2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Solana Beach 635 South Highway 101 Solana Beach, California 92075

Transcription

1 City of Solana Beach Environmental Checklist, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Solana Beach 635 South Highway 101 Solana Beach, California Contact Person and Phone Number: Tina Christiansen, AIA Community Development Director (858) Project Location: Lomas Santa Fe Drive City of Solana Beach, California 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Pacific Solana Beach Holdings, L.P El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, California General Plan Designation: General Commercial 7. Zoning: Commercial 8. Description of Project: The proposed is a request for a Development Review Permit (DRP) and Structure Development Permit (SDP) to redevelop approximately 6.2 acres of the existing 18.8 acre Lomas Santa Fe Plaza commercial shopping center (Proposed Project). The affected area is located in the southern portion of the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza shopping center, adjacent to the existing Vons supermarket. The Lomas Santa Fe Plaza site is bounded by Lomas Santa Fe Drive on the north, San Andres Drive on the south, Las Banderas Drive on the east, and is east of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Marine View Avenue. Project access is via existing and proposed driveways on Lomas Santa Fe Drive and San Andres Drive. The San Diego Assessors Parcel Number (APNs) are and (Refer to Exhibit 1 Mapquest Aerial Photo) The Proposed Project would create a Lifestyle commercial center within the existing shopping plaza. The Project proposes to demolish 19,787 square feet (SF) of retail/restaurant and office and construct 65,300 SF of commercial/retail, a sit down style restaurant, a two-level subterranean parking structure, and surface parking. The Proposed Project would construct three (3) two-story structures connected by a central rotunda. The maximum height of the new buildings would be approximately 35 feet above finished and existing grade. The Proposed Project would include the following components: Page 1 of 63

2 Building A - A two-story, 50,000 SF, retail structure proposed approximately 60-feet from San Andres Drive. Building B - A two-story, 9,150 SF, restaurant and retail structure proposed northeast of the existing Vons grocery store. Building C - A two-story, 6,150 SF, restaurant and retail structure proposed northeast of the existing Vons grocery store and proposed Building B. Parking - Reconfiguration of the existing surface parking lot and the construction of a two-level 129,242 SF subterranean parking structure below the proposed buildings listed above. The total net increase of the Project site would be approximately 45,513 SF of commercial, retail and restaurant land use. Construction of the new buildings (A, B, and C) would total 65,300 SF and the existing buildings to be demolished would total approximately 19,787 SF (including 2,258 SF of restaurant, 16,421 SF of retail, and 1,108 SF of office uses). Parking would increase from 807 existing parking spaces to a total of 1056 parking spaces. (Refer to Exhibit 2 - Site Plan, Exhibit 3 Plan View of Site, and Exhibits 4 & 5 Building Elevations) Project Construction and Grading The Proposed Project would be constructed in one phase. Activities would include the demolition of existing structures, grading/excavation, construction of the approximately 65,300 SF of new restaurant and retail/commercial structures in three (3) two-story buildings and related improvements, reconfiguration of the surface parking lot and the construction of a two-level subterranean parking structure. Prior to construction of the new restaurant and retail/commercial structures, a portion of existing buildings and existing paved surface parking areas would be demolished. Demolition The Project would demolish a total of 19,787 SF of existing commercial use structures. The Project includes demolition of existing onsite structures/uses, which eliminates the City s parking requirement for approximately 99 existing onsite parking spaces. Grading Grading and excavation activities associated with the Proposed Project would include approximately 48,000 cubic yards (CY) of cut and approximately 2,000 CY of fill, requiring the export of approximately 46,000 CY of earth materials. The majority of the net export of material would be generated from excavation for the proposed two-level subterranean parking structure. Construction Construction of the Proposed Project would occur over approximately twenty months, and would result in removal of existing surface parking areas and landscaping, excavation, grading, and other activities. Construction for the Project would involve demolition of existing structures and use of large bulldozers and other heavy equipment for grading activities. Construction would likely be initiated in summer 2009 with last a duration of 16 months. Page 2 of 63

