westfield north county led freeway-oriented sign …north county fair l.p., a delaware limited...

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Westfield North CouNty led freeWay-orieNted sigN ProjeCt

City of esCoNdido, CaliforNia

City file No. Phg 13-0023

January 2014

P C R

January 2014

Prepared for:

City of EscondidoCommunity Development Department

Planning Division201 N. Broadway, First FloorEscondido, California 92025

Prepared by:

PCR Services Corporation201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500

Santa Monica, Californa 90401

Westfield North CouNty led freeWay-orieNted sigN ProjeCt

City of esCoNdido, CaliforNia

City file No. Phg 13-0023

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 i

Table of Contents

Page

ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLISTFORM..........................................................................................................................IS‐1

ATTACHMENTA‐PROJECTDESCRIPTION A. ProjectLocation................................................................................................................................................................A‐1 B. ExistingConditionsandSurroundingUses............................................................................................................A‐1 C. LandUseandZoningDesignations............................................................................................................................A‐2 D. DescriptionoftheProposedProject.........................................................................................................................A‐5 E. NecessaryApprovals.......................................................................................................................................................A‐6

ATTACHMENTB‐EXPLANATIONOFCHECKLISTDETERMINATIONS I. Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................................................................B‐1 II. AgriculturalResources................................................................................................................................................B‐32 III. AirQuality.........................................................................................................................................................................B‐34 IV. BiologicalResources.....................................................................................................................................................B‐36 V. CulturalResources........................................................................................................................................................B‐45 VI. GeologyandSoils...........................................................................................................................................................B‐46 VII. GreenhouseGasEmissions........................................................................................................................................B‐49 VIII. HazardsandHazardousMaterials..........................................................................................................................B‐50 IX. HydrologyandWaterQuality...................................................................................................................................B‐52 X. LandUseandPlanning................................................................................................................................................B‐55 XI. MineralResources.........................................................................................................................................................B‐57 XII. Noise....................................................................................................................................................................................B‐58 XIII. PopulationandHousing..............................................................................................................................................B‐59 XIV. PublicServices................................................................................................................................................................B‐60 XV. Recreation.........................................................................................................................................................................B‐61 XVI. Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................................................................B‐61 XVII. UtilitiesandServiceSystems....................................................................................................................................B‐66 XVIII. MandatoryFindingsofSignificance.......................................................................................................................B‐67

APPENDICESAppendixA–CommentsandResponsestoDraftInitialStudy/MNDAppendixB–MitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 ii

List of Figures

Figure PageA‐1 RegionalandLocalVicinityMap.......................................................................................................................................A‐3 A‐2 AerialPhotograph...................................................................................................................................................................A‐4 A‐3 ProjectSitePlan.......................................................................................................................................................................A‐7 A‐4 ProjectSitePlan‐Detail.......................................................................................................................................................A‐8 A‐5 SiteSections–ExistingLandscaping...............................................................................................................................A‐9 A‐6 SiteSections–ProposedLandscaping.........................................................................................................................A‐10 A‐7 ProposedFreeway‐OrientedSign..................................................................................................................................A‐11 B‐1 PotentialVisibilityAreas......................................................................................................................................................B‐5 B‐2 PhotosimulationLocationsMap.......................................................................................................................................B‐9 B‐3 ViewA........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐10 B‐4 ViewB........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐11 B‐5 ViewC.........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐12 B‐6 ViewD........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐13 B‐7 ViewE........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐14 B‐8 ViewF.........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐15 B‐9 ViewG........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐19 B‐10 ViewH........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐20 B‐11 ViewI..........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐21 B‐12 ViewJ..........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐22 B‐13 ViewK........................................................................................................................................................................................B‐23 B‐14 ProjectLightIntensityLevels...........................................................................................................................................B‐29 B‐15 SurroundingHabitatsandProjectLightLevels........................................................................................................B‐37 B‐16 ViewofTreestobeRemovedandReplaced..............................................................................................................B‐43

List of Tables

PageB‐1 ComparisonoftheProjecttoApplicableVisualResourcesPoliciesoftheCityofEscondido

GeneralPlanResourceConservationElement..........................................................................................................B‐25 B‐2 ComparativeLightLevels..................................................................................................................................................B‐39

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. ProjectTitle WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectCityFileNo.PHG13‐0023

2. Leadagencynameandaddress: CityofEscondidoCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentPlanningDivision201N.Broadway,FirstFloorEscondido,CA92025

3. Contactpersonandphonenumber: JayPaul,Planner

(760)839‐45374. Projectlocation: WestfieldNorthCounty

272EastViaRanchoParkwayEscondido,CA92025APN2710302000

5. Projectapplicant’snameandaddress: EWHEscondidoAssociatesL.P.,aDelawareLimited

Partnership,and NorthCountyFairL.P.,aDelawareLimitedPartnership 255Broadway,Suite1700 SanDiego,CA921016. Generalplandesignation: PlannedCommercial

7. Zoning: PD‐C(PlannedDevelopment‐Commercial)

8. Descriptionofproject:(Describethewholeactioninvolved,includingbutnotlimitedtolaterphasesof theproject,andanysecondary, support,oroff‐site featuresnecessary for its implementation. Attachadditionalsheetsifnecessary.)

Theprojectapplicant,EWHEscondidoAssociatesL.P.andNorthCountyFairL.P.,proposestoinstalltheWestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProject(the“proposedproject”),afreeway‐orientedsignwithinanembankmentbetweenthesouthwesternedgeofthesurfaceparkinglotbetweenWestfieldNorth County shopping center and the northbound I‐15 Freeway, in the City of Escondido (the “City”),California. Westfield proposes an 87.5‐foot tall freeway‐oriented sign, which would consist of a polemountedtenantsigncabinetadvertisingtheshoppingcenter’sanchortenantstoppedbya14‐foottallby48‐footwidelightemittingdiode(LED)readerboardonbothsidesofasupportingframe,withonefacingnorth and one facing south. The proposed project includes a modification to the Master and PreciseDevelopmentPlanfortheproject.(CityFileNo.PHG13‐0023)

9. Surroundinglandusesandsetting:Brieflydescribetheproject’ssurroundings:

The proposed project’s installation site is an embankment between the I‐15 Freeway and the surfaceparkinglotservingWestfieldNorthCounty, locatedat272EastViaRanchoParkway, inEscondido. TheproposedprojectsiteisadjacenttothenorthboundlanesoftheI‐15Freeway,atitsintersectionwithEast

Environmental Checklist Form January 2014

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 2

ViaRanchoParkway.WestfieldNorthCountyandtheproposedproject sitearelocatedapproximately3.5milessouthofdowntownEscondido,alongthesouthernborderof theCity,andapproximately13mileseastofthePacificOcean.RegionalaccesstothesiteisprovidedbytheI‐15Freeway,whichhasfivelanesof traffic ineachdirectionat this location,aswellasoverheadrampsandbridgeswhichprovideaccessandexits.LocalaccessisprovidedbyEastViaRanchoParkway,aprimearterial,alongthesouthernsideof theproperty. ThemainaccessroadtoWestfieldNorthCounty is fromWestfieldWay,offofEastViaRanchoParkway.Theproposedprojectsiteislocatedwithinasuburban,commercialareainEscondido.Tothenorthoftheproposed project site is theWestfieldNorth County surface parking lot and the shopping center itself.Furthernorthisasingle‐familyresidentialarea,andthenorthernportionsofKitCarsonPark.Totheeastis a North County Transit District Rapid Bus Transit station, Kit Carson Park, and the Vineyard atEscondidogolfcourse.TothesouthistheHodgesGolfImprovementCenter(agolfdrivingrange),aself‐storagefacilityandSanDieguitoRiverPark. Farthertothesoutheastaresingle‐familyresidentialareas.Tothewest,andrunningparalleltothesurfaceparkinglot,istheI‐15Freeway,acommercial/retailstrip‐mall,gasstation,andtheDelLagoBusRapidTransitstationfortheSanDiegoMetropolitanTransitSystemandtheNorthCountyTransitDistrict,includingasupportingparkandridelot.Theareasfurtherwestaresinglefamilyresidentialcommunities.

10. Otherpublicagencieswhoseapprovalisrequired(e.g.,permits,financingapproval,orparticipationagreement):

CityofEscondido(ModificationoftheMasterSignageProgramandMasterDevelopmentPlan)

January 2014 Environmental Checklist Form

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 IS‐3

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPOTENTIALLYAFFECTED:

Theenvironmental factorscheckedbelowwouldbepotentiallyaffectedbythisproject, involvingat leastoneimpactthatisa“PotentiallySignificantImpact”asindicatedbythechecklistonthefollowingpages.

Aesthetics AgricultureResources AirQuality

BiologicalResources CulturalResources Geology/Soils

GreenhouseGasEmissions Hazards/HazardousMaterialsHydrology/WaterQuality

LandUse/Planning MineralResources Noise

Population/Housing PublicServices Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/ServiceSystems MandatoryFindingsofSignificance

DETERMINATION:(TobecompletedbytheLeadAgency)

Onthebasisofthisinitialevaluation:

IfindthattheproposedprojectCOULDNOThaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment,andaNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwillbeprepared.

Ifindthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment,therewillnotbeasignificanteffectinthiscasebecauserevisionsintheprojecthavebeenmadebyoragreedtobytheprojectproponent.AMITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwillbeprepared.

IfindthattheproposedprojectMAYhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment,andanENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired.

I find thatproposedprojectMAYhavea “potentiallysignificant impact”or “potentially significantunlessmitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicablelegalstandards,and2)hasbeenaddressedbymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysisasdescribedonattachedsheets.AnENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired,butitmustanalyzeonlytheeffectsthatremaintobeaddressed.



b) ImpactsAdequatelyAddressed.Identifywhicheffectsfromtheabovechecklistwerewithinthescopeofandadequatelyanalyzedinanearlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicable legalstandards,andstatewhethersucheffectswereaddressedbymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation MeasuresIncorporated,”describethemitigationmeasureswhichwereincorporatedorrefinedfromtheearlierdocumentandtheextenttowhichtheyaddresssite‐specificconditionsfortheproject.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources forpotential impacts(e.g.,generalplans,zoningordinances). Referencetoapreviouslypreparedoroutsidedocument should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pageswhere the statement issubstantiated.

7) SupportingInformationSources: Asourcelistshouldbeattached,andothersourcesusedorindividualscontactedshouldbecitedinthediscussion.

8) Thisisonlyasuggestedform,andleadagenciesarefreetousedifferentformats;however,leadagenciesshouldnormallyaddress thequestions fromthischecklist thatarerelevant toaproject’senvironmentaleffectsinwhateverformatisselected.

9) Theexplanationofeachissueidentify:

a) thesignificancecriteriaorthreshold,ifany,usedtoevaluateeachquestion;and

b) themitigationmeasureidentified,ifany,toreducetheimpacttolessthansignificance.

Issues: PotentiallySignificantImpact

LessThanSignificantWith

MitigationIncorporation

LessThanSignificantImpact

NoImpact

I.AESTHETICS–Wouldtheproject:

a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?

b) Substantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimitedto,trees,rockoutcroppings,andhistoricbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?

c) Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?







NoImpact

d) Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarewhichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea?

II.AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRESOURCES–Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoagriculturalresourcesaresignificantenvironmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertotheCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel(1997)preparedbytheCaliforniaDept.ofConservationasanoptionalmodeltouseinassessingimpactsonagricultureandfarmland.Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoforestresources,includingtimberland,aresignificantenvironmentaleffects,leadagenciesmayrefertoinformationcompiledbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtectionregardingthestate’sinventoryofforestland,includingtheForestandRangeAssessmentProjectandtheForestLegacyAssessmentproject;andforestcarbonmeasurementmethodologyprovidedinForestProtocolsadoptedbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.Wouldtheproject:

a) ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportance(Farmland),asshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse,oraWilliamsonActcontract?

c) Conflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningof,forestland(asdefinedinPublicResourcesCodesection12220(g)),timberland(asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodesection4526),ortimberlandzonedTimberlandProduction(asdefinedbyGovernmentCodesection51104(g))?

d) Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

e) Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentwhich,duetotheirlocationornature,couldresultinconversionofFarmland,tonon‐agriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

III.AIRQUALITY–Whereavailable,thesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.Wouldtheproject:

a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan?

b) Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation?







NoImpact

c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisnon‐attainmentunderanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionswhichexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?

d) Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations?

e) Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople?

IV.BIOLOGICALRESOURCES–Wouldtheproject:

a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

b) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans,policies,regulationsorbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorUSFishandWildlifeService?

c) HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,butnotlimitedto,marsh,vernalpool,coastal,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

d) Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativenurserysites?

e) Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources,suchasatreepreservationpolicyorordinance?

f) ConflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHabitatConservationPlan,NaturalCommunityConservationPlan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?







NoImpact

V.CULTURALRESOURCES–Wouldtheproject:

a) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin§15064.5?

b) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto§15064.5?

c) Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?

d) Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

VI.GEOLOGYANDSOILS–Wouldtheproject:

a) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:

i) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,asdelineatedonthemostrecentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMapissuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaorbasedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault?RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecialPublication42.

ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking?

iii) Seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?

c) Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheproject,andpotentiallyresultinon‐oroff‐sitelandslide,lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefactionorcollapse?

d) Belocatedonexpansivesoil,asdefinedinTable18‐1‐BoftheUniformBuildingCode(1994),creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

e) Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?







NoImpact

VII.GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS‐‐Wouldtheproject:

a) Generategreenhousegasemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thatmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment?

b) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,policyorregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases?

VIII.HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS–Wouldtheproject:

a) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials?

b) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?

c) Emithazardousemissionsorhandlehazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials,substances,orwastewithinone‐quartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?

d) BelocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65962.5and,asaresult,woulditcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment?

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

g) Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan?

h) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixedwithwildlands?







NoImpact

IX.HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY–Wouldtheproject:

a) Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements?

b) Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrechargesuchthattherewouldbeanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwatertablelevel(e.g.,theproductionrateofpre‐existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelwhichwouldnotsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)?

c) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerwhichwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationon‐oroff‐site?

d) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealternationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerwhichwouldresultinfloodingon‐oroff‐site?

e) Createorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff?

f) Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?

g) Placehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?

h) Placewithina100‐yearfloodhazardareastructureswhichwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?

i) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingflooding,includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam?

j) Inundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow?

X.LANDUSEANDPLANNING–Wouldtheproject:

a) Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?







NoImpact

b) Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,policy,orregulationofanagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject(including,butnotlimitedtothegeneralplan,specificplan,localcoastalprogram,orzoningordinance)adoptedforthepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?

c) Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan?

XI.MINERALRESOURCES–Wouldtheproject:

a) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcethatwouldbeofvaluetotheregionandtheresidentsofthestate?

b) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocally‐importantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplanorotherlanduseplan?

XII.NOISE–Wouldtheprojectresultin:

a) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofnoiselevelinexcessofstandardsestablishedinthelocalgeneralplanornoiseordinance,orapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?

b) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofexcessivegroundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoiselevels?

c) Asubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

d) Asubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

XIII.POPULATIONANDHOUSING–Wouldtheproject:







NoImpact

a) Inducesubstantialpopulationgrowthinanarea,eitherdirectly(forexample,byproposingnewhomesandbusinesses)orindirectly(forexample,throughextensionofroadsorotherinfrastructure)?

b) Displacesubstantialnumbersofexistinghousing,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

c) Displacesubstantialnumbersofpeople,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

XIV.PUBLICSERVICES

a) Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpactsassociatedwiththeprovisionofneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,theneedforneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,constructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentalimpacts,inordertomaintainacceptableserviceratios,responsetimesorotherperformanceobjectivesforanyofthepublicservices:

Fireprotection? Policeprotection? Schools? Parks? Otherpublicfacilities?

XV.RECREATION

a) Wouldtheprojectincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccurorbeaccelerated?

b) Doestheprojectincluderecreationalfacilitiesorrequiretheconstructionorexpansionofrecreationalfacilitieswhichmighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?

XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC–Wouldtheproject:

a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinanceorpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportationincludingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,includingbutnotlimitedtointersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransit?







NoImpact

b) Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedtolevelofservicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasures,orotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?

c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?

d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?

e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?

f) Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities

XVII.UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS–Wouldtheproject:

a) ExceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard?

b) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

c) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

d) Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsandresources,orareneworexpandedentitlementsneeded?

e) Resultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentproviderwhichservesormayservetheprojectthatithasadequatecapacitytoservetheproject'sprojecteddemandinadditiontotheprovider'sexistingcommitments?

f) Beservedbyalandfillwithsufficientpermittedcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject'ssolidwastedisposalneeds?

g) Complywithfederal,state,andlocalstatutesandregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?







NoImpact

XVIII.MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE

a) Doestheprojecthavethepotentialtodegradethequalityoftheenvironment,substantiallyreducethehabitatofafishorwildlifespecies,causeafishorwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself‐sustaininglevels,threatentoeliminateaplantoranimalcommunity,reducethenumberorrestricttherangeofarareorendangeredplantoranimaloreliminateimportantexamplesofthemajorperiodsofCaliforniahistoryorprehistory?

b) Doestheprojecthaveimpactsthatareindividuallylimited,butcumulativelyconsiderable?("Cumulativelyconsiderable"meansthattheincrementaleffectsofaprojectareconsiderablewhenviewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofpastprojects,theeffectsofothercurrentprojects,andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects)?

c) Doestheprojecthaveenvironmentaleffectswhichwillcausesubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly?

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 A‐1

ATTACHMENT A ‐ PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. PROJECT LOCATION

The project applicants, EWH Escondido Assocaites L.P. and North County Fair L.P., propose to install anapproximately 87.5‐foot tall light emitting diode (LED) freeway‐oriented sign (the “proposed project” or“freeway‐orientedsign”)atWestfieldNorthCountyshoppingcenter(formerlyNorthCountyFair),towardsthesouthwesterncornerofthepropertyadjacenttothenorthboundInterstate15Freeway,northoftheViaRanchoParkwayoverpass,intheCityofEscondido(the“City”).Theproposedsignwouldbeinstalledwithina landscaped embankment area between the edge of the Westfield North County parking lot and theInterstate15Freeway. Theproposedsignwouldconsistofapolemounted, two‐sided tenantsigncabinetthatwouldbetoppedbytwo14‐foot‐tallby48‐foot‐wideLEDreaderboardsaffixedtoasupportingframe,withonefacingnorthandonefacingsouth.FigureA‐1,RegionalandLocalVicinityMap,showstheregionalandsitelocation.FigureA‐2,AerialPhotograph,providesanaerialphotographofthesiteandsurroundinglanduses.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING USES

Theapproximately83‐acreWestfieldNorthCountyregionalshoppingcenterbeganoperationin1986,andincludes an approximately 1.2 million‐square foot enclosed multi‐level shopping mall (up to 70 feet inheight) with Sears, JCPenney, Macy’s, Nordstrom and Target as major anchors. The shopping mall issurroundedbyvarioussurfaceparkinglotsandthreefree‐standingrestaurants,withanapprovedpadforafourth.Theshoppingcentercontainsavarietyofsecurityandsitelighting,includingparkinglotandprojectentrylightingonpolesofvaryingheight,primaryshoppingcenterlighting,tenantsignsandperimeterstreetlighting. Theedgeof theproperty thatborders Interstate15 andViaRanchoParkway is linedwithnon‐nativevegetation,whichincludesmaturetrees,shrubsandgroundcover. Thereareadditionallandscapeplanter areas located throughout the parking lot areas, aswell as landscaping along the perimeter of theshopping center. There is an existing 50‐foot‐tall freeway‐oriented pylon sign located along thewesternboundary of the shopping center, adjacent to northbound lanes of Interstate 15,which is proposed to beremoved. The existing pylon sign is located approximately 680 feet north of the proposednew freeway‐orientedLEDsign.ThemallisborderedbyInterstate15onthewest,ViaRanchoParkwayontheeastwhichtransitions toBearValleyParkwayalong the southern and easternboundaries of the site, andBeethovenDrive along the northern boundary. Access to the commercial center is provided from a number ofdrivewaysalongViaRanchoParkway,BearValleyParkwayandBeethovenDrive.Themainaccessdriveway(WestfieldWay)islocateddirectlyoppositetheInterstate15/ViaRanchoParkwaynorthboundoff‐ramp.

