Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-10; Carlsbad Raceway Business Park; Tentative Map (CT) (4)City November 7, 2005 Ms. Therese O'Rourke Assistant Field Supervisor US Fish and Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad CA 92011 of Carlsbad l:.16111,■1,i·M•i4·6111,,i¥i,ii SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION -CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROJECT -LIONSHEAD UNDERCROSSING IN LIEU DEPOSIT Dear Ms. O'Rourke: The Carlsbad Raceway Project (CT 98-10) was approved by the City of Carlsbad with a mitigation measure requiring that the developer either build "an acceptable wildlife crossing" on Lionshead Road or "pay $100,000 to mitigate the effect" of Lionshead Road crossing the wildlife corridor. An excerpt from the project's Mitigation Monitoring Checklist is attached. The Biological Opinion for the Carlsbad Raceway Project (1-6-02-F-2124) and the revised Term and Condition 2.b letter, dated January 8, 2004 and copy attached, contains a condition requiring the applicant to conduct a 12-month study to assess the feasibility of the construction of a wildlife undercrossing off-site, under Palomar Airport Road and deposit $100,000 with the City, in lieu of construction of an undercrossing on the project site under Lionshead Road. The developer of the Raceway project has constructed the undercrossing under Lionshead Road. As described in the attached letter, dated October 19, 2005, the applicant has requested the return of the $100,000 deposit. Since the Lionshead Road wildlife crossing has been constructed, the mitigation measure imposed by the City indicates that the $100,000 deposit should be returned to the project applicant. Prior to returning the deposit, the City requests confirmation that the applicant has satisfied the conditions of the Biological Opinion issued by the Service. Please contact the staff representative, Mike Grim, at (760) 602-4623 or mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us if you have any questions r require additional information. Attachments c: Don Neu File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ Mltlptlon M-.re • Obtain all necessary permi1B from U.S. Army Corp of Enaineen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Califomia Department ofFish and Game prior ID final map approval. • Submiaal of wetland and coastal sage scrub restoralion program for approval by City and wildlife agencies prior to construction activities. • Prior to final map approval: • Provide an engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; • Either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing OD Stnoet "B" or pay $100,000 ID mitigate tbe effect of die Stnoet "B" crossin& of the wildlife corridor if an acceptable crossing is not CODSll'llcted; • Pay $225,865.90 to mitigate impacts 1D llllll-native grassland and soulbem mixed cbapmal • If HMP is approved prior to final map approval, die engineering and feasibility study is not mp,ired and the mitigation funds will be Uled for acquisition of acreage in die desigoated con: uea 88 deacribed in the City's HMP. • If tbe HMP is not approved prior 1D final map approval, the City in COIISUltstion wi1h the wildlife agencies will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds including but not limited ID: acquisition of acreage in the County Core area; construction of a wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; or other programs 88 dmnnined hy City 1D enhance habitat preservation in the City. !Wnn tr,: U tt,a: lypc•PIGjeet, ....... -. ---Dcpt.•llopab1--Ap,,,;y,,_.l,le&.,11 "I bc•pmlieular mitiplion--.n. ' ---' -.. .. Plano• When miliplim _,, is shown m .,-;',_this colwm will be 'initialed and -'1. i MODitoi. ·· .. •ma 1°Ylle ~ 'SblrwnClll Vedfied 1·~ .,. Plans. .· --~ . Vailiod Jnipl,• • • -Wlim amplian wn bll-in.,oloa1£1&11, lllil-wiDbciaitilWad- ----irdacnlilnl_oC...,...ntiplioa -.«f'orodlor RD-.,._.P. m z s ~ z 3:: m ~ r- 3:: :::j ~ i ii: 0 z a ::a z Ci) (') :c ~ j!S ~ "V i w ~ UI ~ ' Hofman Planning Associates Planning Fiscal Services Environmental October 21,2004 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Deposit of Environmental Mitigation Fees -cT ?8 - <o RA<-£u/fi y Dear Anne: Enclosed please find two separate checks for environmental mitigation. The first check is for mitigation of non-native grass plant in the amount of $225,865.90. The second check is in the amount of $100,000 and is a deposit that is payable to the City in the event that we do not construct a wildlife undercrossing under Lionshead Street. Please note that this amount is a deposit only and would be utilized by the City only in the event that the undercrossing is not built. If we do end up building the undercrossing, this money would be refunded back to the H.G. Fenton Company. Please call me if you have any other questions regarding this issue. Sincerely, Bill Hofman Cc: Alan Jones 5900 Pasteur Court ° Suite 150 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (760)438-1465 ° Fax: (760)438-2443 w w City of Carlsbad Planning Department FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 2, 2004 TIME SENT: Number of Pages Being Transmitted (Including Cover Sheet): 2 TO: Bill Hofman COMPANY: Hofman Planning PHONE #: FAX#:438-2443 FROM: Anne Hysong DEPT.: PLANNING PHONE: (760) 602- 4622 FAX: (760) 602-8559 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: The letter you requested is attached. I read the conditions and understand what Alan was saying. However, the approved plans incorporated an undercrossing, and all involved understood that an undercrossing was to be constructed either under PAR or Street B. We accepted the deposit to enable the final map approval; however, if the PAR undercrossing is determined to be infeasible due to cost, then the Street B undercrossing would need to be constructed and the $100,000 would be refunded. It would be necessary for the Service to agree to the elimination of any undercrossing before we could proceed that way. Anne Return Fax 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 February 15,2005 Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park - CT 98-10 Bill Hofman, Consultant for the Raceway project, called to give me an update of project:: Background: The wildlife agencies had shut the Raceway project down because they had not complied with conditions requiring a conservation easement and resolution of the PAR undercrossing issue as required by the 404 permit/BO opinion. Fenton (owner) representative Alan Jones and Bill Hofman met with FWS regarding the PAR undercrossing and the Conservation