the right to use the land in a fashion which is not inconsistent with the easement of the grantee, except no buildings or other structures may be constructed at the property in the easement area. As a practical matter, electrical transmission is accomplished through underground facilities, which by definition would not affect surface parking, or by above ground facih'ties, which are installed well above the ground, and also will not impact surface parking. A mutual agreement between the Shopping Center and SDG & E, based on the proposed site plan and SDG & E's "Ultimate Build Out" of service poles, as they relate to the site plan will be completed. These can be made available to the City in the permit/construction phase of the project. Based upon communication with SDG & E this may involve a few poles on the property, that certainly won't impact required parking spaces. Refer to the "Grant of Right-of-way" document provided with this Submittal. 4. City comment: Response: Site Design: 5. City comment: Response: The City recommends the following General Plan and Zoning designations for the project: Shopping Center Project: General Plan designation = N (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning designation =C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Overlay designation = Q (Qualified Development), E C R Corridor LCWD-Water district parcel: General Plan designation = U Zoning designation = PU And Requires Precise Development Plan The revised Shopping Center designations are made a part of this submittal. As previously discussed, the Developers of the Shopping Center do not have the right to request a rezone (nor discuss the zoning) of property owned by LCWD. Since LCWD will not be relocating a tank on its property at this time, any zoning issues which the City and LCWD may have are between the City and LCWD, and should not affect the processing of the shopping center. Refer to the revised Shopping Center General Plan and Zoning designations on the Scale Map, provided with this submittal. Provide visual screening with a berm. A 3-foot berm is provided. Refer to the revised Tentative Map-Grading Plan, sheet 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. 6. City comment: Parking lot landscape to equal - 1 tree well planter per every 4-5 stalls. Response: Tree planter wells and trees, @ 1 per 4 stalls, are provided. Refer to the revised Landscape Concept Plan provided with this submittal. 7. City comment: Response: 8. City comment: Response: Provide a stronger entry statement in the primary driveways, including a 4-foot landscape median and textured color treated paving. A 4-foot landscape median and textured paving is provided. Refer to the revised Site Plan, sheet C-l and Landscape Concept Plan provided with this submittal. A 6-foot wide perimeter landscape area is required around the gas station. A 6-foot wide perimeter landscape area is provided. Refer to the revised Site Plan, sheet C-l and Landscape Concept Plan, provided with this submittal. Building Elevations 9. City comment: Response 10. City comment: Response: Signs 11. City comment: Further enhance the Elevations facing El Camino Real and La Costa. The rear elevations of the pad sites should compare to the front. Elevation enhancements, facing El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue are provided. Refer to the revised Elevations, prepared by P + R architects, provided with this submittal. Provide a pedestrian scale walkway extending from roof elements in front of Lucky and buildings C and G. Walkway enhancements are provided As agreed, the width and extent of the Lucky front sidewalk area is constrained by the SDG&E easement to the west and the LCWD yard area to the east, thus limiting potential for enhancements. Refer to the Elevations provided with this submittal Monument signs maximum 7X12. Material stucco and wood. Lighting should be external. Wall signs are restricted to wood. Allowed monument signs shall be ARCO, ECR entrance, La Costa entrance and ECR/La Costa intersection limited to name address of SC and4-tenants (or less). 12. City comment: Response: Other Agencies; 13. City comment: Response: Other Items: A maximum of 1,255 Square feet of signage is allowed on the project, including wall and monument signage. A "Modification Request" is included in the revised Sign Program Package. A materials modification, to the El Camino Real Corridor Standard E. Area 5: #4, is requested. This El Camino standard states that freestanding monument sign materials be "wood and stucco only" and that wall signs be "wood only". The Vons center at the northwest corner of Alga and El Camino Real obviously has deviated from the City standard. The shopping center would like at least as favorable signing as a competing center in the city. The modification requests the use of internally illuminated channel letters for wall and monument sign material. Refer to the letter "Modification Request" letter and revised Sign Program provided with this submittal. Fish and Game, Army Corp. Regional Water Quality Control Board. The revised Grading and Drainage Plans do not propose drainage facilities construction in the wetlands nor beyond the floodway limit line. As specifically agreed by City Staff in the meeting of 6/11/97, with the revision to plans to avoid construction in floodway and wetland areas, project proponents consider the project not to be subject to review by Fish and Game nor the Corp of Engineers. Refer to the Tentative Map, Grading and Drainage Plans, provided with this submittal. Regional Water Quality Control We have inquired about the history of the LCWD reclaimed water detention pond. The pond has not affected the ground water and therefore there is no reason to contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Further, LCWD has advised us that the reservoir is actually a "bladder" of artificial material, which is filled and emptied as needed. The treated effluent is not in contact with the ground Refer to the LCWD letter, dated 7/25/97, provided with this submittal. Concerns represented in letters to the City by Dudek & Associates: A HEC-2 Study by Dr. Howard Chang was provided to the City of Carlsbad with the initial submittal. An update of this study has been prepared. Refer to the "Response to comments" by Dr. Chang, provided with this submittal. The County of San Diego, Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division has provided copies of all file documents concerning the Former ARCO Site. Refer to ARCO Mitigation Documents, provided with this submittal. Refer to the "Site History- Former ARCO Facility #1939, Carlsbad" letter written by Paul Loubet of ARCO Products Company. A Traffic Study by Fehr and Peers was provided to the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Ken Quon requested a supplement, concerning cueing, to the study. Refer to the Traffic Study supplement provided with this submittal. RESPONSES TO "ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS", dated 6/10/97: Engineering Department Comment (EDC) 1. EDC: Name of sewer and water district providing service to project. Response: Names provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 1 of 8, provided with this submittal. 2. EDC: Response: 3. EDC: Response: 4. EDC: Response: 5. EDC: Response: 6. EDC: Response: Average Daily traffic generated by the project broken down by separate uses. This information is to be shown on the plans. Average Daily traffic generated is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 1 of 8, provided with this submittal. Name of School District providing service to the project. Name of School District is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 1 of 8, provided with this submittal. Provide a legal description of the exterior boundaries of the subdivision, (approximate bearings, distances, and curve data). The legal description of the exterior boundaries for the shopping center subdivision is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 1 of 8, provided with this submittal. Top and bottom elevation for all fences, walls and retaining walls. Show these each end of the wall and in the middle. Also show the worst condition elevation. Elevations are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, sheets 3 and 4, provided with this submittal. Typical street section for all adjacent streets and streets within the project. Typical street sections are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 2 of 8, provided with this submittal. 10 7. EDC: Response: 8. EDC: Response: 9. EDC: Response: 10. EDC: Response: 11. EDC: Response: A table that identifies each easement and numbered to correspond with those in the preliminary title report. The table should include the date, file number and future disposition of each easement. The table is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 2 of 8, provided with this submittal. Distance between all intersections and driveways. The distances between intersections and driveways are provided. Refer to the Working Site plan, sheet C-l, provided with this submittal. Existing and proposed streetlights and utilities (sewer, water, major gas and fuel lines, major electric and telephone facilities) within and adjacent to the project. Existing and proposed street lights and utilities are provided. Refer to Tentative Map, Preliminary Utility Plan, sheet 6 of 8, provided with this submittal. Truck turning radii within the loading and delivery areas, truck turning radii is to be plotted to demonstrate a 60' turning radius can circulate on site, in accordance with 407D of Caltran's Highway Design Manual. The 60'truck turning radii is provided. Refer to the Site Plan, sheet C-l, provided with this submittal. Approximate contours at 1' interval for slopes less than 5%, 2' intervals for slopes between 5% and 10% and 5' intervals for slopes over 10% (both existing and proposed). Existing and proposed topographic contours within a 1-foot perimeter of the boundaries of the site. The contours are provided. Refer to the proposed Tentative Map, Grading & Drainage Plans, sheets 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. 11 12. EDC: Response: 13. EDC: Response: 14. EDC: Response: 15. EDC: Response: 16. EDC: Response: 17. EDC: Response: Earthwork volumes: cut, fill import and export. Earthwork volumes are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map; sheet 2 of 8, provided with this submittal. Spot elevations at the corners of each pad. Spot elevations are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, revised Grading and Drainage Plan, sheet 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. Method of draining the project site. A Drainage Plan is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, revised Grading and Drainage Plan, sheets 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. Location, width and/or size of all watercourses and drainage facilities within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision, show location and approximate size of any proposed detention/retention basin. The location and dimensions of the watercourses and drainage faculties are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, revised Grading and Drainage Plan, sheets 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. The 100 year flood line for the before and after conditions. The 100-year flood line for before and after conditions is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, revised Grading & Drainage Plan, sheets 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. Copy of a Preliminary Title Report, current within the last 6 months. A copy of the current Preliminary Title Report is provided. Refer to the enclosed Title Report, provided with this submittal. 12 18. EDC: Response: 19. EDC: Response: Proof of availability of sewer from Leucadia County Water District. A "Will Serve" letter from Leucadia County Water District is provided. Refer to the enclosed Will Serve letter, provided with this submittal. City assigned project number in the upper right corner of the plan sheet. The City assigned project numbers are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, sheets 1-8, provided with this submittal. ISSUES OF CONCERN -ENGINEERING DEPT. 6/10.97 1. EDC: Response: 2. EDC: Response: 3. EDC: Clarify the disposition of all-existing lot lines and show all entire lots associated with the project on the plans. Lot lines are cut off at the top of the plan sheet submitted. Clarification of existing lot lines is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, sheet 1 of 8 provided with this submittal. Show the following improvements: a. Raised concrete landscape median improvement on El Camino Real fronting the site. b. Sidewalk improvements along the property frontage on La Costa Ave. east of the driveway c. An indication that a traffic signal is to be installed as a part of the project at the driveway intersection with La Costa Ave. Also indicate that this signal will be inter connected with the La Costa Avenue/El Camino real traffic signal. The improvements are provided. Refer to the Site Plan, sheet C-l, and the Tentative Map, provided with this submittal. The layout of the on-site circulation should be designed with obvious and clearly defined points of access and main traffic aisles through the center. 13 a. The on site aisle from the main driveway entry on El Camino Real be designed as an unloaded aisle to provide more efficient traffic flow and to avoid conflicts between through traffic and vehicular backing out of the main aisle. b. The southern-most gas station access point be relocated further west to create a four-legged intersection, with through traffic on the main aisle and stop sign control on the other two legs. Alternatively, the access point to the gas station could be relocated along the southern edge of the gas station parcel. c. Relocate the proposed parking spaces in front of LCWD building so that vehicle do not back out into the main traffic aisle. d. Revise the site layout to avoid offset intersections, such as the access point located just north of Building C, which is offset from the opposing aisle. Response: a. El Camino Real entry drive aisle design is unloaded. b. ARCO drive access is relocated further west and a four-legged intersection is provided. c. Relocate LCWD parking. These are existing LCWD Parking spaces. These spaces back into a main aisle of the existing shopping center. The Developers of proposed Lucky Shopping Center will not and do not own the land where on the LCWD parking spaces are located. Note the property lines and boundaries on the Survey and Tentative Parcel Map. The Shopping Center Developers do not have authority or design control necessary in order to relocate these existing spaces. In addition, LCWD does not want these spaces relocated. d. Intersections that were offset have been revised. Refer to the Site Plan, sheet C-l and Tentative Map, sheets 1-8, provided with this submittal. 14 4. EDC: Response: 5. EDC: Response: 6. EDC: Response: 7. EDC: Response: Submit a preliminary signing and striping plan for onsite and for El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The signing and striping plan for on-site and El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, sheet 7 of 8 provided with this submittal. Submit a preliminary Grading Plan. A Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan is provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, Grading and Drainage Plan, sheets 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. The project plans are to identify the drainage pattern for the site and include measures to treat surface runoff on-site prior to entering the public storm drain system. Meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. A Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan is provided. NPDES measures are provided. Refer to the Tentative Map, Grading and Drainage Plan, sheets 3 & 4 of 8, provided with this submittal. The applicant may wish to contact the property owner of the shopping plaza located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue to discuss sharing the cost for the traffic signal at the driveways and the interconnect system. As agreed in the meeting between the Developers and the City of Carlsbad, date 6/ll/97,the City will create a "Reimbursement Agreement" to document that the city will require the owner of the Von's Center to reimbursement American Stores Properties Inc., a portion of the costs of the improvements that benefit both shopping centers if the Vons center owners need City discretionary approvals in the future. 15 D ' .MAIN OFFICE & ACCOUNTING 2345 EAST THOMAS ROAD • SUITE 490 PHOEWIX.ARIZONA/85016 \. 18001 SKY PARK CIRCLE • SUITE L v 1RV1W1, CALIFORNIA 92614 ^September 12, 1997; HAND DELIVERY Jeff Gibson \ ^ Associate Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive 'v Carlsbad, CA. 92009 ' RE: Modification Request, El Camino Real Corridor Standard ^ > Proposed Lucky; Shopping Center, Redevelopment of La Costa Plaza 7602.7690 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California ^ Dear Jeff, , ^ > ^ / •-•.''' Please consider this letter/a formal request for modification of the El Camino Real Corridor Standard regarding signagematerials. •' / s ( • ' •< /\ ' ; " ; . - '' . ^ • v The El Camino Real Corridor Standard, page 9, letter E, area''5; item <~states:\ '. > ' ' x \ x Freestanding monument signs not to exceed feet above street grade and 12 feet long Materials- wood & stucco only. ' . ' '. > ^ ' • • '\ ~~* ' '' ; Wall signs: Materials: wood only. ,' , I . ' V .' . ' x , We request a modification to the standard for sign materials. _ ' !' x':. ' We request a materials modification/for Monument Signs': / ' , •' " ' ^ ^ Proposed monument sign materials are of fabricated double face aluminum with a tex-cote finish painted to> match the building. The sign letters proposed are acrylic or PJexiglas. These are externally illuminated, using ground flood lighting. /', v 0 /' . ' ~ '•''•.' \ .^ ^ V • ' N ' -, 7We'request'a materials modification for WalfSigns: /~ _'•. " . / " Proposed are acrylic face wall signs. These are internally illuminated, using neon tubing. .(>• \, ~~. . Thank you for your consideration of this Modification Request. Sincerely, .' ; FORTNEY Associates, Inc. Richard B. Lloyd Project Manager Phone (60'2)-955-0999 Fax (602) 955-9?92 PHOENIX' o IRVINE -Rhone (714) 251-0999 Fax (714) 251-9292 First American Title Insurance Company 114 EAST FIFTH STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • (714)558-3211 KRISTEN A. HUETER Assistant Secretary National Accounts Underwriter DET^^CIIlf C^\ Corporate Staff H C W CI V C. I/ AUG 14 1997 FORTNEy ASSOCIATES, INC. PHX August 13, 1997 VIA D.S MAIL Ms. Patsy West Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal 685 Market Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 RE: ASPI 121-283 LaCosta, California Dear Patsy: Enclosed please find the following in connection with the transaction referenced above: (x) Updated Commitment If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kristen A. Hueter KAH:kah_ Enclosure ccyXPenny Milton Bette Hollenbeck flUG-12-1997 17:40 RHL DESIGN-LP HfiBRfi 310 902 8026 P. 01 Rout- INC. ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1201 Smith Beoch Blvd., Suite 207, Ln Habra. CA 906)1.6366 Telephone: (Sit) 90Z-SOIJ Faaimilt; (562) 902-3026 .U:L j. <iRFFNHEL!.> August 12, 1997 6<r«»Mjheil 1 9 f 6 } OHN \V. J O MNSON Jeffrey Gibson Planning Department City of Carlsbad H !l I i\ N F . Z I T A ,'t rr.hitcrl <".'»