3 Project Objectives: Pursuant to Section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the description of the Proposed Project must contain a statement of the objectives. The objectives for the Proposed Project are listed below: Provide a commercial retail center to serve the City and provide property tax, sales tax, and other revenue opportunities; Provide a commercial retail center that is located on major roadways to provide convenient site access; Provide commercial retail uses that supply jobs to the community in conjunction with the goals, programs and policies included in the City s General Plan; and Provide a commercial retail center consistent with the City of Solana Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. California Department of Transportation Interstate 5 / Lomas Santa Fe Interchange Project It is important to note that the Proposed Project would not be scheduled to open until the I-5/Lomas Santa Fe interchange reconstruction project has been completed. This California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) project is currently underway as of May 2008 and has a proposed completion date of Summer This interchange project will result in substantial changes to the local circulation system, most notably the closure of Marine View Avenue at Lomas Santa Fe Drive. Marine View Avenue is anticipated as a cul-de-sac south of Lomas Santa Fe Drive when the northbound freeway ramp alignment project is completed. The future, realigned I-5 northbound off-ramp will intersect with Lomas Santa Fe Drive at the approximate current location of Marine View Avenue and will be re-aligned to form the south leg of Lomas Santa Fe Drive/Santa Helena intersection; essentially combining these two intersections into one. The new interchange design includes two (2) new loop on-ramps (westbound to southbound and eastbound to northbound). (LLG, 2008). Some interchange related improvements fronting the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza are also under construction; these include landscaped medians, enlarged and signalized main entry, addition of right-in only driveway entrance near Starbucks, Las Banderas Drive golf cart and pedestrian crossing and Marine View at San Andres improvements, and closure of the Marine View driveway into the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza ( accessed May 20, 2008). Page 3 of 63

4 Exhibit 1 Mapquest Aerial Photo Page 4 of 63

5 Exhibit 2 - Site Plan Page 5 of 63

6 Exhibit 3 Plan View of Site Page 6 of 63

7 Exhibit 4 Building Elevations Page 7 of 63

8 Exhibit 5 Building Elevations Page 8 of 63

9 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The coastal community of Solana Beach covers a land area of approximately 3.53 square miles and a water area of roughly 0.1 mile. As of the 2000 United States Census, the City had a population of approximately 13,000 residents. The City is approximately 95% developed (City General Plan, 2006). The main access routes for Solana Beach include Interstate 5 (I-5) on the east, Old Highway 101 on the west, Lomas Santa Fe Drive on the north, and Via de la Valle on the south. The Proposed Project site is located in a fully developed area of Solana Beach on land that is designated general commercial in the adopted General Plan (amended 2006) and is currently zoned for and developed with commercial uses. The visual character of the area is defined by an existing developed commercial shopping center, surface parking lot, and perimeter vegetation consisting of non-native grasses, palm trees, pine trees, and oak trees. Existing land uses and zoning surrounding the Project site include: West Interstate 5, North Lomas Santa Fe Drive - residential (High Residential), East Las Banderas Drive - residential and golf course (Medium Residential (MR) and High Residential (HR), and Open Space Recreation (OSR)), and South San Andres Drive - office and residential (Office Professional (OP) and Estate Residential (ER-Z)). 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit Page 9 of 63

10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: Based upon the initial evaluation presented in the following Initial Study, it is concluded that the Proposed Project would not result in any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is potentially significant or potentially significant unless mitigated but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. Tina Christiansen, Community Development Director Date Page 10 of 63

11 Evaluation of Environmental s 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant (without mitigation). Potentially is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a Less than. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) For Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated and Less Than, earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section (c)(3)(d)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where the previous environmental documents are available for review. b) s Adequately Addressed. Describe why the effect is within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Page 11 of 63

12 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Terminology The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts: A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular resource in any way. An impact is considered less than significant impact if the analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant. An impact is considered potentially significant impact if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment and requires mitigation. Page 12 of 63