Easement. Alan Jones sent letters to FWS stating that the undercrossing is infeasible because Larry Nelson, Palomar Forum owner, will not grant a construction easement and the actual cost for construction of the undercrossing is around $100,000 more than the available mitigation funds collected from the Raceway and Forum projects. This information was a condition of the 404 permit issued for the project. Leann K. from FWS has asked if Fenton would build the undercrossing if the additional money was available and if he could get the necessary easement from Larry Nelson. The answer was yes if both of those things were to happen. Bill also informed me that Jane Mobaldi has worked with agencies to allow Raceway to move forward before the Conservation Easement is finalized. Apparently, they are still working on the wording. The City's Conservation Easement was recorded thereby satisfying our condition, however, the wildlife agencies required revisions to the easement to satisfy their specific requirements. Negotiations have been underway between Jane Mobaldi, the Army Corp of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game to finalize a conservation easement that incorporates agreed upon language from all concerned. environmental planning, inc. 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: admin @helixepi. com fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 Inland Empire Office phone (909) 423-0701 s December 17, 2004 |& *lr. i*?^*1" F^T-06 Ms. Jeannette Baker U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Diego Regulatory Branch 16885 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 300A San Diego, CA 92127 RE: Biological Opinion No. 1-6-02-F-2124 for the Carlsbad Raceway Project Dear Jeannette: On behalf of our client H. G. Fenton and in conformance with Conservation Measure 3 of Biological Opinion No. 1-6-02-F-2124, we are notifying you the construction work areas have been delineated and clearly marked with orange construction fencing. No action nor reply from the Corps is necessary. Sincerely, Alison Fischer Biologist cc: Lee Ann Carranza, USFWS Anne Hysong, City of Carlsbad Allen Jones, H.G. Fenton Tamara Spear, CDFG Clyde Wickham, City of Carlsbad Hofman Planning Associates Planning Fiscal Services Environmental November 3, 2004 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad Raceway Tentative Map Extension - CT 98- 1 0x2 Ms. Hysong: On behalf of our client, H.G. Fenton, we would like to withdraw our application for the Carlsbad Raceway Tentative Map Extension, CT 98-10x2, submitted to the City on July 19, 2004. As you know, this application became moot when the final map was approved last night by City Council. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 760-438- 1465. Sincerely, Bill Hofman Cc: Allen Jones RECBVH) HOV 0 3 20% PLANNING 1DEPT 5900 Pasteur Court ° Suite 150 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (760)438-1465 ° Fax: (760)438-2443 Exhibit "A" One of the conditions of the Tentative Map approval requires that a financing district be formed for the improvements of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive. This district will be in the form of a Community Facilities District (CFD) which will be comprised of three major property owners; Palomar Forum, Raceway and Carlsbad Oaks. Presently, Carlsbad Oaks is in negotiations with the Resource Agencies in its application for a 404 permit. The 404 permit is not obtained, therefore, the Tentative Map for the Raceway property cannot be deemed final until this occurs. The delay will cause the Raceway map to expire unless an extension is granted by the City. From: <sharif lewis® yahoo.com> To: <Council @smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2004 3:52 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I would like to support the unburying of carlsbad skatepark. sharif lewis los angeles, California 90015 united states of america shariflewis@yahoo.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) 206.170.106.22 From: <mcodnz@yahoo.co.nz> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please don't let them bulldoze Carlsbad skatepark! please buy the property and restore it as a public skatepark so skateboarders from around the world can visit and skate one of the most influencial parks in the short history of skateboarding! Thanks for listening! CHRIS O'DONNELL Tauranga, new Zealand mcodnz@yahoo.co.nz Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Hotbar 3.0) 218.101.123.72 From: <pjmanbar@hotmail.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I am writing on behalf of voicing my support to SAVE the former site of the country's first skatepark, Carlsbad Skatepark. As circumstances prevailed, I was once actively involved in the skateboard industry during its infancy, 1976-1978, now considered the threshold to today's thriving billion-dollar marketplace. My participation grew via an interest in racing. Having formed an event production company titled Another Roadside Attraction, which was based in Dillon, CO, I travelled to CA to network with industry figures in order to expand the racing sector of the market. During my business travels in southern CA, I was introduced to the owners of the Park who invited me to design, budget and produce an organized commercial race program for the Park. The program's design was formulated on a Par system similar to golf and ski racing's NASTAR. It would have been the country's first commercially viable program of its kind that was designed for ultimate franchising. Unfortunate! ly, weeks after my Plan was submitted (to the owners) for implementation, came the announcement the Park was "going out of business." That was, no less, a very emotional letdown to all who recreated there and transacted business there. Though much was unknown in that era primarily regarding the sport's inherent risks, the industry has managed to survive and thrive to this day. And, as it is, a few of today's leading and likewise core businesses and manufacturers have, miraculously I might add, managed to survive 28 years of uncertainty. That, in my opinion, speaks volumes as to the value skateboarding offers a community, kids and adults alike. People who like to skate need venues to be able to recreate in safety, away from pedestrians and motorists. In the interest of the city of Carlsbad, I believe the organizers behind this self-less effort to save the buried gem once a skaters' paradise, the original Carlsbad Skatepark if allowed to be exhumed, and will become a durable economic engine for the community. It will become an instant legend and will attract visitors as well as citizens of the area. If allowed to be saved, I will have plenty of era related originals to submit for inclusion in the Museum as is broached. Please consider via careful and thoughtful planning, this once revered skaters' gem for resurrection. Certainly, today's skateboarders and the industry as a whole continues to grow because of the value skateboarding brings to communities worldwide. This more than ever is a worldwide recreation and will bring that kind of recognition and trade to the city of Carlsbad, CA. Thank you! Peter Camann 13 Harrigan Street Bethlehem, NH 03574 USA pjmanbar@hotmail.