UsessurroundingWestfieldNorthCountyshoppingcenterincludethefollowing:

North: OS‐P(OpenSpace‐Park)/CityofEscondidoKitCarsonParkislocatednorthoftheWestfieldmallcomplex,northofBeethovenDrive. Single‐familyresidencesare located furthernorthof thepark.BeethovenDriveand the Interstate15northboundHOVon‐andoff‐rampsatBeethovenDrivearelocatedatahigherelevationthanthewesternportionofthemallandgenerallyobscureviewsofthemallfromtheresidentstothenorth.Landusesimmediatelynorthoftheproposedsignincludeopenparking spaces, perimeter ornamental landscaping associated with the shopping center and alandscapedslopeadjacenttoBeethovenDrive.

Attachment A Project Description January 2014


South: PD‐C, SP and City of San Diego zoning (Planned Development Commercial and Specific Plan) / Avarietyofcommercialusesandopenspaceareasare locatedsouthof theshoppingcenterand theproposedproject areas southofViaRanchoParkway. Twogas stations,northboundon‐ andoff‐ramps for Interstate 15, and amini‐warehouse/self‐storage facility are located directly south ViaRancho Parkway. The Hodges Golf Center (driving range) is located southeast of the proposedprojectarea,southofViaRanchoParkway.Thedrivingrangecontainsstadiumtypeoutdoorlightingto allow nighttime activities. The lighting is directed towards the south. Open space areas arelocatedfurthersouthofthecommercialactivitieswithintheSanPasqualValley/SanDieguitoRiverPark. Single‐family residential homes are located 1,000+ feet further southwest of the shoppingcenterwestofInterstate15.

East: PD‐R,SPandOS‐Pzoning(PlannedDevelopmentResidential,SpecificPlanandOpenSpace‐Park)/TheVineyardmunicipal 18‐hole golf course andopen space areawithin theCity of SanDiego arelocatedeastoftheshoppingcentereastofViaRanchoParkway/BearValleyParkway. ThesoftballfieldswithtallstadiumtypelightingarelocatednortheastoftheshoppingcenteracrossBeethovenDrive. A single‐family residentialplanneddevelopment is located approximately1,300 feet to theeastoftheshoppingcenter,eastofthegolfcourse. Immediatelyeastoftheproposedsignispavedparking associated with the shopping center and two free‐standing restaurants. The main mallbuildingislocatedfurthertotheeast.

West: SP and Interstate 15 (Specific Plan) / Interstate 15 is located immediately west of theWestfieldNorth County shopping center and runs parallel to the malls western perimeter. The freewaygenerallyislocatedatasimilarorslightlylowerelevationthantheadjacentmallparkinglottowardthe southern area of the property, and at a higher elevation towards the northern area of theproperty.Asmallercommercialcenter,gasolinestationandpark‐and‐ridefacilityarelocatedalongthewesternsideofInterstate15,atahigherelevationthanthefreewayandtheWestfieldshoppingcenter. A single‐family residential development is located further to thewest, approximately 700feetwestofthemall.

C. LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS

The project site is zoned Planned Development – Commercial (PD‐C)1 with a General Plan land usedesignationofPlannedCommercial.2TheGeneralPlandescribesWestfieldNorthCountyRegionalShoppingCenterasaplannedcommercialmulti‐storyregionalshoppingcenterwithseveralanchortenants,smallerin‐line shops and free‐standing up‐scale dining establishments. The project site is owned by the City ofEscondido under a long‐term lease to Westfield. In Planned Development zones, permitted uses areidentifiedineachplanneddevelopmentmasterplanapproval.3 Theshoppingcenteralsois locatedwithintheKitCarsonParkOverlay,whichcontainsguidelines forthearchitecturaldesignofbuildings/structuressurroundingKitCarsonPark.

1 EscondidoMunicipalCode,Chapter33,Article16,Section33‐331.2 City of Escondido General Plan, Chapter II, Land Use and Community Form, Figure II‐1 “Land Uses”, May 2012;

http://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/PDFs/Planning/GPUpdate/GeneralPlanChapterII.pdf,accessedAugust2012.3 EscondidoMunicipalCode,Chapter33,Article16,Section33‐332.

Freeway-Oriented Sign Location

PROJECT SITE

^

PROJECT SITE

FIGURE

Source: ESRI Street Map, 2009; PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 1,000 2,000 Feet

Westfield North County LED Freeway-Oriented Sign Project

Regional and Local Vicinity Mapo A-1

#

Kit Carson Park San PasqualHigh School

Westfield North County

Del Lago Bus Rapid Transit Station

Plaza Del Lago Center

The VineyardGolf Course

Hodges GolfInprovement

Center

Proposed Freeway-Oriented Sign Location

San Dieguito River Park

Lake Hodges

§̈¦15

Via Rancho Parkway

Bear

Valle

y Park

way S

FIGURE

Source: Microsoft, 2010 (Aerial); PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 1,200 2,400 Feet


Aerial Photographo A-2

January 2014 Attachment A Project Description


D. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Theproposedprojectinvolvestheinstallationofafreeway‐orientedsignwithacombinedheightof87.5feet,toppedbya14‐foot tallby48‐footwideLEDreaderboardonboth sidesof a supporting frame,withonefacingnorthandtheotherfacingsouth.Thefreeway‐orientedsignwillbemounteduponastructuralsteelsupport pipe which will also support the internally illuminated cabinet signs for the shopping center’sanchortenants.Componentsoftheproposedprojectwillbefabricatedoff‐siteanddeliveredtothesiteforinstallation.

The proposed projectwill be locatedwithin an embankment betweenWestfieldNorth County’s southernparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway,asshowninFigureA‐3,ProjectSitePlan.FigureA‐4,ProjectSitePlan–Detail,showsthattheproposedprojectwillbeplacedapproximately13feetfromthewesternedgeoftheproperty line along the northbound lanes of the I‐15 Freeway and 20 feet from the southern edge of thepropertylinealongViaRanchoParkway,allwithinWestfield’sprivatelease‐holdadjacenttoCaltrans’publicright‐of‐way.AsshowninFigureA‐4,thebaseofthesignwillmeasureapproximately13.5feetby24feet,foratotalof324squarefeet,consistingofpouredconcreteapproximatelyfourfeetabovegrade.

FigureA‐5,SiteSections–ExistingLandscaping,depictshowtheproposedfreeway‐orientedsignwouldlooklikeinthecontextoftheexistinglandscapinginthesurroundingarea.FigureA‐6,SiteSections–ProposedLandscaping,depictshowtheproposedprojectwilllookafteralterationstositelandscapingarecompleted.AsshowninFigureA‐3,inordertoaccommodatethebaseoftheproposedproject,fiveornamentaltreeswillberemoved fromtheconstructionsiteandbusheson thepropertywillbe trimmed. Four treesalong thewestern edge of Westfield property, adjacent to the northbound lanes of the I‐15 Freeway, will also beremoved.Afterconstructionoftheproposedprojectiscompleted,13newbusheswillbeplantedintheareaaroundthebaseofthefreeway‐orientedsignandsixnewbusheswillbeplantedalongthewesternedgeoftheproperty.Inaddition,ninenewspecimen‐sizedtreeswillbeplantedinandaroundtheareawheretheexisting50‐footmonumentsign(thatwillbedemolished)islocated.

AspartofthecurrentlyongoingrenovationofWestfieldNorthCounty,aMasterSignageProgrampreviouslywasapprovedbytheEscondidoCityCouncil,inMay2012.TheapprovedMasterSignageProgramincludesa93‐foottallsignatthelocationoftheexisting50‐foottallsign,alsoadjoiningtheshoppingcenter’ssurfaceparkinglotandI‐15Freeway,butfurthertothenorthoftheproposedprojectsite.Thisexistingsignwouldbe demolished, as provided in the approved Master Signage Program. An amendment to the approvedMasterSignageProgramwillberequired,whichwouldrequestapprovalforashortersign(87.5feetinsteadof93feet)locatedfurthersouthalongtheparkinglotthanoriginallyplanned,withtheadditionoftheLEDreaderboards,asdepictedinFigureA‐7,ProposedLEDFreeway‐OrientedSign.

1. LED Reader Board Design and Project Features

TheproposedhoursofoperationforthenewLEDreaderboardsignarefrom5:00A.M.tomidnight.Both14‐foottallby48‐footwideLEDreaderboardswillbeequippedwithmulti‐directionlightsensingequipmentwhich will adjust the brightness of the proposed LED reader boards according to current lighting andweather conditions. As such, in order to insure visibility during the day‐time, the proposed LED readerboardswillhavemorelightingintensity. Itwouldhavereducedlightingintensityduringnight‐time,whenmuch less illumination is required for it tobevisible. Anadjustable12‐foot longmetal armsupportinga



cameramonitoringsystemwillalsobeinstalledfacingeachLEDreaderboard,inordertoprovideadditionalmonitoringof the surroundingconditionsand imagesprojected. The light control standards complywithlocal,federalandindustrylightoutputstandards.ThemaximumbrightnessoutputoftheLEDreaderboardwouldbe8,500nits(orapproximately790footcandles(orlumens)persquarefoot),andsuchilluminationwouldonlybeemployedduringdaylightconditions,whileaslittleasthreepercentofthislightingintensitywouldbeemployedafterdark.4

Themessage content on the proposed LED reader boardswould advertise establishments, businesses orserviceslocatedon,orofferedfrom,WestfieldNorthCounty,andproductsoranygoodsdisplayed,producedor available for purchase at the shopping center, or any events thatwill occur at the shopping center, inaccordancewiththe2013OutdoorAdvertisingActandRegulations.Themessageswillremainonthescreenforaminimumofeightsecondsbeforeswitchingtoanotherstaticscreenimage.Therewillbenomovingorflashingimages;theimagewillsimplychangeeveryeightsecondswithoutfadingorchangingeffectsonthescreen.

TheLEDreaderboardsarefully‐sealedmoduleswithenclosedpowersupplies. Theproposedprojectwillhave an average annual electrical consumption of approximately 30,000 kilowatt hours, which isapproximately 0.7 percent of the Westfield North County’s current and anticipated annual electricalconsumption.5

2. Installation

Someminorsiteclearingwouldberequiredtopreparetheproposedprojectsiteforitsbasefoundation.Astructural support column would then be anchor‐bolted to the top of this concrete base foundation. Apainted steel rectangular tube tower will be attached to the structural support column, upon which theanchortenantsignagecabinetwillbeattached.TheproposedLEDreaderboardswillbemountedatopthesignbyacraneandwillbeheldinplacebythemainstructuralsupportcolumn.Inordertosupplyelectricitytotheproposedproject,minortrenchingacrosstheadjoiningWestfieldNorthCountyparkinglottoaccessapower supply within themain shopping center will be required. The proposed project will complywithapplicablebuildingstandards.

3. Schedule

Itisanticipatedthatinstallationoftheproposedprojectwouldcommenceinthefourthquarterof2013,andthe total elapsed time for these activitieswould not exceed twomonths, duringwhich activitywould beintermittentasphasesarestaged,equipmentscheduled,andconcretecures,etc.

E. NECESSARY APPROVALS

Approvalsrequiredfordevelopmentoftheprojectinclude,butmaynotbelimitedto,thefollowing:

City of Escondido (Amendment required for both the Master Signage Program and the MasterDevelopmentPlan)

4 DB‐4200DigitalBillboardIlluminationStudy,March7,2013,preparedbyDaktronics.5 BasedoncommunicationfromWestfieldNorthCounty,theaverageannualelectricalconsumptionfortheentireshoppingcenteris

4,300,000kilowatthours.TheLEDpylonsignwillhaveanaverageannualelectricalconsumptionof30,000kilowatthours.30,000kilowatthoursdividedby4,300,000kilowatthours=0.0069,orabout0.7percent.

�� !

��

�

� ��

�� !�� "�#

��

�

�� !�"

��

�

�� !�"

��



Thispageisintentionallyblank.

CityofEscondido WestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectPCRServicesCorporation/SCHNo.2013101081 B‐1

ATTACHMENT B ‐ EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS

I. AESTHETICS

Wouldtheproject:

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, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city‐

designated scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista can be defined as a view of valued scenic resources,particularlybroad,panoramicviews frompublicorprivatevantagepointsofnatural features, suchas theocean,hillsides,mountainsorurbanlandscapes,likecityskylines.Visualcharacteristhecompositeofwhatcanbeseeninalocale,includingsuchscenicresourcesasmayexistandthevantagepointsfromwhichtheymaybeseen.Thedeterminationofaproject’simpactsonscenicvistas,scenicresourcesandvisualcharactershouldbebasedon thedegree towhichproject featuresand/oroperationscoulddirectlymodifyexistingvaluedresourcesorobstructexistingvistasofvaluedresources,andtheextenttowhichaprojectalterstheoverallcharacterofwhatcanbeseeninthelocale.

Existing Conditions

Theproposedproject site isplanned tobe located in the southernareaof theCityofEscondido (City), innorthern San Diego County. It is proposed to be located in an active, suburban, commercial area ofEscondido,withavarietyofdevelopmentusesandopenspacessituatedinthelowerpartsofabroadbasinsurroundedbylowhills.TheproposedprojectsiteislocatedattheWestfieldNorthCounty,an83‐acreretailshoppingcenterwhichincludesa1.2million‐squarefootenclosedmallsurroundedbysurfaceparkinglotsandthreefree‐standingrestaurants.Theproposedprojectisalightemittingdiode(LED)freeway‐orientedsign,whichwouldbelocatedonapproximately324squarefeetofanembankmentbetweentheInterstate15(I‐15)FreewayandtheedgeofWestfieldNorthCounty’ssouthernsurfaceparkinglot.

Escondido has a natural setting which provides many viewing opportunities, particularly from higherelevations,andthesurroundinghillsidesandridgelinesarevisualresourceswithaestheticvalue. TheI‐15Freeway corridor is routed through this basin on a more or less north and south axis. Residentialneighborhoods occupy the ridges and less steep hillsides throughout the hills surrounding the basin, andmore intensiveuses, suchasWestfieldNorthCounty, tend tobealignedalong the I‐15Freewaycorridor.Muchofthelowestpartofthebasinisoccupiedbylargefieldsofnaturalopenspace,extendingnortherlyasfarnorthasViaRanchoParkway.SouthofViaRanchoParkway,panoramicvistasareavailableacrossthisopenspacefromtheI‐15FreewayapproachingLakeHodgesandfromneighboringlanduses.

ScenicResources/ScenicHighways: The lowbasinwithinwhich theproposedproject site is located is thesettingofanassortmentofscenicresources.Foremostamongthese is theexpansiveareaofopenbottomlandsthatoccupythefloorofthebasinandarelargelycontainedinSanDieguitoRiverPark.Thisopenarea

Attachment B Explanation of Checklist January 2014


extendssouthwesterlybeneaththeI‐15FreewaytoLakeHodges.Alsoimportantaretheridgesandhillsidethatdefinethebasinamileandmoretotheeast,aswellasthehillsthatformthewesternedgeofthebasinstarting justwesterlyof the freeway in theproposedproject vicinity. Someof these hillsides remain in anatural statewhile others have been developedwith residential neighborhoods that align the ridges andnestle into the canyons and valleys. This assemblage of varied near and far open spaces and sensitivelydevelopedneighborhoodsaretheprimaryscenicresourcesintheproposedprojectlocale.Opportunitiestoviewsuchscenicresourcesareonlypossibleduringday‐time,assurroundingnaturalfeaturesarenotvisibleduringnight‐time.Thecommercialareas,includingWestfieldNorthCounty,andanarrayofuseslocatedjustwestof the I‐15Freeway, arewelldesigned andmaintained,but arenot among the listingof local scenicresources.

The proposed project site and immediate vicinity is not within a State‐designated Scenic Highway, thenearest ofwhich is State Route 78 as it runs through the Anza‐BorregoDesert State Park, over 37milesaway.1 However, the proposed project would be locatedwithin the City‐designated I‐15 Freeway sceniccorridor,asitwouldbelocatedwithin1,750feetoftheI‐15Freeway.2 Northboundviewsalongthesceniccorridor change after passing Lake Hodges and surrounding natural, open areas, becoming quitesuburban/commercial with the large freeway interchange at Via Rancho Parkway, the commercialdevelopmentalongbothsidesofthecorridorandresidentialneighborhoodsatopthesurroundinghillsandhillsides. The proposed project site does not contain unique or locally recognized natural or historicfeatures. Theproposedproject site isnot improvedwithanyexisting structures, so therearenohistoricstructuresonornearthissitewhichcouldfunctionasscenicresourcesorcontributetovisualcharacter.

ScenicVistas: Scenic vistas are the vantage points fromwhich local scenic resourcesmay be seen. Suchvistasaboundinthelocale.Duetotheabsenceofhigherinterveningground,andlimitedhighervegetation,San Dieguito River Park affords vistas across the lowlands to most of the surrounding ridges and hills.Panoramicvistasacross thebasinarealsoavailable fromtheundevelopedhillsidesaroundthebasin,andfromthehillsideneighborhoods,thatarenototherwiseobstructedbyinterveningtopographyormanmadeimprovements. VistasarealsoroutinelyavailablefromvehiclesontheI‐15Freewaycorridor,particularlyfromthesegmentsouthoftheViaRanchoParkwayinterchange.Northofthissegment,vistasprovidemuchmoresuburban/commercialcontent.

In the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, vistas from east facing sections of the residentialneighborhoodswestof the I‐15Freewayaremostproximate to theproposedproject site.Those thatareclosesttotheproposedprojectsite,namelytheseveralhomesalongtheeastsideViaCaboVerde,mayhavethemostcompromisedvistas,asthesehomesareatthelowestelevationsandlargeornamentalvegetation,aswell as large scale commercial improvements,may interferewith vistas therefrom.However the east‐facinghomesinthehigherpartsoftheseneighborhoodswouldhaveexpansivepanoramicviewsacrossthebasintotheeastandsouth.

VisualCharacter:Thevisualcharacterintheareassurroundingtheproposedprojectsiteisquitedevelopedand suburban/commercial innature, and it includesa varietyof commercial and residentialdevelopmentsituatedalongtheI‐15Freewaycorridor. Morenaturalandopenareas,aswellashillsidesandridgelines,arevisiblefartheroutinthedistance,onlyduringthelightofday.Theproposedprojectsitelieslowinthe

1 California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, database search for designated Scenic

HighwaysinSanDiegoCounty;http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/,accessedFebruary2013.2 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,ResourceConservationElement,May2012;ChapterVII,SectionE,VisualResources.

January 2014 Attachment B Explanation of Checklist


valley, and views of the site are partially obscured by ornamental vegetation along the perimeter of theWestfieldNorthCountysurfaceparkinglot.

Thelargeundevelopedareaoccupyingthebottomofthebasin,insouthernEscondido,generateslittleifanynighttimeilluminationduetotheabsenceofdevelopmentthere.However,varyingamountsofnightlightingisassociatedwithvirtuallyallsuburban/commercialandmoreactivesuses. Forthemostpart,thehillsideresidential neighborhoods produce light visible at a distance, but at such limited light strength thatillumination of surrounding areas is not observed. On the other hand, the I‐15 Freeway corridor,with acombinationofpolemountedlightsalongtherightsofwayandthelightsfromover200,000dailyvehiclescausethis facilitytobeamajorsourceof local illuminationinallnight‐timehours. ThescaleofWestfieldNorthCountywithparkinglotlightingnecessitatedbysafetyandsecurityinterests,aswellasitsilluminatedpromotional signage, is alsoquitevisible fromnearby andhigher surroundingareas. In addition to thesetwoprimarylocallightsources,twootherfacilitiesproduceveryprominentnight‐timelighting.ThefirstaretheilluminatedballfieldsatKitCarsonPark,totheeastofWestfieldNorthCounty,whichcanilluminateuptofourbaseballgamessimultaneously,foryear‐roundnight‐timeplay.ThesecondlocallightsourceisfromtheLakeHodgesGolf ImprovementCenter,agolfdrivingrange illuminateduntil10:00P.M.Whilebothofthesefacilitiesmayoccupylessareathantheshoppingcenter,andassuchmaynotbeasnoticeableduringtheday,theyareatleastasprominentwhenilluminatedduetothebrightnessofsuchlighting.Bothfacilitieshave the intent to turndarkness intodaylight sufficient toplaybaseball safelyatnightand toseea smallwhitegolfballseveralhundredyardsaway.Thatintensityissubstantiallymorethanthatforpromotionalsignsattheshoppingcenter,forexample,thepurposeofwhichismerelytobeseen.

Regulatory Setting

Escondidohasrecognizedthevalueofaccess tovisualresources throughCityGeneralPlanpolicieswhichdesignate, preserve, and enhance vistas. Escondido has a number of visually distinctive hillsides andridgelines,asviewedfromthevalleyfloor.3TheselandformshavebeenidentifiedbytheCityassteepslopes,primary and secondary ridgelines, and prominent natural landforms, in order to guide open space andviewshed preservation.4 The City of Escondido General Plan Resource Conservation Element includesapplicablegoalsandpoliciesaimedatthepreservationofvisualresources.5

Assessment of Project Effects

ScenicResources: Theproposedprojectsitewouldnothaveaneffectonanyscenicresources,asnonearepresentonthesite. Nohillsides,ridges,naturalformations,rockoutcroppingsorotherfeaturesthatcouldbeconsideredscenic/visualresourcesexistatthislocation,norsurroundingproperties.