13 Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- No I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Analysis: a. Less than. The proposed redevelopment site is of a portion of the existing Lomas Santa Fe Plaza shopping center located directly east of the I-5/Lomas Santa Fe Drive northbound offramp. The Project site generally slopes uphill from the northwestern corner at an elevation of approximately 120 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to approximately 135 AMSL in the center, to approximately 145 AMSL feet at the southeast corner of the site. The proposed development would replace an existing parking area currently located at the rear of the existing Lomas Santa Fe Plaza shopping center along San Andres Drive (to the south). There are no sensitive views to beaches, parks, lagoons, or golf courses from the Project location. Based on the City s General Plan, there are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area and the site is not located within the City s Scenic Area Overlay Zone (SAOZ). Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be consistent in height and bulk of the existing one and two story shopping center buildings. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. b. Less than. The Project site is a fully developed commercial shopping center and associated parking lot in an urbanized area, and there are no scenic resources existing on the Project site. There are no state scenic highways within or adjacent to the project site. Highway 101 is a state designated scenic highway; however, the Project site is located approximately one (1) mile east and is not visible from Highway 101. Portions of Lomas Santa Fe Drive are designated scenic roadway in the City s General Plan (General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element). A scenic roadway is a route which provides a pleasant driving environment. The scenic roadway portion of Lomas Santa Fe Drive is east of the Project site beginning at the (west) Via Mil Cumbres/Las Banderas Drive intersection and traveling further east to the (east) Via Mil Cumbres intersection. Implementation of the Project would not be expected to substantially impact the nearby scenic roadway as the Project would maintain the visual characteristic of the Project site by redeveloping a portion of the existing shopping center with commercial/restaurant uses and parking. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to state and/or City scenic highways and roadways. c. Less Than. The Proposed Project site is located in a fully developed area of Solana Beach on land that is designated general commercial in the adopted General Plan, and is currently zoned Page 13 of 63

14 for and developed with commercial uses. The visual character of the area is defined by an existing developed commercial shopping center and associated parking lot surrounded by office professional uses, various size residential uses, and open space use. The proposed buildings would be constructed at the same scale and height as the existing commercial development on-site; however, because proposed development would be over 16 feet in height, it would be subject to the City s view assessment ordinance (Chapter of the City s Municipal Code). (Refer to Exhibits 4 & 5 Building Elevations) The proposed two-level subterranean parking structure would be positioned below grade of the proposed commercial building. Circulation to the proposed underground garage is via the main parking field (situated in the northwestern portion of the site), and the outbound underground garage traffic would exit to the parking area on the south side of the site near Las Banderas Drive. The Proposed Project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings and would be compatible with the existing and planned development scale and intensity of the surrounding community. s from the proposed new buildings and subterranean parking structure would be less than significant and no adverse visual or aesthetic impacts would occur. d. Less than. The Proposed Project would not create a significant source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the Project area. The Project would remove existing lighting sources as part of demolition activities and implement new lighting on the sides of the proposed buildings and within the parking area of the Project site for security purposes. In addition, to minimize daytime glare, the exterior finish of the proposed building would consist of materials of low reflectivity consistent with the architectural features of the existing shopping center buildings. Section of the SBMC enumerates regulations on lighting. The purpose of the Exterior Lighting Regulations is to control excessive or unnecessary outdoor light emissions which produce unwanted illumination of adjacent premises within the City. The lighting regulations pertinent to the Project would control light usage, horizontal cutoff, and light trespass. All proposed lighting plans would be reviewed by the City to ensure consistency with the City s outdoor lighting standards, which require that all site lighting be shielded and directed into the project site to minimize off-site glare. Conformance with the City s lighting policies and plan check and approval by the City Planner would ensure the security lighting impacts are minimized. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be expected to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. There would be no significant aesthetics impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, and no mitigation would be required. No residual impacts would result. Page 14 of 63

15 Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- No II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The Proposed Project site is not located in an area designated by the California Department of Conservation as a Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance Farmland. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) develops statistical data for analyzing impacts on California s agricultural resources, for use by decision-makers in assessing the status, reviewing trends, and planning for the future of California s agricultural land resources. The Project site is currently developed as a commercial building in a developed, urban area. No agricultural uses are occurring on or near the site. Review of the San Diego County Important Farmland Maps shows that the site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Rather, the site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Adjacent areas to the north, south, east, and west are also designated Urban and Built-Up Land. Analysis: a. No. The Project site is not located within a designated agricultural area. The proposed site has been designated as general commercial land in a commercial zone and is not identified as farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (2004) or the City of Solana Beach General Plan (2006). As a result, Project implementation would not convert any Prime, Unique, or Important farmland to nonagricultural use, and no impacts would occur. b. No. The Project site is currently developed with commercial uses and is zoned commercial; there are no agricultural lands nearby or on the site. The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract, and none of the surrounding areas contain property under Williamson Act contracts (Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency [2004]). No conflict with agricultural zones or uses is anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Page 15 of 63