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; MSN 6.1; MSNbMSFT; MSNmen-us; MSNcOO; v5m) 68.169.217.149 From: <mcmarc@comcast.net> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2004 8:26 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please save the Carlsbad Skatepark! I fully support the efforts to save this significant historical landrnark. I hope to bring my family out to visit this wonderful facility and skate the park in the future. Sincerely, Mark Calder President Wilmington Skate Project Mark Calder I1 Finney rd. New Castle, DE 19720 usa mcmarc@comcast.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.22; Mac_PowerPC) 68.82.69.33 From: <mike@beercity.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2004 2:00 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: To whom it may concern. I would like to let you know if you make it possible for the Carsbad skatepark to be reopened myself as many others would come to skate the park and visit the museum they plan to open there. In turn we would be staying in hotels and eating at resturant in Carsbad and spending money there. MIKE BEER FOB 26035 MILWAUKEE, Wl 53226 United States mike@beercity.com Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.4.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9 68.249.0.251 From: <heylookitsme@msn.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2004 1:04 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I just want to let you all know how much carlsbad skatepark means to skate boarders everywhere even me who lives all the way on the other side of the country Colby Rogers St. Petersburg, Florida USA heylookitsme@msn.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) 4.64.2.179 From: <j.fudala@verizon.net> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I want to voice my support of the resurection of the first skatepark ever The'Carlsbad Skatepark. It is definetly a historic landmark for the world and it's value will be seen in years to come. Skateboarding is now here to stay. John Fudala John fudala 765 Grand Street Brooklyn, New York 11211 USA j.fudala@verizon.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.23; Mac_PowerPC) 68.237.105.157 From: <johnpinning69@hotmail.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2004 8:29 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: u guys need to reconize the Carlsbad skatepark was the first one made that is still standing and being used everyday by hundreds of ppl a day. baseball feilds done even get a houndred ppl a day. i know im from nebraska but i love skating and we need to show it. ppl come to California from other COUNTIRES! just because its the best place to skate, there for you need to keep your repuation going, and keep it there, all we ask is to leave it alone please! John P 3560 B Lincoln, Nebraska 68510 US johnpinning69 @ hotmail.com Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040707 Firefox/0.9.2 204.137.64.101 From: <chaoslover16@hotmail.com> To: <Council @smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2004 1:10 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: To whom it may concern, I recived an alarming email yesterday, and it said that the carlsbad skatepark was going to buldozed and demolished. I myself am a skateboarder, even if I am from Ohio, I am still concerned about the well being of skateboarders everywhere. If you keep this property, fix it up, and re-open the facility, it could just be a great asset to your community. What really got me upset was is that this is the first skatepark in the world. That deffinitly has some bragging privilages there, plus tourism would be at an all time high. Thank you for your time, and I hope you seriously reconsider shutting down carlsbad skatepark. sincerely, Emily Matula emily matula 3400 Granview rd Granville, Ohio 43023 chaoslover16@hotmail.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE-6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 69.165.24.223 From: "Markus Spiegelberg" <cnlmmarkus@cox.net> To: "Don Rideout" <Dride@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 10/29/2004 8:34:11 AM Subject: Raceway project Hi Don, I just wanted to let you know that CNLM is preparing a PAR for the Carlsbad Raceway open space. I have spoken to Sherry arid others in our management, and if the price is right and our due diligence process finds nothing to worry about, we will take the property if awarded by the builder. Thanks, Markus Spiegelberg Center for Natural Lands Management 3786 Dana Place San Diego, CA92103 ph/fax: 619.295.4953 email: cnlmmarkus@cox.net From: <sharif lewis @yahoo.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2004 3:52 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I would like to support the unburying of carlsbad skatepark. sharif lewis los angeles, California 90015 united states of america shariflewis@yahoo.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) 206.170.106.22 From: <mcodnz@yahoo.co.nz> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please don't let them bulldoze Carlsbad skatepark! please buy the property and restore it as a public skatepark so skateboarders from around the world can visit and skate one of the most influencial parks in the short history of skateboarding! Thanks for listening! CHRIS O'DONNELL Tauranga, new Zealand mcodnz@yahoo.co.nz Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Hotbar 3.0) 218.101.123.72 From: <pjmanbar@hotmail.