Scenic Vistas: FigureB‐1, Potential Visibility Areas, identifies residential areas in the vicinity which areexpected to have some or partial views of the proposed project, as they look out upon available scenicresourcesinEscondido.AsshowninFigureB‐1,theclosestresidentialareastotheproposedprojectsitearelocatedtothewest,withthenearesteast‐facingresidenceslocatednocloserthan800feetaway,alongViaCaboVerde.ViaCaboVerdeislocatedintheBernardoSantaFegatedresidentialcommunity,acrosstheI‐15

3 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,ResourceConservationElement,May2012;ChapterVII,SectionE,VisualResources.4 Ibid,atFigureVII‐5,SteepSlopes.5 Ibid,atpageVII‐23toVII‐25.



FreewayandotherretailusesalongDelLagoBoulevard.Viewsoftheproposedprojectaredirectlyrelatedtotheangleatwhichtheviewerperceivesit,andassuch,residencesalongViaCaboVerdesituatedfarthersouth (closer to Via Rancho Parkway) are at amore oblique viewing anglewith respect to the proposedprojectandwouldseelessofit.TheresidentialviewersalongViaCaboVerdemayseeanarrowportionofthe proposed project, as they look out to available visual resources during the day‐time; however, theirviews are currently impeded by surrounding mature trees and intervening commercial development.Adjoining streetswith elevations similar to those alongViaCaboVerde alsohave vistas that are partiallyobstructedby theexisting interveningresidences. Thus,during theday‐time, theproposedprojectwouldhave a very limited effect on easterly scenic vistas fromViaCaboVerde and the adjoining streets, due toinstallationoftheproposedproject.

MovingwestalongAvenidaMagoria, in theBernardoSantaFecommunity, theelevationquicklyrises toapoint where potential residential viewers are at higher elevations higher than the top of the proposedproject,andtheircurrentvistasoverthebasinwouldremainlargelyunchanged.Theneighborhoodsfartherto thenorthwithin theBernardoSantaFeareaarealso situatedat ahigherelevation, andare somewhatmoreperpendiculartotheproposedproject. However,linesofsighttotheproposedprojectwouldnotbeclear, due to the distance from the proposed project site, trees, roadway bridges/interchanges, and theinterveningI‐15Freewaybelow.

To the south of Via Rancho Parkway, the closest northeast‐facing residential viewers are over 1,100 feetaway,intheareasalongLomasSirenasDrive. Theseresidencesarealsosituatedathigherelevationsthanthe top of the proposed project, and therefore, currently available scenic vistas would remain largelyunchanged. Residential areas farther to the south of Pomerado Road are over one mile away from theproposedprojectsiteandsituatedathigherelevationsthanthetopofthefreeway‐orientedsign.Therefore,availablescenicvistaswouldremainlargelyunchangedwithinstallationoftheproposedproject.

To the east and southeast of the proposed project site, some of the west‐facing residential areas alongBeethovenDrive, in theDelLagoontheGreensgatedresidentialcommunity,maybesituatedataslightlylowerelevationthanthetopoftheproposedproject;however,clearlinesofsitetotheexistingscenicvistastowards the proposed project site are not available at these lower elevations, due to the presence ofintervening tall trees. Fartherup into the residential areas alongBeethovenDrive, includingHuckleberryLane,InspirationLaneandthegatedAllegroresidentialcommunity,elevationsarehigherthanthetopoftheproposedproject,andassuch,scenicvistaswouldremainunchanged. Inaddition, inthisresidentialarea,the closest distance to the proposed project site is approximately two‐thirds of a mile away. At suchdistancesandobliqueviewingangles,ifitwouldbevisible,theproposedprojectwouldbebarelyperceptibleandwouldnotimpedeexistingscenicvistas.

DriversalongtheI‐15Freewaywouldbetheprimaryviewersoftheproposedproject.Theproposedprojectwould come into drivers’ view about one‐half mile away for both northbound and southbound drivers.Beyond these points, the I‐15 Freeway alignment curves away, and the proposed project would not bevisible.NorthboundtravelerswouldpassthenaturalopenareasaroundLakeHodgesbeforetheproposedprojectcomesintoview.Whenitdoescomeintoview,theproposedprojectwouldbeseeninthecontextofmajorexistingcommercialdevelopmentadjacenttotheI‐15Freeway, includingoverheadfreewaysigns,aself‐storagecenter,commercial/retailuses,theelevatedViaRanchoParkwayroadway,theBeethovenDriveon‐ramp, and Westfield North County. Southbound travelers would view the proposed project in the

��

��

�

��

�� !�"��#�$�� !�

��

��

��

�� !�"��#�$�

��

��

��#�$�

��



context of existing overhead illuminated freeway signs, elevated interchanges, adjoining commercialdevelopment,andsomeopenhillsides,beforeopenvistasandLakeHodges,furthersouth,comeintoview.ScenicvistasalongthissegmentoftheI‐15corridorwouldnotbesignificantlyaffectedbythepresenceoftheproposedproject.

Visual Character: Installation of the proposed project would introduce visual elements (i.e., someconstruction equipment and related activities) that are not out of character with the existing developednatureofthesite,asWestfieldNorthCountyiscurrentlyundergoingsignificantrenovation. Installationoftheproposedprojectwouldlastatotaloftwomonths,involvingtheuseoflimitedconstructionequipmentwhichwouldberemovedfollowinginstallation. Suchtemporaryconstructionactivitywouldbeconsistentwiththevisualcharacteroftheproposedprojectvicinity.Installationwouldconsistofthepouringofa13.5‐footby24‐foot concretebasepadand themountingof a structural steel supporting columnwhichwouldhold the tenant sign cabinet, topped by the two LED reader boards. The proposed project sitewould beapproximately 0.007 acrewithin a landscaped embankmentwhich possesses no unique natural or urbanfeatures.Thisexistingconditiondoesnotsubstantiallyenhancethevisualqualityofthearea.Theproposedprojectwouldnotbeoutofscaleonthissite,withinthecontextofthesurroundingdevelopment.Themainstructureoftheshoppingcenteritselfisapproximately70feetinheight,andover1,700feetinlengthandcontainssome1.2millionsquarefeet;whiletheproposedprojectisplannedtobeapproximately87.5feetinheight.TheelevatedroadwayportionofViaRanchoParkwayisimmediatelysouthoftheproposedprojectsite,andtreesaroundthefreeway‐orientedsignwouldbesomewhatlowerthantheproposedproject.

Photosimulations: A series of photosimulations have been prepared based on photographs taken fromvariousrepresentativevantagepointsinthevicinity.Thephotosimulationsaredigitalrepresentationsoftheproposed project superimposed upon actual digitized photographs of the existing proposed project site.These photosimulations are representations of the character of the proposed project in relation to theexisting environmental setting, demonstrating its appearance in the context of surrounding views andterrain.Thephotosimulationsarepreparedbasedondaylightconditions,asitisnotpossibletoaccuratelydepict the relative brightness of the proposed project in digitized simulations against a night‐timebackground.

As depicted in Figure B‐2, Photosimulation Locations Map, the view locations identified on the maprepresentavarietyofvantagepoints,selectedfromseverallocationsinthesurroundingvicinitywhichcouldhaveaviewoftheproposedproject.Theviewsaretakenfromwheretheproposedprojectcouldbevisibleonlocalroadwaysandfromtheclosestpubliclyaccessibleresidentialareas(withoutprivategatedaccess)aroundthesite. Theclosestsensitiveuse isKitCarsonPark, totheeastof theproposedprojectsite. Theviewsofthesitefromeachofthe11locationsaredescribedbelow,inrelationtothepotentialimpactsuponthevisualcharacteroftheproposedprojectvicinity.

FigureB‐3,ViewA,isfromthesouthboundI‐15Freeway,acrossfromtheprojectsitetothewest.Atsuchaclosedistance, theproposed freeway‐orientedsignwouldbe clearlyvisibleat thedriver’s left side, in theoverall context of existing freeway ramps and bridges and other overhead freeway signage. Ornamentallandscapingandtallertreesarelocatedaroundthebaseoftheproposedfreeway‐orientedsign.Atnight,theproposedLEDreaderboardsandtenantsigncabinetwouldalsobeclearlyvisiblefromthisvantagepoint;however,inthecontextofthealreadyilluminatedshoppingcenter,parkinglotandroadwaylightingalongthe1‐15Freeway andViaRanchoParkway above, theproposedprojectwouldnot substantially alter thevisualcharacterofthiscommercialarea.Assuch,fromViewA,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethevisualcharacterofitssurroundings.



Figure B‐4, View B, is from the northbound I‐15 Freeway, before passing Via Rancho Parkway. Theproposedprojectwouldbeclearlyvisibleat thedriver’srightside.Theproposedprojectwouldbeclearlyvisible to the driver, in the context of the existing freeway ramps and bridges, other overhead freewaysignage,andViaRanchoParkwayabove.Thereisornamentallandscaping,tallertreesandothervegetationinthevicinityandaroundtheprojectsite.Atnight,theproposedLEDreaderboardsandtenantsigncabinetwould also be clearly visible from this vantage point. As such, in the existing context and built‐upcommercialsetting,atViewB,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethevisualcharacterofitssurroundings.

Figure B‐5, View C, is from the I‐15 Freeway southbound on‐ramp, at Beethoven Drive. The proposedprojectwouldbeclearlyvisibletothesouthbounddriverintheoverallcontextofWestfieldNorthCounty,anexisting sign, and a restaurant. There is ornamental landscaping and taller trees around the proposedproject,helpingitfitintoitssurroundings.Otherman‐madestructuresareintheforeground,includingtheI‐15 Freeway itself, roadway bridges and the built‐up environment in this suburban, commercial area.Night‐timeviewsof theproposedprojectwouldbemorevisible, as itwouldbemore readily apparent todrivers in the immediate area; however, in the context of the already lit shopping center, parking lot,adjacent restaurant, and roadway lightingalong the I‐15FreewayandViaRanchoParkway, theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallyalterthevisualcharacterofthiscommercialarea.Assuch,fromViewC,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethevisualcharacterofitssurroundings.

FigureB‐6,ViewD, is fromthesouthboundI‐15Freeway,withtheBeethovenDrivesouthboundon‐rampcoming in fromthe left. Theproposedprojectwouldbeclearlyvisible to thedriver, in thecontextof theexistingfreewayrampsandbridges,andotheroverheadfreewaysignage.Night‐timeviewsoftheproposedprojectwouldbemorenoticeable,asitwouldbemoreapparenttodriversintheimmediatearea,butwouldnotbedirectlyintheirlineofsight.Assuch,intheexistingcontextandbuilt‐upcommercialsetting,atViewD,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethecharacterofitssurroundings.

FigureB‐7,ViewE, is from thenorthbound I‐15Freeway, at theViaRanchoParkwayexit (Exit27). Theproposed project would be visible at the drivers’ right side, as viewed in the context of the existingcommercial setting. Thereareexistingelevatedroadways, signage, street lighting,and treeswhichwouldcause the proposed project to fit into its setting. Night‐time views of the proposed project would beapparent,asitwouldbeclearlyvisibletodriversalongtheI‐15FreewayandViaRanchoParkway.Assuch,in the existing context and built‐up commercial setting, at View E, the proposed project would notsubstantiallydegradethecharacterofitssurroundings.

FigureB‐8,ViewF,isfromthewestacrosstheI‐15Freeway,attherecentlyrenovatedDelLagoBusRapidTransitStation,atDelLagoBoulevard.Theproposedprojectwouldbevisibleacrosstheparkandridelot,through the parking lot pole lights and other nearby commercial development. Although the proposedprojectwouldbe visible from this vantagepoint, itwouldbenot out of characterwithin this commercialsetting.Vistastothehillsinthesouthandeastareprominent,andthepresenceofproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethequalityof thisviewinthiscontext,asthereareothercommercialstructureswithasimilarprofilepresent fromthisvantagepoint. Night‐timeviewsoftheproposedprojectwouldbemore visible; however, in the context of the existing lighting present at the Del Lago Bus Rapid TransitStationand theothernearbybusinesses, theproposedprojectwouldnotbeoutof character. As such, atView F, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the character of its surroundings.

#

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

B

A

G

D

K

C

E I

H

FJ

Proposed Sign Location

! Photograph Locations

FIGURE

Source: Microsoft, 2010 (Aerial); PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 1,100 2,200 Feet


Photosimulation Locations Mapo B-2

��

�� !��"#$��%��&�� '�(

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�� #��$%&��'�(��)�� *

��

��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� $%��&��'�(�)� ��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�#�$� %�&

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�#��$��%�&��'�� (�)

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "��#�$� ��%

��

��

��



FigureB‐9, View G, is from Pomerado Road, the nearest major roadway and I‐15 Freeway exit, locatedapproximatelyonemile southof theproposedproject siteandViaRanchoParkway. Thisview is lookingnorth directly towards the proposed project across an expansive natural setting. The proposed projectwould be barely discernible from this vantage point andwould not have a negative impact on the visualcharacterofthearea. Night‐timeviewsoftheproposedprojectwouldbeminimalfromthisdistance,asitwouldappearasasmallpointof light in thedistance. Existingnight‐time lightingatKitCarsonParkballfields and theHodgesGolf Improvement Centerwould bemore visible from this view than the proposedproject. As such, at View G, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the character of itssurroundings.

FigureB‐10,ViewH, is fromLomasSerenasDrive,betweenCalleFlorecitaandAvenidaAmorosa, locatedapproximatelyone‐thirdmilesouthwestoftheproposedproject. ThisviewislookingouttothenortheastacrosstheresidentialareasandtheI‐15Freewaytowardstheproposedprojectsite.Theproposedprojectwould be barely discernible from this vantagepoint. Night‐time views of theproposedprojectwouldbeminimalfromthisdistance.Duetotheviewingangleoftheproposedprojectandotherinterveningsourcesof light from the I‐15 Freeway, Kit Carson Park ball fields, Hodges Golf Improvement Center and othercommercialdevelopment,theproposedprojectwouldnotsignificantlyalterthevisualcharacterofthisarea.Assuch,atViewH,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethecharacterofitssurroundings.

FigureB‐11,ViewI, is fromSierraLindaDrive,betweenBeethovenDriveandSanPasqualRoad,overonemiletothesoutheastof theproposedproject. Thisviewis lookingtothenorthwesttowardtheproposedprojectfromahigherelevation,acrossinterveningresidentialareas,aswellastheballfieldsatKitCarsonPark (which are illuminated for night‐time play year‐round) and the Hodges Golf Improvement Center,(whichisilluminateduntil10:00P.M.).Day‐timeviewsoftheproposedprojectwouldbeminimalfromthisdistance, and night‐time viewswould also beminimal, as itwould appear as a small point of light in thedistance,especially in thecontextof thealready‐litenvironment. Assuch,atViewI, theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethecharacterofitssurroundings.

FigureB‐12,ViewJ, isfromthebikepathalongthewesternedgeofKitCarsonParkandBeethovenDrive,looking towards the proposed project site across the primary mall structure of Westfield North County.Fromthisvantagepoint,theproposedprojectsitewouldbeapproximatelyone‐thirdmiletothesouthwest,on the other side of the primarymall structure. The proposed projectwould not be visible fromView Jduring the day‐time or night‐time, due to the presence of the interveningmall structure. As such, therewouldbenochangeand,therefore,nodegradationofthevisualcharacterofthesurroundings.

FigureB‐13,ViewK,isfromtheresidentialareaclosesttothenorthoftheproposedprojectsite,alongElKuAvenue,lookingsouthtowardsthesiteovertheembankmentfortheBeethovenDriveon‐ramp.Fromthisvantage point, the proposed project would be over one‐thirdmile to the south, on the other side of theembankmentandportionsoftheWestfieldNorthCountymallstructure.TheproposedprojectwouldnotbevisiblefromViewKduringtheday‐timeornight‐time.Assuch,therewouldbenochangeand,therefore,nodegradationofthevisualcharacterofthesurroundings.



AsshowninFiguresB‐3throughB‐13,duringthedaytime,theproposedprojectwouldbecompatiblewiththesurroundingcommercialcontextofthearea,andviewsfromresidentialareaswouldnotbesignificantlyout of character, especially due to the ambient brightness and distances involved. With respect to theproposed project’s night‐time effects on visual character, most residential viewers may perceive theproposedprojectasadistantsourceoflightalongwithotherexistingsourcesoflightinthearea.Whiletheproposedprojectismeanttobeseenatnight,itisnotdesigned,norisitintendedto,provideilluminationtothe surroundingarea, suchasparking lotorball field lights. As shown inFigureB‐1, generally speaking,residences in theBernardoSantaFe community, to thewestof theproposedproject sitehave the closestviewers,with thenearest east‐facing residences locatedover800 feet away, across the I‐15Freeway andothercommercialdevelopment.Linesofsighttotheproposedprojectarenotclear,duetothedistancefromtheproposedproject,trees,roadwaybridges/interchanges,andtheinterveningI‐15Freewaybelow.Tothesouth of Via Rancho Parkway, in the areas along Lomas Sirenas Drive, due to the distances from theproposedproject,theelevatedroadwaysalongViaRanchoParkway,othercommercialdevelopment,andtheintervening I‐15 Freeway, including the southbound off‐ramp, these viewers may perceive the proposedprojectasadistantsourceoflight,inanexistingcontextofothersourcesoflight.

Father to thesouth, southofPomeradoRoad, thenearestnorth‐facingresidencesaremore thanonemileaway.Atthisdistance,theproposedprojectwouldbeadistantspotoflightacrosstheopenvista,ifitwouldbeperceivedatall.Totheeastandsoutheast,thenearestnorth‐andnorthwest‐facingresidentialareasareover two‐thirds of amile from the site. Although these residences are situated at a higher elevation, thedistancestotheproposedprojectareconsiderable,andifvisible,itwouldbeadistantsourceoflightalongwithotherexistingsourcesoflight.Fromthisdistance,thelightsfromtheHodgesGolfImprovementCenterdriving rangeand theball field lightsatKitCarsonParkare existing sourcesof illuminationwell into theeveninghours.Tothenortheast,thenearestpotentialresidentialviewersareoveronemileaway,withSanPasqualHighSchool,KitCarsonPark,andWestfieldNorthCountylyingbetweenthisareaandtheproposedproject. Iftheproposedprojectcanbeseenatall, itwouldbebarelyvisible, incomparisontotheseothersourcesofexisting light. Residentialareas to thenorth,alongElKuAvenue,wouldnotbeable tosee theproposed project, due to the intervening higher roadways blocking existing views into the site. As such,visualcharacterforresidentialviewerswouldnotbesignificantlyaffected.

ProjectConsistencywithApplicableRegulations:Thediscussionofpotentialimpactstovisualresources,asaresultoftheproposedproject’sinstallation,isalsoevaluatedwithinthecontextofconsistencywiththeCityofEscondidoGeneralPlanResourceConservationElement.TheevaluationreviewstheEscondido’sGeneralPlangoalsandpoliciestodetermineiftheproposedprojectwouldproduceconflicts,andwhetheranysuchconflictsornon‐compliancemightbeconsideredsignificant.Goal1oftheResourceConservationElementisrelatedtobiologicalandopenspaceresources,andGoal2isrelatedtotrailnetworks,neitherofwhichareapplicabletotheproposedproject.ThefollowingconsistencyanalysisbeginswiththeevaluationofGoal3,regardingvisualresources.TableB‐1,ComparisonoftheProjecttoApplicableVisualResourcesPoliciesoftheCity of Escondido General Plan Resource Conservation Element, provides a consistency analysis of theproposedproject,ascomparedtothestatedapplicablevisualresourcesgoalsandpolicies.

Insummary,installationoftheproposedprojectisconsideredconsistentwithVisualResourcesGoal3,asitis consistentwith the applicableunderlyingpolicies. Viewsof significant visual resources that serve as ascenic amenity and contribute to the quality of life for Escondido residents would not be significantlyimpaired by the proposed project. Visual resources, such as ridgelines, hillsides, viewsheds and the I‐15Freewaysceniccorridorthatserveasascenicamenitywouldbepreserved.Thisisduetothefactthattheproposedprojectwouldnotbe installeduponorwithinanysignificantvisualresources,skylineridges,or

��

�� !��"� ��#�� $�%

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "��#�� $�%&

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "��#�� $�%%

��

��

��

��

�� !"��#��$� ��%�� &'

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�� #��$�� %�&'

��

��

��



Table B‐1

Comparison of the Project to Applicable Visual Resources Policies of the City of Escondido General Plan Resource Conservation Element

Policy Analysis of Project Consistency

ChapterVII.ApplicableVisualResourceConservationGoals,PoliciesandGuidingPrinciplesGoal 3: Preservation of significant visual resourcessuchasridgelines,hillsides,andviewshedsthatserveasascenicamenityandcontributetothequalityoflifeforresidents.