- I'rrsiiltnt RE: ARCO am pm Facility #YDX8 El Camino Real @ Shopping Center Access Rd. Carlsbad, CA Revised Site Layout RHLJN: 5146.10 JOHN H. II ! CKS Afihitctt Vir.t: President C'.F.C.II R S I-1! N(-i-K. A rr.lii ti'.ft (''iff Prtsidtnl H OWAKI) Ci. K !M IMl A Ariliilen A sxof.iale Jeffrey, Please find the enclosed revised site layout sketch, overlayed on the proposed developmental site layout for the above referenced project Please note that we have revised the size and location of the access driveway to the south of the ARCO to allow for vehicle accessibility to the fueling positions on the ARCO site as well as, best accomodating the tanker truck maneuverability for on site deliveries. We are showing a widened 50'drive. (see dimensioning on plan for alignment) We have paid particular attention to the alignment of this driveway with the a4jacent shopping center drive -while slightly reconfiguring the parking without losing any parking spaces for the center. We have also indicated the path of travel exiting and entering the ARCO site on this sketch for your review. Please note that with the driveway access designed as shown increases the amount of stacking for the shopping center access road from the El Camino Real entrance. 'Regional Minnie-' Ano<i<itc G'ARY M . S F NU. i N G u^iKjj ArckiteO A • s i't i a f c B LVTHE R. WU,5ON ; Managing Aftbilett A i.' i' < i IT i c Please review this site layout for approval as Fortney and Associates will be finalizing their resubmittal and ARCO is wanting to incorporate this design into the shopping center designed layout. We look forward to hearing from you on this issue. If there are any questions or if you need additional information, please call me at 562- 9002/8023, ext 209. Sincerely, RHL Design Group, Inc. im Forgey 'reject Coordinator cc: Paul Loubet, ARCO TomRiggIe,RHL Penny Milton, Fortney & Associates BEll, EVUB.FT, TALUMA, CA ALE. A Z 18 flUG-12-1997 17=41 RHL DESIGN-Lfl HflBRfl 310 902 8026 P.03 TOTflL P.03 Fehr & Peers Associates, fnc. Transportation Consultants 3685 Mt Diablo Blvd Suite 301 Lafayette. CA 94549 510 284-3200 FAX 510 284-2691 )gg,,MEMORANDUM Date: August 11, 1997 To: Penny Milton, Fortney Associates From: Matthew Manjarrez Subject: Supplemental Carlsbad Lucky Store Traffic Study La Costa Avenue Operational Analysis _ Carlsbad Lucky Store #121-283 (971-1006) _ As requested, Fehr & Peers Associates performed an operational analysis of La Costa Avenue between El Camino Real and the project driveway to refine the recommendations contained in our April 25, 1997 final traffic study report. Vehicle queuing, signal timing, signal phasing were evaluated using the Corsim micro- simulation software package. The La Costa Avenue intersections with El Camino Real and the project driveway were simulated for the "Year 2000 plus Project" scenario. The two intersections were assumed to be fully actuated and coordinated. Figure 1 summarizes the operational analysis. Figure 1 also shows the recommended striping on La Costa Avenue. The operational analysis results in the following key findings: • To reduce vehicle queues, the project driveway intersection should be operated as a "half-cycle" of 60 seconds. Therefore, the El Camino Real intersection should be operated with a 120 second cycle. • A 100 foot long left-turn bay should be provided on eastbound La Costa Avenue for vehicles entering the project driveway. The left-turn bay will provide adequate storage for the 95th percentile vehicle queue length. • The westbound left-turn bay at El Camino Real must be shortened to 1 85 feet to provide a 1 00 foot long left-turn bay at the project driveway. The shortened left-turn bay exceeds the 95th percentile vehicle queue length. Carlsbad Lucky Store Traffic Study July 1997 La Costa / El Camino 19 sec. 15 sec. 22 sec. 19 sec. 4 sec. 41 sec. Offset = 42 sec.Cycle Length = 120 sec. La Costa / Project Access 8 sec.15 sec.27 sec. Mr 10 sec. Offset = 40 sec.Cycle Length = 60 sec. (Pocket exceeds 95th percentile queue length) I Solid White Line (Thermoplastic) \ 100' (Pocket meets 95th percentile queue length) Raised White "Buttons" x Raised Yellow "Buttons" N r=50' Figure 1 1006-42-01 LA COSTA AVENUE MODIFICATIONS fp Fehr & Peers Associates 1015 HUMPHREYS Presided! DAVID KUKHIH Oircdot HAIHESUlilVAN Oiiettor JUDY HARSCH TIMOTHY JOCHtM Geraid Mr. Larry Tucker Grant Tucker Properties One Corporate Plaza Post Office Box 7974 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Request for Information - District Reclaimed Water Storage Reservoir Dear Mr. Tucker. This letter represents a follow-up to our recent conversation regarding (he above referenced subject, li is my understanding you wish the District to provide a brief history of the 500,000 gallon reclaimed water reservoir. In addition, you are concerned about any potential environmental impacts associated with the removal of the reservoir. The reservoir was constructed in 1977 to provide flow equalization facilities for the District's Gafncr Treatment Plant and Leucadia Pump Station, both of which arc located on the District property at 1560 La Costa Avenue. Until 19&0, the reservoir was utilized in this manner, storing secondary effluent (treated vvastewater) during high flow periods during :.nc day. From 1980 until 1992, the reservoir was used only occasionally to store secondary effluent. Beginning in 1992. the reservoir was incorporated into the District's water reclamation program. Since that time, it has been utilized to store reclaimed water (tertiary effluent) on a daily basis. The District in unaware of any potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the reservoir demolition and removal. There have been no known spills or leaks from the reservoir and accordingly, to the best ofciur knowledge, ground wafer has not been affected by activities at the reservoir. If you require any further information regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (760) 753-0155, or Mr. Steve Dec-ring, District Engineer, at (760) 942-5147. Sincerely, Michael J. Bardin Assistant General Manager cc: Steve Dcering. District Engineer Diiltkt Office:! 9*0 IflCoitd Avenue, CatlsbwJ, Wifornio 92009-6810 - (619)753-0155 • FWI619)753.3W4 9.i Mi .'OH -,,dr0ad 07/30/1997 08:34 6029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC J=AGE 02. JUL-23-1997 17'-49 ^RHL DEStGNH-R HftBRfi <4bk 310 902 8026 P. 01 T6CTl;«B • BNGiN8BRIN« - E K V I » O N M E N T A L S B R V I c ., 3»itt 207, I N,;. A»CHr rrt [. G RC« fffitif.it •July 23,1997 E , I a I, 1 I i k t 4 lift ] OIIN Penny Milton Fortn«y Associates r. Z rr i ARCO an Vm FacUhy #YDX« £1 Ctnlno Real @ Saoppin; Center Accm Rd. RBLJN: 5146.10 RerlKd Site JOHN K, HI«-Jus Penny, C 6 c:i i. R.. S CI/M<;F.H ! AMI'* E. f I'. P. "STUN CAKY M. Mi.XTllU B..WH.SON Please find the enclosed revised site Iayo« sketch, ovtrlayedoo your proposed site layout dated in 1/97 for the above refetenced project. Please wxe thai we have revised the size fueling positions on the ARCO rite. We are showing « widened SO'drtro (see dimeiisioaiflgMptan for alignment) We have paid particular attention to the alignment of this driveway with the adjacent shopping center drive wtule slightly reconfiguring the parking without losing any parking spaces for the center. ARCO requires a miotaiuni of 25' dimension between the canopy and the planter, as noted, fct tanker track deliveries. We have also indicated the path of travel exiting and entering the site on this sketch for your review, Please review this site layout for imputing into the shopping ctffler designed layout We will forward * <H«C copy to ywi for your use as soon u possible, If there are any questions or if you need additional infbnnatioo, please call 0e M 562- 9002/8023, ext 209, Sincerely, RHL Design Group, Iae>> *oordinator ^-^ oc:PaullAubet ToraRlgglc C( »T11U K.WIISON ^\ . . 'f4taifingAt<llitrct if^VA Alitclatc BltttWB, WA> *P»'FTALOMA.CA SAtKAMBNTa;n. Aas tNen<N Icn 'inincnCM <S ID ooco cncn Howard H. Chang Consultants Hydraulic, Hydrologic and Sedimentation Engineering P.O. Box 9492 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 (619)756-9050, 594-6380, FAX: (619)756-9460 O5DAY CONSULTANTS T ^ in^June 25,1997 Ms. Meg Purviance O'DayConsultants JUL 0 9 1997 7220 Avenida Encinas, Suite 204 Carlsbad, CA 92009 RECEIVED Dear Meg: Subject: Response to review comments regarding preliminary HEC-2 study of San Marcos Creek for American Stores Thank you for sending me the review comments on the HEC-2 study of San Marcos Creek that I made for American Stores. I have prepared this letter in response to the comments. First of all, it is important to clarify that this study is for the existing conditions of the stream channel with the purpose to delineate the floodplain/floodway so that American Stores can plan their proposed development outside of the floodway. The model submitted is the existing model and it is not for the proposed conditions. A proposal for a CLOMR covering the proposed model has been submitted to American Stores as the second phase of the study. At this time, American Stores needs to know the preliminary floodplain/floodway information for their development before the application for a CLOMR is prepared. Many of the comments would be addressed with the CLOMR. Responses to the specific comments are given below. (1) More information of the bench mark reference - According to the aerial photo information, the vertical control is based on the 1929 Mean Sea Level Datum (see attached sheet). The benchmark for the preliminary grading plan is San Diego County Control Point "R1800 149+91 INT", datum based on the 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum. (2) The 100-yr flood discharge - According to the Master Drainage Plan for the City of Carlsbad, the 100-yr flood discharge for San Marcos Creek will be adopted from the Corps of Engineers study as follows (see attached sheet): At mouth into Pacific Ocean: 5,000 cfs Upstream from El Camino Real: 12,000 cfs Upstream from Rancho Santa Fe Road: 13,000 cfs I have changed the discharge from 13,000 cfs to 12,000 cfs for the revised study attached to this letter. (3) Floodway delineation - Equal reduction in conveyance from both sides of the main channel is a guide line for encroachment of the floodplain and floodway delineation. For the stream channel reach upstream from El Camino Real, the south overbank area is considerably higher in elevation and its conveyance is much lower than that of the north overbank area. Because of this physical situation, equal reduction in conveyance does not work properly. Instead, the floodway is delineated to maintain a smooth alignment along the main channel and to keep the rise hi water level to be less than 1 foot. In addition, the flow velocities of overbank areas are maintained to be lowered than 6 feet per second. This velocity criterion is a guideline by the County of San Diego. (4) Starting water-surface elevation for the floodway - The area west of El Camino Real is a part of the lagoon. This study does not delineate the floodway west of El Camino Real. Although the water surface for the floodway shows a drop at a section for the floodway, the higher water surface elevation of the floodplain is adopted for the floodway. (5) Tidal effects - This study stream reach has a minimum water surface elevation of about 9 feet and it is beyond the tidal influence. (6) Contraction/expansion coefficients - Higher values of 0.2 and 0.4 are used at the bridge crossing for the revised model. These new values are used in consideration of the long bridge span and moderate flow contraction and expansion through the bridge opening. According to Chow (Open Channel Hydraulics, page 267), the loss coefficient is about 0.5 for abrupt expansion and contractions. (7) Effective flow widths - The flow in the south overbank areas of Sees. 2.72 and 2.77 is affected by the constriction at the El Camino Real Bridge and the constriction at Sec. 2.85. The effective flow widths are set in consideration of flow expansion from Sec. 2.85 and flow contraction toward El Camino Real. (8) Roughness coefficient for the south overbank area - A higher value of 0.05 is used for Sees. 2.68, 2.72 and 2.77 as suggested. (9) Weir flow - There is no more weir flow in the revised model attached. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely your: Howard H. Chang, Ph.D., P.E. 0 too 200 300 GRAPHIC SCALE : V = 100' Aerial Photo Date - Sept.-Oct. 1988. Aerial PhotoScate - 1 : 9600 This map was compiled by phologrammelric methods and meets national map standard accuracy gp*y:'^r^l'flrf?rTfrn'''<"l>'*1 ^""|fal ir R^^rf r>p ifrf> California Ce System NADJW. Vertical Control is Based On 1he 1929 MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM The 100 year peak flows previously established for major creeks in the City of Carlsbad have been analyzed usage in the Master Drainage Plan Study as follows: a) BUENA VISTA CREEK - The 100 year peak flows have been established in the Special Flood Plain Delineation Study. February 1978 by Noite and Associates. The flow rates to be used in Master Drainage Plan are adopted from the 1978 Noite study. b) AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK - The 100 year peak flows have been established in the Special Flood Plain Delineation Study by Noite and Associates in February 1978. ; A Hydrological Study was conducted for Northeastern Carlsbad by Dr. Howard H. Chang in July 1989. The flow rates used in the Master Drainage plan assumed the discharges listed in the Noite 1978 study for the reach upstream of the confluence point east of Oak Lake and the results of the Chang 1989 study downstream of the above mentioned point. The flows in the two studies vary by approximately 10%. c) SANMARCOS CREEK- The 100 year peak flows have been established in the Flood Plain Information Study. April, 1971 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. These flow rates have been adopted by FEMA for the Federal Insurance Study for San Marcos Creek within the City of San Marcos. Corps of Engineers peak flows and inundation limits for the 100 year flow have also been used without modification for the determination of adequacy of existing structures in the Comprehensive Plan f Flood Control and Drainage - Zone 1, San Diego County Flood Control District by Koebig, Incorporated in July 1976. A hydrologic analysis by Boyle Engineering Corporation in July 1988 on the east branch of San Marcos Creek generally confirmed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flow rates. Results of another hydrologic analysis by Willdan -.Associates in August 1988, for the San Marcos Creek Flood Control Improvement Project on the main branch of San Marcos Creek upstream of Lake San Marcos, were within 10 to 15 percent of those values in the Corps of Engineers study. The actual design discharge values utilized for the flood control channel hydraulics, at the direction of the Ciry of San Marcos, were the values from the Corps of Engineers study. The 100 year flow rates to be used in the Master Drainage Plan for San Marcos will be adopted from the Corps of Engineers study as follows: At mouth into Pacific Ocean Upstream from El Camino Real Upstream from Rancho Santa Fe 5,000 CFS 12,000 13,000 dj^ NTCINITAS CREEK - The 100 year peak flows were established by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District in April 1971. Koebig, Incorporated developed peak flow rates for the Encinitas Creek basin in the July 1976 Comprehensive Plan for Flood Control and Drainage -Zone I, San Chapter 3 Page 1 6 Master Drainagn and Storm Water Quality Management Plan I***-'-**************************************** * :-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES * * * Version 4.6.2; Hay 1991 ** * * * * RUN DATE 19JUN97 TIME 11:00:34 ** ******************************************** *************************************** * U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER * 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-4687 * (916) 756-1104 *************************************** X X XXXXXXX XXXXX X XX X X XXX X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX X XXX XX X X XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.2; Hay 1991 ************************************* XXXXX X X X XXXXX X X XXXXXXX THIS RUN EXECUTED 19JUN97 11:00:34 T1 SAN HARCOS CREEK AT LA COSTA "? AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES THROUGH O'DAY CONSULTANTS FLOODPLAIN, FEBRUARY, 1997 HOWARD H. CHANG J1 ICHECK J2 NPROF 1 INQ 2.0 I PLOT NINV PRFVS -1 IDIR XSECV STRT 0.001 XSECH METRIC FN HVINS ALLDC IBU WSEL 7.0 CHNIM FQ I TRACE J3 VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 100 150 200 QT NC ET X1 GR GR GR GR GR GR GR ET X1 GR GR GR GR -q cT NC X1 2 0.030 2.49 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.5 4.4 4.3 4.8 2.55 8.3 7.3 4.4 7.0 7.8 2.59 12000 0.030 9.1 34 500 710 935 1060 1242 1450 1662 9.1 25 600 798 981 1102 1318 9.1 17 12000 0.030 9.1 935 6.3 6.7 4.6 6.0 4.2 4.5 4.8 9.1 930 8.2 7.0 4.3 7.5 7.7 9.1 0.025 975 0.1 1026 542 750 980 1093 1285 1490 1708 1022 636 842 1000 1142 1364 1012 0.2 6.2 6.5 4.5 5.5 4.1 4.7 4.7 295 8.1 6.7 4.3 8.0 7.6 195 585 796 1000 1128 1327 1530 1754 270 673 886 1015 1183 1409 195 6.0 6.3 4.6 5.1 3.9 4.9 4.7 290 8.0 6.3 6.0 7.9 7.6 195 627 842 1022 1164 1370 1570 1800 710 930 1022 1228 1454 650 5.9 6.2 6.0 4.6 4.1 4.9 860 7.7 6.0 6.5 7.9 7.5 940 1530 670 888 1026 1200 1410 1616 1370 754 975 1062 1273 1500 1270 rij -A GR ET NC X1 GR GR GR GR ET SB X1 X2 BT BT BT BT BT BT NC ET X1 GR GR GR GR GR GR GR f\ I GR GR GR GR GR GR GR NC ET X1 GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR ET NC X1 GR GR GR GR GR GR GR 7.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 2.62 14.0 9.7 4.5 13.0 1.05 2.64 -16 0.05 2.68 18.0 15.5 14.7 14.0 5.0 13.5 18.0 2.72 18.0 14.0 13.8 14.0 4.6 10.7 13.2 2.77 20.0 13.0 19.0 14.0 4.6 9.0 12.4 15.0 0.035 2.81 18.0 12.0 13.3 4.6 10.0 12.0 14.0 760 975 1059 1290 9.1 18 170 908 1050 1210 9.1 1.75 170 730 918 1050 1092 1510 0.03 9.1 31 5 341 635 880 1025 1212 1575 9.1 35 250 525 740 915 1000 1126 1342 9.1 39 275 437 730 903 1000 1110 1302 1525 9.1 34 462 645 880 1000 1120 1300 1535 7.3 4.5 6.8 7.0 9.1 908 13.0 9.7 4.5 14 9.1 3 1 14 14 15.2 14.8 14.5 18 0.03 7.1 948 16.0 15.2 14.5 14.0 12.0 14.0 7.1 915 16.0 13.8 14.0 10.0 4.7 11.3 13.6 0.035 7.1 950 16.0 13.3 14.0 15.2 4.7 9.5 12.8 16.0 7.1 952 14.0 12.0 14.0 4.7 10.5 12.4 15.0 803 990 1107 1330 0.2 1092 250 910 1083 1390 0 12.7 0 0 12.7 11.3 11.0 0 0.1 1045 145 439 684 930 1045 1262 1037 319 566 785 925 1027 1163 1389 1033 285 486 747 925 1021 1142 1349 1560 1057 493 692 926 1037 1150 1347 1583 7.0 4.4 7.2 0.4 200 13.0 4.5 9.0 18.0 165 96 13 250 908 950 1083 1210 0.3 204 15.9 15.1 14.4 10.0 12.0 14.5 220 15.6 13.5 14.3 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 230 15.0 13.7 13.7 14.0 10.0 10.0 13.2 16.0 210 13.0 12.0 14.5 10.0 10.0 12.8 16.0 846 1000 1154 175 590 918 1090 1510 5.5 96 13 15.2 15.1 14.5 13 229 194 488 733 948 1065 1352 220 360 608 817 937 1037 1200 1437 230 312 535 765 . 950 1033 1175 1396 1600 260 521 740 940 1057 1190 1394 1632 6.6 4.5 7.6 185 14.0 4.5 9.0 1500 96 0 12.7 12.6 11.0 0 910 219 15.7 14.9 14.3 5.0 12.5 14.0 900 220 15.2 13.3 14.6 6.0 10.0 12.4 16.0 900 230 14.0 14.0 13.5 6.0 10.1 11.0 13.6 18.0 900 240 12.0 12.0 14.0 10.5 9.5 13.2 20.0 889 1009 1202 730 950 1092 1.5 590 910 1000 1090 1390 1150 243 537 782 971 1114 1420 1150 401 650 850 967 1063 1247 1470 1200 339 585 811 975 1045 1215 1443 1635 1180 550 788 952 1060 1230 1441 1652 6.3 6.0 8.0 908 15.2 4.5 14.5 908 4.5 13 15.2 15.0 14.5 14 750 15.6 14.8 14.1 4.9 13.0 16.0 590 14.8 13.5 14.3 4.7 10.0 12.8 18 650 13.5 19.0 13.8 4.7 9.6 12.0 14.0 825 12.0 12.7 4.7 9.5 10.7 13.6 932 1012 1250 1092 908 1000 1092 1092 4.5 0 12.7 12.5 11.0 0 1300 292 586 831 1000 1163 1500 1470 442 695 882 975 1090 1294 1510 1560 388 605 857 987 1077 1255 1490 1652 597 834 980 1090 1265 1488 •=T oK GR GR 2.85 20.0 10.0 10.2 26 810 968 1066 7.1 968 19.3 4.6 10.5 1032 853 980 1100 245 18.7 4.5 10.7 215 896 1000 1146 945 230 18.0 4.6 10.9 1200 940 1022 1192 12.0 10.0 11.1 952 1032 1238 rR _!