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I am writing on behalf of voicing my support to SAVE the former site of the country's first skatepark, Carlsbad Skatepark. As circumstances prevailed, I was once actively involved in the skateboard industry during its infancy, 1976-1978, now considered the threshold to today's thriving billion-dollar marketplace. My participation grew via an interest in racing. Having formed an event production company titled Another Roadside Attraction, which was based in Dillon, CO, I travelled to CA to network with industry figures in order to expand the racing sector of the market. During my business travels in southern CA, I was introduced to the owners of the Park who invited me to design, budget and produce an organized commercial race program for the Park. The program's design was formulated on a Par system similar to golf and ski racing's NASTAR. It would have been the country's first commercially viable program of its kind that was designed for ultimate franchising. Unfortunate! ly, weeks after my Plan was submitted (to the owners) for implementation, came the announcement the Park was "going out of business." That was, no less, a very emotional letdown to all who recreated there and transacted business there. Though much was unknown in that era primarily regarding the sport's inherent risks, the industry has managed to survive and thrive to this day. And, as it is, a few of today's leading and likewise core businesses and manufacturers have, miraculously I might add, managed to survive 28 years of uncertainty. That, in my opinion, speaks volumes as to the value skateboarding offers a community, kids and adults alike. People who like to skate need venues to be able to recreate in safety, away from pedestrians and motorists. In the interest of the city of Carlsbad, I believe the organizers behind this self-less effort to save the buried gem once a skaters' paradise, the original Carlsbad Skatepark if allowed to be exhumed, and will become a durable economic engine for the community. It will become an instant legend and will attract visitors as well as citizens of the area. If allowed to be saved, I will have plenty of era related originals to submit for inclusion in the Museum as is broached. Please consider via careful and thoughtful planning, this once revered skaters' gem for resurrection. Certainly, today's skateboarders and the industry as a whole continues to grow because of the value skateboarding brings to communities worldwide. This more than ever is a worldwide recreation and will bring that kind of recognition and trade to the city of Carlsbad, CA. Thank you! Peter Camann 13 Harrigan Street Bethlehem, NH 03574 USA pjmanbar@hotmail.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; MSN 6.1; MSNbMSFT; MSNmen-us; MSNcOO; v5m) 68.169.217.149 From: <mcmarc@comcast.net> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2004 8:26 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please save the Carlsbad Skatepark! I fully support the efforts to save this significant historical landmark. I hope to bring my family out to visit this wonderful facility and skate the park in the future. Sincerely, Mark Calder President Wilmington Skate Project Mark Calder I1 Finney rd. New Castle, DE 19720 usa mcmarc@comcast.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.22; Mac_PowerPC) 68.82.69.33 From: <mike@beercity.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2004 2:00 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: To whom it may concern. I would like to let you know if you make it possible for the Carsbad skatepark to be reopened myself as many others would come to skate the park and visit the museum they plan to open there. In turn we would be staying in hotels and eating at resturant in Carsbad and spending money there. MIKE BEER FOB 26035 MILWAUKEE, Wl 53226 United States mike@beercity.com Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.4.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9 68.249.0.251 From: <heylookitsme@msn.com> To: <CounciI@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2004 1:04 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I just want to let you all know how much carlsbad skatepark means to skate boarders everywhere even me who lives all the way on the other side of the country Colby Rogers St. Petersburg, Florida USA heylookitsme@msn.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) 4.64.2.179 From: <j.fudala@verizon.net> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2004 12:33 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: I want to voice my support of the resurection of the first skatepark ever The Carlsbad Skatepark. It is definetly a historic landmark for the world and it's value will be seen in years to come. Skateboarding is now here to stay. John Fudala John fudala 765 Grand Street Brooklyn, New York 11211 USA j.fudala@verizon.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.23; Mac_PowerPC) 68.237.105.157 From: <johnpinning69@hotmail.com> To: <Council@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2004 8:29 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: u guys need to reconize the Carlsbad skatepark was the first one made that is still standing and being used everyday by hundreds of ppl a day. baseball feilds done even get a houndred ppl a day. i know im from nebraska but i love skating and we need to show it. ppl come to California from other COUNTIRES! just because its the best place to skate, there for you need to keep your repuation going, and keep it there, all we ask is to leave it alone please! John P 3560 B Lincoln, Nebraska 68510 US johnpinning69@hotmail.com Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040707 Firefox/0.9.2 204.137.64.101 From: <chaoslover16@hotmail.com> To: <Council @smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2004 1:10PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: To whom it may concern, I recived an alarming email yesterday, and it said that the carlsbad skatepark was going to buldozed and demolished. I myself am a skateboarder, even if I am from Ohio, I am still concerned about the well being of skateboarders everywhere. If you keep this property, fix it up, and re-open the facility, it could just be a great asset to your community. What really got me upset was is that this is the first skatepark in the world. That deffinitly has some bragging privilages there, plus tourism would be at an all time high. Thank you for your time, and I hope you seriously reconsider shutting down carlsbad skatepark. sincerely, Emily Matula emily matula 3400 Granview rd Granville, Ohio 43023 chaoslover16@hotmail.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 69.165.24.223 From: <drenner@summitsol.com> To: <Planning@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 10/25/2004 9:25:52 AM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Planning. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please save the skatepark! What a great tourist attraction for years and years to come. Would you go to Ohio? Maybe for the NFL Hall of Fame. Would you go to California? Yes, lots of places. Why not have a differentiator for Carlsbad to make come out as a top choice for tourists and neighbors alike. There are more kids skateboarding now than playing baseball as qoted in the July 5th edition of Forbes. I would stop the dozers and think about this one for a while before acting. Regards, Douglas drenner@summitsol.com Doug Renner drenner@summitsol.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; T312461; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 69.107.161.70 City of Carlsbad Publ Ie; Wprks — Engineer! n'g September 23, 2004 Allen Jones, Vice President H.G. FENTON COMPANY 7588 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108 MELROSE DRIVE, PROPOSED CFD #3, INVITATION TO BID AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The City of Carlsbad has reviewed the list of select bidders you have proposed, and approves them as the qualified bidders for the District work in lieu of an advertised invitation to bidders. We have also reviewed the proposed Invitation to Bid and the associated Contract Documents and, as discussed at our meeting on September 22, 2004, these documents are approved. Please provide the City with a complete set of the final documents, as well as an Engineer's Estimate for the District improvements for our files. If you have any questions or comments in regards to this correspondence, please feel free to contact me at (760)602-2766. MARSHALL PLANTZ Senior Civil Engineer MP:jd c: Bill Plummer, Deputy City Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 Received: 1/Z1/O4 1:O5F^^B -> ueace regulatory branch; ' flCOE REGULflTORY Fax'.8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12=04 P. 05 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92009 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-2I24.4 . ••«''- 0 8 £&{$ Colonel Richard G. Thompson -r' *' i'CAfcLC(fcGG .District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District * ° 3ty} P.O. Box 532711 • Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Attn: Mr. Robert J. Lawrence Re: Biological Opinion on the.Carlsbad Raceway Project (1-6-02-F-2I24), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Corps File No. 982020500-RJL) Dear Colonel Thompson: We received the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) request for initiation of formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) [16 U.S.C: 1531 et seq.} for the above referenced project on July 5,2002. At the Corps' request, we supplied the Corps with a draft biological opinion addressing the effects of the above-referenced project on the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher) on February 13, 2003. On March 10,2003, the Service received the Corps' comments on the draft biological opinion in a letter dated March 5,2003. This letter summarizes the changes made in the enclosed final biological opinion, in response to the Corps' comments. Corps comment: "We have reviewed the BO and are requesting that Term and Condition 2b be removed from the document. It is our understanding that Conservation Measure 15, as stated in the BO, accurately reflects what was agreed to by the City of Carlsbad, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the applicant. Term and Condition 2b requires that Conservation Measure 15 be modified. We dp not believe that such a modification is warranted. The deletion of 2b will require a small correction to Term and Condition 2a. Conservation Measures 8-15, not 8-14, will need to be incorporated as terms and conditions. The remainder of the BO is acceptable to the Corps of Engineers."ii! i In response we revised Term and Condition 2b as follows: Conservation measure 15 is modified as follows: To allow continued wildlife corridor function in the project area, the applicant shall work with the City to ensure construction of a wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road, so that large predators may Received: 1/21/O4 1:O5(A -> usace regulatory branch; P^ 7 • flCOE REGULflTORY Fax=8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:04 P.07_ United States Department of the Interior HSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92009 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-2124.4 Colonel Richard G. Thompson MAR 2 ° 2D°3 District Engineer * U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers • • " Los Angeles District • • P.O. Box 532711 " Los.Angeles, California 90053-2325 • • * ' • • « Attn: Mr. Robert J.Lawrence Re: Biological Opinion on the Carlsbad Raceway Project (1-6-02-F-2124), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Corps File No. 982020500-RJL) Dear Colonel Thompson: This document transmits the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service), biological opinion based on our review of the proposed Carlsbad Raceway property development' project located in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, and its effects on the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califonuca\ gnatcatcher) and its designated critical habitat, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), ; This biological opinion is based on information provided in the May 12, 1998 Biological Technical Report (Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. [Helix]); the October 1, 2002 Riparian Mitigation Plan (Helix 2002a); the October 1, 2002 Conceptual Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Plan (Helix 2002b); The July 15, 200 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Project (City of Carlsbad); a letter and graphic files on compact disk received from Helix on October 2, 2002, dated October 1, 2002; and other information available in OUT files. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office. CONSULTATION HISTORY Service personnel met with representatives of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the City of Carlsbad (City), the California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and project proponents on April 29, 1998. Discussion topics at this meeting included the construction of Poinsettia Avenue and Melrose Drive across the property, and the provision of a north-south wildlife corridor connecting open space on the Raceway property and points north with wildlife habitat associated with Rancho Carrillo to the south. Service personnel again met with the City, Received: 1/21/O4 1:oePH -> usace regulatory branch; fiCOE REGULflTORY WFax= 8586745388 Jan 21^004 12:05 P.OB Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 2 the Department, the Corps, and project proponents on May 14,1998, to discuss a wildlife undercrossing under Melrose Drive, the boundaries of development and open space, restoration opportunities, and narrow endemic plant records on-site. In a .letter dated July 1,1998, Helix proposed a project footprint and associated restoration efforts intended to serve as a "hardline" preserve boundary/project description under the City's draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) under the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). On September 21,2000, Service personnel met with project proponents and the City, to discuss the City's proposal to construct Poinsettia Avenue across the wildlife corridor. The City had conducted a traffic study that determined that this road, which is not addressed in the draft HMP, was necessary for traffic circulation. Service personnel visited the site with project proponents on September 25,2000. During the site visit, John Martin of the Service observed a gnatcatcher. Representatives of the Service, City, and project proponents met on February 27,2001, to discuss ways to minimize loss of wildlife corridor function oh the project site due to the inclusion of Poinsettia Avenue. In several phone conversations in January, February, and March 2001, Service personnel and project proponents attempted to determine the origin of a record of occurrence of San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) on-site. In response to Service concerns, Helix conducted additional surveys for San Diego thornmint on the site in late April of 2001. Surveys for San Diego thornmint were negative; thus, this species is not addressed in this consultation. On October 10,2001, the Service and Department sent a joint letter of comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project (City). Our comments were addressed in a recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration dated September 6,2001. On July 5,2002, the Service received a letter from the Corps, dated July 3,2002, requesting initiation of formal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. On July 31,2002, the Service sent a letter to the Corps requesting additional project information necessary to initiate consultation. On October 2,2002, we received the requested information from the applicant, and consultation was initiated. On November 4,2002, the applicant agreed to the conservation measures (including a conservation easement, management plan, PAR analysis, and endowment) addressing long-term management of biological resources on-site. In a telephone conversation on February 12,2003, the applicant agreed to include provision for Service approval of revegetation plans, and provision for Service approval of a conservation organization, in the project description. In an telephone conversation on February 12,2003, the Corps requested that the Biological Opinion be initially submitted as a draft. Received: 1/21 /O4 n:o; -> usace regulatory branch; . RCOE REGULflTORY Fax =8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:05 P. 09 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3). 3 BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The action is the issuance of a permit to discharge rill, associated with the construction of a . commercial development, into waters of the U.S., in a tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The proposed project is the development of an industrial park on approximately 112 acres of a 145-acre parcel, consistent with existing zoning for the property. The property would be subdivided into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots. Upon project completion, .open space would total 48.85 acres, consisting of 33.15 acres of unimpacted habitat, and 15.7 acres of temporarily impacted areas that would be revegetated with coastal sage scrub. No industrial buildings are proposed as part of the project: the facility would be built to suit the purchaser .However, building design would be constrained by existing Planned Industrial Zoning (City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance chapter 21.34.070) on the site. Maximum building height would be 35 feet Buildings would be allowed to occupy up to 50% of a given lot. Maximum allowable building area would be 51.6 acres. Structures and parking lots would be artificially illuminated at night Fuel modification zones would be incorporated into the project The development would occur on the south side of the property. The open space1 would be located primarily on the north side (Figure 1). The project would include construction of a two-lane east-west roadway (Poinsettia Avenue) to provide access to the proposed development. Poinsettia Avenue would be 52 feet wide. Speed limits on Poinsettia Avenue would be 30 miles per hour. Poinsettia Avenue would extend from Business Park Drive on the east to Melrose Drive on the west Melrose Drive, a prime arterial running north-south, would be constructed across the western end of the project site. Speed limits on Melrose Drive would be 60 miles per hour. Earth work on the site would be balanced, involving 1,430,000 cubic yards of excavation and an equal amount of fill. Construction is anticipated to begin in late summer of 2003, and continue for approximately one year. Conservation measures - ' The proposed action contains the following conservation measures which will be implemented as part of the project in order to avoid or otherwise minimize potential adverse effects of the action on sensitive and listed species. 1. Clearing and grubbing will not occur between February 15 and July 15. Between July 15 and August 31, clearing of native vegetation may be conducted with the approval of the Service, provided that it is confirmed that no gnatcatchers are breeding on the site. To confirm that no gnatcatchers are breeding on the site, at least six surveys must be conducted between February 15 and July 15, at least a week apart, with the final survey being conducted within a week of July 15. Surveys must be conducted according to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). If gnatcatchers are detected during any of these surveys, the site will be considered to be occupied by breeding gnatcatchers, and no clearing of vegetation will be conducted between February 15 and August 31. inclusive. Received: 1/21/O4 1:O7fl ' flCQE REGULfiTORY -> ueace regulatory branch;1O Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:05 P. 10_ en" o O " " o ooo Received: 1 /81 /O4 1 :O8 -> usace regulatory branch; ^ flCOE REGULflTORY Fax: 8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:06 - P-1T Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 5 2. Prior to any construction activities during the breeding season (February 15 - August 31, inclusive), a qualified biologist will survey the preserved habitat areas adjacent to the project site to determine if any gnatcatcher nests are within a distance potentially affected by noise from these activities. If no gnatcatchers are located, no additional measures will need to be taken to mitigate indirect impacts. However, if nesting gnatcatchers are observed, no activity will occur unless measures (e.g., noise barriers) are implemented to ensure that noise levels within occupied habitat do not exceed 60 dB A L*,. 