Consistent. Sincetherearenovisualresourceslocatedonornear the proposed project site, it would not alter anyridgelines, hillsides and viewsheds that serve as a scenicamenity.Inaddition,theproposedprojectwouldnotobstructviews of scenic resources over the low‐lying, commercialproposedprojectsite.

Policy3.1: Preservesignificantvisualresourcesthatinclude unique landforms (e.g., skyline ridges,intermediateridges,hilltops,androckoutcrop‐pings),creeks, lakes,andopenspaceareasinanaturalstate,totheextentpossible.

Consistent. Theproposedprojectwouldbenotlocateduponor within a significant visual resource, including uniquelandforms, creeks, lakes and open space areas in a naturalstate.

Policy 3.2: Require new development to avoidobstructing views of, and to minimize impacts to,significant visual resources through the following:creative site planning; integrationof natural featuresinto the project; appropriate scale, materials, anddesign to complement the surrounding naturallandscape; clustering of development to preserveopen space vistas and natural features; minimaldisturbanceoftopography;andcreationofcontiguousopenspacenetworks.

Consistent. The proposed project would not substantiallyobstruct views of significant visual resources due to itslocation inanexistingdevelopedarea, thereby fittingwithinthecontextofthesurroundingcommercialareas.Openspacevistas and natural features would be largely preserved, andthedisturbanceoftopographywouldbenegligible.

Policy 3.3: Maintain density and developmentstandards designed to protect significant visualresources such as existing terrain, steep slopes,floodways, habitat areas, and ridgelines, and tominimizevisualimpactsofgradingandstructures.

Consistent: The proposed project would not conflict withdensity and development standards designed to protectsignificant visual resources. It would not be constructed inexistingnaturalterrain,steepslopes,floodways,habitatareas,or ridgelines, as identified by the City. Minimal grading topreparetheconcretebasewouldberequired(approximately324squarefeet),andnootherstructuresareproposedwhichwouldrequirethemodificationofnaturalfeatures.

Policy 3.4: Prohibit development on skyline ridgesand seek to obtain scenic easement dedications fortheseareasfrompropertyownersinconjunctionwithdevelopment on other suitable locations of theproperty. Require property owners of such sceniceasements to retain, maintain, preserve, and protectthe public view of these areas in their natural state,without obstruction by structures, and prohibitclearing of brush or planting of vegetation except asnecessarytoreducefirehazards.

Consistent:Theproposed projectwouldnotbeinstalled onaskylineridge.

Policy 3.5‐2(a): Locate development to avoidpotentially hazardous areas and environmentallysensitiveareas, aswell as toavoiddislocationofanyunusual rock formations or any other unique orunusualgeographicfeatures.

Consistent: The proposed project would not be locatedwithin a potentially hazardous or environmentally sensitivearea.Nounusualrockformationsorotheruniqueorunusualgeographic featureswouldbedislocatedunder theproposedproject, as no such formations or features are located at theproposedprojectsite.


Table B‐1 (Continued)

Comparison of the Project to Applicable Visual Resources Policies of the

City of Escondido General Plan Resource Conservation Element


Policy Analysis of Project Consistency

Policy 3.5‐2(b): Design development to minimizegrading requirements by incorporating terracing,padding,andcut‐and‐fillgradingthatconformstothenatural contours of the site and protects the visualcontinuityofthehillsides.

Consistent: The proposed project site does not containnaturalcontoursrequiringspecialgradingprecautionsandisnot a hillside which currently provides natural continuityrequiring protection. Installation of the proposed projectwouldrequireminimalsitepreparationtoclearasmallspace(approximately 324 square feet) for the concrete base uponwhichitwouldbeanchored.

Policy 3.5‐2(c): Cluster the overall developmentpatterninaccordancewithGeneralPlanprovisionstopreserve the maximum amount of open spaces andnatural setting and to reduce grading, erosion, andrunoffpotential.

Consistent: The proposed project is planned to be locatedwithin an area in which overall development is alreadyclustered. Grading to prepare the site for its concrete basewouldbeminimal,andpotentialforerosionandrunoffwouldbenegligible.

Policy 3.5‐2(d): Landscape the site with existingtrees and other natural vegetation, as much aspossible, to stabilize slopes, reduce erosion, andenhancethevisualimpactofthedevelopment.

Consistent: Appropriate landscaping would be plantedaroundthefreeway‐orientedsignfollowinginstallationoftheproposedproject.

Policy 3.5‐2(e): Minimize the visual impact ofdevelopment in adjoining residential areas to theextentfeasible.

Consistent: There are no residential areas adjoining theproposedprojectsite.Theclosestresidentialareaisover800feet away, across the I‐15 Freeway and other interveningcommercialuses. Theproposedprojectwouldhaveminimalvisualimpactonresidentialareas.

Policy 3.6: Require that development within theInterstate 15 corridor be located and designed inconsideration of its potential visual impacts andpreservation of prominent views along the corridorthat include: outstanding continuous, panoramicviewsofthevalleyfloor,surroundingridgesandLakeHodges, and focal views where the eye is channeledtoward a visually dominant feature such as anundisturbed hillside or steep slopes with rockoutcroppings.Requiredevelopmentproposalswithinthe I‐15 scenic corridor (defined as the area within1,750 feet of the freeway) to include a visualassessment and conform to the community designpolicieswhichaddress:

a)Thesitingofnewstructuresoutsideofsignificantviewshedcorridors;

b)Theprotectionofhillsidesandridgelines;and

c) The need to blend developments with theirsettingintermsofheightandscale.

Consistent: While proposed to be located within the City‐designatedI‐15Freewaysceniccorridor,theproposedprojectwould not alter any scenic resources in this segment of thecorridor, as it would be installed in an existing, developed,commercial area, amidst freeway interchanges, commercialcomplexes, and other structures. Around the proposedproject installation site, panoramic views of the valley floorare already partially obstructed by intervening developmentandtopographyinthearea.Surroundingscenichillsidesandridgelinesaremuchfartheroffinthedistance,andinstallationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotsignificantlyimpedeviewsofvaluednaturalfeatures.Thesignhasaslimprofilethatwouldfitintothecharacterofthecommerciallydevelopedprojectareaandwouldnotbeoutofscalewithotherdevelopmentinthevicinity.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2013.



naturallandforms.ItwouldbeinstalledwithinanembankmentalongtheI‐15Freeway,inarelativelylow‐lyingcommercialarea,withnoresidentialareasadjoiningtheproposedprojectsite. AlongtheI‐15sceniccorridor,theproposedprojectwouldbeviewedinthecontextofotherexistingdevelopmentadjacenttotheI‐15Freeway,includingoverheadfreewaysigns,overpassesandfreewayinterchanges.

Basedontheabove,theproposedprojectwouldhavealess‐than‐significantimpactwithrespecttoviewsofthe horizon or distant mountains across the proposed project site. Impacts would also be less thansignificantwithregardstoscenicresourcesorotherlocallyrecognizeddesirableaestheticnaturalfeatureswithinadesignatedscenichighway.Whiletheproposedprojectwouldprovideanewvisualelementontheproposed project site, itwould not introduce elements thatwould substantially detract from the existingvisualcharacterof thesurroundingareaduringday‐timeornight‐time,andespecially inthecontextof itsdevelopedcommercialsetting. Furthermore,theproposedproject isconsistentwiththeapplicableCityofEscondido General Plan goals and policies regarding the preservation of visual resources. Therefore,potential impacts to scenic resources, scenic vistas and visual character would be less than significant.Furtherstudyoftheseissuesisnotnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime

views in the area?

LessThanSignificantImpact.

Existing Conditions

Theproposedprojectsitewouldbelocatedinasuburban/commercialarea,surroundedbyamixofbuildingtypes and land uses. The immediate proposed project vicinity exhibits considerable ambient nighttimeillumination levels due to its developed nature, including lighting for the surface parking areas, variousbuildings and illuminated facilities. Artificial light sources from surrounding uses include interior andexterior lighting for security, parking, architectural highlighting, incidental landscape lighting, illuminatedsignage,ballfieldsandrecreationalfacilities.Automobileheadlights,streetlightsandstoplightsforvisibilityandsafetypurposesalongthesurroundingsurfacestreetsandI‐15Freewaycontributetooverallambientlightinglevelsaswell.BesidestheI‐15Freeway,themostprominentsourcesofexistingambientlightintheareaarefromtheballfieldsatKitCarsonPark,whichareilluminatedforyear‐roundnight‐timegames,andthe driving range at theHodges Golf Improvement Center,which is illuminated until 10:00 P.M. Existinglightingintheproposedprojectvicinityisvisibleduringduskandnight‐timehours;howeversuchlightingwouldnotbebrightenoughtocastilluminationontolight‐sensitiveproperties,suchasresidences.

Thenearestlightsensitiveusestotheproposedprojectlocationaresingle‐familyresidentialneighborhoodslocatedtothewestoftheproposedprojectsiteacrossDelLagoBoulevardandtheI‐15Freeway,thenearestofwhich is over 800 feet from the proposed project site. Other residential uses to the southwest of theproposed project site, also across the I‐15 Freeway and Via Rancho Parkway, are located along LomasSerenas Drive, which are approximately 1,100 feet from the proposed project site. There are no lightsensitivereceptorsinimmediateproximitytotheproposedprojectsite.

Trees, topographic obstructions, intervening structures and the distance and angle to the sources ofilluminationaremajorfactorsinhowlightisperceivedinthevicinity.LightingfromtheI‐15Freeway,ViaRancho Parkway, the Del Lago Bus Rapid Transit Station, the commercial/retail area along Del LagoBoulevard,KitCarsonPark,andtheHodgesGolfImprovementCenterallcontributeambientlightingintheproposedprojectarea.



Project Characteristics

The proposed project would contribute to the Westfield North County’s role as a “target area”, furtherencouragingtheideaofprovidingopportunitiestolive,workandplayinarevitalizedcommunity.6Mostofthe lighting around the proposed project site, within the shopping center property, is typical of lightinganticipated with retail shopping centers. Although the Proposed project would add a new source ofillumination to the area, causing an incremental increase to the lighting levels of the existing setting, it isimportanttonotethatitspurposeissimplytobeseen.Thisintentisdifferentfromthatoflightingwhichisintendedtoilluminate,suchasstreetorballfieldlighting.

The actual lighting level experienced from off‐site locations varies depending on whether one views theproposed project directly or from a horizontal or vertical angle. The reduction in illuminance from LEDdisplaysdropsrapidlyastheviewingangleanddistanceincreases.Theactuallyperceivedsurfaceareathatisproviding the light sourcedecreases, as theangleaway fromperpendicular increases. Viewersdirectlyfacing theproposedproject have amuch greater viewof it, andperceivemuchmore illumination, than aviewerwhoislocatedmoreparallelto,oralongthesamehorizontalaxisas,thefreeway‐orientedsign.Theproposedprojectwouldbeviewed in thecontextof its lower‐elevationposition in thisareaofEscondido,and there are a number of topographical changes in the vicinity. As residential viewerswould generallyperceivetheproposedprojectfromhigherelevations,theamountoflightthatwouldbevisibletotheviewerisgreatlyaffectedbytheheightandanglefromwhichitisviewed.

Brightness is theperceptual response to a sourceof light. A light source emits luminouspowerwhich ismeasured incandlepower,and illumination is theamountof lightcoming froma light sourcewhich landsuponthatsurface.Theunitofmeasurementforilluminationisthefoot‐candle,whichistheilluminationcastbyaone‐candlepowerlightsourceononesquarefoot,measuredatonefootawayfromthelightsource.Forexample,thebrightnessofafullmoonis0.01to0.03foot‐candle,dependingonvariationintheheightofthemoon and other atmospheric conditions. Typicalmunicipal standards for development in the vicinity ofresidentialneighborhoods seek toavoid light spillover inexcessof0.5 foot‐candle. Innocasewould thisstandardbeexceededinsurroundingresidentialneighborhoods.

Assessment of Project Effects

FigureB‐14,ProjectLightIntensityLevels,depictsthelevelof lightwhichcouldreachviewersatspecifieddistances surrounding the proposed project site. Intervening structures, topography, trees and existingambient light from adjacent commercial uses, the I‐15 Freeway and surrounding roadways play amajorfactorinhowilluminationandthesizeoftheproposedprojectwouldbeperceived. ThesevaryingfactorscannotbedepictedinFigureB‐14,asitissimplyaconservativetwo‐dimensionalrepresentationofhowlightwould travel from the proposed project at the various viewing angles (away from perpendicular to theproposedproject)anddoesnottakeanyofthesesituationalcircumstancesintoconsideration.AsshowninFigureB‐14,theclosestresidentialviewerwouldperceiveextremelylowtolowlight(0.001to0.007foot‐candle)fromtheproposedproject.Thisisakintothelightemanatingfromaquarter‐moon(halfthemoon’sfacelit)toamoonlessnight.Importantly,fromthedistancesandanglesthatthenearestresidentialusesarelocated,theperceivedsizeoftheproposedprojectwouldbesosmallastobenegligible.

6 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,LandUseandCommunityForm,May2012,atpageII‐61andFigureII‐18,OpportunityAreas.

T

1650'

1100

'

550'

0°

40°

75°

60°

20°

75°

60°0°20

°

75°

60°

40°75°

60°

40°

40°

20°

20°

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

T Approx. Sign Location

Intensity (in foot candles)Very low (0.001 to 0.004)

Low light (0.004 to 0.008)

Medium (0.008 to 0.015)

High (0.015 to 0.049)

Distance Rings and Angle Lines

Kit Carson Park

FIGURE

Source: Daktronics, 2013; PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 400 800 Feet


Project Light Intensity Levelso B-14



The proposed project lighting would be considered adverse if it caused notable changes in the lightingconditionsoftheresidentialneighborhoodstothewestandsouthwestoftheproposedprojectsite,orcauseadistractiontodriversalongtheroadways.Inordertoavoidsuchadverseimpacts,theLEDdisplaywillbedesignedtoensurethatvisual impairmentofdriversdoesnotoccur, incomplianceSection21466.5oftheCalifornia Vehicle Code, regarding roadway standards to avoid drivers’ visual impairment. Automaticsensorswillmonitorambientlightingconditionsandadjustthelightingintensityfromthesignaccordingly.ThedaytimeintensityoftheLEDreaderboardswouldbegenerallyatthemaximum(100percent)intensity,inordertobevisibleinthebrightsunlightenvironment.Thenight‐timeintensitywouldbegenerallyattheminimum(threepercent),unlessthenight‐timeenvironmenthasconsiderableambientlightfromotherlightsources.Assuch,theilluminationfromtheproposedprojectwouldnotbeconsideredvision‐impairingduetobrilliance,andthemeasuredbrightnesswouldnotexceedthestatedstandard.

Theincreasedilluminationduetotheproposedprojectwouldbesimilartolightingfoundatretailshoppingcentersintheregion,wouldbeconsistentwithacceptablelightingconditionsformajorroadways,andwouldnotcausedirectlightingatoff‐sitelocations,norincreaseambientlightingsoastoadverselyaffectactivitiesatadjacentuses.Giventhedegreeofambientlightingthatcurrentlyexistsinthearea,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallyalterambientnightlightlevelsinresidentialareas.

Photosimulations:Thephotosimulationswhichhavebeenpreparedrepresentthecharacteroftheproposedproject in relation to the existing environmental setting and demonstrate the appearance of the freeway‐oriented sign in the context of the surrounding views and terrain. Since it is not possible to accuratelyportray the relative brightness of the proposed project in digitized simulations against a night‐timebackground,thephotosimulationsarebasedondaylightconditions.Factorssuchasinterveningstructures,topography, treesandexistingambient light fromadjacentcommercialusescannotbe taken intoaccount,basedontheconservativetwo‐dimensionalrepresentationinFigureB‐14.WhenconsideringFigureB‐2inrelationtoFigureB‐14,theviewerswhichwouldperceivethehighestlightintensityofilluminationfromtheproposedprojectareatViewsAandB.ViewsAandBaretheclosestvantagepointsassociatedwiththeI‐15Freeway.Atbothvantages,theviewerwouldperceivehighlightintensity(0.015to0.049foot‐candle)duetothecloseproximityfromtheproposedfreeway‐orientedsign. TheilluminationperceivedfromViewsAandBisalsoviewedinthecontextofexistinglightsourcesfromWestfieldNorthCounty’ssurfaceparkinglots,surroundingcommercialuses,theI‐15Freewayitselfandroadwaylighting.

TheilluminationperceivedfromViewsC,D,EandF(FiguresB‐5,B‐6,B‐7andB‐8,respectively)wouldbelessintensethanfromViewsAandB.Atthesefourvantages,theviewerwouldperceivemediumtolowlight(0.004to0.015foot‐candle)fromtheproposedproject.Thisisakintothelightemanatingfromaquarter‐moon to a full moon. Views C, D and E are views associated with the I‐15 Freeway and are moreperpendicular to theproposedproject. Due to theplannedheight of 87.5 feethigh to the topof theLEDreader boards, the perceived illumination drops quickly, due to this height and viewing angle. View F istakenfromtheDelLagoBusRapidTransitStation,andthereismuchexistinglightfromtheparkandridelotandadjacentcommercialdevelopment,aswellastheI‐15Freeway.

TheilluminationperceivedfromViewsG,H,I,JandK(FiguresB‐9,B‐10,B‐11,B‐12andB‐13,respectively)would be negligible and barely perceptible, due to the distances and viewing angles from the proposedproject,aswellas interveningtopography,structuresandexisting lightsources(i.e., theI‐15Freeway,ViaRanchoParkway,ballfieldlightsatKitCarsonPark,thedrivingrangeatHodgesGolfImprovementCenter,andthelightingacrossWestfieldNorthCounty’ssurfaceparkinglotsandthemallitself).



Based on the appearance of light at the vantages from which the 11 photosimulations were taken, theproposedprojectwouldnotcauseasignificantlightimpactfromtheseviews.

Glare: Glareoccursfromsunlightreflectedfromreflectivematerialsutilizedinexistingbuildingsandfromvehicle windows and surfaces. Glare‐sensitive receptors also include motorists on the roadwayssurrounding the site. As glare is a temporary phenomenon that changeswith themovement of the sun,receptorsotherthanmotoristsaregenerallylesssensitivetoglareimpactsthantolightimpacts.

The proposed project would be constructed of non‐reflectivematerials. Therefore, the proposed projectwouldnotcreateasubstantialnewsourceofglarewhichwouldadverselyaffectday‐ornight‐timeviewsinthearea,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.

Shading: According to the CEQA Guidelines, shading of sensitive uses such as routinely usable outdoorspacesassociatedwithresidential,recreational,orinstitutional(e.g.,schools,convalescenthomes)landusescanbeconsideredasignificantimpact,becausesunlightisimportanttofunctionandphysicalcomfort.Duetothenarrowsizeandshapeoftheproposedproject,andthefactthattherearenoshadowsensitiveuseswhichcouldbeadverselyaffectedbyshadowscausedbyit,theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinshadingimpactstoshadesensitiveuses.

Basedontheabove,andwithincorporationofprojectdesignfeatures,theproposedprojectwouldnotcreateanewsubstantialsourceoflightorglarewhichwouldaffectdayornight‐timeviewsinthearea,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificantinthisregard.Inaddition,shadegeneratedbytheproposedprojectwouldbelessthansignificant. Furtheranalysisof this issue isnotnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Indeterminingwhether impactstoagriculturalresourcesaresignificantenvironmentaleffects, leadagenciesmay refer to theCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel (1997)preparedby theCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationasanoptionalmodel touse inassessing impactsonagricultureandfarmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significantenvironmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department ofForestry and Fire protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and RangeAssessmentandtheForestLegacyAssessmentProject;andforestcarbonmeasurementsmethodologyprovidedinForestProtocolsadoptedbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.Wouldtheproject:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on

the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California

Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

No Impact. The proposed project would be installed in an embankment between the shopping center’ssurfaceparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway,andnoagriculturalusesorrelatedoperationsarepresentwithinthesiteorsurroundingarea.TheproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedondesignatedPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewide Importance (Farmland),as shownon themapspreparedpursuant tothe Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. According to the 2008 Important Farmland Map, the



proposedproject site is located in an areadesignated as “D –Urban andBuilt‐UpLand.”7 Therefore, theproposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of StatewideImportance to non‐agricultural uses, and there would be no impact. No further analysis of this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

No Impact. The proposed project site is zoned as Planned Development – Commercial (PD‐C), and it iscurrently an embankment between the shopping center’s surface parking lot and the I‐15 Freeway. Noagricultural zoning is present in the surrounding area, and no nearby lands are enrolled under theWilliamsonAct.8Assuch,theproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluseoraWilliamsonActcontract,andtherewouldbenoimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources

Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or

timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

No Impact. Theproposedproject site is zonedasPlannedDevelopment–Commercial (PD‐C). No forestlandortimberlandzoningispresentonthesiteorinthesurroundingarea. Assuch,theproposedprojectwould not conflictwith existing zoning for forest land or timberland, and therewould be no impact. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectsiteistheembankmentbetweentheshoppingcenter’ssurfaceparkinglotand the I‐15 Freeway. No forest land exists on the proposed project site. As such, the proposed projectwouldnotresultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse,andtherewouldbenoimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could

result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use?