< ET X1 GR GR GR GR GR GR ET X1 GR GR GR GR GR 1 11.2 12.2 20.0 2.89 20.0 4.5 10.7 12.0 11.9 20.0 2.93 20.0 4.5 10.2 11.4 14.0 19JUN97 SECNO Q TIME SLOPE 1285 1500 1640 26 890 1000 1168 1390 1560 1730 23 917 1017 1212 1413 1615 11:00:34 DEPTH CWSEL QLOB QCH VLOB VCH XLOBL XLCH 11.4 12.5 7.1 965 14.0 4.6 11.0 11.5 11.5 7.1 965 14.0 10.0 10.9 11.0 18.0 1331 1530 1035 908 1024 1212 1420 1600 1031 935 1031 1255 1450 1665 CRIUS WSELK QROB ALOB VROB XNL XLOBR ITRIAL 11.6 12.8 220 13.0 10.0 11.2 11.0 12.0 210 12.0 11.0 11.5 11.7 20.0 EG ACH XNCH IDC 1377 1560 180 936 1035 1256 1450 1628 210 965 1080 1297 1491 1675 HV AROB XNR ICONT 11.8 14.0 940 210 12.0 10.2 11.5 11.6 16.0 925 210 4.5 10.2 12.2 12.5 HL VOL WTN CORAR 1423 1575 1200 965 1079 1301 1485 1668 1200 980 1125 1340 1532 OLOSS TWA ELMIN TOPWID 12.0 17.0 4.6 10.5 11.7 12.2 18.0 4.5 9.5 11.8 13.2 L-BANK ELEV R-BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST 1470 1607 978 1123 1345 1520 1715 990 1170 1376 1573 PAGE *PROF 1 CCHV= .100 CEHV= *SECNO 2.490 ^280 CROSS SECTION .200 2.49 EXTENDED 4.17 FEET 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 650.0 2.490 4.97 8.87 .00 12000.0 2145.6 1383.3 8471.1 .00 2.93 3.88 4.08 .001000 0. 0. 0. 1530.0 TYPE= .00 9.10 732.7 356.2 .030 .030 0 0 TARGET= .23 2075.8 .030 4 880 .00 .0 .000 .00 .000 .00 .0 3.90 880.00 6.00 6.00 650.00 1530.00 *SECNO 2.550 3280 CROSS SECTION 2.55 EXTENDED 2.17 FEET 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED USEL,CWSEL 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.550 5.37 9.67 12000.0 1867.0 4450.9 .01 8.70 11.16 .007233 295. 290. 860.0 1370.0 TYPE= 1 9.67 5682.0 7.39 270. .00 214.5 .030 20 10.97 398.7 .030 8 TARGET^ 1.30 768.9 .030 0 TARGET= 1.30 768.9 .030 0 510. .59 14.5 .000 .00 000 .21 4.5 4.30 510.00 6.30 6.00 860.00 1370.00 *SECNO 2.590 3280 CROSS SECTION 2.59 EXTENDED 3.67 FEET 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.590 6.27 10.67 12000.0 1408.4 2905.0 .01 8.86 13.48 .004977 195. 195. 940.0 1270.0 TYPE= 1 .00 7686.6 8.29 195. .00 159.0 .030 3 12.18 215.6 .025 0 TARGET: 1.51 927.5 .030 0 TARGET= 1.51 927.5 .030 0 330 1.16 20.5 .000 .00 .000 .04 6.3 4.40 330.00 6.00 6.00 940.00 1270.00 CCHV=.200 CEHV=.400 *SECNO 2.620 j302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 1.40 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.620 6.75 11.25 12000.0 .0 12000.0 .02 .00 10.11 .002526 200. 185. 908.0 1092.0 TYPE= 1 .00 .0 .00 175. .00 .0 .000 3 12.84 1187.0 .025 0 TARGET= 1.59 .0 .000 0 184.000 .63 25.8 .000 .00 .03 15.20 7.4 100000.00 4.50 908.00 184.00 1092.00 SPECIAL BRIDGE SB XK 1.05 *SECNO 2.640 CLASS A LOW 3420 BRIDGE EGPRS 12.99 XKOR 1.75 FLOW W.S.= EGLWC 13.00 COFQ 3.00 RDLEN .00 BWC 165.00 11.01 BRIDGE VELOCITY= H3 .29 QWEIR 0. QLOW 12000. BWP 5.50 10.90 BAREA 1500. BAREA 1500.00 CALCULATED TRAPEZOID AREA 1409. SS 1.50 ELCHU 4.50 CHANNEL AREA= ELLC 12.70 ELCHD 4.50 1101. ELTRD WEIRLN 13.00 0. 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 908.0 2.640 7.04 11.54 .00 12000.0 .0 12000.0 .0 .02 .00 9.68 .00 .002193 96. 96. 96. 1092.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 184.000 .00 13.00 1.45 .16 .00 15.20 .0 1239.9 .0 28.4 7.8 100000.00 .000 .025 .000 .000 4.50 908.00 0 0 0 .00 184.00 1092.00 CCHV= .100 CEHV= .300 *SECNO 2.680 3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 750.0 2.680 10.03 14.93 14.93 12000.0 381.0 9536.8 2082.2 .03 1.93 11.38 4.44 .003044 204. 219. 229. 1300.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= .00 16.58 1.65 197.1 838.3 469.2 .050 .030 .030 20 14 0 550.000 .56 .06 35.3 9.6 .000 4.90 .00 550.00 10.00 12.00 750.00 1300.00 *SECNO 2.720 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 2.81 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.720 12.11 16.71 12000.0 1079.9 5593.9 .05 1.17 4.50 .000384 220. 220. *SECNO 2.770 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.770 12.24 16.84 12000.0 746.5 3328.6 .07 1.24 3.98 .000419 230. 230. 590.0 .00 5326.3 2.78 220. 650.0 .00 7924.9 3.14 230. 1470.0 TYPE= 1 .00 16.91 921.4 1242.3 .050 .030 3 0 1560.0 TYPE= 1 .00 17.01 603.0 836.9 .050 .035 2 0 TARGET= .20 1917.2 .030 0 TARGET: .17 2527.0 .030 0 880.000 .18 .15 49.4 13.3 .000 4.60 .00 880.00 910.000 .09 .00 70.7 17.8 .000 4.60 .00 822.64 14.00 10.00 590.00 1470.00 14.00 10.00 737.36 1560.00 +SECNO 2.810 ^470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.810 12000.0 .09 .000303 *SECNO 2.850 2.850 12000.0 .11 .000328 *SECNO 2.890 2.890 12000.0 .13 .000243 *SECNO 2.930 2.930 12000.0 .15 .000270 12.37 748.4 1.68 210. 12.52 277.3 2.28 245. 12.62 416.3 1.67 220. 12.66 239.8 1.71 210. 16.97 3881.2 3.50 240. 17.02 2820.6 3.82 230. 17.12 2610.4 3.26 210. 17.16 2524.0 3.40 210. 825.0 1652.0 TYPE= 1 .00 7370.5 2.66 260. .00 8902.1 2.85 215. .00 8973.4 2.48 180. .00 9236.2 2.66 210. .00 444.6 .035 2 .00 121.6 .035 2 .00 250.0 .035 2 .00 140.3 .035 1 17.10 1107.6 .035 0 17.17 737.8 .035 0 17.23 800.9 .035 0 17.29 741.6 .035 0 TARGET= .13 2765.8 .030 0 .15 3122.6 .030 0 .11 3613.9 .030 0 .12 3474.3 .030 0 827.000 .09 94.4 .000 .00 .07 115.4 .000 .00 .05 133.9 .000 .00 .05 155.7 .000 .00 .00 22.4 4.60 811.83 .01 26.1 4.50 665.31 .00 29.2 4.50 795.69 .00 32.9 4.50 729.17 14.00 10.00 825.00 1636.83 10.00 10.00 941 .95 1607.26 12.00 10.00 898.64 1694.33 12.00 10.00 925.48 1654.65 19JUN97 11:00:34 PAGE 8 T1 SAN MARCOS CREEK AT LA COSTA 2 AMERICAN STORES PROPERTIES THROUGH O'DAY CONSULTANTS f3 FLOODWAY, FEBRUARY, 1997 HOWARD H. CHANG J1 ICHECK INQ 3.0 NINV IDIR STRT 0.0010 METRIC J2 NPROF 15 SECNO 0 TIME SLOPE IPLOT DEPTH QLOB VLOB XLOBL PRFVS -1 CWSEL QCH VCH XLCH XSECV CRIWS QROB VROB XLOBR XSECH WSELK ALOB XNL ITRIAL FN EG ACH XNCH IDC HVINS ALLDC HV AROB XNR ICONT IBW HL VOL WTN CORAR WSEL 7.0 CHNIM OLOSS TWA ELMIN TOPWID FQ I TRACE L-BANK ELEV R-BANK ELEV SSTA 'ENDST *PROF 2 CCHV= .100 CEHV= *SECNO 2.490 3280 CROSS SECTION .200 2.49 EXTENDED 4.17 FEET 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 650.0 2.490 4.97 8.87 .00 12000.0 2145.6 1383.3 8471.1 .00 2.93 3.88 4.08 .001000 0. 0. 0. 1530.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 8.87 9.10 .23 732.7 356.2 2075.8 .030 .030 .030 004 880.000 .00 .00 .0 .0 .000 3.90 .00 880.00 6.00 6.00 650.00 1530.00 *SECNO 2.550 280 CROSS SECTION 2.55 EXTENDED 2.17 FEET 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS ^685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED USEL,CWSEL 93 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY ^20 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.550 5.37 9.67 12000.0 1867.0 4450.9 .01 8.70 11.16 .007233 295. 290. 860.0 1370.0 TYPE= 1 9.67 5682.0 7.39 270. 9.67 214.5 .030 20 10.97 398.7 .030 8 TARGET: 1.30 768.9 .030 0 510.000 .59 .21 14.5 4.5 .000 4.30 .00 510.00 6.30 6.00 860.00 1370.00 *SECNO 2.590 3280 CROSS SECTION 2.59 EXTENDED 3.67 FEET 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.590 12000.0 .01 .004977 SECNO 0 TIME SLOPE 6.27 1408.4 8.86 195. DEPTH OLOB VLOB XLOBL 10.67 2905.0 • 13.48 195. CWSEL QCH VCH XLCH 940.0 .00 7686.6 8.29 195. CRIWS QROB VROB XLOBR 1270.0 TYPE= 1 10.67 159.0 .030 3 WSELK ALOB XNL ITRIAL 12.18 215.6 .025 0 EG ACH XNCH IDC TARGET= 1.51 927.5 .030 0 HV AROB .XNR ICONT 330.000 1.16 20.5 .000 .00 HL VOL UTN CORAR .04 6.3 4.40 330.00 OLOSS TWA ELMIN TOPWID 6.00 6.00 940.00 1270.00 L-BANK ELEV R-BANK ELEV SSTA ENDST CCHV= .200 CEHV= *SECNO 2.620 .400 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 1.40 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 908.0 2.620 6.75 11.25 .00 12000.0 .0 12000.0 .0 .02 .00 10.11 .00 .002526 200. 185. 175. 1092.0 TYPE= 11.25 12.84 .0 1187.0 .000 .025 3 0 TARGET= 1.59 .0 .000 0 184. .63 25.8 .000 .00 000 .03 7.4 4.50 184.00 15.20 100000.00 908.00 1092.00 SPECIAL BRIDGE SB XK XKOR 1.05 1.75 *SECNO 2.640 CLASS A LOW FLOW COFQ 3.00 RDLEN .00 BWC 165.00 BWP 5.50 BAREA 1500.00 SS 1.50 ELCHU 4.50 ELCHD 4.50 3420 BRIDGE W.S.= EGPRS EGLWC 12.99 13.00 11.01 BRIDGE VELOCITY= H3 QWEIR QLOW .29 0. 12000. 10.90 CALCULATED CHANNEL AREA= 1101. BAREA TRAPEZOID ELLC ELTRD WEIRLN AREA 1500. 1409. 12.70 13.00 0. 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 908.0 2.640 7.04 11.54 .00 12000.0 .0 12000.0 .0 .02 .00 9.68 .00 .002193 96. 96. 96. 1092.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 11.54 13.00 1.45 .0 1239.9 .0 .000 .025 .000 000 184.000 .16 .00 15.20 28.4 7.8 100000.00 .000 4.50 908.00 .00 184.00 1092.00 .300 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS CCHV= .100 CEHV= *SECNO 2.680 685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL 3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED 1 19JUN97 11:00:34 PAGE 11 SECNO DEPTH CUSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AR08 VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELHIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST 3470 ENCROACHMENT STAT10NS= 910.0 2.680 9.64 14.54 14.54 12000.0 178.2 10554.8 1267.0 .03 3.15 13.18 5.51 .004344 204. 219. 229. 1150.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 14.93 16.97 2.42 56.6 800.8 230.1 .050 .030 .030 20 14 0 240.000 .66 .29 34.3 8.9 .000 4.90 .00 240.00 10.00 12.00 910.00 1150.00 *SECNO 2.720 3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 2.34 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.720 12.32 16.92 12000.0 64.4 8334.4 .04 1.51 6.57 .000796 220. 220. *SECNO 2.770 ^470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.770 12.62 17.22 12000.0 212.1 4998.4 .05 1.59 5.75 .000833 230. 230. *SECNO 2.810 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.810 12.82 17.42 12000.0 461.5 6855.0 .06 2.62 5.94 .000822 210. 240. *SECNO 2.850 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.850 13.08 17.58 12000.0 535.0 5060.1 .07 4.05 6.54 .000902 245. 230. *SECNQ 2.890 3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.890 13.29 17.79 12000.0 439.4 5238.3 .08 3.28 6.18 .000807 220. 210. *SECNO 2.930 j470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 2.930 13.50 18.00 12000.0 548.6 4697.9 900.0 .00 3601.2 4.81 220. 900.0 .00 6789.5 5.40 230. 900.0 .00 4683.5 5.19 260. 945.0 .00 6404.9 5.40 215. 940.0 .00 6322.3 5.21 180. 925.0 .00 6753.5 1150.0 TYPE= 1 16.71 17.50 42.8 1268.3 .050 .030 3 0 1200.0 TYPE= 1 16.84 17.69 133.0 869.0 .050 .035 2 0 1180.0 TYPE= 1 16.97 17.90 176.2 1154.8 .035 .035 0 0 1200.0 TYPE= 1 17.02 18.11 132.0 773.2 .035 .035 2 0 1200.0 TYPE= 1 17.12 18.28 134.1 848.1 .035 .035 2 0 1200.0 TYPE= 1 17.16 18.45 173.2 796.0 TARGET= .57 748.0 .030 0 TARGET= .47 1258.1 .030 0 TARGET: .48 901.9 .030 0 'TARGET= .53 1185.8 .030 0 TARGET: .49 1213.3 .030 0 TARGET= .45 1314.2 250.000 .34 .19 42.2 10.1 .000 4.60 .00 250.00 255.000 .19 .02 77.5 14.6 .000 4.50 .00 255.00 260.000 .17 .00 87.1 15.7 .000 4.50 .00 260.00 14.00 10.00 900.00 1150.00 TARGET= .47 1258.1 .030 0 300 .19 53.6 .000 .00 .000 .01 11.6 4.60 300.00 14.00 10.00 900.00 1200.00 TARGET= .48 901.9 .030 0 280. .21 66.4 ' .000 .00 000 .00 13.2 4.60 280.00 14.00 10.00 900.00 1180.00 275.000 .16 97.9 .00 17.0 10.00 10.00 945.00 1200.00 12.00 10.00 940.00 1200.00 12.00 10.00 .09 3.17 5.90 5.14 .000738 210. 210. 210. ************************************* HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.2; May 1991 NOTE- ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE SECNO 2.640 2.640 1 EGLWC 13.00 13.00 SUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE SECNO 2.490 2.490 * 2.550 * 2.550 2.590 2.590 * 2.620 * 2.620 2.640 2.640 * 2.680 * 2.680 * 2.720 * 2.720 2.770 2.770 2.810 2.810 2.850 2.850 2.890 2.890 2.930 2.930 XLCH .00 .00 290.00 290.00 195.00 195.00 185.00 185.00 96.00 96.00 219.00 219.00 220.00 220.00 230.00 230.00 240.00 240.00 230.00 230.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 100 ELLC 12.70 12.70 150 ELTRD .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 13.00 13.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 EGPRS 12.99 12.99 ELLC .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 12.70 12.70 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .035 .035 .030 .000 2 0 0 .00 NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ELTRD 13.00 13.00 ELMIN 3.90 3.90 4.30 4.30 4.40 4.40 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.90 4.90 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 QPR 12000.00 12000.00 0 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 QWEIR .00 .00 CUSEL 8.87 8.87 9.67 9.67 10.67 10.67 11.25 11.25 11.54 11.54 14.93 14.54 16.71 16.92 16.84 17.22 16.97 17.42 17.02 17.58 17.12 17.79 17.16 18.00 CLASS 1.00 1.00 CRIWS .00 .00 9.67 9.67 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 14.93 14.54 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4.50 925.00 275.00 1200.00 THIS RUN EXECUTED ERRORS LIST H3 .29 .29 EG 9.10 9.10 10.97 10.97 12.18 12.18 12.84 12.84 13.00 13.00 16.58 16.97 16.91 17.50 17.01 17.69 17.10 17.90 17.17 18.11 17.23 18.28 17.29 18.45 DEPTH 7.04 7.04 10*KS 10.00 10.00 72.33 72.33 49.77 49.77 25.26 25.26 21.93 21.93 30.44 43.44 3.84 7.96 4.19 8.33 3.03 8.22 3.28 9.02 2.43 8.07 2.70 7.38 19JUN97 CUSEL 11.54 11.54 VCH 3.88 3.88 11.16 11.16 13.48 13.48 10.11 10.11 9.68 9.68 11.38 13.18 4.50 6.57 3.98 5.75 3.50 5.94 3.82 6.54 3.26 6.18 3.40 5.90 11:00:34 VCH 9.68 9.68 AREA 3164.63 3164.63 1382.15 1382.15 1302.07 1302.07 1186.96 1186.96 1239.88 1239.88 1504.61 1087.47 4080.90 2059.11 3966.88 2260.09 4318.00 2232.94 3982.06 2091.05 4664.79 2195.45 4356.17 2283.48 EG 13.00 13.00 .OIK 3794.11 3794.11 1410.97 1410.97 1700.90 1700.90 2387.67 2387.67 2562.57 2562.57 2174.92 1820.70 6121.18 4252.70 5864.64 4158.85 6897.91 4186.60 6628.61 3994.94 7704.14 4223.22 7304.61 4416.21 19JUN97 11:00:34 PAGE 15 oUMMARY PRINTOUT TABLE 150 SEGNO CWSEL DIFWSP OIFWSX DIFKWS TOPWID XLCH * * * * * * * * 2.490 2.490 2.550 2.550 2.590 2.590 2.620 2.620 2.640 2.640 2.680 2.680 2.720 2.720 2.770 2.770 2.810 2.810 2.850 2.850 2.890 2.890 2.930 2.930 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 12000.00 8.87 8.87 9.67 9.67 10.67 10.67 11.25 11.25 11.54 11.54 14.93 14.54 16.71 16.92 16.84 17.22 16.97 17.42 17.02 17.58 17.12 17.79 17.16 18.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.39 .00 .21 .00 .39 .00 .46 .00 .55 .00 .67 .00 .83 .00 .00 .80 .80 .99 .99 .58 .58 .29 .29 3.39 3.00 1.78 2.38 .13 .30 .13 .20 .06 .16 .10 .22 .04 .20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -.39 .00 .21 .00 .39 .00 .46 .00 .55 .00 .67 .00 .83 880.00 880.00 510.00 510.00 330.00 330.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 184.00 550.00 240.00 880.00 250.00 822.64 300.00 811.83 280.00 665.31 255.00 795.69 260.00 729.17 275.00 .00 .00 290.00 290.00 195.00 195.00 185.00 185.00 96.00 96.00 219.00 219.00 220.00 220.00 230.00 230.00 240.00 240.00 230.00 230.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 19JUN97 11:00:34 PAGE 16 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION WARNING WARNING CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION WARNING WARNING SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= SECNO= 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .620 .620 .680 .680 .680 .680 .680 .680 .720 .720 PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= PROFILE= 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 19JUN97 11:00:34 PAGE 17 'OODWAY DATA, FLOODPLAIN, FEBRUARY, DFILE NO. 2 FLOODUAY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION STATION UIDTH SECTION MEAN WITH WITHOUT DIFFERENCE AREA VELOCITY FLOOOWAY FLOOOWAY 2.490 2.550 2.590 2.620 2.640 2.680 2.720 2.770 2.810 2.850 2.890 2.930 880. 510. 330. 184. 184. 240. 250. 300. 280. 255. 260. 275. 3165. 1382. 1302. 1187. 1240. 1087. 2059. 2260. 2233. 2091. 2195. 2283. 3.8 8.7 9.2 10.1 9.7 11.0 5.8 5.3 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.3 8.9 9.7 10.7 11.2 11.5 14.5 16.9 17.2 17.5 17.6 17.8 18.0 8.9 9.7 10.7 11.2 11.5 14.9 16.7 16.8 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 -.4 .2 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 10 (Emmig nf DANIEL J. AVERA LARRY T. AKER DIRECTOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 85261. SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5261 (619)338-2222 FAX (619) 338-2377 SITE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION DIVISION June 18, 1997 Arco Products Company Attn: David White 4 Centerpointe Drive La Palma, CA 90623-1066 UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE #H13502-001 FORMER ARCO STATION #1939 7654 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD Dear Mr. White: Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Division has reviewed your May 27, 1997 and June 4, 1997 letters requesting no further action for the above mentioned site. Based on the letters and the information provided in previously submitted site assessment reports and the current site usage, we agree that the soil and groundwater contamination detected within the property lines have been remediated to the satisfaction of this department. Therefore, no further site assessment or remediation is required for the area within the property boundaries of the above-referenced site. However, two areas outside of the property boundaries, affected from the above-mentioned release, will require additional site assessment activity prior to issuance of a "no further action" letter. The two areas that remain in question are adjacent to the soil sample S36-6.5 at the western sidewall along El Camino Real, and soil sample S100-6 and MW-13 (with dissolved TPH and BTEX in the groundwater) near the driveway on north side of the property boundary. Please continue your site assessment activities for these two areas. I you have any questions please call me at 619-338-2239. Sincerely, NASSER SIONIT, Project Manager Site Assessment and Mitigation Division NS: ac cc: Patrick A. McConnell, SECOR International, Inc. John Menatti, Luce, Forward, Hamilton, and Scripps WP/H13502.WPD "Prevention Comes First" City of Carlsbad Engineering Department June 10, 1997 American Stores Properties, Inc. 348 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84111 COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER CT 97-09/CUP 97-03/GPA 97-02/SDP 97-07/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/ZC 97-02 As a follow-up to the City Planning Department's letter of June 2, 1997, the Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject project for application completeness and issues of concern to staff. Please refer to the letter of June 2, 1997, as to the procedure and timing for resubmitting the required information to complete your application. The application and plans submitted for this project are incomplete due to the following missing or incomplete items: 1. Name of sewer and water district providing service to the project. 2. Average Daily Traffic generated by the project broken down by separate uses. This information is to be shown on the plans. 3. Name of School District providing service to the project. 4. Legal description of the exterior boundaries of the subdivision (approximate bearings, distances, and curve data). 5. Top and bottom elevations for all fences, walls, and retaining walls. Show these elevations at each end of the wall and in the middle. Also show the worst condition elevation. 6. Typical street section for all adjacent streets and streets within the project. 7. A table that identifies each easement and numbered to correspond with those in the preliminary title report. The table should include the date, file number, and future disposition of each easement. 8. Distance between all intersections and driveways. 9. Existing and proposed street lights and utilities (sewer, water, major gas and fuel lines, major electric and telephone facilities) within and adjacent to the project. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894 10. Truck turning radii within the loading and delivery areas. Truck turning radii is to be plotted to demonstrate that a 60' turning radius can circulate on site, in accordance with Figure 407D of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 11. Approximate contours at 1' interval for slopes less than 5%; 2' intervals for slopes between 5% and 10%; and 5' intervals for slopes over 10% (both existing and proposed). Existing and proposed topographic contours within a 100 foot perimeter of the boundaries of the site. 12. Earthwork volumes: cut, fill, import, and export. 13. Spot elevations at the corners of each pad. 14. Method of draining the project site. 15. Location, width, and/or size of all watercourses and drainage facilities within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision; show location and approximate size of any proposed detention/retention basins. 16. The 100-year flood line for the before and after conditions. 17. Copy of a Preliminary Title Report, current within the last six months. 18. Proof of availability of sewer from the Leucadia County Water District. 19. City assigned project numbers in the upper right corner of the plan sheet. In addition, the Engineering Department made a preliminary review of the project for Engineering issues. Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to conditioning of the project are as follows: 1. Please clarify as to the disposition of all existing lot lines, and show all entire lots associated with this project on the plans. The lot lines are cut off at the top of the plan sheet submitted for this review. 2. In addition to the sidewalk, curb, gutter, and turning lane improvements already shown on the plans, please show the following improvements: a. Raised concrete landscaped median improvements on El Camino Real fronting the site. b. Sidewalk improvements along the property frontage on La Costa Avenue, east of the driveway. c. An indication that a traffic signal is to be installed as part of this project at the driveway intersection with La Costa Avenue. Also indicate that this signal will be interconnected with the La Costa Avenue/El Camino Real traffic signal. 3. The layout of the onsite circulation should be designed with obvious and clearly defined points of access and main traffic aisles through the center. We recommend the following: a. The onsite aisle from the main driveway entry on El Camino Real be designed as an unloaded aisle to provide more efficient traffic flow and to avoid conflicts between through traffic and vehicles backing out of this main aisle. b. The southernmost gas station access point be relocated further west to create a four-legged intersection, with through traffic on the main aisle and stop sign control on the other two legs. Alternatively, the access point to the gas station could be relocated along the southern edge of the gas station parcel. c. Relocate the proposed parking spaces in front of the LCWD building so that vehicles do not back out into the main traffic aisle. d. Revise the site layout to avoid offset intersections, such as the access point located just north of Building C, which is offset from the opposing aisle. 4. Please submit a preliminary signing and striping plan for onsite, and for El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. 5. Please submit a preliminary grading plan. 6. The project plans are to identify the drainage pattern for the site and include measures to treat surface runoff onsite prior to entering the public storm drain system. This issue is related to the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which requires a project to provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge. Methods found to be acceptable include directing runoff from paved areas towards a landscaped swale prior to reaching the storm drain; or installing an onsite drainage basin specially designed to remove pollutants. 7. The applicant may wish to contact the property owners of the shopping plaza located on the southeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue to discuss sharing the costs for the traffic signal at the driveways and the interconnect system. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions regarding any of the comments above, please contact me at (760) 438-1 161 , extension 4380. KENNETH W. QUON, P.E. Associate Engineer c: City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer i/Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner Penny Milton, Fortney Assoicates, Inc. .07/08/1997 14:38 6029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE 04 FORTNEY MAIN OFFICE & ACCOUNTING 2345 EAST THOMAS ROAD • SUITE 490 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 ASSOCIATES, INC.18001 SKY PARK CIRCLE-SUITE L IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92614 PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad, CA #121-283 MUNICIPALITY: City of Carlsbad MEETING DATE: June 11,1997 MEETING TYPE: City & Entitlement Team Meeting RESULT: Revisions required for project re-submittal. ACTION PLAN; Re-submit as soon as possible. ATTENDEES: Entitlement Team Members: "Kareem Alt,- Jim Kilcoyne, Penny Milton, Steve Grant, Larry Tucker, Tom Hageman, Pete Bethea, Thomas Riggle, Paul Loubet, Pat 6'Day, Meg Purviance, Greg Evans, Frank Feriniger. City Staff: Gary Wayne, Dennis Turner, Jeff Gibson, Ken Quon. DISCUSSION-. ' '' The staff of the City of Carlsbad had reviewed the Project Plans as submitted 5/2/97 and prepared written comments. The Entitlement Team, (Team), met with the City of Carlsbad, (City), to clarify comments. Larry Tucker lead the discussion for the Team. Jeff Gibson lead the discussion for the City. Comments and discussion are below: • . ' • r \ ' • v ITEMS TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: /: 1. City comment: Non Residential Planned Permit required for projects with non-residential tentative maps and reciprocal agreements. , Discussion; Team will request a permit rather than postage stamp lots. Team can provide the city with the reciprocal agreement and tentative maps as they are completed. The tentativemap is anticipated to be completed during the city preliminary reviewprocess. TTiereciprocal agreement timing is not anticipated until closing documents are finalized , and the construction phase have begun/ „ < \/ Ptjone (602) 955-0999 Fai (602) &S-9292 • PHOENlfc • IRVINE Phon'e-(7!4) 251-0999 Fax (.714) 251-9292 ,. 07/08/1997 14:38 6029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE 05 Meeting Report Page 2 ' 2. City comment: Discussion: / 3. City comment: Discussion: 4. City comment: Discussion: 5. City comment: Discussion: 6. City comment: Discussion: 7. City comment: Discussion: 8. City cotenent: .L '• .. • ' V • • Discussion: 'I..' ; ^' V .''V ' v 9ji. City comment: v v Discussion: / Provide floor and roof plans for Buildings C-G. Tenants for pad sites will be undetermined until the latter stages of the project. Therefore, City agreed that floor plans would not be required at this stage of the process'; Floor plans are not being prepared for preliminary reviews. Generic roof plans are required and Avili be prepared. Indicate top and bottom elevations of retaining walls- Team will comply. Label all drainage facilities into San Marcos Creek as existing or proposed. Team will comply. Answer Question 5 on Disclosure statement. Team will comply. , / Supply La Costa owner, "Secretary or assistant secretary signature when Owner is a corporation. . . • ' f Pete Bethea will endeavor to locate this party for signature. Provide an estimate of the yearly amount of irrigation water to maintain Landscape zones. ' , ' / . : Team will comply. If project irrigation uses reclaimed water, certain regulations apply. LCWD (Mike Barden) will be contacted by the Team to discuss the potential use and regulations for use of reclaimed water, y Supplement the project descriptipn with the number of acres to be converted within each General Plan land use designation. . / \ Team will comply. \ EIA form-Part 1 junder VIII. With drainage facility routing from jpafking f area into San Marcos Creek, ad^tidnal biological impact study is / - ;^ '.required.,. ': ' ••' '. ; ••', • ' ... • • ; '{'••\-'\ ... • " Team will endeavorsto redesign the proposed drainage facility, .the design will endeavor to propose,drainage facilities that eliminate new construction within wetland areas. Drainage design from the parking lot / will-endeavor to achieve a routing that does riot flow^directly^nto San^ • • -N / Marcos Creek. •.• ,\. : ', • ' \ •'' .. '"'.' ' "-"' ';. "" -: "'• :••• ,07/08/1997 14:38 6029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC Meeting Report . i Page3 9B. City comment: Section IX Hazards; Checklist to be supplemented with potential Environmental impacts/hazards associated with the removal of the sewage detention basin and redevelopment of the area. Discussion: It is the understanding of the Entitlement Team that the LCWD facility is a holding pond for reclaimed water, not sewage detention. Team will endeavor to receive a letter from LCWD stating the historical uses of the detention basin and disclosure of any potential soil, contamination, environmental impacts or hazards. 10. City comment; Discussion: See the attached marked-up set of plans for exhibit inconsistencies. Return marked plans with re-submittaJ. Team will comply. ISSUES of CONCERN: : 1. -City comment: Site Plan A and B, choice needed. Discussion: The City and the Team concluded that the preferred approach was to revise Site Plan B, including the play area, and show a "Future Building Pad", within this play area. 2. City comment: Discussion: 3. Cijty.comment:' j Discussion: Clarification is needed as to the storage tank portion of the site.' What are the project boundaries? , ; ._' Current negotiations with LCWD will revise the proposed project \ ['• boundaries to be other than those intended when the project was initially Submitted. Current negotiations propose that the new tank be placed in a location, yetto be determined. Property boundaries will be revised as required with the second submittal The area where the tank was proposed on the initially submittal will be revised. The piece of property will be divided into two parcels, The Chabad house parcel will include the slope. The remaining land will be designed as additional parking. This will create adequate parking to allow for project restaurant uses'and the site plan enhancements such as ,the main drive reconfigurations and additional landscape_j)lante/s, as required by city comments. . ,.. • • .'//.. •'''>.••'. '".'••'"'.;.'', ' ' "'" ' , p '' - -• •. • ^ ' • . The SDG & E easement is a concern. What guarantee is there that SDG - & E will not require the'parking,be removed at some time in the^utjir«? ^While SDG St E will retain easement rights, the landlord retains surface use rights that do not interfere with easement use. Electric and gas services include lines that are typically placed underground. Electric ' ' -•'' ^' .. • • 'S • •''"> -87/08/1997 14:38 S029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE Meeting Report Page 4 City comment: Project: Discussion: Transmission lines are typically above ground. In either case, exceptfor .a few potential additional poles, parking should not be affected. -A copy of . the easement document Will be supplied to the City for review.; together with a narrative discussion. A mutual agreement between the development and SDG & E, based on the developments proposed site plan and SDG & E's Ultimate Build Out of service poles, as they relate to the site plan, is to be reached. SDG & E charge for an Ultimate Build Out Plan is $5,000.00. This exhibit can be prepared in 6-8 weeks from the time the money is received by SDG <s£ E. This Plan is not expected to be available from SDG & E. however, 'until the construction phase of the project. < . General Plan and Zoning. City recommends the following. General Plan designation = N =Neighbor hood Commercial Zoning desi gnation - =C-1= Neighborhood Commercial Overlay designation = Q - Qualified Development, • - • El Camino Real Scenic Corridor / Water district parcel: -v General Plan designation = U Zoning designation =PU = Requires Precise Dev. Plan • ..,.!' , Larry Tucker indicated that in so far as the revisions concerned the proposed Shopping Center parcels, the Project Entitlement Team needed some time to evaluate the significant differences in order to assess potential restrictions to land use. Steve Grant indicated /that, at first glance, the City recommendations did not appear problematic. ^ : Larry Tucker e,xplained that the Shopping Center developers can*t negotiate the restriction of land-use on behalf LCWD. Mr, Tucker said that his conversations with LCWDjridicate that LCWD will not voluntarily agree to be regulated by the City. If the City attempts to require a precise plan then the 'developers believe that LCWD will cease to negotiate, ' ' The Citvtabled the discussion ifrtffder to consider the PU designation"' further. •; ; t •••' • '•';>, , ••' t '" ' :• - "' ^ '•..••> > \ Plan 5. City'cornment: Provide visual screening with'$ berm. Discussion: / The Teamwill revise eliminate-the 3-foot hedge/Vvall and pirovide a 3-foot ' .\ berm instead. This isacceptable 'to 'th^ City staff. / ' 6. City comment: \ Parking lot landscape to^qualr 1 tree well planter per every 4-5 stalls. '/ /, City desires more landscape along the El'Camino main drive. < Discussion: The Team will comply. ,i /} ,.07/88/1997 14:38 6029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE Meeting Report Page 5 7: City comment; Discussion: 8. City comment: Discussion; Provide a stronger entry statement in the primary driveways, including a 4-foot landscape median and textured color treated paying. The Team will endeavor to revise the drawings to meet the " recommendations. A 6-foot wide .perimeter landscape area is required around the gas station. Team Will comply. ARCO plans will be revised to meet city code. City Engineer's comments were discussed at this time: From page 4, #3. These recommend on-site circulation revisions, A. El Camino Real entry drive aisle design to be unloaded. B. ARCO drive access should be relocated further west. A four-legged intersection is to be created. C. Relocate LCWD parking. Larry tucker noted that the i developers did not own the LCWD parking spaces and has no control the spaces. The City is to rethink this issue. ' Engineer comments from page 1, # 2, Traffic Engineer to study the: cueing on La Costa Avenue easthound between center entry and El Camino Real, and page 4, #4, the, Civil Engineer to provide a preliminary signing arid striping plan of the onsite and an off-site plan for El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Mr. Quon noted that otherwise the traffic study was very thorough Left turn access .into the project from south-bound El Camino had been discussed ;with supervisory personnel and was found to be acceptable. The City initiated discussion recommending that the developers attempt to have Vons Center share in/the cost of the nfew signal and improvements on La Costa. Discussions concluded that it is unlikely Jhat the Vons Center will contribute to development that provides completion from a shopping center across the street from them. While Vons Center is unlikely to contribute outright to the signal on La Costa, the City of Carlsbad can , .• create a "Reimbursement Agreement" (for signal improvement on La Costa Avenue), which was suggested by Larry Tucker. In this vvay the : .. developer/owners of the Luek/shopping center may one-day be ^ - ;T '. reimbursed for the improvements-that benefit;botiishopping caters:. It was agreed that/this would be documented by Citystaff. > • •''.•' Mr. Ken .Quon said that he had just received copies of O Day's drawings and it now appeared to him thaf^ other than the above items, the written comments of JunelO, 1997 were already satisfied by current drawings. 07/08/1997 14:38 6029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE Meeting Report Page 6 Building Elevations 9. City comment: Dlscussioa 10. !City comment: Discussion. Signs 11. City comment: entrance 12. City comment: Discussion; Other Agencies. 13. Gity comment: .Discussion: •'' Further enhance the Elevations facing El Camtno Real and La Costa. The rear elevations of the pad sites should compare to the front. The Developer will accomplish some level of enhancement. Provide a pedestrian scale walkway extending from roof elements in front of Lucky and buildings C and G. The Team will revisit the elevations and consider potential enhancements to the elevations and walkways. It was agreed that in the case of Lucky area to work with is constrained by SDG & E easement to the west and •'.. LCWD yard area to the east. Monument signs maximum 7 X 12. Material stucco and wood; Lighting should be external. Wall signs are restricted to wood. Allowed monument signs shall be ARCO, ECR entrance, La Costa ' • and ECR/La Costa intersection limited to name address of SC and 4- tenants(orless). A maximum of 1,255 Square feet of signage is allowed on the project, including wall and monument signage. - With the setback of the Lucky building from the street frontage, wood""" wall signs will inhibit the commercial enterprise. The limit of square footage for signage severely limits the pad site buildings. i The Team indicated their desire to seek sign variances for the project City staff indicated that a variance of channel letter, wall-sign material is likely to be supported by staff. A sign program similar to Von's Center at Alga should be acceptable. Fish and Game, Army Corp. Regional Water Quality Control Board. If the Proj ect Team is able to submit plans that avoid proposing construction in the wetlands and beyond the floodway delineation, then the City, staff will not consider the project to be subject to reviewlby Fish and Game nor the Corp of Engineers. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should be'scontacted with the; LCWD tank removal and preliminary plans in order to discovert their ' j : concerns, if any, as soon as possible, however. ; 11J & ASSOCIATES Engineering, Environmental Sciences and Management Services Corporate Office: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 619.942.5147 Fax 619.632.0164 1228-55 A California Corporation June 9, 1997 Mr. Jeff Gibson Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center #121-283 - GPA*97-02/2&97-02/SDP 97- 07/CT 97/09/SUP 97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 97-32 Dear Jeff, This letter is sent with regard to the potential effect of the subject project on the Leucadia County Water District facilities (LCWD). We have received a copy of the Planning Director's letter of June 2, 1997 to American Stores Properties, Inc. (American Stores) and we noted that initial engineering comments have not yet been made. The attached information may be of interest in your continuing review. Informal discussions began between LCWD and American Stores Properties, Inc. (American Stores) around December 1996. A number of meetings between American Stores and LCWD have occurred since that time. American Stores has proposed a land swap and construction of a new reclaimed water storage tank to offset impacts of the proposed store on the LCWD site. As the contract LCWD District Engineer, Dudek & Associates, Inc. (Dudek), has assisted LCWD staff in discussions with the American Stores project proponents. LCWD will continue to discuss and negotiate the final terms of reimbursement for loss of LCWD property and facilities, as necessary. In the meantime, the following attached items may be of interest to the City with regard to flood control and groundwater contamination issues at this site: 1) Review comments on behalf of LCWD by West Environmental Hydrosciences regarding the preliminary HEC-2 study done for American Stores. 