16 c. No. The Proposed Project site is currently a developed commercial shopping center and would be partially redeveloped as a mixed-use commercial site. The Project site is not located on or adjacent to existing farmland. Furthermore, the Project is zoned Special Commercial and has a land use designation of Commercial. The Project would not result in changes to the existing environment that could result in converting agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, and no impacts on farmlands are expected. The Project site supports urban development consisting of an existing commercial shopping center. Therefore, no impacts would result and no mitigation would be required. No residual impacts would occur. Page 16 of 63

17 Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- No III. AIR QUALITY. When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? This section is based on air quality consultation with Miller Environmental Consultants (MEC) (May 2008). Analysis of air quality impacts is based upon the approach recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and by applying local and state standards. Construction and operational emissions for the Proposed Project are based on the URBEMIS2007 (version 9.2.4) model. The URBEMIS2007 files are on record and are available for review at the City s Planning Department. Analysis: a. Less Than. The Proposed Project does not include land use changes that would conflict with the long-range air quality projections of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) in the applicable San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). The current land use designation for the Proposed Project site is general commercial, as outlined in the City s General Plan. This land use designation is included in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) most recent growth forecast used to prepare the RAQS. The Project would be consistent with the land use designation for the site, as adopted in the Solana Beach General Plan, and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. b./c. Less than with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities for the Proposed Project would result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality in the area. Temporary construction emissions would result directly from site clearance, site preparation activities, and indirectly from construction equipment emissions and construction worker commuting patterns. Pollutant emissions would vary daily depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. Page 17 of 63

18 The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is considered a basic non-attainment area for the 8-hour federal standard for ozone (O 3 ), and a non-attainment area for the 1-hour and 8-hour state standards for O 3 and for the 24-hour and annual state standards for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The SDAB has also been recommended by the California Air Resources Board in November 2006 for designation as a non-attainment area for the 24-hour and annual state standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). For purposes of analysis, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are collectively referred to as fugitive dust. As a result, the demolition, excavation, and building activities have the potential to contribute to potentially significant amount of airborne particulates to the air basin. The Basin is in attainment of federal and state standards for CO, SO2, NO2, and lead. Analysis of air quality impacts is based upon the approach recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SDAPCD, however, establishes emission thresholds for determining the potential significance of a project, which are used to determine the potential air quality impacts of the Proposed Project. Rule 20.3 of the SDAPCD establishes significance criteria for stationary source emissions. Although not directly applicable to the construction and mobile emissions from this Project, the significance criteria are used as significance criteria for this Project. Because no significance criterion for ROG is set in Rule 20.3, ROG is assigned a significance criterion equal to the NOx criterion in Rule 20.3, because they are both ozone precursors. In the event that any criteria pollutant exceeds the threshold levels, the Proposed Project s air quality impacts are considered significant and mitigation measures are required. Construction generally is broken down into three phases: a demolition phase, a grading/site clearing phase and a building phase. Construction-building phase emissions would result from material handling and heavy equipment operations. Because of the use of heavy construction equipment (with associated dustgenerating potential), it is anticipated that site-grading activities would result in the highest daily fugitive dust generation. However, Project construction would necessitate excavation and grading operations to prepare the site. During grading it is estimated that 48,000 cubic yards (cy) of material would be cut and 2,000 cy would be used on site as fill; thus, 46,000 cy of cut material would need to be disposed of offsite. The excavation and transportation of dirt have the potential of contributing airborne particulates to the air basin. Construction emissions were analyzed through the URBEMIS2007 (version 9.2.4) model. To estimate construction emissions, URBEMIS2007 analyzes the type of construction equipment used and the duration of the construction period (16 months, starting July 2009), using average emissions factors over all horsepower classes. Project construction emissions are summarized in Table AQ-1 - Estimated Emissions from Construction and Operational Activities. The Proposed Project would require grading that is estimated to last two months for the analysis. Surface wetting would be utilized during all phases of earthwork. As estimated by the URBEMIS2007 model based on square footages of the proposed land uses, the graded site encompasses approximately three acres. Rather than using the URBEMIS2007 model, an alternative method to calculate PM10 emissions is to use the South Coast Air Quality Management District s (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) emission estimate factor for PM10 emissions from site grading (26.4 pounds per graded acre). Based on the emission factor estimate, maximum construction at the Proposed Project site would be approximately 79.2 pounds per day (3 acres x 26.4 pound per day/acre) if the entire site was graded at the same time. Although this estimate of PM10 is higher than the estimate using the URBEMIS2007 model, this would still be less than PM10 significance threshold of 100 pounds per day and would be less than significant. Page 18 of 63