3. Construction work areas will be delineated and marked clearly in the field prior to habitat removal, and the marked boundaries maintained and clearly visible to personnel on foot and by heavy equipment operators. Employees will strictly limit their activities and vehicles to the proposed project areas, staging areas, and routes of travel. A qualified biologist .Will monitor installation and removal of the fence, to insure that preserved areas are not impacted by installation or removal. 4. All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities, will occur in designated upland areas identified as impacted by the project. The designated upland areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering waters of the United States, including wetlands. . 5. Landscaped areas adjacent to open space and or wetland areas will incorporate native plants and avoid invasive exotic species. 6. Fuel modification zones will be limited to the project footprint, thus, no fuel modification will take place in the preserved wildlife habitat. 7. Lighting will be focused and shielded to minimize artificial lighting of preserved habitat areas. 8. The applicant will preserve 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub on-site. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will ensure that long-term conservation of the on-site preservation area will occur through biological conservation easements. The biological conservation easements will be granted to a public or private entity agreed to by the Service and the Department to ensure that the management of the biological resources is implemented. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant will identify an appropriate natural lands management organization (subject to approval by the Service) to ensure conservation of biological resources on the on-site preserved habitat in perpetuity. The conservation organization will prepare a management plan, outlining actions that will be taken to manage biological resources on-site. A Property Analysis Record (PAR) or similar analysis will be used to estimate initial start-up costs, and ongoing annual cost, of management activities outlined in the plan. A financial mechanism (e.g., a non-wasting endowment) shall be established to ensure that the funding is available to implement the management plan. The natural lands management organization will implement the management plan. Received: 1/21/O4 l:O8f^P -> usace regulatory branch; P^p 12 flCOE REGULATORY Fax:8586745388 ^ Jan 21 2004 12:07 P. 12 O -v Colonel Richard G.Thompson (2124.3) 6 9. A buffer zone consisting of manufactured slopes revegetated with coastal sage scrub would separate the development from wetland areas to be preserved on-site. This buffer would be approximately 100 feet wide (Figure 2) and total approximately 7.2 acres. 10. Manufactured slopes adjacent to the wildlife corridor will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub. This revegetation would total 8.5 acres. 11. Nine acres of disturbed habitat on-site will be decompacted and seeded with Diegan coastal sage scrub seed mix. The applicant has submitted a Conceptual Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Plan (Helix, October 1,2002), addressing revegetation of manufactured slopes and disturbed areas. Within 30 days of submission of the Services' final Biological Opinion, the plan will be reviewed by the Service. If Service comments are incorporated into the plan, or if the Service does not request revisions, within this time period, the plan dated October 1,2002 will be considered final. Revegetation will be conducted in accordance with the plan. 12. At least 2.88 acres of native riparian vegetation, including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, 'and freshwater marsh, will be created in areas that are currently disturbed. The applicant has submitted a Riparian Mitigation Plan (Helix, October 1,2002) for approval by the Service prior to commencement of construction. Within 30 days of submission of the Services' final Biological Opinion, the plan will be reviewed by the Service. If Service comments are incorporated into the plan, or if the Service does not request revisions, within this time period, the plan dated October 1,2002 will be considered final. Revegetation will be conducted in accordance with the plan. 13. An arched culvert undercrossing, 12 feet high and 24 feet wide, will be constructed under Melrose Drive on-site. 14. The project design includes a 400-foot-widc wildlife corridor, running approximately north-south, in order to connect contiguous areas of wildlife habitat to the north with wildlife habitat associated with Rancho Carrillo to the south across Palomar Airport Road. This corridor would be interrupted by Poinsetu'a Avenue. 15. Prior to any removal of native vegetation: 1. The applicant will provide an engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road. 2. The applicant will either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing on Poinsetu'a Avenue or pay $ 100,000 if an acceptable crossing is not constructed To offset the effects of Poinsettia Avenue on wildlife movement, these funds will be combined with an additional $225,865.90 to be paid by the applicant, and will be used either to construct a wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road, or to acquire wildlife habitat in the MHCP core area. Received: 1 721 /O4 1:O8 • flCOE REGULflTORY F^B -> usace regulatory branch; P^^B 13 Fax =8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:07 P. 13 H d-s I .5 •:=» *w*m ' QOo Sac Reoe±ved: 1 /21 /O4 1 : OOf -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULflTORY Fax =8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:08 P. 14 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 8 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californicd) Listing Status The Service listed the coastal California gnatcatcher