2) Dudek/HMMD letter of March 18, 1997 regarding status of groundwater cleanup at the former ARCO gas station site, which we understand is part of the proposed American Stores development. 3) Dudek/LCWD letter of October 15, 1996 also regarding the ARCO groundwater cleanup and our concern regarding potential impact on LCWD and Carlsbad MWD facilities. Please call, if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Dudek & Associates, Inc. Steve Deering, PE £/ LCWD District Engineer cc. Mr. Tim Jochem, LCWD General Manager Mr. Mike Bardin, LCWD Assistant General Manager ..87/08/1997 14:38 6829559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE 01 FOKTIJEY MAIN OFFICE 6 ACCOUNTING " . , 2345 EASTTHOMAS ROAD -SUITE 490 : ' . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 . ASSOCIATES, June 8, 1997 ^ , FACSIMILE NUMBER 619-438-0894, PAGES'* Jeff Gibson , Associate Planner , CityofCarlsibad , 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad,: JCA 92009 ' (6J9) 438-1161 ?;4455 RE: Carlsbad Lucky #121-283 JSMrSKYF-ARKCIRCLE-SUITEI IIMM, CALIFORNIA 92614 _ El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue / DearJefjf - - '' ' ' .• ... \ ' f •'•'• . • •_ ,\ '. ' ,." ; Attached you will find a copy of my June 11,1997 Meeting Report, Please look them over to see that you concur with my understanding of the meeting discussion. Please let me know that you do or do not , concur. What is the City discussion currently on the unresolved consideratioins for LCWD? Keepiiig in '• mind that the Shopping Center (SC) Project participants have TjTO decision making authority over LC^/D and that LCWD will likely pull out of the negotiations with the SC if pressured;; Is the City still , considering a requirement for LCWD to be rezoned PU and is the elimination of LCWD parking sp^ce$ .•/•'required?;' - '•. '" ' • . ; ' ;- "... <. • .••/ / ' - . ' Attache^ j^ou wi H find a copy of the latest Site Plan. ASPI/ARCO/GTP are considering this site plan as revised siteplan, which will replace the previously submitted site plan, ' '"''' Some of the revisions you will note are: ^ ; Boulevard entries are shown with 4 ft. planter in the center, the pedestrian sidewalk access to Lucky from El Camino has been moved and is now to the north of the boulevard entry; textured/colored paving has been added to the entries, landscape planters have been added in the parking, additional parkirig has been accomplished mi the former tank area; a sidewalk has been added to the south of buildings E and F;, tiie< future building <3 is shown at 2100 sq. ft monument signs that were unacceptable have been eliminated, / property lines have been adjusted, ARCO site plan has flipped, and the ARCO landscape strip to the north is\6 ft: wide, ,' ; .; ' • • " ' : • ' • ' • '•'•''''-,' •'. • ,.'' • I ask that yoii look at this plan to see if you think it meets the list of concerns/issues to your satisfaction, 'I do not expect an extensive review. I ask that you take a look at it to give rne yout opinion, /. Phone (602) 955-0999 fox (602) 955-9292 ' ?HOENIX • IRVINE Phone'(;714) 25V-0999 Fax'(714) 251-9292 <:, ,07/08/1997 14:38 S029559292 FORTNEY ASSOC PAGE 02 City of Carlsbad July 8, 1997 • vPage 2. V;.;';',' . .. ., a' jfeW questiopis;' •;•';. •' ' .'' ... •' '•"' '. . •.•'... '/•.' •"'''•...•. •• •"•-,•''•']"•..:'' -\) Wh^t food uses arb defined as restaurant per Carlsbad definitions?-! can nipt ttrjd the definition in the;'codes. ',: • .; /''.•".'• " ',." :'. • ; • • •'• - ••'...'/'. •' ''•'•':•••'. :•.''.'.. .-!•/' '"' 2) Provided are 491 parking Stalls: Required at 5/1 QOO are 427, This leaves 64 spaces. V/hit square footaige of restaurant; use can Grant Ttcker Properties (GTP) expect to be able put into the mi^ of tenants Ayith'these parking ratios. I know that the code reads 1/100 for less than4000sq./ri.-or for restaurant "squiare footage ov^r 4000 sq ft., it is 40 spacfes;plus 1/50 for excess over 4000 s'q, -fV Assurriing that I qan: , subtract iritendecl restaurant use from the retail uses, I calculate that, based on the assurtiiption^ above, GIP can count on approximately 7000 sq ft. of restaurant tenant space if Building G is builfand approximately^SOOO sq ft. if the Day Gare playground is constructed rather than Building G. Am I correct or is then; some calculation I arn missing? I ; - / - -. i: 3) , We talked about the need for a Sign Variance and Non-residential Planned peveloptnent permit. Ihave picked up these applications. Spme discussion was left unresolyed concerning a CUP for Day / G^are. As tl^e Day Care has not committedi by signed agreement, to , be a tenant arid ift fact theyvarp ^tiil looking -elsewhere, do we have to 'apply for them nov?? If we consider them in the space arid meet the si planning CUP requiremenls^ can we let them apply for themselves, separately, later oh? ^ ' .; '".; • ' -V ] •- : '•'' '! ..'.' ....-' . ' ., ' ' • ..'"'•''' .'.'• •.'''•-• "' •' ' Thank you for the help. Please call me with your responses at your earliest convenience Best regards, ' ' . • '• " •,,.....' • ' ' ''''.•'... •'•"''• '• .' ''. ;V.:.. ''••..••.''''.' Forj»^y Associates Penhy Milton Project Manager FORTI&Y «MAIN OFFICE a ACCOUNTING 5 EAST THOMAS ROAD -'SUITE 490 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 18001 SKY PARK CIRCLE'• SUITE I IRVINi, CALIFORNIA 92614 June 5, 1997 MEETING NOTICE: ASSOCIATES, INC. CARLSBAD CITY MEETING LUCKY SAV-ON # 121-643 June 11,1997, Wednesday 1:00PM " ' ;• . Meeting will be held at the City Planning Division 2975 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA. This meeting is between the Development Team and City Staff, (including Dennis Turner, Planning Supervisor, Jeff Gibson-Planning ProjectStaff and, Ken Quon-Engmeering). . This meeting is held for the benefit of the the Development Team, including consultants in order to receive clarification from City-Staff concerning city comments. Consultants and Development Team should plan to attend. Parties notified: ^.Teff Gibson HfCareemAll .... Kilcoyne Grant and Larry Tucker Gary Clements Tom Riggle/Steve Phillips PaulLoubet Hageman and Greg Evans O'Day & Meg Purviance RobRees PeteBethea Penny Milton Best City of Carlsbad Lucky Sav-on Lucky Sav-on Grant Tucker Properties MPR Lucky & Pads Architect ARCO Architect ARCO Real Estate Consultant & LS Architect O'Day Engineering Consult .Traffic Engineer ' John Burnham'Company, -Fortney Associates Fax Number: 619^38-0894 714-739-7S91 714-739.7409 714-760-8584 - 310-598-1760 310-902^8026 714-548-7985 619-931-5744 619-931-8680 510-284,2691 619-452-3206 on, A1»A Project Manager .Phorie (602) V55-0999 Fax (602) 955-9292 PHOENIX • IRVINE Phone (7M) 251-0999 'Fax (714)!251 -929-2 City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 2, 1997 American Stores Properties, Inc 348 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 1 SUBJECT: LA COSTA LUCKY SAV-ON SHOPPING CENTER #121-283 - GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 97-32 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your development project, application no. GPA 97-02/ZC 97- 02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 97-32, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, May 2, 1997, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Jeff Gibson, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:JG:vd Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Ken Quon Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide La Costa Shopping Center, Inc., a California Corporation c/o Pete Bethea, John Burnham & Company 4520 Executive Drive, Suite 111 San Diego, CA 92121 Planning Systems 2111 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92009 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. GPA 97-02/ZC 97-02/SDP 97-07/CT 97-09/SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/CUP 97-03/PS 92- 32 Planning: 1. A non-residential tentative map that creates separate ownership lots/units that rely on reciprocal agreements for primary vehicular driveway access, along with shared parking and facilities under common use and maintenance, requires a non-residential planned development permit (Municipal Code Title 21.47) The Planning Department recommends the use of postage stamp lots underneath the building footprints to avoid lot lines that cross driveways, sidewalks, landscape areas, and parking spaces. All remaining areas would be owned and maintained in common by a commercial association of owners under agreements and CC&R's. 2. Provide floor plans, and roof plans for Buildings C-G. 3. Indicate top and bottom elevations for all retaining and screen walls. Show these elevations at each end of the wall and in the middle. Also show the worst condition elevation. 4. Label all the drainage facilities entering San Marcos Creek as either existing or proposed. 5. Answer Question #5 on the Disclosure Statement included with the marked plans and return with the application resubmittal. 6. The Public Facility Fee Agreement requires the signature of a secretary or assistant secretary when the owner is a corporation. Please add the signature and a new notarial acknowledgment of execution by the vice president and secretary. 7. Provide an estimate of the yearly amount of irrigation (supplemental) water required to maintain each landscape zone shown on the Landscape Plan. 8. Please supplement the project description with the number of acres being proposed for conversion from the General Plan land use designation of Public Utility (U) to Community Commercial (C), Community Commercial (C) to Public Utility (Utility), Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) to Community Commercial (C), and Open Space (OS) to Community Commercial. 9. The EIA Form - Part I under VIII. Biological Resources is incorrectly stated. The proposed drainage facilities leading from the parking areas into San Marcos Creek will impact Baccharis Scrub, Wetland Ruderal, and Freshwater Marsh habitat. Impact to wetland areas creates the need for additional biological analysis by a biologist qualified to determine the significance of the habitat impacts and the appropriate mitigation, if applicable. Under Section IX Hazards on the check list please supplement the response with regards to any potential environmental impacts or hazards associated with removal of the sewage detention basin and redevelopment of the area with a market (i.e. potential soil contamination and clean-up). 10. See the attached marked set of plans for project exhibit inconsistencies. Please return all the marked plans with any resubmittal of the application. Engineering: Engineering comments will follow under separate cover. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: General: 1. The project proposal contains two alternative site plans "A" and "B", however, there is no explanation in the project description and no alternative tentative maps or landscape plans. The Planning Department does not support the review and recommendation on two different site plans under one application, therefore, the developer must make a choice before the City can continue processing the development application. 2. The applicant must further clarify the nature and extent of the development proposal based on project exhibits that illustrate a portion of the site with a proposed storage tank. The tentative map shows this area as not a part of the subdivision, however the site and landscape plans include this area within the project's boundaries, and the General Plan Amendment also includes it. If the development of a storage tank on Leucadia County Water District property is part of this proposal then it should be reflected in the project description and accounted for in the grading volume numbers and environmental impact assessment. 3. The large central parking lot area is located within a large utility easement held and controlled by SDG&E. Since the parking spaces are required by the City's Parking Ordinance to support the commercial land uses, what are the guarantees that SDG&E will not require that the parking be removed from their easement sometime in the future? 4. General Plan and Zoning - Based on the General Plan's commercial land use criteria, the approximate 10 acre size of the project site, the proposed retail floor area of approximately 86,000 square feet, the proposed neighborhood commercial type land uses, and the limited vehicular access at this corner, the site is qualified more as a Neighborhood Commercial (N) General Plan land use designation, than a Community Commercial (C) designation. To provide General Plan consistency, the Planning Department recommends that the General Plan land use designation over the entire commercial site be amended to Neighborhood Commercial (N) and the site's zoning changed to C-1 to be consistent with an (N) General Plan designation. In addition, the Planning Department is recommending that the Qualified-Development Overlay Zone (Q) be added to the entire remaining C-1 zoned property because of the sites location adjacent to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. Currently the Leucadia County Water District's property has an inconsistent zoning designation of C-2 and General Plan land use designation of Public Utility (U), therefore, as part of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the Planning Department is also recommending that these inconsistencies be corrected. We are recommending that the entire remaining water district parcel, including the new land swap area along La Costa Avenue be zoned Public Utility (PU) to be consistent with all the existing and proposed underlying General Plan land use designation areas of Public Utility (U). It is important to note that the P-U Public Utility Zone requires that a Precise Development Plan be approved by the City Council before a building permit or other entitlement for any use in the PU Zone is issued. This requirement would apply to the construction of new and future facilities such as a storage tank. Site Design: 5. To provide visual screening of parked cars and buildings when the site is viewed from El Camino Real (ECR) and La Costa Avenue, and where feasible, include 4 foot high earthen berms, and/or decorative landscape walls, or a combination of both. 6. Parking lot landscaping must meet the requirements of the City's Landscape Manual and be designed so as to minimize the visual impact of the large central parking lot area (See the marked plans for specific comments). 7. To provide a stronger project entry statement the Planning Department recommends that the primary entrance driveways be enhanced to include a 4 foot wide landscaped median and textured/color treated paving. 8. The Municipal Code Title 21.42, Conditional Uses, requires a minimum 6 foot wide perimeter landscape area around the gas station. Building Elevations: 9. To maintain the quality of the scenic corridor the Planning Department recommends that you further enhance all the building elevations that face El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. The design of the rear elevations of these buildings should look comparable to front elevations in architectural detailing and design. 10.To provide a pedestrian scale, the Planning Department recommends that the front facade of the large market building and buildings "C"-"G" include covered pedestrian walkways by use of extended roof elements/overhangs (See marked plans for more detail). 11.The El Camino Real Scenic Corridor Standards restricts monument signs to a maximum height of 7 feet and a length of 12 feet. In addition, the corridor standards restrict monument signs to stucco and wood materials and wall signs are restricted to wood. The Planning Department does not support internally illuminated plastic/neon letter type monument signs along the scenic corridor. The Planning Department recommends that an Arco AM/PM monument sign and a shopping center ID/directory style monument sign be allowed at the project entrance along ECR, a similar shopping center ID/directory monument sign to be allowed at the La Costa Avenue entrance, and a shopping center ID monument sign allowed at the corner of ECR and La Costa Avenue. In addition, the Planning Department has an administrative policy for shopping center directory signs which limits the sign to the name and address of the center and the identification of 4 or less tenants in the center. 12. Based on the project's commercial zoning and the site's total linear building frontage, the entire site is allocated approximately 1,255 square feet of signage to be divided between monument and wall signs - (linear building frontage X 1.5). Other Agency Permits (Wetland Impacts): 1. Construction of drainage facilities leading into San Marcos Creek will require a California Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement (State Fish and Game Code - Section 1603) and an Army Corps 404 Permit (EPA's 404(B)(1) Guidelines). 2. Removal of the water district's sewage detention facility is part of this project, therefore, the Planning Department recommends that the Leucadia County Water District initiate early consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) who acts as a potential Responsible Agency under CEQA requirements if a permit is required as part of this action. RWQCB encourages project proponents to consult with them as early as possible on project design/planning and especially on projects that involve changes to existing solid or liquid waste management activities (e.g. contaminated soil, storage and disposal facilities, etc..). Engineering: Engineering comments will follow under separate cover. LAND USE REVIEW DIVISION PROJECT REPORT PROJECT ID: CT 97-09/CUP 97-037 PREPARED BY: Kenneth Quon GPA 97-02/PUD 97-13/SDP 97-07/ SUP 97-02/SUP 97-03/ZC 97-02 PROJECT NAME: La Costa Lucky Sav-On Shopping Center (La Costa Plaza) LOCATION: Northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of an existing 11.78 acre retail center to various retail uses, including a supermarket and gas station . ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Shopping Center 85,099 sf x 120/1000 sf = 10,212 Gas Station 12 fueling stations x 160/fueling space = 1,920 TOTAL ADT = 12,132 Traffic study performed by: Fehr and Peers Associates, dated April 25, 1997 The approach utilized in the traffic study compares impacts relative to traffic generated by the existing site when fully occupied (10,200 ADT) to the proposed project when fully occupied (12,132 ADT), resulting in a net traffic impact of 1,932 ADT. The report analyzes affected intersections along El Camino Real, including La Costa Avenue, Costa Del Mar, Arenal Road, and Levante Street. Also included is. an analysis of the project access intersection on La Costa Avenue. Project impacts are analyzed for three future planning horizons - Opening Day of the project, Year 2000, and Year 2015. The traffic study concludes that this project will not cause any of the analyzed intersections to experience unacceptable conditions and will not cause any specific off-site impacts. It does note that the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection will operate below the City standard in the year 2015, whether the site is fully occupied as it currently exists or if the proposed project is fully occupied. Since the project does contribute traffic to the intersection, the project proposes to provide their "fair share" mitigation through construction of a dedicated right-turn lane for traffic heading westbound on La Costa Avenue to northbound El Camino Real. The project also proposes the installation of a traffic signal at the project access location on La Costa Avenue. This access point would create a four-legged intersection, as it lines up directly with the driveway to the retail center on the south side of La Costa Avenue. The traffic signal provides a safer ingress and egress to the project site as the horizontal alignment on La Costa Avenue east of the project site does not provide sufficient sight distance. Additionally, the traffic signal is to be designed to interconnect with the traffic signal at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection as well as provide an advance warning system, 300 feet in advance of the intersection, for traffic westbound La Costa Avenue. The other primary vehicular access point to the project site is on El Camino Real. This access point is designed to allow right in/right out turns, as well as a left turn into the project site. Left turns out of the project site onto El Camino Real will not be allowed. To reduce impacts to through traffic on El Camino Real, a new deceleration lane will be constructed to serve this driveway. Secondary access is provided by an access point located at the north end of the site on El Camino Real. Turning movements at this driveway are limited to right in/right out only. Specific site circulation features include non-loaded traffic aisles located immediately off each of the primary access points. These non-loaded aisles allow vehicles to enter the project site from the public streets efficiently and without long queues, thereby minimizing interruption to street traffic. With regard to pedestrian access and circulation, a condition of the project is for the installation of sidewalk along the project frontage on both La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Onsite improvements include sidewalks that connect to the public sidewalks. The developer has also contacted North County Transit District and has included a bus stop in front of the site on El Camino Real. SEWER Sewer District: Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) Sewer EDU's required: 85,099 x 1 EDU/1,800 sf = 47.28 EDU's Service station = 3.00 EDU's Sewer lines to this project will gravity flow to an existing LCWD sewer main. There are no major sewer issues associated with this project. WATER Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District GPD required: 220 GPD/EDU x 50.28 EDU's = 11,061 GPD Water service to this project will be provided by an existing 12" waterline on El Camino Real. There are no major water issues associated with this project. GRADING Quantities: Cut: 9,600 cy Fill: 29,600 cy Import: 20,000 cy Permit required: Yes Offsite approval required: Yes Hillside grading requirements met: N/A Preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by: Geosoils, Inc., dated February 6, 1997. The geotechnical investigation referenced above determines that the site is suitable for the proposed project, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. There are no outstanding or major geotechnical issues associated with this project. With regard to offsite grading, the tentative map shows the project situated on property owned by both the developer and the adjacent property owner, Leucadia County Water District (LCWD). However, the developer and LCWD intend to adjust their common lot lines to match the lot lines required to implement the project. A condition of approval requires the developer to demonstrate that such a lot line adjustment has been accomplished prior to final map approval. By completing the lot line adjustment, the requirement to obtain offsite approval for grading will be eliminated. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Drainage basin: Batiquitos Watershed Erosion potential: High Drainage from the project site is designed to be consistent with the existing drainage pattern. Approximately half the project site is to drain to an existing 27" storm drain on El Camino Real. The other half of the project site is to drain towards an existing outlet to San Marcos Creek, located at the northeast corner of the lot. Since the project will contain more paved area, resulting in increased flows, a detention basin is included with the project that will even out the flows so that they are equal to or less than existing drainage flows. With regard to surface pollutants, a condition of approval requires the project to provide onsite pollutant mitigation to all surface runoff prior to reaching the public storm drain and San Marcos Creek. The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain,of San Marcos Creek, as delineated by current Federal Insurance Rate Maps. In accordance with City and Federal regulations, the project may be implemented so long as it is located outside the floodway of San Marcos Creek, and located within the floodplain so long as the water surface elevation of the floodway is not increased by more than one foot from the base flood elevation (100 year flood). The hydraulic study submitted with this project delineates both the floodway and floodplain for San Marcos Creek, and demonstrates that while the project will result in rises in flood levels, the rises are within the allowable one foot increase. LAND TITLE Conflicts with existing easement: Yes Public easement dedication required: Yes Site boundary coincides with Land Title: Yes As proposed, a portion of the project site is situated on land currently under title to Leucadia County Water District. A condition of approval requires that prior to final map approval, the developer is to demonstrate that a lot line adjustment has been performed that incorporates this portion of land into the project site. IMPROVEMENTS Offsite improvements: Yes Standard Waivers required: No Improvements for this project include the following: Traffic signal at the project access point on La Costa Avenue; interconnect signal with El Camino Real/ La Costa Avenue signal; advance warning system for westbound La Costa Avenue; Dedicated right-turn lane on La Costa Avenue for westbound to northbound traffic; Deceleration lane on El Camino Real; Median improvements along the project frontage on El Camino Real, including a median opening for left turns into the project site; Curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, and streetlight improvements along the project frontage on El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WASHINGTON, D.C. NEW YORK, NEW YORK KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS PHOENIX, ARIZONA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA IRVINE, CALIFORNIA BRYAN CAVE LLP 12O BROADWAY, SUITE 5OO SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 9O4O1 -23O5 (31O> 576-21OO FACSIMILE: (3IO) S76-22OO LONDON,ENGLAND FRANKFURT AM MAIN, GERMANY RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA KUWAIT CITY, KUWAIT DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES HONG KONG AFFILIATED OFFICE IN BEIJING GRACE N. MITSUHATA (31O) 376-217O February 28, 1997 Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 Attn: Mr. Christer Westman Re: La Costa Shopping Center. Inc. Dear Mr. Westman: This will confirm the substance of our telephone conference call yesterday in which I discussed with you, the consequence of certain applications and submissions being made to the City of Carlsbad which our client, La Costa Shopping Center, Inc. ("Owner") will be executing in its capacity as owner regarding a development project at the corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenues. The Owner was requested by the developer, American Stores Properties, Inc., ("ASPI") to execute a Land Use Review Application, Engineering Department Application, Public Facilities Fee Agreement and other documents being submitted by ASPI to the City of Carlsbad. You confirmed to me today that Owner's execution of the "Agreement between Owner, Developer and the City of Carlsbad for the Payment of a Public Facilities Fee for Outside the Boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 1" is redundant in that regardless of whether the Owner signs the Agreement, any owner of real property developing new buildings in the City would, under existing ordinances, still be required to pay a public facilities fee in accordance with the formula set out in the Agreement. You kindly agreed to send me copies of those ordinances. Even if an owner were to replace currently existing buildings with new buildings, you informed me that the owner would still be required to pay a public facilities fee, prorated to reflect any newly added square footage over the previously existing square footage. You also informed me that because the proposed development will require a reconfiguration of the lot lines for properties owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation, the Leucadia County Water District and La Costa Shopping Center, Inc., each of those owners typically would be required to sign a Public Facilities Fee Agreement. BRYAN CAVE LLP Planning Department CITY OF CARLSBAD Attn: Mr. Christer Westman February 28, 1997 Page 2 However, becauss only a very small strip of the property owned by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation would be involved and because the lot line adjustments will not take place unless the sale of the property is completed from La Costa Shopping Center, Inc. to Grant Tucker Properties (the named Buyer), the City will accept a Public Facilities Fee Agreement executed only by La Costa Shopping Center, Inc. and not by La Costa Hotel and Spa Corporation. I thank you for the information and your assistance in response to my inquiries. Very truly yours, Grace~N. Mitsuhata GNM:mhw SMOl: 172125.1 cc: Mr. Takeshi Kinoshita LOS NINOS PRESCHOOL & KINDERGARTEN NAEYC ACCREDITED © 7628 El Camino Real ©Carlsbad, Ca 92009 e (619) 436-2797 February 25, 1997 Mr. Victor Lund Chief Executive Officer Chairman of the Board . •. American Stores Properties, Inc. 709 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 RE: LA COSTA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER ELCAMINOREAL, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PARCEL #'821612401 Musil Perkowitz Ruth, Inc. Project #96-643.11 City Of Carlsbad Initial Submittal #PRE-96-56 11/21/96 Dear Mr. Lund: . I understand that American Stores. Properties, Inc. is in the process of completing an agreement with Sports Shinko USA, Leucadia County Water District, John Burnham & Co represented by Pete Bethea and Grant-Tucker Properties. Completion of agreements with the above mentioned entities and with approval by the City of Carlsbad, California would allow building of a new Super Lucky Store and other related businesses in the south east quadrant of Carlsbad. Los Ninos Preschool and Kindergarten is located in the same site as the proposed Lucky site. We felt that we were part of the long-range plans for this site or a comparable site within the La Costa Plaza. Los Ninos has served the parents of this small community for 6 years. During that time hundreds of families have benefited and currently there are over 125 families enrolled. Los Ninos is a model program serving not only youngsters, but providing local high school and college students with practicum and observation training/experience. Los Ninos is licensed by the State of California and has earned national accreditation from the prestigious National Academy of Early Childhood Programs. While the building-of a-Super .Lucky Store would surely compliment the existing services in the area, the current plans and information obtained to date indicate that Los Ninos Preschool and Kindergarten are not part of any development plans. Further, we have not ever been contacted in regard to providing us with an alternative site within La Costa Plaza or nearby. We believe the demise of Los Ninos would be a serious and sad lot for the families of Carlsbad. page 2 (Los Ninos Preschool & Kindergarten/Mr. Lund 2/25/97) We hope we are wrong and that plans do exist to include Los Ninos. If not, we are hopeful that we can work together to develop an alternate plan that would allow Los Ninos to continue to serve the many families, high school and college students in the Carlsbad's south east quadrant. We appreciate any assistance you can provide us and your help in responding to our families and community regarding the prospective plans. As you can readily understand, there is already a great deal of concern. Thank you for your consideration, incerely, Director/Own cc: Romeo Cesalo, GM; Lucky Stores . Tim Jochem, GM; Leucadia County Water District : Musil Perkowitz Ruthj Inc. Larry Tucker, Grant-Tucker Properties Takeshi Kinoshita, VP; Sports Shinko USA Pete Bethea, Agent & Vice President; John Burnham & Co. Jeanette Kagan, Property Manager; John Burnham & Co. The Honorable Claude A. Lewis, Mayor; City of Carlsbad , The Honorable Rarhona Finnila, Mayor Pro Tern; City of Carlsbad Julianne Nygard, City of Carlsbad Council Member Ann J. Kulchin, City of Carlsbad Council Member Matt Hall, City of Carlsbad Council Member The Honorable William A. Craven, Senator 3 8th District-California Michael Holzmiller, Plannining Director; City of Carlsbad : Bill Compas, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Courtney Heineman, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Mario Monroy, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Robert Nielsen, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Bailey Noble, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Peggy Savary, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Kim Welshons, Planning Commission Member; City of Carlsbad Jan Sobel, Chief Executive Officer; Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Marilyn Smith,Executive Director; National Association for Education of Young Children Tom Hagaman, President; Planning Systems , Legal Counsel LOIS HUMPHREYS President DAVID KULCHIN Diredor ELAINE SULLIVAN Diredor JUDY HANSON Diredor ALLAN JULIUSSEN Diredor TIMOTHY JOCHEM Genera! Manager February 12, 1997 Meg Purviance O'Day Consultants Suite 204 7220 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Sewer availability for proposed Lucky's Drug/Grocery Store #121-283; La Costa Ave, Northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Dear Meg: The proposed project at the corner of La Costa Ave and La Costa Avenue is within the boundaries of the Leucadia County Water District. Sewer permits are currently being issued for new connections pursuant to District ordinances. It can reasonably be expected that service will be avail- able for the planed use of the above referenced property. This letter is valid for two years and is transferable to a new owner upon approval of the District. Cordially, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT lw^V\ DAVE DOWNEY Administrative Aide District Office: I960 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92009-68!0 • (619)753-0155 • FAX (619) 753-3094 Printed on retyded paper. JANUARY 21,1997 TO: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FROM: Associate Planner RE: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF LA COSTA PLAZA / LUCKY SUPERMARKET Attached is a letter from a representative for the Lucky Supermarket development proposed at the northeast corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Their question is: Will the City accept the exemption so stated in the attached letter (Government Code Section 66428) to allow an adjustment of property boundaries between Leucadia County Water District and the developer without benefit of an adjustment plat or minor subdivision?. CHRISTER WESTMAN Associate Planner Adrienne Landers Gary Wayne OTA NT TUCKER PROPERTIES PO Box 7974 Newport Beach, CA 92658 (714)760-8591 January 20, 1997 City of Carlsbad Planning Division 2975 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA RE: Proposed Redevelopment La Costa Plaza NEC El Camino Real/ La Costa Ave Gentlemen: As redevelopers of La Costa Plaza, we have proposed a land swap with Leucadia County Water District (the "District) whereby we propose to receive the Northwest corner of The District Property shown on the enclosed site plan in exchange for up to all of the property south of the District property between La Costa Avenue and the existing District property. Since our closing date with our seller, La Costa Shopping Center, Inc. does not allow enough time to record a parcel map for this proposed land exchange, we intend to rely on the exemption from the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act contained in Government code Section 66428. Accordingly, we would like to receive confirmation in writing from the City that there is no relevant public policy which necessitates the filing of a map. The property which we are to receive from the District will be included in a parcel map which will be recorded after the closing date on our land purchase with La Costa. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very Truly Yours, Grant Tucker Properties, Larry Tucker, General Partner cc: Tim Jochem Kareem Ali Robin Edwards Steve Grant Tom Hageman Penny Milton LAND AREA: UHDSCAPt REQUIRED fl.809 S.F. (3X IHTtMOR) LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 0.484 S.F. (4.2X IHTERWR) EXISTWQ LEUCADIA WATER DISTRICT RCTAB. B9.D99 5. BUILOIM^BJABCO OAj^STATIOM) 2.731 S.f. SHOffWO CEKTtS 87,631 J.F, 13- HO.wV V»' UHOSCAPE DEDICATION SETBACK EL CAMINO REAL FORTNEY , MAIN OFFICE & ACCOUNTING 2345.EAST THQMAS ROAD • SUITE-.490 WOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 ''•-.'•••• ' ' A CC/^/^l ATCC Ikl/^ 18001 SKY PARK CIRCLE-SUITE L ' AOOUUAICO, IINW (RVINE,CALIFORNIA926(4 '• ' • •'"•'-. '" ' - • •..•''..'*.'-•'• January 3rd, 1997 • ... ' , ''-•• FACSIMILE NO.: (61?) 438-0894 \. i-'Mr,. Michael Holzmiller . v . . ;- Director of Planning' ' CITY OF CARLSBAD . / ." 2075 Las Palmas Drive . • -. ' '•••,.'' ;.> Carlsbad, CA 92009 ' , Telepnone.(6l9) 438-1161 ; ''.•'•-•'• , '•-. • /' RE: Proposed Lucky Drug/Grocery Store #121 -283 / L^ Costa Plaza V':; i NEC El Camino Real and La Costa \' Carlsbad, CA \ .). Dear Michael: ., • " ' .. : . .- I am doing some zoning research for a proposed Lucky Store development project in C-2 zone in ^he City of Carlsbad. There are some problems that I have encountered gnd I am * Unable to solve them. I went through the zoning ordinance and the general plan but I am (unable to 'find answers to my questions. Attached to this letter is a questionnaire relating to this project. I will appreciate if you;can give me some time. I will give yoii a call on Monday January the 6th, to go through this questionnaire together or you'Can\go through this questionnaire and write the answers, whichever is most convenient for you. Thank you very much for your time. ' , . '. ' S . .'.•-• .. '.' Sincerely .':-•••' ' : .' . .' ; '••'.. ;...' Ahmad Osmah x >-• Assistant Project Manager .;;\Fortney Associates 2345 EJ Thomas Road , Suite 490 Phoenix, AZ 85016 'Phone (602) ;955r0999 , Fax (602) 955-9^92 ' , -. Phone (602),95.5:-0999 Fax (602) 955-9292 PHOENIX • IRVINE Phone (714) 251r0999,.Fax,(714) 251-9^92 - ; • /-• . • • - •' •• 'i - . . - - .- • .'•. ' - ''i ' • • ' ' . •' .•'-.'•.''-• 39Vd OOSSV ABNldOd 2626SS6309 9i:iT Z.66T/E0/I0 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS (Project Manager note: Indicate documented restrictions that are more restrictive than code, using the following sentence). The proposed site for a Lucky Store is zoned General Commercial Zone (C-2), by the City of Carlsbad, County of San dieago, California. A review of the 1996 Municipal Zoning Code/Ordinance requirements are listed below. More restrictive development requirements from the Title Report/CCR's are indicated in parenthesis. Should conflicts be noted between the zoning Code/Ordinance requiements and the requirements discussed in the "Conditions of Approval" the later takes precedence over zoning. Use-Related The proposed Lucky store is Permitted Use in the C-2 zone, as designated under Permitted Uses section 2 1.28.0 10, p. 617. Liquor Sales: (Section 21.28.015, p. 617, Z.Q) Liquor sales may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Drive-through Outdoor sidewalk and seasonal sales Store hours (24 hours preferred by ASPl) <— .Loading dock hours (24 hours preferred by ASPI, 6a.m.