19 According to the Project description, approximately 46,000 cy of soil would be removed from the site. Under the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code Permit limitations and conditions for excavation and grading, Section G. Export of Earth from or Import of Earth to the Project Site, projects with an excess of 5,000 cubic yards of earth moved on public roadways from or to the site shall comply with the following: 1. Either water or dust palliative or both must be applied for the alleviation or prevention of excessive dust resulting from the loading or transportation of earth from or to the project site on public roadways. The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining public rights-of-way used for handling purposes in a condition free of dust, earth, or debris attached to the grading operation. In addition, per Section I. Dust Control, all grading operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to confine dust generated from the operation to the site of the grading. Special conditions intended to control dust, such as limitation of operations to hours of limited winds or application of water or dust palliative, may be imposed as additional requirements on the grading permit. Such conditions may be imposed in the field, if necessary. With regards to asbestos in demolition activities, particularly demolition of buildings built prior to 1980, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation under Title 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M, (enforced locally under San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regulation XI, Subpart M - Rule ). The Asbestos NESHAP requires a thorough inspection of the facility, by an accredited inspector, be conducted for all renovations and all demolitions. The SDAPCD requires the owner or operator of a demolition or renovation to submit an Asbestos Demolition or Renovation Operational Plan (Notice of Intention) at least 10 working days before any asbestos stripping or removal work begins (such as, site preparation that would break up, dislodge or similarly disturb asbestos containing material). A Notice of Intention is required for all demolitions regardless of whether there is the presence of asbestos containing material. The majority of Project-related emissions would be associated with mobile source activities. Mobile source emissions result from operational vehicle trips, including customer trips, deliveries, maintenance activities, and onsite parking. Minor air quality impacts would be associated with area sources, such as space heating and landscaping. Emissions associated with vehicle trips were estimated based on the proposed development of 65,300 SF of commercial uses. (Note that this is a conservative estimate that may overestimate the emissions, because vehicle trips currently exist, due to the existing commercial uses at the Project site.) The trip generation rates for these proposed land uses were obtained from the Traffic Analysis (LLG, 2008), which was used as input data for the URBEMIS2007 model. Emissions associated with landscaping and space heating were also included in the operational emissions. Table AQ-1 - Estimated Emissions from Construction and Operational Activities below presents the total operational emissions anticipated from the Project in year Page 19 of 63

20 Table AQ-1 - Estimated Emissions from Construction and Operational Activities (pounds per day) Maximum Daily Activity ROG NO X CO PM10 Construction Emissions Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds based upon SDAPCD Rule ? No No No No As indicated in Table AQ-1, Project-related operational emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. However, as discussed earlier, the SDAB is considered a basic non-attainment area for the 8-hour federal standard for ozone (O 3 ), and a non-attainment area for the 1-hour and 8-hour state standards for O 3 and for the 24-hour and annual state standards for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The SDAB has also been recommended by the CARB for designation as a non-attainment area for the 24-hour and annual state standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). As a result, the demolition, excavation, and building activities have the potential to contribute to potentially significant amount of airborne particulates to the air basin. Therefore, while the air quality impacts from Project operations could contribute to cumulative impacts, the overall air quality impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Additionally, California has recently passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases (GHG). The most prominent of these is Assembly Bill 32 (Nunez, 2006) - "The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" (AB 32). Among other things, it is designed to reduce California s statewide emissions to 1990 levels by It will have wide-ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and the country. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions, are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Primarily the State (of California) Air Resources Board (CARB) is to move toward public hearings and adopt the major components of the statute by January 1, In furtherance of the mandates of AB 32, on June 26, 2008, CARB released its Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan which sets forth measures designed to lower the state's greenhouse gas emissions and meet the state-mandated limit in Such measures include an emissions cap-and-trade program, expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards, expanding the state's renewable-energy mandates to 33 percent, and implementing other measures such as the state's low-carbon fuel standard and clean car standards. The findings in AB 32 describe the potential adverse impacts of global warming as including the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Colorado River and the Sierra snowpack, a potential rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human healthrelated problems. Currently, CEQA does not provide criteria for determining the significance of impacts resulting from GHG emissions. To remedy this absence, the Legislature has directed the Governor s Office of Planning Page 20 of 63