No Impact. There are no agricultural uses or related operations on or near the proposed project site.Therefore,theproposedprojectwouldnotinvolvetheconversionoffarmlandtootheruses,eitherdirectlyor indirectly. No impacts to agricultural land or uses would occur. No further analysis of this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

7 CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation,Division of LandResource Protection, FarmlandMapping andMonitoring Program, San

Diego County Important Farmland Data Availability, “San Diego County Important Farmland 2010, Sheet 1 of 2”;ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/sdg10_w.pdf.

8 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program, “San Diego CountyWilliamsonAct2012/2013,Sheet1of2”;ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/san_diego_w_12_13_WA.pdf.



III. AIR QUALITY

Whereavailable,thesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorairpollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations.Wouldtheproject:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Theproposedprojectsiteislocatedwithinthe4,255‐squaremileSanDiegoCountyAirPollutionControlDistrict(SDAPCD).SDAPCDisrequired,pursuanttotheCleanAirAct,toreduceemissionsofcriteriapollutantsforwhichtheSanDiegoAirBasinisinnon‐attainment(i.e.,ozoneprecursorsandparticulatematter).Statelawbestowsprimaryresponsibilityforcontrollingemissionsfromnon‐mobile(stationary)sourcestotheSDAPCD.Thestationarysourcecontrolmeasuresidentifiedinthe2009RegionalAir Quality Strategy Plans and State Implementation Plan have been developed by the SDAPCD intoregulations through a formal rule‐making process. Rules are developed and set limits on the amount ofemissionsfromvarioustypesofsourcesand/orbyrequiringspecificemissioncontroltechnologies.

Theproposedprojecthasthepotentialtogenerateairpollutionemissionsduringabriefinstallationperiodandthereafterviaconsumptionofelectricpower.Installationoftheproposedprojectwouldrequireasmallconstructioncrewtoclearandpreparethesite(duringinstallationexpectedtoinvolvelessthan0.1acreandthereafteronly324squarefeet,or0.007acre),placetheformsfortheconcretebase,pourtheconcrete,setthe steel supportpole andmount the tenant sign cabinet andLED readerboards. Total elapsed time forthese activitieswouldnot exceed twomonths, duringwhich activitywouldbe intermittent as phases arestaged, equipment scheduled, and concrete cures, etc. Vehicular emissions would be associated withconstructionworkers’trips,anexcavator,occasionaltruckstohaulexcavatedmaterialsanddeliverconcrete,andtofinish,acranetoliftthefreeway‐orientedsignelementsintoplace.Totalemissionsfromthisentireoperationwouldbeontheorderoftheemissionsgeneratedfromtheregularactivitiesandoperationsfromfivesingle‐familyhomesintheproposedprojectlocaleforthesametwo‐monthperiod.Consideringtheverysmall scaleofneeded installationactivitiesand theveryshortduration, the indicatedemissionswouldbeconsidered negligible, and therefore, would not be expected to exceed any air quality screening levelsignificancethresholds.

Followinginstallation,theproposedprojectwouldbepoweredbyelectricitydrawnfromthegridofpowerplantsanddistributionsystemsthroughoutthewesternNorthAmerica.Mostofthispowerisgeneratedoutof the San Diego Air Basin. Based on communication fromWestfield North County, the average annualelectricalconsumptionfortheproposedprojectwouldbeabout30,000kilowatthours,whichisonlyabout0.7percentofthetotalannualelectricalconsumptionfortheentireWestfieldNorthCountyshoppingcenter.In turn, Westfield North County’s annual electrical consumption is a small fraction of total powerconsumptionintheCityofEscondido.Thiscomparisondemonstratesthattheproposedproject’selectricalconsumptionwouldbestatisticallyinsignificantinthecontextofeithertheCityofEscondido,orevenlessso,inalloftheSanDiegoAirBasin.

Assuch, installationandoperationof theproposedprojectwouldhavea less‐than‐significant impactwithrespecttoconflictswithorobstructingimplementationoftheSDAPCD’s2009RegionalAirQualityStrategyPlans andState ImplementationPlan, the applicable air qualityplan. Further analysis of this issue is notnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.



b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation?

LessThanSignificantImpact. AsdemonstratedintheexplanationtoChecklistQuestionIII.a.,above,theproposed project would not significantly contribute to local and regional air pollutant emissions duringinstallation (short‐term) or operation (long‐term), and would not violate any air quality standard norcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedviolation.Furtheranalysisofthisissueisnotnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the air basin

is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including

releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

LessThanSignificantImpact. AsdemonstratedintheexplanationtoChecklistQuestionIII.a,installationand operation of the proposed project would result in negligible increases in any criteria pollutantemissions, including ozone precursors and particulate matter, for which the basin is presently in non‐attainment,andwhichwouldhaveonlynegligibleeffectsoncumulativeemissionsintheSanDiegoAirBasin.No federal or state standards or thresholdswould be exceeded. Therefore, emissions of non‐attainmentpollutantsgeneratedbyinstallationandoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldhavealess‐than‐significantimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

LessThanSignificantImpact. ThenearestsensitivereceptorstotheproposedprojectsitearethesinglefamilyresidenceslocatedtothewestoftheproposedprojectsitealongDelLagoBoulevard,acrosstheI‐15Freewaywhichcarriessome200,000vehiclesperdayintheproposedprojectlocale.Theseresidencesareover800feetfromtheproposedprojectsite.AsdemonstratedintheexplanationtoChecklistQuestionIII.a,installationandoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldresultinonlynegligibleemissions,mostofwhich,following installation,wouldoccuroutsideof theSanDiegoAirBasin. No furtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

No Impact. Land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewatertreatmentplants,foodprocessingplants,chemicalplants,composting,refineries,landfills,dairies,fiberglassmolding and occasionally restaurants. The proposed project would not involve any aspects or elementsrelatedtothesetypesofuses.IncompliancewithSDAPCDrules,noconstructionactivitiesormaterialsareproposedwhichwouldcreateobjectionableodors.Theproposedprojectwouldhavenoimpactsregardingobjectionable odors. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.



IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

LessThanSignificant Impact. Thereareseveralnaturalhabitats in thevicinityof theproposedproject.TheadditionalincidentlightlevelsduetotheproposedprojectwhichwouldfallatnightonthesehabitatsisdepictedinFigureB‐15,SurroundingHabitatsandProjectLightLevels.9Asshowninthefigure,lightlevelsaregreatestinthedirectionthepanelsfaceanddiminishastheangleawayfromthislineincreases. Atitsedge,thepanelframeblocksalllightfromleavingitssides.Itshouldbenotedthatlightintensitydecreasesby the square root of the distance, or exponentially, not geometrically, causing the intensity to decreasequickly over short distances. For a comparison of illumination levels due to natural and artificial lightsourcesrefertoTableB‐2,ComparativeLightLevels.Thebrightnessofthefullmooncanvarybetween0.01foot‐candleand0.03foot‐candle.Thisrangeisduetoanumberoffactorsincludingtheheightofthemoonabove the horizon, particles in the atmosphere, elevation at the site, and other astronomical factors.10However,due to its relatively lowelevationand the influenceofmarineair, this locationwouldnot likelyexperiencethebrightestpossible lunarilluminationof0.03foot‐candleatanytimeduringtheyear. FromFigureB‐15,itcanbeseenthatthelightemanatingfromtheproposedprojectwouldbeinthelowerrangeofafullmoon’sbrightnessinafewareastothesouthandnorthalongthefreewayaxis.Atadistanceofsome1,100feet,decliningilluminationlevelsareclosertoaquarter‐mooninmorewesterlyandeasterlydirection.

Sensitive plant and wildlife species were considered. Plant life would not be affected because they aredependentonthesunandrespondtovariationsinthenumberofhoursofsunlight.Thenaturallyoccurringlightofthemoonhasnotbeenshowntoaffectplantssignificantly;itsintensityislowanditsperiodicityof29.5daysbetweenfullmoonsdoesnotalignwiththeseasons.Theeffectsoflowlightlevels,ontheorderofafullmoonorless,onsensitivewildlifespecieswiththepotentialtooccurintheareawasconsideredandonlyonesensitivespeciesappearedtohaveapotentialforbeingindirectlyimpacted.

Theriparian,orstreamside,plantcommunityknownassouthernwillowscrubprovideshabitattosupportnestsandforagefortheleastBell’svireo(Vireobellipusillus),afederalandStatelistedasendangeredbirdspecies.Southernwillowscrubisfoundapproximately1,700‐feettothenortheastoftheproposedprojectinthe natural areas of Kit Carson Park and approximately 1,100‐feet to the southeast in SanDieguitoRiverPark.TheleastBell’svireohasbeenrecordedinSanDieguitoRiverPark.Wherethishabitatisclosesttotheproposed project in San Dieguito River Park to the southeast, adjacent to the Hodges Golf ImprovementCenter,anexistinggolfdrivingrange(illuminatedfornightplay),thelightreachingthevegetationwouldbecomparable to that of the quartermoon. Additionally, at this location, thewillow habitat follows a gullyapproximately25‐feetdeep,deeperthantheheightofmanyofthetreesandlittlelightreachesthegroundhere.ThemajorityofwillowhabitatinKitCarsonParkwouldbeshadedfromtheproposedprojectbythelargemallstructureandwhatlightdoesreachtherewouldfallonlyonthetallesttrees.Duetothedistancebetween the proposed project and this habitat (some 1,700 feet away at the closest), the additional light9 LightdataprovidedbyLEDmanufacturerDaktronics,Brookings,SD.10 Krisciunas,K,andSchaefer,B.E.1991.AModeloftheBrightnessofMoonlight.PublicationoftheAstronomicalSocietyofthePacific

103(667),1033‐1039.

T

City of EscondidoSubArea Plan- Southern Part

San Dieguito River Park Focused Planning Area

CS/C

SWS

DIS

0°

40°

75°

60°

20°

75°

60°

0°

20°

75°

60°

40°75°

60°

40°

40°

20°

20°

SWS

NNG

EUC

DIS

BW

EUC

BW

DIS

1650'

1650'

1100'

1100'

550'

550'

0

0

0

0

0.04

0.04 0.04

0.040.049

0.013

0.006

0.011

0.005

0.027

0.007

0.003

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.0040.001

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.027

0.007

0.003

0.011

0.005

0.049

0.013

0.006

0.011

0.005

0.027

0.007

0.003

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.0040.001

0.004

0.0010.012

0.003

0.002

0.027

0.007

0.003

0.011

0.005

0.004

0.001

T Approx. Sign Location

Light Level in Foot Candles

Distance Rings and Angle Lines

Kit Carson Park

Plant Communities

BW - Flat-topped Buckwheat

CS/C - Coastal Sage / Chaparral Transition

DIS - Disturbed Habitat

EUC - Eucalyptus Woodland

NNG - Non-native Grassland

SWS - Southern Willow Scrub

City of Escondido SubArea Plan - SouthernPart

San Dieguito River Park Focused PlanningArea

FIGURE

Source: Daktronics, 2013; PCR Services Corporation, 2013.

0 400 800 Feet


Surrounding Habitats and Project Light Levelso B-15



fromtheproposedprojectwouldbeevenlessthanthatofaquartermoon.Therefore,impactsoncandidate,sensitive or special status species would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldbewarranted.

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and

Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteislocatedinasuburban,commercialareaandiswithin a landscaped embankment between a shopping center parking lot and the I‐15 Freeway. Theproposed project site is not located within a sensitive natural community, as designated by the City ofEscondido, the County of San Diego, the California Department of Fish andWildlife or the U.S. Fish andWildlifeService. Noriparianhabitatexistsonorclosetothesite. Riparianhabitat locatedapproximately1,700‐feet to thenortheastof theproposedproject site, inKitCarsonPark,wouldbemostly shaded fromilluminationbytheinterveningWestfieldNorthCountyshoppingmallcomplex.Wherelightcouldfallinthehabitat from the proposed project, it would be biologically insignificant. Riparian habitat approximately1,100‐feettothesoutheastinSanDieguitoRiverParkwouldnotexperiencebiologicallysignificantamountsofincidentallightfromtheproposedproject,especiallyinthecontextoftheexistingnight‐timeillumination

Table B‐2

Comparative Light Levels a, b

Source Foot‐Candles

PartlySunnyDay 5,000

OvercastDay 100– 1,000

GymnasiumLighting 100

CasualReadingLight 50

TypicalFieldLightingatStadium 25

Dusk 10

TypicalSignIllumination 10

MediumActivityParkingLot 2.5

Twilight 1

FullMoon 0.01‐ 0.03c

QuarterMoon(HalfofMoon’sfacelit) 0.001– 0.003

MoonlessNight 0.0001

a Longcore, T., Rich, C. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington DC.

b Krisciunas, K, and Schaefer, B.E. 1991. A Model of the Brightness of Moonlight. Publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 103 (667), 1033‐1039

c Range due to variances of the height of the moon above the horizon, aerosol particles in atmosphere, elevation of the observation site, and other astronomical factors.

Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2013.



fromtheHodgesGolfImprovementCenterandtheballfieldsatKitCarsonPark. Therefore,installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotresult inasubstantialadverseeffectonriparianhabitatorothersensitivenatural communities. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, and no mitigation measures arewarranted.

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, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct

removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

NoImpact.TheproposedprojectsitedoesnotcontainanyfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbyCleanWater Act Section 404. Incidental light which could fall onto wetland habitats in the vicinity would bebiologicallyinsignificant,especiallyinthecontextofexistingnight‐timeilluminationfromtheI‐15Freeway,HodgesGolfImprovementCenterdrivingrangeandtheballfieldsatKitCarsonPark.Therefore,installationof theproposedprojectwouldnotresult inanadverseeffecton federallyprotectedwetlands. No furtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarewarranted.

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?

LessThanSignificantImpactwithMitigationIncorporation.

Impacts During Construction

Theareawithin theWestfieldpropertyboundary,and inparticular theconstructionsite,wasdeterminednottofunctionasaregionalwildlifecorridorforanyspecies,andnowildlifenurserysiteswereidentifiedwithinthestudyarea.However,theornamentaltreesandshrubswithintheconstructionareawhichwillbetrimmedorremovedsupportpotentialnestinghabitat formigratorysongbirdsandraptors. DisturbingordestroyingactivenestsofmigratorybirdsisaviolationoftheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct.Inaddition,nestsand eggs are protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Nesting activity typically occurs fromFebruary 15 to August 31 for songbirds, and January 15 to August 31 for raptors. To avoid impacts tonestingmigratorybirds,constructionactivitiesshouldbeconductedoutsideofthenestingseason,iffeasible.However, ifconstructionactivitiesmustoccurduringthenestingseason, theremovalofvegetationduringthebreedingseasonisconsideredapotentiallysignificantimpactwithoutmitigation.MitigationMeasureBIO‐1 shouldbe implemented to ensure impacts tonesting songbirds and raptors are avoided. With theimplementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significantlevels.

Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Avoid Migratory Bird Nesting Season or Complete Surveys BeforeConstructionActivities.

Removal of suitable vegetation for migratory birds shall occur outside the nesting season (i.e.,September1throughJanuary14)toavoidpotentialimpactstonestingbirds,iffeasible.Ifvegetationremovalisrequiredduringthenestingseason,within10daysofthecommencementofconstructionactivity, a qualified biologist shall survey the area oncewithin 100 feet of the proposed freeway‐orientedsignbaseforthepresenceofnestingbirds.ItshouldbenotedthatduetoitslocationashortdistancefromabusyI‐15Freeway,theViaRanchoParkwayoverpass,andWestfieldNorthCountyparkinglotsandrestaurants,thesiteiscurrentlysubjecttoagreatdealofnoiseandvibration.Birdsfound nesting in these conditions have a high tolerance to such disturbances when compared toother birds living in less noisy areas. Consequently the commonly accepted avoidance buffer



distancesfornestingsongbirdsof300feet(500feetforraptors)donotapply.Ifanyactivenestsaredetecteditshallbedeterminedbythebiologistatwhatdistance,ifany,anavoidancebufferneedstobeobserved. If thebiologistdetermines that anavoidancebuffer isnecessary toprotect thenest,that area shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete, or asdetermined appropriate by the biologist. Biological monitoring shall also occur until the nestingcycleiscomplete.

Impacts After Construction

Duetotheilluminatingnatureoftheproposedprojectuponcompletionanditslocationwithinadevelopedarea,theonlywildlifeforwhichthepotentialtoimpactmovementexists,aremigratingbirds.Lightsatnightcan influencewildlife primarily for two reasons: firstly, it can illuminate the environment sowildlife canmoreeasilysee,orbeseen;andsecondly,thelightsourceitself isseenandcanbeusedfororientationornavigationpurposes. Ithaslongbeenrecognizedthatmanyspeciesofbirdmigrateatnight. Itisbelievedsmaller birds and songbirds, including the leastBell’s vireo, favor nighttime travel over daytime, becausetheyarelesslikelytobedetectedbypredators.Forthesecondreason,itisalsoknownartificiallightscanattractbirdsduringmigration.11Birdsdonotappeartorelyonthemoonfornavigationinthelargersense,forexample,todeterminewhichdirectionisnorth;themoon’spositionchangesnightlyandfrequentlyisnotvisible. Birds may use the moon in a lesser sense when it is visible, to remain on a consistent coursethroughoutonenight’stravel.Onceattractedtoartificiallightsbirdscanbecomedisorientedandsomehaveshownareluctancetoleavethesphereoflightinfluence.12Spendinganinordinatelengthoftimeinalightedareacanfatiguethebirdandincrease itsexposuretopredation. Somebirds,suchashomingpigeonsandchickens,canhavetheirmigrationcompassdisruptedbycertainlightconditions,butcanreorienttheirpathstoafixedlinebasedontheearth’smagneticfield.13

Most studies regarding the effects of light on migrating behaviors, however, involve a single or limitednumberoflightsourcesinanotherwisedarkarea,suchasthemoon,alighthouseorcommunicationtowers,whichdrawbirdsfromwideareas.Theproposedprojectwouldnotbesimilarlylocallyprominent,becausethere are alreadymany sourcesof existing light, someof themquite substantial, in the surrounding area,suchasmanytalllamppostswithbrightlightsalongI‐15Freewayandintheparkinglotoftheshoppingmallcloseby. BallgamescanbeginafterdarkatKitCarsonPark, foryear‐roundnight‐timeplay,andthehighintensity field lights remainon forseveralhoursaftergamesbegin. Additionally,abankofhigh intensitylightsilluminatingtheHodgesGolfImprovementCenter,agolfdrivingrangeapproximately1,500feettothesoutheast,willdominate theviewofanybirdapproaching fromthatdirectionuntil10:00P.M.,when theyturnoff.