-10p.m. max. acceptable restriction) Satellite Dish / Antenna: ( Section 2 1.53. 140, p. 751, Z.O) The satellite dish/antennae mounted on the roof shall not exceed fifteen feet in height. Roof-mounted antennae should be screened by recessing the antenna into the roof line or by constructing a screen out of similarly textured roofing or exterior wall material as the structure upon which it is located so that antennae is not visible at ground level. Ground mounted antenna shall be located in the rear fifty percent of the lot and it shall not exceed twenty five feet in height. The ground mounted antenna shall also be screened from adjacent properties and public view by wall, fence, hedge or other appropriate plant or landscape material. Lot Size Minimum street ? * ^° ^ ^^ Frontage: j » o^\)©i^A^tl5. "C^T £l£-M I n£-O T'l1 Minimum lot width: \ f ^71=^ Minimum lot depth: ( O r\(- Minimum lot size: | I t * ^ m***^.^. /^N j-2 ^*)Maximum coverage: / t <ib>O'R?C;>V'0~"\ ^V^Si^ CJV-AX, ~\^C>O *b^(FT. l/fT^3 . Buildinp Related , --•-— -\—- ^o r-~, \2-^AO\G_^^ VY\\f\ £0 39tfd OOSSV ABNiaOJ 2626SS6289 91=11 i66T/£0/T0 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Building setback requirements: Front * fiD Rear: Side: | Comer f 0 Building Height: Parking-Related Parking setback/Landscape requirement: Front: \ Sides & rear:? CsQ* OCLD,*• v" Width of drives:-fr, Overhang allowed: fca« s?a// jfze 6e reduced with a 2' overhang into LS for standard * if" ANumber of parking stalls required: -o ^^^U>^ , '- o (3VS<v£a Standard: 2- - ' S0^ ,7 *Handicapped: ? • Size of parking stalls: °> Kfe <3T^\. s. ry- ^M\^^,^i , \f£, I \\ Standard: Compact: Handicapped: ? Bicycle parking required: ^ Curb Requirements: Loading space requirements: Paving: Parking Lot Lighting Foot-candles required: (minimum, maximum or average) ? Foot-candles proposed: e OOSSV ABNldOJ DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS For a copy of the Site Plan (with lighting) and the Photometric Study by Cooper Lighting, refer to the Maps and Drawings section and attachments of this report Landscape-Related Parking lot landscape required: Parking lot landscape proposed: Perimeter Landscape required: ? Perimeter Landscape proposed: * Screening-Related (Project Manager note: Discuss minimum or maximum height of screen, material and setbacks). Parking: LoadingDock: Mechanical Equipment: (Roof top and ground equipment) Cart Storage: «N C . \ J Sign-Related Free-standing Signs; Pylon Signs, Monument Signs: Number of signs allowed: (primary and secondary frontages and total) Copy area: ( how measured. 1 sided or 2 sided) Height: Locations:Setback: Wall Signs: ?w Number (if applicable) Copy area: fTzou' measured) Size: #e/£/it vw^ Projection limit: Clearance: Other: (color, letter vs cans) For copies of applicable Municipal Zoning Code/Ordinances, refer to the Appendix section of this report. 90 39Wd OOSSV A3NldOJ Z&Z&SB&ZQ3 91=11 ^.66T/£0/T0 "j§-12~1997 12:25PM FROM FORTNEY ASSOCIATES 7142519292 P. 2 *t//ix/iyy/ ii:4b /.tabay/yyt, PAULLOUBET ARCO PASE 02 FROM ' 8ov;r-c,5olve SD PHONE NO. ; 619 &72 006S May. 0? 193? 0d:00PM P2 15KAFT DRAFi May 1,1997 SITE HISTORY-FORMER ARCO FACILITY *I9». CARI£1MP. CA In April H>»5. on« 500*galion wwtc-oi), two 4,000-gallon, and TWO 6,000-gaUon gasoline single-walled steel underground uoiagc tanks (USTs) were removed from Cta tits. The USTs wtrc replaced with one 550-gaJloH xwstc oil and three 1 2,000-galion gasoline double-walled p'ostastset USTs in Utc sww? locations. J9M and 1995, consultants few AKCO drilled 3J soil boreholes and «tfx»-v«<cd the of 12 groundwater jiw>itoriug woils oi> and off-site Total poftdcow hj-drocurban? ns conwnttalions m soil snmplt/s collected during Uiow »j»e?Rm«irts arc summarized in a A'ATflA report tiil^f "Additionul Site Avscssmcni, ARCU FwsJity 1 W«/' dated November 3, J995. J« Meirdi J99?, Croundwotvr T«<hn<?Jog)' Jijoorporotwd (GTI) removed an oil/water separator and «ppiT>*iiaatcly 1 7 yd' trf soil from the service bay inside tlic bui Wing (Figure 2). Sod samples toHcctcd from the excavation sidowalls and bouom at fi to s feet below ground surface (bgs) oontainod total petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH) conccniration«, The impacted soil was left m piece future removal dwing site demolition. Tho d8t^ Tor tliis jihase of wcurk »rc tununorizcd in * GTi report tiUcd "Rctuovai of Oil Water Cl»rifj«r/S«f>8TWOr"<laTotJ J«no 2, Quarterly grouudwater sampling ha^ t»c;c» iJcrfotwcd at the site jmcc 1^91, No TPH& oi J3TEX oonwiHraliwis have l>wn »-»j»rUKl for wc»s MW- 1 , MW-3, MW-4, MW4, MW-7. MW-8, and M W -9 einoc 19')S (I'ignre 1). Li«jnW»phfiRO hydrocarbon* (LPH) were reported hi wells MW»2 and WW.? J>ow Hie time of instiillntion i" JV91 until the v\cl!s were destroyed in August 1995 Groxmdwafcr gauging and sampling dwto ans jmtvunaiiwd if S&COR V "ARCO Qwirierly Rqx;rt", dated January J7, 15)97. b» }»t!y 1995, tV/iXYW supervised the removal cf one \va$tcs 01) UST nnd tlww gasoliiw USTs, and the dwnoj'iiiow of the swvicc *tatiw5. In August 1995, well MW-1, MW-2, MW»3, MW>4. MW-5, and MW-12 were proj^wry destroyed prior to beginning remedial excavation. In November 1995. SKCOR wipcrvisc<i the rvwulial excavation of over 5.000 yd' of soil from former ARCO Facility * 1 i09 Owe to utiJity Jowtipns, sidewalks, <wd driveways. hydrocarbon-imj>actcd soils were not economically accessible in tw Jocatiotis-onc on -the -vMjst sidcwaJI (Along El C»n>i5io Real) and One on tbc north sidcwtit! (adjacent to the La Cosrt* PJa«i driveway). Because soil samples collected adjftecistto (hcse nrcas contained TFHg co(tCCRtrat!,o«s bc!o\v MX) Hig/kg, «o cdditiwja! excavation was pcifcM-mcd. Itoscd on fidd and laboratory data, the combined volume of hj'drocarboj^irHj^Kctcd soil remaining in thew creas -vvas csuinalod at 15 to 20 yd' on the results of the excavation. .V/if/<7/f ro<jMCSicd closure for ARCO FawJily ff 1939. review of the Tank Removal a«d Excavation Rc)»rt, dated Pebnuny 22, J9%, the County of Sau CHcgO, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (SAM)> requested installation of one additiona! tfpwngrsdicnt |>roundwatin> woniwrin^ wvlJ, and quartaly grou»dw»tcr monitoring and tainpling |n Jxinc, J9V6. SEfXMt soppi vised tits installation ol ground Wfttci monitoring well MW-13 located in the driveway of La Costa Plaza. Dissolved TPH and 8TEX conccmimions xvcrc repo»1ud for thrw £-12-1997 12:26PM FROM FORTNEY ASSOCIATES 7142519292 p , 0, . 07 1997 0«:01PM P3 DRAFT WVXFT . DRAFT quarterly sampling cvcou Concentration? were consistent for ibc three quarters, indicating gpoundwetcr Conditions. Paw wnjt submiticd to i?ic SAM. atid closwiv requested again Ti>e SAM cast wwkcv reviewed ihu data wi<J v-as j» tbp process of sitbjnirtiiia it to ibc Kc^ierwl Walar Quality Control 0card (RWQCH) for c)o$«ro Jicwcvw, during iho firj( quarter J9S>7 , 8|>proxroiatc?y 0.2 ftci of LFH 10 the presence of LPH. site plosurt l>> UK SAM and l5w RWQCB is imlikely, Tho Jeg»»)ator)' «0o»ic«» will Jilcely require rcinovfl) of die LPi-1 to the cxlejiT practical, and contimwd ground\vate(* monitoring oiid sampling Bccsosc the quataity of LPH is unknown, » definite lime frmw foi cannot presently be dclcrmiocd SRCOM proposes to remove- jn'Odncl for up to six monto, «wcisary, f<>)lv«'«! l>y 2 TO 4 quarters of groundw-atcr monitoring. on results of ptopossd LPH removal end addisiwial iainpbag, itf^COtt has p«x?poso<J a with the County SAW ai«J ARCO rcpwcfftotives. The purpow of The nwctiiig \viJ! be lo establish closure requirements and «n t»pproxitnatc tiwvJwe fot complctjoa of «ny additional work, lite meeting objective wcniJd be to gain written concurrence that no further work i$ required wtihin the subi^ct site boundaries, and thus aHcwing srtc development U5 piotxxd evcai jf sift closure is not granted W-E-S-T ENVIRONMENTAL HYDROSCIENCES A Joint Venture of WEST CONSULTANTS, INC. and DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 28, 1997 ^ * ATTN: Steve Deering, P.E. LCWD District Engineer 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Review of HEC-2 Study for Proposed Lucky/Savon Store, San Marcos Creek, Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Deering, WEST Environmental Hydrosciences has completed a technical review of the subject study as presented below. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A constructed fill is proposed for a Lucky/Savon Store (as shown on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan submitted with the HEC-2 study) on the site adjacent to existing LCWD facilities. These facilities are located in the left overbank looking downstream within the 100-year floodplain of San Marcos Creek. A detailed Flood Insurance Study has not been performed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for this section of San Marcos Creek. The current FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) shows the subject reach in Zone A, which indicates that an approximate study has been performed. An approximate study implies that a regulatory floodway was not designated for this section of the creek. Development within floodways is not permitted per federal (FEMA) regulations. However, development within the floodplain fringe, the area between the regulatory floodway and the limits of the 100-year floodplain is permitted. Federal floodplain ordinances govern development in floodplains unless superseded by more stringent local regulations. FEMA regulations allow no more than a foot ( 1.0' ) of rise in the base 100-year water surface elevation as a result of proposed development in the floodplain fringe. The width of the floodway does not have any effect on the base 100-year water surface elevation. In order to establish a regulatory floodway, an existing conditions model with the floodway defined using equal conveyance reduction in both overbanks is submitted to FEMA for approval. A FEMA approved existing conditions model provides a legal basis for the regulatory floodway. The City of Carlsbad is most likely the responsible agency other than FEMA, that would review changes or upgrades to current effective FIRM'S because FEMA administers the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) through incorporated communities. Typically, a study to determine the effects of a proposed development would require a FEMA approved existing conditions model along with a proposed conditions model to show the relative effect of the proposed development on the 100-year water surface elevation. It is pertinent to note that an existing conditions model without the proposed fill has not been submitted. The model submitted to WEST for review (Filename: SMC97.HEC) reflects proposed conditions with a proposed floodway. 2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 180 • CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • (tel) 619/431-8113 • (fax) 619/431-8220 Mr. Steve Deering April 28,1997 Leucadia County Water District Page 2 of 5 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The submitted HEC-2 model for San Marcos Creek begins at Batiquitos Lagoon approximately 670 feet downstream of El Camino Real at Cross-section 2.49 and extends up to Cross-section 2.93 located approximately 1559 feet upstream of El Camino Real. Cross-sections in the model appear to have been developed using City of Carlsbad aerial topographic maps (Scale 1"= 100'; Photo date 1988; 1929 MSL Datum) although not stated in the submitted report. Several cross- sections show interpolated spot elevation values between contours from the topographic map. Spot elevation checks indicate that the submitted Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan is based on the same datum as the aerial topographic maps from which cross-sections were derived for the HEC-2 model. However, more information about the bench mark reference is needed before this can be verified conclusively. Channel and overbank reach lengths correspond to cross-sections drawn on City of Carlsbad aerial topographic maps included with the submitted study. Flow through the bridge at El Camino Real has been modeled using the Special Bridge option. The HEC-2 model consists of two profiles which include the 100-year natural profile and the 100-year floodway profile. A discharge of 13,000 c.f.s was used through the entire reach. The slope-area method was used to determine the starting water surface elevation. The proposed Lucky/Savon store appears to be modeled in Cross-section 2.77 only. HEC-2 MODEL REVIEW AND COMMENTS The purpose of this review is to evaluate the modeling methodology used to show the effect of the proposed fill in the submitted HEC-2 model and to address flooding concerns expressed by LCWD per your letter dated 4/3/97. We did not attempt to evaluate the adequacy of the model per FEMA requirements. The following narrative addresses the results of the review. Existing Conditions Model An existing conditions model has not been submitted. Therefore the study did not establish a basis for comparison to demonstrate the effect of the proposed fill. Hydrology 100-Year Discharge The study does not describe how the discharge of 13,000 cubic feet per second was derived. Therefore, this discharge is not verifiable. Available Flood Insurance Study information for San Marcos Creek indicates a FEMA conditions discharge of 14,700 cfs further upstream at Discovery Street. This may point to an attenuation of the flood wave due to San Marcos Lake located upstream. However, more information and further analyses would be required before any conclusions can be made. Mr. Steve Deering April 28,1997 Leucadia County Water District Page 3 of 5 Flood Storage/ Routing The hydrologic analysis performed to derive the discharge of 13,000 cfs in the submitted study will have to be furnished in order to address storage or flood routing considerations through the La Costa Golf Course and Batiquitos Lagoon. However, preliminary observations indicate that valley storage through La Costa Golf Course appears quite small relative to the expected 100-year discharge and would have a negligible effect on peak discharge and flood elevations. Floodway There is no evidence to show that equal conveyance reduction was used to define the floodway width and location. FEMA generally requires equal conveyance reduction be used to define floodways. More information or an explanation of the methodology used is required to evaluate the correctness of the floodway boundaries. The submitted model indicates that the floodway analysis was performed using Method 1. Method 1 is a user defined method to establish floodways and does not reduce conveyance equally in both overbanks. An arbitrary designation of the floodway could have adverse development implications for the owners of the property located on the opposite bank because development in floodways is not permitted by FEMA. The floodway model does not begin with a water surface elevation one foot ( 1.0' ) higher than the base 100- year water surface elevation at Cross-section 2.49 (the first downstream cross-section in the model) which is standard procedure. This may be responsible for the negative surcharge of -0.5 feet at Cross-section 2.68, immediately upstream of El Camino Real. A negative surcharge could be caused by excessive encroachment, errors in bridge modeling or insufficient encroachment at the downstream section. Proposed Fill / Building To establish a floodway, the base conditions model should not include any proposed conditions. To model the effect of the proposed fill for the Lucky/Savon store, an inadequate number of sections was used. A single section (Cross-section 2.77) depicts the proposed fill and does not reflect the total projected width of the proposed building. It is recommended that at least three sections be used to simulate the proposed fill. Cross- sections 2.77 and 2.72 could have been used with an additional cross-section inbetween to describe the proposed fill more accurately. This correction would raise the water surface elevation immediately upstream of the proposed building. Further analysis is required, along with the development of an existing conditions model, in order to determine the effect of the proposed fill on the 100-year water surface elevations. Starting Water Surface Elevation The model uses the slope-area method to establish a starting water surface elevation of 9.43 feet at Cross- section 2.49 located at the mouth of San Marcos Creek in Batiquitos Lagoon. The slope-area method computes the flow depth based on an estimated energy slope, geometry, discharge, and manning's roughness coefficients. FEMA requires that the MHHW (Mean Higher High Water) tide elevation be checked in this type of situation. The MHHW (Mean Higher High Water ) elevation, based on tidal datums in the Pacific ocean at the La Jolla tide station was checked and found to be 5.37 feet MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water) or 2.81 feet NGVD (1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum) at the mouth of the lagoon. The influence, if any, of the tidal effect on the starting water surface elevation for the 100-year flood was not treated in the submitted study. Mr. Steve Deering April 28,1997 Leucadia County Water District Page 4 of 5 Contraction and Expansion Coefficients A contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.2 has been used for the entire model. The higher the values of these coefficients, the greater is the energy loss resulting from the contraction and expansion of flow, and consequently, higher is the water surface elevation. These coefficients are selected based on the judgement of the modeler. These coefficients were not adjusted to reflect flow contraction and expansion through the bridge at El Camino Real and further upstream from it. There is no explanation to justify the use of the same contraction and expansion coefficients throughout the entire reach. In our opinion, a contraction coefficient of 0.3 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5 should have been used through the bridge. A contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.3 should have been used upstream of the bridge. This correction could result in an increase in the water surface elevation. Bridge Modeling It appears that flow through the bridge at El Camino Real has not been modeled adequately and may need more refinement. The model output shows a weir flow of 456 cfs over the road even though the 100-year floodplain delineated on the topographic map shows all the water going under the bridge. Since the model is inadequate, it is difficult to predict if the 100-year flood passes through the bridge without further analyses. Effective Flow Widths Effective flow widths between cross-sections 2.72 and 2.77 in the left overbank appear to have been set incorrectly based on field observations. This correction may also have a significant effect on the water surface elevations and increase the potential for flooding. Further analysis will be required before any definitive conclusions can be made. Manning's "N" Values Field evidence associated with the possible flow pattern indicates that the flow conveyance is not representative of an "N" value of 0.035 in the left overbank upstream of El Camino Real at cross-sections 2.68, 2.72, and 2.77. Floodwater in this portion of the reach is not expected to be flowing effectively due to vegetation, elevated areas, and buildings immediately upstream of these cross-sections. Therefore the use of a higher "N" value would be more appropriate. This could also result in higher water surface elevations. CONCLUSIONS The relative effects of the proposed development (Lucky/Savon Store) in the floodplain of San Marcos Creek cannot be ascertained because of inadequacies in the submitted model. An existing conditions model has not been submitted. There are flaws in the submitted HEC-2 model that could have a significant effect on the 100- year water surface elevations for existing conditions as well as proposed conditions. More information would have to be furnished and further analyses would be required in order to definitively address the effects of the proposed development on LCWD facilities. Mr. Steve Peering Leucadia County Water District April 28,1997 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Completion of an existing conditions model would assist in predicting potential impact of the proposed development during a 100 year flood on LCWD facilities. It is recommended that Lucky/Savon revise the flood analysis and address the following items: -Comply with FEMA modeling requirements -Meet all local, state, and federal regulatory compliance requirements for flood control -Provide FEMA approved hydrologic study or other acceptable basis for establishing the 100-year discharge -Provide a legal regulatory definition of the existing base flood water surface elevation and proposedfloodway -Confirm relationship of 1929 datum versus datum used for proposed site development plan -Justify and/or correct the floodway analysis starting water surface elevation -Justify and/or correct the contraction and expansion coefficients -Justify and/or correct the El Camino Bridge modeling -Provide an adequate number of cross-sections to describe the proposed project -Justify and/or correct the effective flow widths -Justify and/or correct manning's "N" values The existing LCWD facilities are currently subject to 100-year flood inundation based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA. Some suggested precautions that LCWD can take to minimize or avoid flood damage to existing LCWD facilities are: the installation of a remote flood warning system based on measured rainfall and/or upstream stage, contacting FEMA for information regarding flood proofing, and checking to see if there are any contacts at Lake San Marcos located upstream, for information during storm events. Further studies beyond the scope of this review would be required to evaluate alternative flood protection measures under existing conditions. Further hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are required in order to recommend additional features to the proposed Lucky/Savon project to lower the 100-year flood elevation. The creek hydrology would have to be obtained and verified in addition to making corrections to the hydraulic analysis before any suggestions can be made. It has been a pleasure assisting you in this technical review. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any further questions or if we can assist you in any other way. Sincerely, David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E. Managing Partner WEST Environmental Hydrosciences & ASSOCIATES A California Corporation Engineering, Corporate Office: 619.942.5147 Environmental Sciences and 605 Third Street Fax 619.632.0164 Management Services Encinitas, California 92024 March 18, 1997 1228-68 Mr. Nasser Sionit, Ph.D. Hazardous Materials Management Division County of San Diego P.O. Box 85261 San Diego, CA 92186-5261 RE: INVESTIGATION OF EXISTING DISTRICT'S FACILITIES NEAR THE FORMER ARCO GAS STATION SITE Dear Dr. Sionit: The Leucadia County Water District (District) has been requested by the County's Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) to provide additional information regarding the District's facilities in the area of the former ARCO gas station at the El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersection. The District has expressed concerned that their facilities may have been impacted by the petroleum hydrocarbon releases at the former ARCO station. Existing Facilities Figure 1 shows the District's facilities in the immediate vicinity of the former ARCO gas station. Existing District facilities include the Leucadia 24" force main, the Failsafe 12" force main, and a 24" VCP gravity sewer. There is also an abandoned line (Vulcan Avenue 12" force main) which was broken during remediation excavation and was plugged with concrete. In addition, the District has a proposed Leucadia Parallel 24" force main which is currently in the design stage. The figure identifies record information for the top of pipe elevations for the force mains and the invert elevations of the gravity sewer and feet below ground surface (bgs) to the top of pipe for the force mains and to the invert of the gravity sewer. There is no readily available information for the abandoned 12" force main. Groundwater Elevations In a letter addressed to you dated August 1, 1996 from Mr. Patrick A. McConnell, SECOR, indicates the depth to groundwater generally as being between 6 to 9 feet bgs. The ARCO Quarterly Report dated March 15, 1995 tabulated groundwater elevations in various monitoring wells. These data may be found in the attachments. MW-4 was located at the northwest corner of the remediation site slightly to the east between HA-17 and HA-29 (see Figure 4) and has since been destroyed. The groundwater elevations ranged from 11.01 feet mean sea level (msl) on 3/16/90 to 5.84 feet msl on 9/15/94. MW-10 is located approximately due north of the remediation site (see Figure 4). Groundwater elevations at MW-10 varied between 7.44 feet msl on 2/28/93 to 5.24 feet msl on 11/23/94. MW-7 is located approximately 110 feet east of El Camino Real adjacent to the gravity sewer. Groundwater elevations at MW-7 have varied from Dr. Nasser Sionit Hazardous Materials Management Division Page 2 March 18, 1997 5.39 feet msl to 9.97 feet msl. The approximate elevation of the gravity sewer invert at this location is 2.77 feet msl and becomes deeper toward the northeast end and the District's pump station. MW-13 is located approximately 5 feet from the gravity sewer with an invert elevation of 3.14 feet msl. Ground water levels in MW-4, M-7 and MW-10 indicate that the gravity sewer and the 24" force main have been submerged during the period of 3/90 to 3/95. SECOR indicated the general flow of groundwater to be to the northwest towards Batiquitos Lagoon. Inspection of the data presented in attachments, however, indicate that the groundwater levels in MW-7 (located northeast of the site) are generally lower than the groundwater levels in MW-10 and MW-6. The data indicate the gravity sewer trench acts as a drain. The 10-inch abandoned force main which crosses the site also produces this type of flow pattern. The abandoned force main lies between MW-9 and MW-8. The groundwater level in MW-9 on 3/10/95 is 5.83 feet msl, 7.6 feet msl in MW-6, and 8.92 feet msl in MW-8. Table 1 tabulates the depth bgs and elevations to the District's facilities near the northwest corner of the former ARCO station. Based on the historic groundwater elevations and the elevation of the District's facilities, the District's Leucadia 24" force main, Failsafe 12" force main, and the 24" VCP gravity sewer have been submerged in groundwater. It is therefore likely that the petroleum hydrocarbons released at the former ARCO station were in contact with these facilities for some period of time. TABLE 1 PIPELINE ELEVATIONS NEAR NORTHWEST CORNER OF FORMER ARCO STATION Pipeline 24" VCP Sewer 12" Force Main 24" Force Main Ground Surface Elevations 13.0 feet msl 12.5 feet msl 12.4 feet msl Pipe Elevation1 3.5 feet msl 8.6 feet msl 4.2 feet msl 9.5 feet bgs 3.9 feet bgs 8.2 feet bgs 1 Pipe elevations to top of pipe for force mains and to invert for gravity sewers. Contamination In the aforementioned letter dated August 1, 1996, SECOR presented groundwater quality data for samples taken in June 1996 (see Figure 4). The data on HA-30, HA-23, HA-22, HA-20, and samples ID S100-6 and S101-7 clearly indicate contamination still exists off-site in the immediate vicinity of the District's facilities. The extent to which contamination has occurred in the area of the northwest of HA-23 and west of HA-25, we believe has not been fully explored. These levels represent contamination levels after remediation efforts at the site Dr. Nasser Sionit Hazardous Materials Management Division Page 3 March 18, 1997 including the excavation of over 5,000 cubic yards of soil. Prior to remediation, the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the pipelines were much higher and once may have posed a greater threat to the District's facilities (see Table 2) than current conditions. TABLE 2 SELECTED SITE ASSESSMENT Site ID HA-21-5 HA-21-8 HA-22-5.5 HA-23-5.5 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13 SP100-60 SP101-7 Sampling Date 2/10/93 2/10/93 11/12/93 11/12/93 6/12/95 9/12/95 6/17/96 6/12/95 6/28/96 11/28/95 11/28/95 Concentration TPH (ppm) 10,279 1,307 259 281 1800 <500 970 47,000 10,258 1,027 Reference 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1. Additional Site Characterization Report, February 11, 1994. 2. Letter from P. McConnell, SECOR, to N. Soinit, HMMD, dated August 1, 1996. 3. Tank Removal and Excavation Report, dated February 22, 1996. Note that after remediation of the site, a ground water sample (6/28/96) from MW-13 exhibited contamination levels of 47,000 /tg/1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, 8,200 jig/1 Benzene, 2,500 fig/I Toluene, 2,200 fig/I Ethylene, and 6,900 pg/1 Xylenes. As established previously, MW-13 is approximately 5 feet from the gravity sewer which is generally submerged in groundwater. This clearly indicates that the pipeline is still in contact with contaminants migrating from the ARCO site. Conclusion and Recommendations This letter documents the findings of various studies performed at the former ARCO station. Based on these findings and the elevations of the existing District facilities, we believe these facilities have been in contact with petroleum hydrocarbons released at the site. The condition Dr. Nasser Sionit Page 4 Hazardous Materials Management Division March 18, 1997 of the gaskets and polyethylene encasement on the pipelines has not been investigated and these items may have deteriorated due to this contact. Furthermore groundwater level and water quality data indicate the migration of the contaminants beyond the immediate vicinity of the former ARCO station. This migration may have occurred preferentially along the pipelines due to the higher hydraulic transmissivity of pipe bedding in the pipeline trenches. We do not know the extent of such migration or the possible damage caused by this type of contact. As stated in our October 15, 1996 letter to Mr. Mike Bardin, District Assistant General Manager, we recommend: Removal of all remaining contaminated materials up to, around, and beyond the existing pipelines, while by-passing or keeping these pipelines in service. Fill and recompact the area with clean granular materials. Inspect a portion of each force main and the sewer for possible deterioration of gasket and polyethylene encasement material. Immediately repair or replace any damaged District pipelines for the full length of past contamination impact. SECOR indicated that it was not "economic" to excavate soil under the sidewalk and driveway adjacent to the gravity sewer. There may well be an economic impact to the District due to past and present contact of contaminants with the District's pipelines. Perhaps in-situ enhanced bioremediation, sparging, or vapor extraction would be effective in expeditiously removing this ongoing impact to the District's facilities. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or need more information, please call me at (619) 942-5147. Very truly yours, DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. '<0lS4VV] /Steve Deering, California P.E. 26514 LCWD District Engineer Attachments cc: Mike Bardin, Leucadia County Water District Denis Pollak, Leucadia County Water District Larry Tucker, Grant Tucker Properties Steve Grant, Grant Tucker Properties Tom Hageman, Planning Systems Gail Masutani, Dudek & Associates Dr. Nasser Sionit Page 5 Hazardous Materials Management Division March 18, 1997 ATTACHMENTS 1. Figure 1 - Site Map With Pipeline Elevations 2. Figure 4 - TPH in Soil Reference: Letter from Mr. Patrick McConnell, SECOR to Mr. Nasser Soinit, HMMD, dated August 1, 1996. 3. Table 2 - Cumulative Water Elevations Reference: ARCO Quarterly Report, dated March 15, 1995. HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL VAULTS HA-24 LEGEND HA-8 A HAND AUGER BORING MW-11-^- MONITORING WELL c SEWER LINE (6-9 ft. bgs\ FIBER OPTIC LINE (WAX. 3 ft. bgs) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LINE (WAX. 3\t. ELECTRICAL LINE (MAX. 3 ft. bgs)" SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS MILLIGRAMS PER KILOGRAM ESTIMATED AREAS OF REMAINING HYDROCARBONS ML BASE WAP, INCLUDING SITE DIMENSIONS WO WELL/ BORING LOCATIONS, MODIFIED FKOW ALTON GEOSdENCE, 1994. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA, SECOR 1939TP4.DWG REMAINING TPH IN SOIL FORMER ARCO FACILITY |1939 7654 EL CAWINO REAL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT No.: 80600-017-13 FIGURE: 4 c TABLE 2 Cumulative Water Elevations WellT.D. MW-1 MW-2 Date Measured 3/16/90 7/27/90 2/05/91 5/20/91 8/22/91 11/12/91 9/04/92 12/10/92 2/03/93 5/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/1 1/94 9/15/94 1 1/23/94 3/10/95 3/16/90 7/27/90 2/05/91 5/20/91 6/04/91 8/22/91 1 1/12/91 9/04/92 11/04/92 12/10/92 1/07/93 2/03/93 3/16/93 4/08/93 5/06/93 6/17/93 S/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 11/23/94 3/10/95 Surveyed Well Elevation1 ffeefl 17.53 17.53 17.53 17.68 17.68 17.68 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 13.09 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.65 18.65 18.65 18.65 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 13.86 Depth to Water •^feert 5.56 6.12 6.33 5.94 6.35 6.60 5.91 5.92 4.61 4.79 5.70 5.65 5.32 5.60 6.22 6.26 4.43 6.15 6,79 7.13 6.57 6,80 6.93 7.25 6,50 6.73 6.63 6.06 5.15 5.47 5.53 5.80 5.83 6.28 6.25 6.03 6.33 6.88 7.04 5.22 JLPH Thickness (feet) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0.07 0.03 TRACL 0 - TRACE TRACE TRACE TRACE .08 ,05 ,03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater Elevation1 11.97 11.41 11.20 11.74 11.33 11.08 7.18 7.17 8.48 8.30 7.39 7.44 7.77 7.49 6.87 6.83 8.66 11.85 113.1 10.S7 12.08 H.901 11. 74* 11.40 7.36 7.13 7,23 7.80 8.71 8.45* 8.371 S.Q82 3.03 7.58 7.61 7.83 7.53 6.98 6.82 8.64 c c TABLE 2 (Continued) Well T.T). MW-3 KfW-4 T>ate Measured 3/16/90 7/27/90 2/05/91 5/20/91 8/22/91 11/12/91 9/04/92 12/10/92 2/03/93 5/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 11/23/94 3/10/95 3/16/90 7/27/90 7/05/91 5/20/91 6/04/91 8/22/91 11/12/91 9/04/92 12/10/92 2/03/93 3/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 H/23/94 3/10/95 Surveyed Well "Elevation1 ffeett 15.66 15.66 15.66 16.46 16.46 16.46 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 11.97 14.66 14.66 14.66 15.21 15.21 15,21 15.21 10.65 10.65 J0.65 10.65 10.65 10.65 10.65 10-65 10.65 10.65 10.65 Depth to Water /fwrt 5.18 4.95 5.00 5.27 5.67 5.93 5.30 5.33 3.89 4.40 5.14 5.01 5.43 5.61 5.65 5.54 3.98 3.65 ; 4.38 4.35 4.55 ; 4.75 5.00 5.25 4.34 4.72 2.81 3.60 4.19 4.18 3.70 4.09 4.81 4.66 2.98 LPH*nilcJmes& (feett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o • 0 0 Groundwater Elevation1 10.48 10.71 10.66 11.19 10.79 10.53 6.67 6.64 8.08 7.57 6.83 6.96 6.54 6.36 6.32 6.43 7.99 11-01 10.28 1031 10.66 10.46 10.21 9.96 6.31 5.93 7,84 7.05 6.46 6.47 6.95 6.56 5.84 5.99 7.67 TABLE 2 (Continued) Well T.TX MW-5 MW-6 Date Measured 3/16/90 7/27/90 2/05/91 5/20/91 6/04/91 8/22/91 11/12/91 9/04/92 11/04/92 12/10/92 1/07/93 2/03/93 3/16/93 4/08/93 5/06/93 6/17/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 1 1/23/94 3/10/95 8/22/91 11/12/91 9/04/92 12/10/92 2/03/93 5/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 11/23/94 3/10/95 Surveyed Well THevadon1 ffeeft 16.43 16.43 16.43 16.73 16.73 16.73 16.73 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 12.57 17.37 17.37 . 12.78 12.78 12.78 12.78 12.78 12.78 12.78 • 12.78 12.78 12.78 12.78 Dtpth (o Wa(er tfeert 5.55 6.19 6.28 6.32 6.47 6.85 6.95 6.41 6.57 6.26 5.56 5.73 5.87 5.87 6.38 6.25 5.94 6.85 5.95 6.00 6.62 6.69 5.22 6.80 7.20 6.47 6,42 5.11 5.49 5.94 5.91 5.70 5.60 6.60 6.70 5.18 JUFH Thickness tfeert 0 0 0 TRACE TRACE .30 TRACE .18 .12 TRACE TRACE 1.07 .96 .80 1.13 .99 .24 1.15 .38 .27 .02 .01 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater Elevation1 '• 10.88 10.24 10.15 10.41 10.26 10.1 12 9.78 6.301 6.092 6.31 7.01 7.642 7.42' 7.301 7.041 7.06J 6.81J 6.581 6.91J 6.772 5.972 5.892 7.35 10.57 10.17 6.31 6.36 7.67 7.29 6.84 6.87 7,08 7.18 6.18 6.08 7,60 TABLE 2 (Continued) f Well T.t>. MW-7 MW-S MW-9 J)ate>feasured 8/22/91 11/12/91 9/04/92 12/10/92 2/03/93 5/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 11/23/94 3/10/95 9/04/92 12/10/92- 2/03/93 5/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 11/23/94 3/10/95 9/04/92 12/10/92 2/03/93 5/06/93 8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 5/11/94 9/15/94 11/23/94 3/10/95 Surveyed Well Elevation1 tfeeO 17.67 17.67 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 15.4! 15.41 15,41 15.41 15,41 15.41 15,41 15.41 15.41 15.41 15.41 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 13.79 Depth to Water rfeert 7.70 7.70 7.17 7.21 5.77 6.49 6.85 6.81 6.52 6.50 7.54 7.55 5.81 7.66 7.80 6.41 7.06 7,46 7.41 7.41 7.43 8.10 8.30 6.49 6.81 7.12 5.81 6.14 6.62 6.82 6.50 6.48 7.28 7.46 7.96 JUPH. Thickness ffeert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ground water Elevation1 9.97 9.97 5.77 5.73 7.17 6.45 6.09 6.13 6.42 6.44 5.40 5.39 7.13 7,75 . 7,61 9.00 8.35 7.95 8.00 8.00 7.98 7.31 7.11 8.92 6.98 6.67 7.98 7.65 7.17 6.97 7.29 7.31 6.51 6.33 5.83 c c TABLE 2 (Continued) Well T.D. MW4Q Date Measured 9/04/92 12/KW9Z 2/03/93 5/06793 - .8/30/93 10/29/93 3/04/94 3/1J/94 ; 9/15/94- 11/23/94 3/10/95 Surveyed Well Elevation1 tfeetl ' 11.98 lt.98 U.98 1JU98. 11,98 11,9S * 11,98 11,98 11.98 1L98 lt.98 Depth to Water ffeeft , , 6.05 6.25 ^ 4.54 5.41 5.92 5.S4- - * : 5.53 ; 5^6 j 6^1 ' ; 6.74 : 4,57 ; JLPH Thickness (feert 0 0 a P , • --0 .-- - ,0 D Q 0. . 0 0 Groundwater Elevation1 5.93 5.73 7.44 <5.57 : 6.06 ; 6.14 ; 6.45 6,42 : 5.47 : 5^4 7.41 Survey elevation and depth to water measurements prior to 9/15/94 summarized from Alton Geoscience Reports Notes: 'Elevations are in feet above mean sea level. 'Elevations adjusted by adding (0.75 x LPH thickness) to measured water elevations. LOIS HUMPHREYS President DAVID KULCHIN Director ELAINE SULLIVAN Director JUDY HANSON Director ALLAN JULIUSSEN Director TIMOTHY JOCHEM General Manager ; 3 >99? February 12, 1997 Meg Purviance O'Day Consultants Suite 204 7220 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, California 92009 po Subject: Sewer availability for proposed Lucky's Drug/Grocery Store #121-283; La Costa Ave, Northeast corner of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Dear Meg: The proposed project at the corner of La Costa Ave and La Costa Avenue is within the boundaries of the Leucadia County Water District. Sewer permits are currently being issued for new connections pursuant to District ordinances. It can reasonably be expected that service will be avail- able for the planed use of the above referenced property. This letter is valid for two years and is transferable to a new owner upon Approval of the District. Cordially, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DAVE DOWNEY Administrative Aide District Office: I960 la Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92009-68!0 • (619)753-0155 • FAX (619) 753-3094 Printed on r«yded poper.