21 and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA Guidelines pertaining to GHG emissions by July 1, 2009 and to adopt the guidelines by January 1, As of June 2008, there are scant regulatory or legal precedents requiring an analysis of climate change pursuant to CEQA. There is still no air district in California, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), that has identified a significance threshold for GHG emissions or a methodology for analyzing air quality impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Although the state has identified achieving 1990 emission levels as a goal through the adoption of AB 32, no standards have been adopted quantifying 1990 emissions targets and how they can be achieved. It is recognized that for most projects there is no simple metric available to determine if a single project would help or hinder meeting the AB 32 emission goals. Emitting CO 2 into the atmosphere is not itself an adverse environmental effect. It is the increased concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere that results in global climate change, and it is the associated consequences of climate change that result in adverse environmental effects (e.g., sea level rise, loss of snowpack, severe weather events). Although it is possible to generally estimate a project s incremental contribution of CO 2 into the atmosphere, it is not possible to determine whether or how a specific project s relatively small incremental contribution might translate into physical effects on the environment. Given the complex interactions between various global and regional physical, chemical, atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic systems that result in the physical expressions of global climate change, it is impossible to discern whether the presence or absence of CO 2 emitted by a specific project would result in any altered conditions. Given the challenges associated with determining a project-specific significance criterion for GHG emissions when the issue must be viewed on a global scale, quantitative significance criteria are not proposed for the proposed Project. Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, a project s incremental contribution to global climate change would be considered insignificant if due to the size or nature of the project it would not generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditions. The main sources of GHG emissions associated with the Lomas Santa Fe Plaza and Gardens Lifestyles Project would be associated with the combustion of fossil fuels for energy use and vehicular emissions from construction- and operation-related activities. Although there are no CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions adopted by either the State or the local air quality control board, the GHG emissions for this project can certainly be described as minor (see analysis below). Major sources of GHG emissions in California are currently defined by rule making at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as those sources that generate more than 25,000 metric tons per year of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions. The URBEMIS2007 emissions model and electricity usage rates from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook were used with the project assumptions to calculate the GHG emissions from the project. As shown in Table AQ-2 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, project construction greenhouse gas emissions for the Proposed Project would be approximately 152 metric tons per year of CO 2 e emissions and project operations would be approximately 5,136 metric tons per year of CO 2 e emissions (including emissions from vehicle trips, space heating and indirect emissions from the use of electricity) (See Appendix A). Operational emissions would therefore be significantly lower than the reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons per year of CO 2 e emissions, and thus considered minor and less than significant. Accordingly, the project would not be subject to CARB s mandatory reporting requirements. In addition, the net increase in CO 2 e from the existing office, restaurant, and retail space to the Proposed Project is 3,813 metric tons per year of CO 2 e emissions for operation-related emissions. Thus, the net emissions are also below the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons per year of CO 2 e emissions. Page 21 of 63