Birds can also collidewith the lights or their supporting structures, resulting in injuryordeath, or sufferother consequences relating to the reduction in energy stores such as being unable to complete theirmigrationordelaytheirarrivaltobreedingorwinteringgrounds.TheWorldWildlifeFundCanadaandtheFatal Light Awareness Program concluded that collision of migratory birds with man‐made structures

11 Kramer,G.1949. OntheDirectionalTendenciesofNocturnalZugunruheofCagedBirds,OrnithologiealsbiologischeWissenschaft.

Pages269‐283.CarlWinter.Heidelberg,Germany.12 Aver,M.P.,etal.1976. TheEffectsofaTallToweronNocturnalBirdMigration: APortableCeilometerStudy. Auk.Vol.93Pages

281‐291.13 Wiltschko,R.;Wiltschko,W.2013.TheMagnetite‐BasedReceptorsintheBeakofBirdsandtheirRoleinAvianNavigation.Journalof

ComparativePhysiology.Volume19.,Issue2.Pages89‐98.February2013.



resultsinmillionsofbirddeathsinNorthAmericaaloneeveryyear.14Mostcollisionrelatedstudiesinvolveisolated, tall structures, such as electrical power generating windmills or communication towers. Thesestructuresfrequentlyhavesupportinghardware,suchasguywiresthatarenotilluminatedanddifficulttoseeanditiswiththesecomponentsthatbirdscollide.WhentheproposedLEDreaderboardsareturnedon,thesupportingpylonwouldalsobeilluminated,allowingittobeseenandavoidedbybirds.Aftermidnight,theentirefreeway‐orientedsignwouldbeturnedoffandwouldnotbeasattractive,andthenearbylightsfromtheI‐15Freewayandotherlightsourceswouldallowmigratingbirdstoseeandavoidit. Therefore,the potential for adverse impacts in this regard is less than significant, and no mitigation measures arewarranted.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree

preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)?

LessThanSignificant Impact. Construction of the proposed projectwould require the removal of ninematuretrees;fivefromtheconstructionsiteandfouralongthewesternedgeoftheWestfieldproperty,asshowninFigureA‐3. TheCity’svegetationandprotectionandreplacementstandards,asstated inCityofEscondidoOrdinanceSection33‐1069(a)(4),willbeobserved.AsshowninFigureB‐16,ViewofTreestobeRemovedandReplaced,thetreestoberemovedwillbereplacedattheCitystandard1:1ratiobyninesimilarspecies of trees, also illustrated in FigureB‐16. There areno “protected” trees, asdefinedby theCity orotheragencies,withintheconstructionorreplacementareas.Therefore,therewouldbenoconflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinanceprotectingbiologicalresources,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificantinthisregard.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarewarranted.

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?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Theproposedprojectandmostoftheareaoverwhichincidentlightcreatedbyitwouldfalllieswithintwoplanningareas:theDraftEscondidoSubareaPlan’sSouthernAreaandtheSanDieguitoRiverPark(SDRP)FocusedPlanningArea(FPA). Theportionof thestudyarea in theEscondidoCity limits fallswithin the SouthernHabitatArea of theDraft Escondido SubareaPlan, aMultiple SpeciesConservationPlan(MSCP),whichdescribes theEscondido’sproposedmeasures toconservenaturalbioticcommunities and sensitiveplant andwildlife species if theplan is adopted. TheSanDieguitoRiverPark,formedin1989,istheagencyresponsibleforcreatinganaturalopenspaceparkintheSanDieguitoRiverValleyandincludestheareasouthofthecityborder.ItsmembersincludetheCountyofSanDiegoandtheCitiesofDelMar,Escondido,Poway,SanDiegoandSolanaBeach.Itisempoweredtoacquire,plan,design,improve,operateandmaintain theSanDieguitoRiverPark. TheFPA is theareaof focus for theagency’sefforts. As described, additional light created by the proposed project would be less than biologicallysignificantandassuch,theproposedprojectdoesnotconflictwithanyprovisionsofeitherplan.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

14 EvensOgden,L. J.1996. CollisionCourse: TheHazardsofLightedStructuresWindows toMigratingBirds. WorldWildlifeFund

CanadaandtheFatalLightAwarenessProgram,Toronto,Canada.

FIGUREView of Trees to be Removed and ReplacedWes ield North County LED Freeway-Oriented Sign Project B-16

Source: PCR Services Corpora on, 2013.P C R

- PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT -

Trees to be Removed

Replacement Trees



V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA

§15064.5?

NoImpact. AhistoricalresourceisdefinedinSection15064.5(a)(3)oftheCEQAGuidelinesasanyobject,building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant orsignificant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,military,orculturalannalsofCalifornia. Theproposedprojectsite isnot listedon theHistoricResourcesInventorydatabasemaintainedbytheStateOfficeofHistoricPreservation,norisitlistedasaculturalsitebytheCityofEscondido.15,16Theproposedprojectsiteisanembankment.Thisembankmentwascreatedwithsoils imported throughsomecombinationof the constructionof the I‐15Freeway, constructionof theViaRancho Parkway interchange, and/or the shopping center and related improvements. There are nohistoricalresourcesevidentonthesiteornearbyit,andsub‐surfaceresourcescanberuledoutduetothepresenceofimportedsoils.Therefore,theinstallationandoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldhavenoimpactuponhistoricalresources.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State

CEQA §15064.5?

No Impact. Anarchaeological resource isdefined inSection15064.5(c)of theCEQAGuidelines asa site,area or place determined to be historically significant as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQAGuidelines,orasauniquearchaeologicalresourcedefinedinSection21083.2ofthePublicResourcesCodeas an artifact, object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific researchquestions of public interest, or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or bestexampleof its type, or that is directly associatedwith a scientifically recognized importantprehistoric orhistoriceventorperson. Theproposedprojectwouldnot includeexcavation intopreviouslyundisturbednativesoils,asthe324‐squarefootconcretepadwouldbelocatedonanembankmentconsistingofimportedfill material with no historical or archaeological context. There would be no impact to archaeologicalresources.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectwouldnotincludeexcavationintopreviouslyundisturbednativesoils,asit would be installed on an embankment comprised of imported fill soils. Therewould be no impact topaleontologicalresourcesoruniquegeologicalfeatures.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

15 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,ResourceConservationElement,FigureVII‐6,CulturalandAgriculturalSites,May2012.16 California State Parks, Office ofHistoric Preservation, database search of CaliforniaHistorical Resources in San Diego County;

http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=37,accessedAugust2012.



d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

No Impact. The proposed projectwould not include excavation into previously undisturbed areas, as itwouldbe installedonanembankmentconsistingof imported fillmaterial. Thus, there isnopotential fordiscoveryof unknownhuman remains, including those interredoutsideof formal cemeteries. No furtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,

injury or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial

evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

NoImpact.Faultruptureisthedisplacementthatoccursalongthesurfaceofafaultduringanearthquake.Based on criteria established by the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults can be classified as active,potentiallyactive,orinactive. TheseismicallyactiveregionofSouthernCaliforniaiscrossedbynumerousactiveandpotentiallyactivefaults.TheCGShasestablishedearthquakefaultzonesknownasAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZonesaround thesurface tracesofactive faults toassist citiesandcounties inplanning,zoning,andbuildingregulationfunctions.Thesezonesidentifyareaswherepotentialsurfacerupturealonganactivefaultcouldprovehazardousandidentifywherespecialstudiesarerequiredtocharacterizehazardsto habitable structures. According to the CGS, the proposed project site is not locatedwithin anAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoneforsurfacefaultrupturehazards.17TheclosestAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoneisapproximately11milestothenortheast.18

Basedoncurrentavailablegeologicinformation,noactivefaultsareknowntoexistonorintheimmediatevicinityof theproposedprojectsiteor intheCity.19 Theclosestknownpotentiallyactive fault is theRoseCanyonfault,whichliesapproximately20milestothewestoftheCity,underthePacificOcean.20,21BecausetherearenoknownactivefaultsorAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoneslocatedontheproposedprojectsiteorwithinEscondido,noimpactswithregardtofaultruptureshouldbeexpectedontheproposedprojectsite. Furthermore,theproposedprojectwouldbedesignedandconstructedinaccordancewithapplicablebuildingstandardsandrequirementstominimizeseismic‐relatedhazards.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

17 California Geological Survey, Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps; http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm,

accessedAugust2012.18 California Geological Survey, Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps; http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm,

accessedAugust2012.19 California EmergencyManagement Agency,My HazardsMapping Program; http://myhazards.calema.ca.gov/, accessed August

2012.20 CountyofSanDiegoGeneralPlan,Chapter7,SafetyElement,GeologicalHazards,August2011.21 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,SeismicityandSoils,May2012.



ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

LessThanSignificantImpact. AswithallotherdevelopmentintheseismicallyactiveregionofSouthernCalifornia, theproposedprojectcouldbesubject tostrongseismicgroundshakingduringaseismicevent.The closest knownpotentially active fault is theRoseCanyon fault, locatedapproximately20miles away.SouthernCaliforniaislocatedwithinSeismicZone4whichisthemostrestrictivezoneintheU.S.withregardto building design and structural requirements tominimize potential damage during earthquakes.22 Theproposed project would be designed and built in conformance with applicable building standards andseismic safety requirements. With adherence to applicable seismic safety requirements, installation andoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldreducetheexposureofpeopleorstructurestosubstantialadverseeffectsofaseismiceventtoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?

LessThanSignificantImpact.AccordingtoCGSandEscondido’sGeneralPlan,theproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedinanareasusceptibletoliquefaction.23,24Thesoilunderlyingtheproposedprojectsiteconsistsofolderalluvialriverdeposits,moderatelyconsolidatedsediments,andsiltysandwithgravelandclay.25Thesesoils have generally low susceptibility to seismic‐induced settlement. Furthermore, the proposed projectwould be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable building standards and seismic safetyrequirements to minimize seismic‐related hazards. Based on the above, impacts due to seismic‐relatedground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

iv. Landslides?

No Impact. TheCGShasdelineated seismichazardzones inareaswhere thepotential for stronggroundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other ground failures due to seismic events are likely to occur. Inaddition,Escondido’sGeneralPlanCommunityElementhasmappedareassusceptibletolandslides,aswellastheapproximatelocationofslopesgreaterthan25percent.26

Theproposedprojectsiteandsurroundingareaarerelativelyflat.Therearenoknownlandslidesatthesite,noristhesiteinthepathofanyknownorpotentiallandslides.AccordingtotheCGS,theproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedinadelineatedlandslidezone,norisitlocatedinaCity‐designatedlandslidearea.27Basedon the existing geologic conditions, the proposed project site is not susceptible to landslides. Thus, noimpactsregardinglandslideswouldoccur. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

22 CountyofSanDiegoGeneralPlan,Chapter7,SafetyElement,GeologicalHazards,August2011.23 California EmergencyManagement Agency,My HazardsMapping Program; http://myhazards.calema.ca.gov/, accessed August

2012.24 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,FigureVI‐9,SeismicandGeologicHazards,May2012.25 California Division of Mines and Geology, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Map of the Escondido 7.5’

Quadrangle, San Diego County, California: A Digital Database, 1999; ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/escondido.pdf,accessedAugust2012.

26 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,FigureVI‐9,SeismicandGeologicHazards,May2012.27 CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation,CaliforniaGeologicalSurvey,LandslideInventoryMaps;http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/

LSIM/lsim_maps.htm;accessedAugust2012.



b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Theproposedprojectinvolvestheinstallationoftheproposedprojectonaverysmallsite(lessthan0.1acre),withinanembankmentbetweenashoppingcenterparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway. TherewouldbeminimalsoilerosionresultingfrominstallationoroperationoftheProposedProject,astheareauponwhichthe freeway‐orientedsignwouldbe installed isapproximately324squarefeet. Inorder to access electricalpower from themain shoppingmall structure for theproposedproject,someminor,shallowtrenchingtorunelectricalconnectionswithinthesurfaceparkinglotmayberequired.Therefore,impactsrelatedtosoilerosionorlossoftopsoilwouldbelessthansignificant.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of

the project, and potential result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,

liquefaction, or collapse?

NoImpact.AccordingtotheCaliforniaDivisionofMinesandGeology,theproposedprojectsiteisunderlainbyPleistoceneagealluvial riverdeposits and isnot susceptible to either lateral spreadingor landslides.28Subsidence is a localizedmassmovement that involves the gradual downward settling or sinking of theground, occurring occasionally from the extraction of mineral resources, subsurface oil, groundwater, orother subsurface liquids, such as natural gas. The proposed project site is not locatedwithin an area ofknown subsidence associatedwith oil or groundwater withdrawal, peat oxidation or hydro‐compaction.Furthermore,theproposedprojectdoesnotincludetheextractionofoilorgroundwaterfromaquifersundertheproposedprojectsite.Assuch,thepotentialforsubsidencetooccuronsiteislow.

Overall, the proposed project site does not exhibit characteristics that would result in the potential forsignificant geotechnical hazards. Therefore, by complyingwith State and local regulations, the proposedproject would have adequate structural protection from potential impacts associated with an unstablegeologic unit or soils, and there would be no associated impacts. No further analysis of this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),

creating substantial risks to life or property?

NoImpact.Expansivesoilsaretypicallyassociatedwithfine‐grainedclayeysoilsthathavethepotentialtoshrinkandswellwithrepeatedcyclesofwettinganddrying.Thesoilsbeneaththeproposedprojectsitearenotidentifiedasexpansivesoils.29Therefore,installationoftheproposedprojectwouldresultinnoimpactsassociatedwithexpansivesoils,andsubstantialriskstolifeorpropertywouldnotoccur.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

28 CaliforniaDivisionofMinesandGeology,incooperationwiththeU.S.GeologicalSurvey,GeologicMapoftheEscondido7.5’

Quadrangle,SanDiegoCounty,California:ADigitalDatabase,1999;ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/escondido.pdf,accessedAugust2012.

29 CountyofSanDiegoGeneralPlan,Chapter7,SafetyElement,FigureS‐4,ExpansiveClays,August2011.



e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater

disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area served by an existing sewerinfrastructure;however,itwouldnotnecessitatetheuseofwastewaterdisposalsystemsorbeconnectedtoanywaterutilitylines.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Greenhousegas(GHG)emissionsmaybeattributabletoinstallationactivitiesaswell as ongoing operations. Installation of the proposed projectwould not exceed twomonths, duringwhich activitywould be intermittent as phases are staged, equipment scheduled, and concrete cures, etc.Related installation emissions are generally associated with fossil fuel‐powered on‐site constructionequipment and off‐site vehicles used to transport constructionworkers and supplies. Installation of theproposedprojectwouldrequireasmallconstructioncrewtoclearandpreparethesite(duringconstructionexpectedtoinvolvelessthan0.1acreandthereafteronly324squarefeet,or0.007acre),placetheformsfortheconcretebase,pourtheconcrete,setthesteelsupportpoleandmountthetenantsigncabinetandLEDreader boards. Vehicular emissions would be associated with construction workers’ trips, an excavator,occasionaltruckstohaulexcavatedmaterialsanddeliverconcrete,andtofinish,acranetoliftthefreeway‐orientedsignelements intoplace. GHGemissionsfromthisentireoperationwouldbeontheorderoftheGHG emissions generated from the regular activities and operations from five single‐family homes in theproposed project locale for the same two‐month period. Considering the very small scale of neededinstallation activities and thevery shortduration, the indicatedemissionswouldbe considerednegligiblerelative to any threshold or standard. As such, GHG emissions due to installation of the proposed projectwouldbelessthansignificant.

Following installation, the proposed projectwould be powered by electric power drawn from the grid ofpowerplantsanddistributionsystemsthroughoutwesternNorthAmerica.MostofthispowerisgeneratedoutoftheSanDiegoAirBasin.Suchpowerconsumptionwouldbetheproposedproject’sonlysourceofGHGemissions. Based on communication from Westfield North County, the average annual electricalconsumptionfortheproposedprojectwouldbeabout30,000kilowatthours,whichisonlyabout0.7percentof the totalannualelectricalconsumption for theentireWestfieldNorthCountyshoppingcenter. In turn,WestfieldNorthCounty’sannualelectricalconsumptionisasmallfractionoftotalpowerconsumptionintheCityofEscondido.Thiscomparisondemonstratesthattheproposedproject’selectricalconsumption,anditsGHG emissions as a derivative, would be statistically insignificant in the context of either the City ofEscondido,orevenlessso,inalloftheSanDiegoAirBasin.

Basedontheforegoingassessment,impactsfromGHGemissions,asaresultofinstallationandoperationoftheproposedproject,wouldbe less thansignificant. Nofurtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.



b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

NoImpact.EscondidohasnotyetdevelopedaGreenhouseGasReductionPlanthatmeetstherequirementsset forth in the latestOPRguidelines,althoughaDraftClimateActionPlanhasbeenprepared.30 Throughincorporationofprojectdesignfeatures,suchasenergyefficientLEDtechnologyandautomatictimers,theproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwithanyapplicableplan,policy,orregulationtoreduceGHGemissions.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpacts inthisregard. Nofurtheranalysisofthis issueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Installationoftheproposedprojectwouldinvolvetheuseofminoramountsofvehiclefuels,oils,andtransmissionfluids,etc. Operationoftheproposedprojectwouldinvolvetheuseandstorageofsmallquantitiesofcleaningandothermaintenance‐relatedsupplies. Anyofthesematerialscanbecomehazardousundercertaincircumstances.Allsuchmaterialswouldbecontained,stored,andusedin accordancewithmanufacturers’ instructions andhandled in compliancewith applicable standards andregulations. Any associated risk would be routinely reduced to a less‐than‐significant level throughcompliance with these standards and regulations. As such, installation and operation of the proposedprojectwould result in a less‐than‐significant impactwith regard to routine transport, use, ordisposal ofhazardousmaterialsrelativetothesafetyofthepublicortheenvironment.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset

and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectwouldnotbeassembledwithorfrommaterialsthatcanbehazardous,norwoulditstoreany.Therefore,noreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccidentconditionscreatingsignificanthazard to the public or environmentwould occur. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, and nomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or

waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

NoImpact.Therearenoexistingorproposedschoolswithinone‐quartermileoftheproposedprojectsite.TheclosestschoolisSanPasqualHighSchool,whichisapproximately0.7mileeastofthesite.Theproposedproject would neither emit hazardous emissions nor cause the handling of acutely hazardous materials,substances or wastes. As such, the proposed project would result in no impacts regarding hazardous

30 City of Escondido Draft Climate Action Plan, January 12, 2012; prepared for the City of Escondido Community Development

Department by Atkins; http://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/PDFs/Planning/GPUpdate/DraftClimateActionPlan.pdf,accessedMarch2013.



materials at any existing or proposed schools. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, and nomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to

Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment?

No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5, amended in 1992, requires the California EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (CalEPA) to develop andupdate annually theCortese List,which is a list of hazardouswastesitesandothercontaminatedsites.WhileGovernmentCodeSection65962.5makesreferencetothepreparationofalist,manychangeshaveoccurredrelatedtoweb‐basedinformationaccesssince1992andinformation regarding the Cortese List is now compiled on the websites of the Department of ToxicSubstances Control (DTSC), the State Water Board, and CalEPA. The DTSC maintains the EnviroStordatabase, which includes sites on the Cortese List and also identifies potentially hazardous sites wherecleanupactions(suchasaremovalaction)orextensive investigationsareplannedorhaveoccurred. ThedatabaseprovidesalistingofFederalSuperfundsites[NationalPrioritiesList(NPL)];StateResponsesites;VoluntaryCleanupsites;andSchoolCleanupsites.

BasedonareviewoftheEnviroStordatabase,theproposedprojectsiteandanyofitsformerusesarenotidentifiedonanyoftheabovelists.31Inaddition,theproposedprojectsiteisnotontheStateWaterBoard’sGeotrackerDatabase,whichprovidesa listof leakingundergroundstorage tanksites thatare includedontheCorteseList.32Lastly,theproposedprojectsiteisnotlistedonCalEPA’slistofsiteswithactiveCeaseandDesistOrders(CDO)orCleanupandAbatementOrders(CAO)or listofcontaminatedsolidwastedisposalsites.33Assuch,noimpactswouldoccurinthisregard.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,

within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanorwithintwomilesofanairport.ThenearestpublicairporttotheproposedprojectsiteisRamonaAirport,ageneralaviationairportlocatedapproximately9.25miles eastof the site, in theCity ofRamona. Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinanairport‐relatedsafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkinginthearea,andnoimpactwouldoccur.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for

the people residing or working in the area?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinairport‐relatedsafetyhazardsforthepeopleresidingorworkinginthe

31 DepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl,EnvirostorDatabase;http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public,accessedAugust2012.32 StateWaterBoardGeotrackerDatabase;http://www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search/,accessedAugust2012.33 CalEPA’sListofActiveCDOandCAOsites;http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CDOCAOList.xls,accessedAugust2012.



area. No impactwouldoccur. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The proposed project site is proposed to be located on an embankment between a largeshopping center parking lot and the I‐15 Freeway. It would neither impair the implementation, norphysicallyinterferewith,anadoptedemergencyresponseoremergencyevacuationplans.Noimpactwouldoccur.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,

including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed

with wildlands?

LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectsite iscurrentlywithin theembankmentbetweenashoppingcenter’s surfaceparking lotand the I‐15Freeway. This site ispartofa landscapedbufferalongWestfield North County’s frontage along the I‐15 Freeway. This buffer is improved with ornamentallandscaping and could not bemistaken forwildlands. According to the State of California, the proposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedina“veryhighfirehazardseverityzone”;butisadjacenttoanareaofrisk.34Theproposedprojectsite is located inanareadesignatedashavingahigh firehazardrating,accordingto theEscondido’sGeneralPlan.35Theproposedprojectwouldnothaveflammableelements.Thus,theproposedprojectwouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires, and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, and nomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Wouldtheproject:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is a small section, less than 0.1 acre, of anembankment between a shopping center parking lot and the I‐15 Freeway. The site is gently sloped butlevelsoffasitapproachesthesurfaceparkinglot.Stormwaterrunofffromthesiteisdirectedtosurroundingstreets (WestfieldWay, Beethoven Drive and Bear Valley Parkway) and Escondido’s storm drain system.Duetotheproposedproject’sverylimitedlandcoverage,alteringsome324squarefeetofthissitewiththeintroduction of a concrete base (onwhich the freeway‐oriented signwould bemounted), therewould bevirtuallynoeffectonsurfacewaterrunofftherefrom.

Construction projectswith a disturbed area of less than one acre are not included under the State GeneralConstruction Activities StormWater Permit (General Permit) and therefore, are not required by the State

34 CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection,VeryHighFireHazardSeverityZonesinLRAasRecommendedbyCALFIRE;

ftp://frap.cdf.ca.gov/fhszlocalmaps/san_diego/Escondido.pdf,accessedAugust2012.35 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,FigureVI‐6,WildfireRisk,May2012.



WaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB)todevelopaStateStormWaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP).Asthesitebeingdisturbedislessthanoneacreinsize(thebasepadwouldbeapproximately324squarefeet,or about 0.007 acre), a SWPPP is not required. Installation of the proposed project would comply withapplicable regulations.36 Impactswouldbe less than significant in this regard. No further analysisof thisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that

there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level

(e.g., the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not

support existing land uses or planned land uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is planned to be sited within the embankmentbetween the shoppingcenter’s surfaceparking lot and the I‐15Freeway. Theproposedprojectwouldbemountedatopa324‐square‐footconcretebasepadwhichwouldincreasetheamountofimpervioussurfaceareabyastatisticallyinsignificantamount,relativetothewholeofsuchimpervioussurfacesoverlyingthelocalaquifers. Theproposedprojectwouldnotrequiretheuseofanygroundwaterresources,as itwouldnot require the use of water during its operation or be connected to any water utilities. As such, theproposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwaterrecharge,andthisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion

or siltation on‐ or off‐site?

NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldalterasmallexistingareaofsoilsurfacetoasmallconcretebase,butotherwisewouldhavenofurthereffectonanyexistingdrainagepattern,regardlessofitsform.Assuch,noimpactswouldoccurwithregardtosiltationorerosion.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off site?

NoImpact.Giventhepost‐installationsizeoftheprojectsiteat0.007acre,theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinanychangeinanyexistingdrainagepatternandcouldnotsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacewaterrunoff.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

NoImpact.Giventhepost‐installationsizeoftheprojectsiteat0.007acre,theproposedprojectcouldnothave a meaningful change in the runoff volumes from the site or the local drainage area to which it is

36 CityofEscondido,StormWaterProgram;http://www.escondido.org/storm‐water‐program.aspx,accessedAugust2012.



tributary.Assuch,theproposedprojectwouldnotcreateorcontributerunoffwaterthatwouldexceedthecapacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systemsor provide substantial additional sources ofpollutedrunoff,andnoimpactwouldoccur.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectwouldnothaveaneffectonwastedischarge,drainagepatterns,increasedsurface runoff or flows, deplete groundwater, increase impervious surfaces, or otherwise substantiallydegradewaterquality,duetoitsdesign,locationandverysmallsize. Assuch,theproposedprojectwouldhavenoimpactonwaterquality.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood

Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithina100‐yearfloodplainasmappedbytheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),anddoesnotproposetodevelophousing.37,38Assuch,installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotplacehousingwithina100‐yearfloodplain,andnoimpactswouldoccur.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

h. Place within a 100‐year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. Theproposedproject site isnot locatedwithinaFEMA‐designated100‐year floodplain. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,

including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. Theproposedproject isnot locatedwithinadesignated inundation area associatedwith thefailure of a levee or dam.39 As such, impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to asignificantriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingfloodingwouldnotoccur,andtherewouldbenoimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectsiteislocatedapproximately13mileseastofthePacificOceanandisnotincloseproximitytoanenclosedbodyofwater.ThenearestbodyofwaterisLakeHodges,whichliesatalowerelevationthantheproposedprojectsite,approximately0.75mile to thesouth. Assuch, there isnopotentialforexposureofpeopletoaseicheoratsunami.Inaddition,thesiteisnotpositionedinanareaof

37 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,FigureVI‐7,100YearFloodHazardZones,May2012.38 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Map Service Center, Flood Insurance RateMap (FIRMette) prepared for the City of

Escondido; https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=‐1&userType=G,accessedAugust2012.

39 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,FigureVI‐8,DamFailureInundationAreas,May2012.



potentialmudflow. Thus, no impacts associatedwith inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflowswouldoccur.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Wouldtheproject:

a. Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. Installation of the proposed project would not divide an established community, as theproposedprojectwouldbeplacedwithintheembankmentbetween theI‐15FreewayandWestfieldNorthCounty’ssurfaceparkinglot.Theproposedprojectsiteislocatedinadevelopedcommercialcenter,anditsinstallationwouldnotchangethecurrentlanduseofthesite.Assuch,therewouldbenoimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the

project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, coastal program, or zoning

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

LessThanSignificant Impact. Local and regional plans guidedevelopmentwithin theproposedprojectarea.Eachoftheseplansisdiscussedbelowandpolicycomplianceisevaluatedintabularsummarieswhereappropriate.OtherprogramsandplansthattypicallyapplytoproposeddevelopmentinsouthernCalifornia,suchasthosedevelopedbySanDiegoAssociationofGovernments,donotapplytotheproposedproject,duetoitslimitedscopeandsize,andarenotdiscussedfurther.

City of Escondido General Plan

TheCityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,adoptedinMay2012,providesgeneralguidanceonlandusemattersforthe entire City. The Land Use and Community Form Element guides land use and development of theproposed project site and other areas in the City.40 The proposed project site is located in southernEscondido,and it iszonedPlannedDevelopment–Commercial (PD‐C),withacorrespondingGeneralPlanlandusedesignationof PlannedCommercial.41,42 TheGeneralPlandescribesWestfieldNorthCounty as aplannedcommercialmultistoryregionalshoppingcenterwithseveralanchortenants,smallerin‐lineshopsandfree‐standingup‐scalediningestablishments. ThesiteisownedbytheCityofEscondidoandisunderlong‐termleasetoWestfield.InPlannedDevelopmentzones,permittedusesareidentifiedineachplanneddevelopmentmasterplanapproval.43

TheproposedprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththePlannedCommercialdesignation. PlannedCommercialsites allow a variety of commercial activities within a self‐contained, comprehensively planned center,including office and professional uses, tourist serving facilities, specialty retail, and other retail/service

40 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,LandUseandCommunityForm,May2012.41 EscondidoMunicipalCode,Chapter33,Article16,Section33‐331.42 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,ChapterII,LandUseandCommunityForm,May2012,FigureII‐1“LandUses”.43 EscondidoMunicipalCode,Chapter33,Article16,Section33‐332.



businesses.44 Planned Commercial areas are located along major thoroughfares, at major roadwayintersections and in higher density urban nodes served by transit.45 The proposed project would beconsistentwithsuchadesignation.

The largerWestfieldNorthCountyproperty, including theproposedprojectsite, is identifiedasaGeneralPlanOpportunity Target Area,where land use changes are anticipated and encouraged to implement thecore themesof a)opportunities to live,workandplay;b)protect,preserveand revitalizeneighborhoods;and c) conserve and sustain resources.46 In General Plan Opportunity Areas, Escondido is to focusinfrastructure improvements to promote development and redevelopment, enhance job growth, increasehousingoptions,andrevitalizethecommunity.47

Theproposedprojectwouldbe consistentwith these core themes, andwouldprovide information to thepublic by advertising establishments, businesses or services located on, or offered from,Westfield NorthCounty, and/or will advertise any sponsors of any portion of the site, products or any goods displayed,produced or available for purchase at the shopping center, or any events thatwill occur at the shoppingcenter.Theproposedprojectwouldalsopreserveneighborhoodsandwouldconserveandsustainresourcesbysitingthefreeway‐orientedsignwithinanalreadybuilt‐upcommercialarea.TheproposedprojectwouldaddanewelementtothisimportantintersectionandEscondidogateway,continuingtheongoingupdatingofWestfieldNorthCounty.

Theproposedprojectwould includeuseswhichwouldbecompatiblewith itsdesignatedzoningand landuse,aswellas theothercommercial/retailuses in thesurroundingarea, itwouldnot result in significantphysicallanduseimpacts.

Escondido Municipal Code

The Escondido Municipal Code outdoor lighting ordinance was enacted with the purpose and intent ofminimizing unnecessary glare for the benefit of the citizens of Escondido and astronomical research atPalomarObservatory,locatedapproximately23milestothenortheast.48EscondidoMunicipalCodeSection33‐711(f)requiresthatcertainoutdoorlightfixturesbeturnedoffbetween11:00P.M.andsunrise;however,Section33‐713allowssignsandbillboardsofbusiness facilitieswhichareopento thepublicbetweenthe11:00P.M.andsunrisetoremainilluminated,butonlyforsolongasthefacilityisopen.

Theproposedprojectisproposedtooperatefrom5:00A.M.tomidnight;operationoftheproposedprojectafter11:00P.M.ispermitted,becausebusinessesonthesiteareopenafter11:00P.M.Inaddition,theexistingparking lotpole lightsarecurrentlypermittedtoremain illuminateduntilmidnight,andotherparking lotsecuritylightisilluminatedfromsunsettosunrise.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy orregulation,as itwouldbe incompliancewith theEscondidoGeneralPlanLandUseandCommunityForm

44 City of Escondido General Plan, Chapter II, Land Use and Community Form,May 2012, at page II‐30 and Figure II‐7, Planned

CommercialAreas.45 Ibid,FigureII‐6,GeneralPlanLandUseDesignations,atpageII‐24.46 Ibid,atpageII‐61andFigureII‐18,OpportunityAreas.47 Ibid,atpageII‐72,TargetArea7GuidingPrinciples.48 EscondidoMunicipalCode,Article35,OutdoorLighting,Section33‐711(ZoningCodeChapter107,Section1072.11).



ElementandtheEscondidoMunicipalCodesectionsregardingoutdoorlighting.Furthermore,Cityapprovaloftheproposedproject’scontentandoperatinghoursstillwouldneedtobeobtainedpriortoitsinstallation.Assuch,impactswouldbeconsideredlessthansignificant.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is designated as a Planned Development –Commerciallanduse. Nohabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplanappliestotheproposedprojectsite;however,theareaoverwhichincidentallightcreatedbytheproposedprojectmayfall,lieswithin twoplanareas: theSDRPFPAand theMSCP. Additional lightcreatedby theproposedprojectwouldbelessthanbiologicallysignificantand,assuch,itdoesnotconflictwithanyprovisionsofeitherplan.Inaddition,theproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinasensitivenaturalcommunity,asdesignatedbytheCityofEscondidoortheCountyofSanDiego. Theproposedprojectlocationiswithinanembankmentbetween the shopping center’s surface parking lot and the I‐15 Freeway. As such, the proposed projectwouldnotconflictwithahabitatconservationplan,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Wouldtheproject:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region

and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on

a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

NoImpact.TheproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinaCity‐designatedMineralResourceZone,wheresignificantmineraldepositsareknowntobepresent,noristhesiteclassifiedasamineralproducingareabythe California or U.S. Geological Surveys.49 No permitted mineral extraction operations occur on theproposedprojectsiteorinEscondido.50 Thelikelihoodofuncoveringmineralresourcesduringinstallationoftheproposedprojectisnegligible,duetoitslocationwithinanembankmentandthe324‐square‐footbasepadsize.Theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourceoramineralresourcerecoverysite,andno impactwouldoccur. No furtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

49 State ofCaliforniaDepartment ofConservation,Division ofMines andGeology,U.S.Geological Survey (2000),Map ofCalifornia

PrincipalMineral‐ProducingLocalities;http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/980601mp.pdf,accessedAugust2012.50 CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation,MineReclamation–AB3098List;

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/omr/ab_3098_list/Documents/July2012AB3098.pdf,accessedAugust2012.



XII. NOISE

Wouldtheprojectresultin:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local

general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotbeequippedwithspeakers,andnosoundwouldemanatefromit. Assuch,therewouldbenonoiseasaresultofitsoperation. Escondidoidentifiesnoise sensitive receptors, and the nearest identified sensitive receptor is Kit Carson Park, which liesapproximately1,700 feet (or approximately0.3mile) from theproposedproject site.51 Installationof theproposed project would require the intermittent use of minimal construction equipment; however, thiswould be for a short duration (approximately twomonths). The nearest sensitive receptor is over one‐quarter mile away, with the primary structure of the shopping center and parking lot intervening. Theclosestresidentialusesareover800feetfromtheproposedprojectsite,andacrosstheI‐15Freeway.Noisefrominstallationof theproposedprojectwouldnotbeperceptible inresidentialareas,dueto theexistingambient noise from over 200,000 average daily vehicles travelling on the I‐15 Freeway. As such, noiseimpacts from the installation and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise

levels?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotproducesignificantlevelsofgroundborne vibration, as installation is not likely to involve activities which would produce significantlevelsofvibration.Operationoftheproposedprojectwouldproducenovibrationornoise,asitconsistsofLED reader boards installed upon a tenant sign cabinet, with no external audio components. As such,ground‐bornevibrationandnoiselevelsassociatedwiththeproposedprojectwouldbelessthansignificant.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project?

NoImpact.Theexistingnoiseenvironmentintheproposedprojectareaisdominatedbytrafficnoisefromnearby roadways, including the I‐15 Freeway, Via Rancho Parkway, BeethovenDrive, and from shoppingcenteractivities. Long‐termoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldnothaveaneffectonthecommunitynoiseenvironment inproximity to thesite,as theproposedprojectdoesnotemitanynoise. Assuch, theproposed project would cause no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinityabovelevelsexistingwithoutit,andtherewouldbenoimpact.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

51 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,CommunityProtectionElement,FigureVI‐10,SensitiveReceptors/NoiseGenerators,May2012.



d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?

LessThanSignificantImpact.Theproposedprojectwouldresultinaminimalincreaseinnoiseforashortduration during its installation, due to the presence ofminimal construction equipment operating in thesurfaceparkinglotoftheshoppingcenter.Therewouldbenosubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincreaseinambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,

within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing

or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanareaorwithintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport.Therefore,installationandoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotexposepeopletoexcessiveairportrelatednoiselevels. Noimpactwouldoccur. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose

people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not locatedwithin the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport orhelistop. Therefore, itwouldnot exposepeople residing orworking in the area to excessive noise levelsfromsuchuses. No impactwouldoccur. No furtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Wouldtheproject:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new

homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other

infrastructure)?

NoImpact. Theproposedprojectis limitedtotheinstallationofthefreeway‐orientedsignforanexistingshopping center, for the purpose of providing information to the public by advertising establishments,businesses or services located on, or offered from, Westfield North County, and/or will advertise anysponsorsofanyportionofthesite,productsoranygoodsdisplayed,producedoravailableforpurchaseattheshoppingcenter,oranyeventsthatwilloccurattheshoppingcenter.Nonewresidential,commercial,orother uses are proposed. Therefore, the proposed project would have no direct or indirect impacts onpopulation growth. No further analysis of this issue is necessary, and nomitigationmeasureswould berequired.



b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed project site is currently an embankment between a shopping center surfaceparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway.Astherearenoresidentialunitsonthissite,installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotdisplaceexistingresidences,andnoimpactwouldoccurtoexistinghousing. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing

elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed project site is currently an embankment between a shopping center surfaceparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway.Astherearenoresidentialunitsonthissite,installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotdisplaceexistingresidences,andnoimpactwouldoccurtoexistinghousing. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new orphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,constructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentalimpacts,inorder tomaintainacceptableserviceratios,response timesorotherperformanceobjectives foranyof thepublicservices:

a. Fire protection.

b. Police protection.

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectislimitedtotheinstallationandoperationofthefreeway‐orientedsignonanembankmentbetweenWestfieldNorthCounty’ssouthernsurfaceparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway. Norelatedmodifications to the parking lot or shopping center are proposed, other than those necessary toinstalltheproposedprojectandtoprovideelectricalconnectivity.Installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnot adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire or policeprotection,orrequireneworexpandedfacilitiesfortheprovisionofthoseservices. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

c. Schools.

d. Parks.

e. Other governmental services (including roads).

NoImpact. Theproposedprojectislimitedtotheinstallationandoperationofthefreeway‐orientedsign.Installation of the proposed projectwould not directly or indirectly create demand for schools or parks,sincesuchdemandistypicallygeneratedbyasubstantialincreaseintheresidentialoremployeepopulationonaproject siteor in aproject area. Theproposedprojectwouldnot generatenewstudents,wouldnotcauseanincreaseinthelocalpopulation,andwouldhavenoimpactsrelatedtoothergovernmentalservicesorinfrastructure.Nofurtheranalysisoftheseissuesisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.



XV. RECREATION

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be

accelerated?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectislimitedtotheinstallationandoperationofthefreeway‐orientedsignonan embankment between Westfield North County’s southern surface parking lot and the I‐15 Freeway.Installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotincreasedemandforparksorrecreationalfacilities,sincesuchdemand is typically generated by a substantial increase in the residential or employee population on aproject site or in a project area that requires such amenities. The proposed projectwould not cause anincreaseinthelocalpopulation.Nofurtheranalysisoftheseissuesisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectislimitedtotheinstallationandoperationofthefreeway‐orientedsignonanembankmentbetweenWestfieldNorthCounty’ssouthernsurfaceparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway. Norecreational amenities are proposed as part of the project, and therefore no related impacts on theenvironmentwouldoccur.Nofurtheranalysisoftheseissuesisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Wouldtheproject:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the

performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including

mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,

including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle

paths, and mass transit?

No Impact. Theproposedprojectwouldnot introducenew landusesorgenerate traffic trips thatwouldincrease congestionon roadwaysor at intersections in theproposedproject area. Implementationof theproposedprojectwouldbeconfinedtoinstallationofthefreeway‐orientedsignontheexistingembankmentbetweenashoppingcenterparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway.Assuch,therewouldbenoconflictwithanyplans, ordinances, or policies governing vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation or mass transit. Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level

of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county

congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

NoImpact.TheCongestionManagementProgram(CMP)isastate‐mandatedprogramenactedbytheStatelegislature toaddress impacts thaturbancongestionhason local communitiesand theregionasawhole.



Duetothelimitednatureoftheproposedproject,therewouldbenonewlandusesorgenerationoftraffictripsthatwould increasecongestionatdesignatedCMPintersectionsoronCMProadways. InstallationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwithorprecludeimplementationoftheCMP,andnoimpactsrelatedto theCMPareanticipated. No furtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not located near an existing airport and does not include anyaviation‐relateduses.Accordingly,therewouldbenoresultingsafetyrisksrelatedtoairtraffic.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

LessThanSignificant Impact. There areno existinghazardousdesign features such as sharp curvesordangerous intersections within the proposed project vicinity, and there are no incompatible uses beingproposed. In addition, installation of the proposed project would not involve modifications beyond theembankmentuponwhichitwouldbeplaced.Thus,noimpactsaffectingthephysicalalignmentsofexistingroadwaysorfreewayswouldbecausedbytheproposedproject.

Project Design Features

The proposed project includes the installation of 48‐foot wide by 14‐foot tall LED reader boards atop afreeway‐oriented sign. The LED reader boardswould be affixed to a supporting frame,with the displaypanelsoriented to thenorthand thesouth,along the I‐15Freewayalignment. The freeway‐orientedsignwould be 87.5 feet tall and would support the LED reader boards, below which would be internallyilluminated channel letters bearing the “Westfield” name and the tenant sign cabinet, listing the on‐siteanchorretailers. Assuch, theproposedproject is intendedtobe,andwouldbe,visibletomotoristsalongboththenorthboundandsouthboundI‐15Freeway.

TheproposedhoursofoperationfortheLEDreaderboards,whichalsodefinestheirperiodofillumination,wouldbefrom5:00A.M.tomidnightdaily.TheLEDreaderboardswouldbeequippedwithmulti‐directionlight sensing equipmentwhichwould adjust the brightness of the proposed project according to currentlightingandweatherconditions.Assuch,theLEDreaderboardswouldbemorebrightlyilluminatedduringday light hours, which is necessary for the content to be clearly visible during the day‐time. Its lightingintensityatnightwouldbereducedbysome97percent,ascomparedwiththeproposedproject’s lightingintensityduringdaylight.Thetenantsigncabinetwouldbeinternallyilluminatedfromsunsettomidnight.The freeway‐oriented sign’s light control provisions comply with local, federal and industry light outputstandards.

Themessage content on the proposed LED reader boardswould advertise establishments, businesses orservices located on, or offered from,Westfield North County, and/or will advertise any sponsors of anyportion of the site, products or any goods displayed, produced or available for purchase at the shoppingcenter,oranyevents thatwilloccurat theshoppingcenter. Signscanbeconsideredsafety‐neutralwhen



they look and behave like a conventional billboard, and when their illumination is attenuated at night.52Operationoftheproposedprojectisconsideredsafety‐neutral,asthemessageswouldremainonthescreenforeight secondsbefore switching toanother static screen image. Therewouldbenomovingor flashingimages. Each imagewould simply change every eight secondswithout fading or changing effects on thescreen.Bythetimetheproposedprojectcomesintoview,amotoristdrivingat60milesperhouralongtheI‐15Freewayfromadistanceofone‐halfmileaway,wouldonlygetaglanceatthreetofourimagesonthescreenbeforetheydrivepastit.

Outdoor Advertising Act and Regulations

OutdoorsignageintheStateofCaliforniaisregulatedbytheOutdoorAdvertisingActandRegulations(theAct), which was most recently amended in January 2013.53 Administered by Caltrans, the Act governsbillboards and other roadway‐oriented signage that is locatedwithin 660 feet of the rights‐of‐way of aninterstateorprimaryhighwayandisvisible fromthehighway;andsignagelocatedalongandvisiblefromotherprimaryhighwayswithinunincorporatedareas. The intentof theAct is topreserve theprimacyoftraffic safety signs and prevent their confusion with advertising; insure that advertising displays do notinterferewithmotorist visibility or vision; and safeguard thepublic interest innatural features along theState’shighways,whilestillpreservingtherighttoadvertiseasareasonableuseofcommercialproperty.

The Act prohibits displays that obstruct the motorists’ visibility of traffic signs; displays that appear tosimulateorimitatetrafficsafetysignsgivingwarningtomotorists;displaysthatincluderedorblinkingorintermittent lightunlikely tobemistaken for awarningordanger signals;displayswith illumination thatcouldbeconsideredvision‐impairingduetobrilliance;ordisplaysplacedupontreesorpainteduponrocksor other natural features. TheAct also limits sign animation ormessage/image sequencing (flashing) ondigitalorelectronicsignstochangesincontentfrequencyofnotlessthaneveryfourseconds.

TheproposedprojectwouldcomplywiththeaboveprovisionsoftheAct,asitwouldnotobstructmotorists’visibilityof trafficsignsasaresultof itsplacement intheembankmentat theedgeof theWestfieldNorthCountyparkinglot,andneitheritsdesignnoritscontentwouldbeperceivedtosimulatetrafficsafetysignstomotorists.Theproposedprojectislimitedtotheinstallationofthefreeway‐orientedsignforanexistingshopping center, for the purpose of providing information to the public by advertising establishments,businesses or services located on, or offered from, Westfield North County, and products or any goodsdisplayed,producedor available forpurchaseat the shopping center, or anyevents thatwill occur at theshoppingcenter. Noelementoftheproposedprojectwouldcontainared,blinkingorintermittentlightorsignal that could bemistaken for a warning sign. The proposed intensity of the illuminated tenant signcabinetor theLEDreaderboardswouldnotbesufficient tocausevision impairmentduring thedayoratnight.54 Finally,thedigitallysequencedimagingoftheproposedprojectwouldnotchangemorefrequentlythaneveryfourseconds,butrathereveryeightseconds,withoutfadingorotheranimatedeffects.

52 VirginiaTechTransportationInstitute,CenterforAutomotiveSafetyResearch,“DrivingPerformanceandDigitalBillboards–Final

Report”,March22,2007.53 StateofCalifornia,OutdoorAdvertisingActandRegulations,2013Edition,

http://www.dot.ca.gov/oda/download/ODA_Act_&_Regulations.pdf,accessedAugust2013.54 TheLEDpylonsignwouldbeconsistentwithCaliforniaVehicleCodeSection21466.5,astheilluminationwouldnotbeconsidered

vision‐impairingduetobrilliance,asthemeasuredbrightnesswouldnotexceedthestatedstandard.



Review of Driver Distraction Studies

TheLEDreaderboardswouldbeatareducedlevelofilluminationatnight,atapproximatelythreepercentofitsmaximumluminance.Thebrightnessoftheproposedprojectisalsogreatlyaffectedbytheangleofthevieweras theyaremoreperpendicular to it. Motoristsalong the I‐15Freewayalignmentwouldhave themostdirectviewoftheLEDreaderboardswhentheyaremostperpendiculartothem.Thetopicofdriverdistraction has been the subject ofmany scholarly research articles, and conclusions for several of thesestudies, as they relate to the effect of LED reader boards (also called electronic or digital billboards), aredescribedbelow.

Astudyentitled“DrivingPerformanceandDigitalBillboards,”preparedbytheVirginiaTechTransportationInstitute,CenterforAutomotiveSafetyResearch, in2007,examineddriverperformanceinthepresenceofdigital billboards, as compared to other driving locations without them.55 The overall conclusion of thisstudyisthatdigitalbillboardsseemtoattractmoreattentionthanconventionalbillboards,sothereseemstobesomeaspectofdigitalbillboardsthatholdsthedrivers’attention,oncethedriverhasglancedthatway.This ismost likely the result of the intrinsic lighting of these signs, which is noticeable even during thedaytime.Althoughexploratoryinnature,thenight‐timeresultswereverysimilartothedaytimeresults.

The digital billboards in this study were considered safety‐neutral in their design and operation from ahuman factors perspective, because they changed only once every eight seconds, and they changedinstantaneously,withnospecialeffectsorvideo. Theylookedverymuchlikeaconventionalbillboardandtheirluminancewasattenuatedatnight.Duetothelackofcrashcausationdata,noconclusionsweredrawnregarding the ultimate safety of digital billboards in this study. Although there were some measurablechanges indriverperformance in thepresenceofdigital billboards, inmany cases thesedifferenceswereakintothoseassociatedwitheverydaydriving,suchasotheron‐premisessignslocatedatbusinesses.

Asecondstudyentitled“AStudyoftheRelationshipbetweenDigitalBillboardsandTrafficSafetyinCuyahogaCounty, Ohio,” prepared by Tantala Associates Consulting Engineers, in 2007, examined the statisticalrelationship between certain digital billboards and traffic safety to determine if any correlation existed.56The overall conclusion of this study states that digital billboards have no statistical relationshipwith theoccurrenceof accidents. Theanalysisandstatistics in this studydemonstrate thataccidentsarenomorelikely to occur along sections of interstate routes near digital billboards than those without them. Thefrequencyoftrafficaccidentsmaybemoreattributableto,andcorrelatedwith,otherfactorssuchasdrivingundertheinfluence,adverseweatherconditions,excessivespeeding,orotherdriverinitiatedtasks.

A third study entitled “Driving Performance in the Presence and Absence of Billboards,” prepared by theVirginiaTechTransportation Institute,Center forCrashCausationandHumanFactors, in2003, examinedwhether there is any change in driving behavior in the presence or absence of billboards.57 The overallconclusion of this study is that the presence of billboards does not cause a change in driver behavior, interms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, or lane keeping. A rigorous examination of individualbillboards considered tobemore visually attention‐getting,demonstratedno relationshipbetweenglance55 VirginiaTechTransportationInstitute,CenterforAutomotiveSafetyResearch,“DrivingPerformanceandDigitalBillboards–Final

Report”,March22,2007.56 TantalaAssociatesConsultingEngineers, “AStudyof theRelationshipBetweenDigitalBillboardsandTrafficSafety inCuyahoga

County,Ohio”,July7,2007.57 VirginiaTechTransportationInstitute,CenterforCrashCausationandHumanFactors,“DrivingPerformance inthePresenceand

AbsenceofBillboards”,ExecutiveSummary,December15,2003.



locationandbillboardlocation. Drivingperformancemeasuresinthepresenceofthesespecificbillboardsgenerallyshowedlessspeedvariationandlanedeviation.Neithervisualbehaviornordrivingbehaviorwasshowntochange,eveninthepresenceofthemostvisuallyattention‐gettingbillboards.

Afinalstudyentitled,ResearchReviewofPotentialSafetyEffectsofElectronicBillboardsonDriverAttentionand Distraction,” prepared by the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety Research andDevelopment,in2001,examinedthepotentialsafetyimplicationsofelectronicbillboardsondrivingsafety.58Inmostinstancesexaminedinthisreview,researcherswereunabletoverifythatanelectronicbillboardwasamajorfactorincausinganaccident.Researchregardingdriverfamiliaritywiththeirroutesdemonstratedthatvisualfixationsonroadwaysignsdecreasesasroutefamiliarityincreases,therebyindicatingthattheremaybeadifferencebetweencommutersandvisitingdrivers. There is research that commutersmaynotevenlookatanelectronicbillboard.

TheconclusionsofthesestudiesdemonstratethatthepresenceofLED,electronicordigitalbillboardsdoesnotcauseanincreaseinaccidentsduetodriverdistraction.

Basedontheabove,includingincorporationofprojectdesignfeaturesfortheproposedproject,the“safety‐neutral”operationoftheLEDreaderboards,compliancewithapplicableregulations,andtheconsensusofseveralscholarlyresearcharticlesonthesubjectofdriverdistractionduetoelectronicordigitalbillboards,the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less thansignificant in this regard. Further analysis of this issue isnot necessary, andnomitigationmeasures arerequired.

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

NoImpact. Emergencyaccesstothesiteisprovidedbyaprimearterial,ViaRanchoParkway.59 Accesstotheproposedproject siteandWestfieldNorthCounty isprovidedbyadrivewayonWestfieldWaywhichprovidesprimary site ingress and egress. Secondary access isprovided fromdriveways alongBeethovenDriveattheeasternsideofWestfieldNorthCounty.Nochangetothesefacilitiesisproposedinconjunctionwiththeproposedproject.Accordingly,theproposedprojectwouldhavenoadverseimpactsonemergencyaccess to theproposedprojectsiteor in itsvicinity. No furtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

No Impact. The proposed project site is located in an area that is highly accessible by public transit,including North County Transit District (NCTD) and San DiegoMetropolitan Transit System buses, and aNCTD“BreezeRapid”busstationislocatedonBeethovenDriveattheeastsideoftheshoppingcenter.Thispurposewouldnotadverselyaffecttheperformanceof,orconflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycles,orpedestrianuse. Theproposedprojectwillhavenoimpactonadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecrease

58 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety Research and Development, “Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of

ElectronicBillboardsonDriverAttentionandDistraction–FinalReport”,September11,2001.59 CityofEscondidoGeneralPlan,MobilityandInfrastructure,RoadwayClassifications,FigureIII‐6,CirculationDiagramandpagesIII‐

15toIII‐17.



theperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Wouldtheproject:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion

of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The proposed project is limited to the installation and operation of a freeway‐oriented signwithinanembankmentbetweenashoppingcenterparkinglotandtheI‐15Freeway.Nonewlandusesorexpansionofexistinguseson‐siteareproposed,andtherefore,installationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotgenerate any increase in wastewater over existing conditions. No connections to water or wastewatersystems are proposed. Accordingly, the proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewatertreatmentrequirementsorrequireconstructionorexpansionofexistingwastewatertreatmentfacilities.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectwouldnotalterexistingstormwaterrunoffvolumes,patterns,orratesbyaltering existing drainage. The proposed project site is approximately 324 square feet within anembankment.Flowsconveyedbytheexistingmunicipalstormdrainsystemwouldnotincrease,asaresultoftheproposedproject’spresence.Nofurtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resource, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectislimitedtotheinstallationandoperationofthesign.Nonewlandusesor expansion of existing uses on‐site are proposed as part of the proposed project, and therefore,implementationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotgenerateanyincreaseindemandforwateroverexistingconditions. The proposed project would not require connections to existing water infrastructure.Accordingly, the proposed project does not seek entitlement for increased water supplies. No furtheranalysisofthisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the

project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the

provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. Nonew landusesorexpansionofexistinguseson‐siteareproposedaspartof theproposedproject, and therefore, its implementation would not generate any increase in wastewater over existingconditions. The proposed project would not connect to any wastewater treatment infrastructure.



Accordingly, the proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements orrequire construction or expansion of existingwastewater treatment facilities. No further analysis of thisissueisnecessary,andnomitigationmeasuresarerequired.

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid

waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate little construction debris, mainlyrelated to modest site clearing and packaging of the freeway‐oriented sign elements. Operation of theproposedprojectwouldnotgeneratesolidwaste. Assuch, therewouldbe less thansignificant impactonlandfillcapacityasaresultoftheinstallationandoperationoftheproposedproject.Furtheranalysisofthisissueisnotnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

NoImpact.Theproposedprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththeapplicableregulationsassociatedwithsolidwaste, as the proposed project would generate little construction debris, and its operation would notgeneratesolidwaste. No furtheranalysisof this issue isnecessary,andnomitigationmeasureswouldberequired.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐

sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the

major periods of California history or prehistory?

LessThanSignificantImpact. Basedontheinformationprovidedabove,theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantially degrade the quality of the environment, due to its limited scope and negligible impacts tobiological resources or their habitats. No important examples of major periods of California history orprehistorywouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject.

b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?

(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are

considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other

current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

LessThanSignificantImpact.Cumulativeimpactsareconcludedtobelessthansignificantforthoseissuesforwhich ithasbeendetermined that theproposedprojectwouldhaveno impact. Environmental issuesmeetingthiscriterionincludeagriculturalresources,culturalresources,mineralresources,populationandhousing, public services and recreation. Compliance with applicable federal, state and City regulationswould preclude significant cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils, hazards and hazardousmaterials,hydrologyandwaterquality,andutilitiesandservicesystems.

Otherthanon‐goingrenovationatWestfieldNorthCounty,therearenoknownrelatedprojectsproposedfordevelopment within the proposed project locale, and there are no other LED freeway‐oriented signs



proposedwithintheCityofEscondido.Impactsareconsideredtobelessthansignificantwithrespecttotheenvironmental issues of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases, and transportationand traffic. As proposed project‐related impacts from these environmental issues would be consideredstatistically insignificant, cumulative impacts fromrelatedprojectswouldalsobestatistically insignificant.Assuch,nosignificantcumulativelyconsiderableimpactswouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the documentation provided above, implementation of theproposed projectwould not cause environmental effects that cause substantial direct or indirect adverseeffectsonhumanbeings.


APPENDIX A ‐ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

TheDraftMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(DraftMND)wasmadeavailabletovariouspublicagencies,citizengroups, and interested individuals for a 30‐day public review period from October 25, 2013 throughNovember25,2013.ThisappendixtotheFinalMNDpresentstheonecommentlettersubmittedduringthepubliccommentperiodfortheDraftMND.

Appendix A – Responses to Comments January 2014



t.keelan

Line

t.keelan

Rectangle

t.keelan

Rectangle

Appendix A – Responses to Comments January 2014



January 2014 Appendix A – Responses to Comments


RESPONSE TO COMMENT

Mr.JacobArmstrong,BranchChiefDevelopmentReviewBranchCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans)District11,DivisionofPlanning4050TaylorStreet,MS240SanDiego,CA92110

RESPONSE1

This comment is noted and is hereby included in the Final MND. The California Department ofTransportation(Caltrans)hasaccuratelyconfirmedthattheproposedsignisanon‐premisessignthatdoesnotrequireapermitpursuanttotheOutdoorAdvertisingActandRegulations.AsprovidedonpageB‐63oftheattachedMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(MND),theproposedsignisincompliancewiththeprovisionsof the Outdoor Advertising Act and Regulations and would not require an Outdoor Advertising DisplayPermit.

RESPONSE2

ThiscommentisnotedandisherebyincludedintheFinalMND. AsprovidedonpageB‐63toB‐65oftheattachedMNDtheproposedsignwouldnotcreateasafetyhazardrelatedtodriverdistractionduetolightandglare. AsindicatedonpagesB‐31andB‐63,thesignwouldbedesignedincompliancewithCaliforniaVehicle Code Section 21466.5, in order to avoid adverse impacts upon drivers. Impacts related to trafficsafetyareconsideredlessthansignificant.

RESPONSE3

ThiscommentisnotedandisherebyincludedintheFinalMND.AsprovidedonpageB‐31oftheMND,themaximum ambient light output levels at the closest view points to the proposed signwould be between0.015to0.049foot‐candle,whichismuchlessthanthe0.3foot‐candlelevelrecommendedbytheOutdoorAdvertisingAssociationofAmerica.Automaticsensorswillmonitorambientlightingconditionsandadjustthelightingintensityfromthesigninaccordancewithambientlightingconditions.Thedaytimeintensityofthesignwouldbeatamaximum(100%) intensityduring thedaytime, inorder tobevisible in thebrightsunlightenvironment,whilethenighttimeintensityofthesignwouldbegenerallyattheminimum(3%).Assuch,theilluminationfromtheproposedprojectwouldnotbeconsideredvision‐impairingduetobrilliance,and themeasured brightnesswould not exceed the stated standard. Impacts related to illumination areconsideredlessthansignificant.


APPENDIX B ‐ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)

ThisMitigationMonitoring andReporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the City of EscondidoWestfieldNorthCountyLEDFreeway‐OrientedSignProjectincompliancewithSection21081.6ofthePublicResources Code and Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which is required for all projects where aMitigatedNegativeDeclaration (MND)has beenprepared. Section 21081.6 of the PublicResources Codestates: “ …the [lead] agency shall adopt a reporting ormonitoring program for the changesmade to theproject or conditions of project approval, adopted in order tomitigate or avoid significant effects on theenvironment…[and theprogram] shall be designed to ensure compliance duringproject implementation.”TheCityofEscondidoistheLeadAgencyfortheProject.

This MMRP identifies the mitigation measures prescribed in the Draft MND to reduce the Project’spotentiallysignificantenvironmentalimpactstoalessthansignificantlevel. TheMMRPdefinesthetimingduringwhichthemitigationmeasureistobeimplementedandmonitored;theenforcementagency;andtheverification/approvalparty.TheMMRPisincludedasTableB‐1below.

Appendix B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2014


Table B‐1

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Mitigation Measure

Implementation (I)/ Monitoring (M) Phase Enforcement Agency

Verification

Staff Compliance Verification

Date of Implementation (I)/ Monitoring (M) Remarks

BiologicalResources

MitigationMeasureBIO‐1:AvoidMigratoryBirdNestingSeason or Complete Surveys Before ConstructionActivities.

Removal of suitable vegetation for migratory birds shalloccur outside the nesting season (i.e., September 1throughJanuary14)toavoidpotential impactstonestingbirds,iffeasible. Ifvegetationremovalisrequiredduringthenestingseason,within10daysof thecommencementof construction activity, a qualified biologist shall surveythe area once within 100 feet of the proposed freeway‐oriented sign base for the presence of nesting birds. Itshould be noted that due to its location a short distancefrom a busy I‐15 Freeway, the Via Rancho Parkwayoverpass, and Westfield North County parking lots andrestaurants,thesiteiscurrentlysubjecttoagreatdealofnoise and vibration. Birds found nesting in theseconditions have a high tolerance to such disturbanceswhen compared to other birds living in less noisy areas.Consequently the commonly accepted avoidance bufferdistances for nesting songbirds of 300 feet (500 feet forraptors)donot apply. If any activenests aredetected itshall be determined by the biologist at what distance, ifany, an avoidance buffer needs to be observed. If thebiologistdeterminesthatanavoidancebufferisnecessarytoprotect thenest, thatarea shallbedelineated, flagged,and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete, or asdetermined appropriate by the biologist. Biologicalmonitoring shall also occur until the nesting cycle iscomplete.

(I)Pre‐construction;duringconstruction

(M)Pre‐construction;duringconstruction

CityofEscondido

(I)

(M)

(I)

(M)

PCR Santa MoniCa

201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500Santa Monica, California 90401

TEL 310.451.4488FAX 310.451.5279

PCR PaSadena

80 South Lake Avenue, Suite 570Pasadena, California 91101

TEL 626.204.6170FAX 626.204.6171

PCR iRvine

One Venture, Suite 150Irvine, California 92618

TEL 949.753.7001FAX 949.753.7002

www.pcrnet.com

[email protected]