22 Table AQ-2 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Description Existing office, restaurant, and retail space Proposed restaurant and retail space Net increase from existing to Proposed Project Construction-Related Emissions (Metric Tons of CO 2 e) Operation-Related Emissions (Metric Tons of CO 2 e) NA 1, , ,813 The Project s incremental contribution to global climate change would not be considered cumulatively significant. In addition, any mitigation applied to reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant level will necessarily apply to reduce GHG emissions. As such, the Proposed Project s project-specific and cumulative contributions of GHG emissions are less than significant with implementation of mitigation. d. Less than. Please see Sections a. and b. above. Sensitive receptors are populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large, such as the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Although the Project s construction-related diesel particulate impacts are considered less than significant using the County s thresholds, the proximity of the proposed construction activities to sensitive receptors merits additional analysis. Sensitive receptors in the immediate area of the Proposed Project include residential neighborhoods along Lomas Santa Fe Drive and Las Banderas Drive. Construction activities would entail the use of diesel equipment that would generate emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which the CARB has categorized as a human carcinogen. Typically, heath risks are estimated based on a chronic exposure period of 70 years. Table AQ-1 indicates that exhaust emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project is approximately 20 pounds per day, well below the District s threshold of 100 pounds per day. Because exhaust emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project are relatively low and construction activities would be short-term in nature (as construction activities will occur within a two year period); and well below the typical exposure period of 70 years, it is not anticipated that exposure to construction-related DPM would result in an elevated health risk. Additionally, based on the small area of construction (the footprint for the Proposed Project is estimated at approximately 6 acres) in relation to the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site and upon implementation of the mitigation measures (discussed in Section b. above) to minimize airborne particulates associated with construction activities, impacts to any sensitive receptors would be reduced to less than significant. e. Less than. The Proposed Project includes demolition of an existing structure, construction, and operation of commercial/retail buildings and restaurant with a subterranean parking structure and surface parking, and associated onsite improvements. The project would generate temporary, localized odors during the construction phase, similar to other construction projects in the City. Odors would be generated by tailpipe emissions from diesel powered construction equipment, and during paving and painting operations. The project would include the use of diesel powered vehicles during construction which are considered to emit objectionable odors. The odor generated by diesel equipment disperses quickly and would not affect existing uses nearby. Odor impacts would be temporary and limited to the area immediately adjacent to the construction operation. The restaurant could also generate temporary odors from cooking. However, these odors are generally not considered objectionable. Per City of Solana Beach Municipal Code , all garbage created, produced, or accumulated at Page 22 of 63

23 restaurants or other business houses where solid waste containing garbage is accumulated, shall be mandatorily removed from the premises at least twice a week or more if required by the County health department. Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project from the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant. Air Quality Mitigation Measures As conditions for approval and to mitigate potential air quality impacts associated with demolition and construction activities to below a level of significance, the following mitigation measures would be implemented: 1. The Developer/Contractor shall apply water and/or dust palliative to prevent excessive dust, per City of Solana Beach Municipal Code , Section G. 2. The Developer/Contractor shall conduct all grading operations in such a manner as to confine dust generated from the operation to the site of the grading. Per City of Solana Beach Municipal Code , Section I, special conditions intended to control dust, such as limitation of operations to hours of limited winds or application of water or dust palliative may be imposed as additional requirements on the grading permit. Such conditions may be imposed in the field if necessary. 3. The Developer/Contractor shall: (a) maintain construction equipment per manufacturing specifications; (b) use diesel engines that meet, at a minimum, 1996 CARB or U.S. EPA certified standards for off-road equipment that has a rating of more than 100 horsepower; (c) install diesel oxidation catalysts, catalyzed diesel particulate filters or other emission reduction retrofit devices approved and recommended by SDAPCD; and (d) substitute small electric-powered equipment for diesel- and gasoline-powered construction equipment where feasible. 4. Per Section 2485 within Chapter 10 - Mobile Source Operational Controls, Article 1 - Motor Vehicles, Division 3 - Air Resources Board, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, on-road haul truck idling shall be limited to five (5) minutes or less by the conspicuous posting of signs near the fill area(s). 5. Heavy-duty diesel trucks and other mobile equipment should be properly tuned and maintained to manufacturers specifications to ensure minimum emissions under normal operations. 6. The Applicant shall provide for an accredited asbestos inspection of the building to be demolished and submit a Notice of Intention for demolition to the City of Solana Beach per San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regulation XI, Subpart M - Rule With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential air quality impacts (specifically ozone and GHG emissions) would be reduced to a level of less than significant. No residual impacts would occur. Page 23 of 63

24 Potentially Less than with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- No IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Project site is fully developed as a commercial shopping center and associated parking lot in an urban area of the City and adjacent to the I-5. The City of Solana Beach classifies the Project site as a general commercial land use designation within a commercial zone. The Project site is not known to contain any sensitive plant or wildlife species, nor does the Project site support potential habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. Analysis: Page 24 of 63