as threatened on March 30, 1993 (Federal Register 58: 16742). As part of the Federal listing, the Service issued a special rule, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, defining the conditions under which take of the gnatcatcher would not be a violation of section 9. This special rule recognized the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program, and several local governments* ongoing multi-species conservation planning efforts (e.g., the MHCP) that intend to apply Act standards to activities affecting the gnatcatcher. An interim process was established whereby jurisdictions actively involved in NCCP planning would be allowed to take up to five percent of the remaining coastal sage habitat for projects that were consistent with the NCCP conservation guidelines. Final determination of critical habitat for the gnatcatcher was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Critical habitat was litigated in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. On June 11, 2002, Judge Wilson issued a ruling that the designated critical habitat would remain valid until the Service completes a new economic analysis and a revised final determination becomes effective. Species Description ; •; The coastal California gnatcatcher is a small (length: 1 1 centimeters; weight: 6 grams), long- tailed member of the old-world warbler and gnatcatcher family Sylviidae (American Ornithologists' Union 1998). The bird's plumage is dark blue-gray above and grayish-white below. The tail is mostly black above and below. The male has a distinctive black cap which is absent during the winter. Both sexes have a distinctive white eye-ring. The coastal California gnatcatcher is one of three subspecies of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) (Atwood 1991). Prior to 1989, the California gnatcatcher was classified as a subspecies of the Black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura). Atwood (1980, 1988) concluded that the species was distinct from P. melanura, based on differences in ecology and behavior. Recent mitochondria! DNA sequencing confirmed the species-level recognition of the California gnatcatcher (Zink and BJackwell 1998). Distribution Gnatcatchers occur on coastal slopes in southern California, ranging from southern Ventura southward through Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County through Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties into Baja California to El Rosario, Mexico, at about 30 degrees north latitude (Atwood 1991). In 1990, Atwood reported that ninety-nine percent of all gnatcatcher locality records occurred at or below an elevation of 300 meters (m) (984 feet (ft)). in 1992, Atwood and Boisinger reported that, of 324 sites of recent occurrence, 272 (84 percent) Received: 1/21/O4 1:OSF^^ -> usace regulatory branch; P^^ 16 fiCOE REGULflTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21^004 12:08 P. 15 Colonel Richard G.Thompson (2124.3) 9 were located below 250 m (820 ft) in elevation, 315 (97 percent) were below 500 m (1,640 ft), and 324 (100 percent) were below 750 m (2,460 ft). Since that time, additional data collected at higher elevations shows that this species may occur as high as 912 m (3,000 ft) and that more than 99 percent of the known gnatcatcher locations occurred below 770 m (2,500 ft) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Habitat Affinities Gnatcatchers typically occur in or near coastal sage scrub habitat. Coastal sage scrub is patchily distributed throughout the range of the gnatcatcher, and the gnatcatcher is not uniformly distributed within the structurally and floristically variable coastal sage scrub community. Rather, the subspecies tends to occur most frequently within California sagebrush (Artemisia catifornica)-dQmnaxed stands on mesas, gently sloping areas, and along the lower slopes of the coast ranges (Atwood 1990). An analysis of the percent gap in shrub canopy supports the hypothesis that gnatcatchers prefer relatively open stands of coastal sage scrub (Weaver 1998). The gnatcatcher occurs in high frequencies and densities in scrub with an open or broken canopy while it is absent from scrub dominated by tall shrubs and occurs in low frequencies and densities in low scrub with a closed canopy (Weaver 1998). Territory size increases as vegetation density decreases and with distance from the coast, probably due to food resource availability. Gnatcatchers also use chaparral, grassland,, and riparian habitats where they occur adjacent to sage scrub (Campbell ei al. 1998). The use of these habitats appears to be most frequent during late summer, autumn, and winter, with smaller numbers of birds using Such areas during the breeding season: These non-sage scrub habitats are used for dispersal, but data on dispersal use. are largely anecdotal (Campbell et al 1998). Linkages of habitat along linear features such as highways and power-line corridors may be of significant value in linking populations of the gnatcatcher (Famolaro and Newman 1998). Although existing quantitative data may reveal relatively little about gnatcatcher use of these other habitats, these areas may be critical during certain times of year for dispersal or as foraging areas during drought conditions (Campbell et al. 1998). Breeding territories have also been documented in non-sage scrub habitat. Campbell et al. (1998) discuss likely scenarios explaining why habitats other than coastal sage scrub are used by gnatcatchers including food source availability, dispersal areas for juveniles, temperature extremes, fire avoidance, and lowered predation rate for fledglings. Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the gnatcatcher consists of 207,868 hectares (ha) (513,650 acres (ac)) of Federal, state, local, and private land in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Primary constituent elements for the gnatcatcher are those habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs of foraging, nesting, rearing of young, intra-speciflc communication, roosting, dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering. Primary constituent elements are provided in (1) undeveloped areas, including agricultural lands, that support or have the potential to support, through natural successional processes, various types of sage scrub, or (2) undeveloped areas that support chaparral, grassland, or riparian Received: 1/21/O4 1 :10P^P -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULflTORY Fax=8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12=09 P. 16 Colonel. Richard G.Thompson (2124.3) 10 habitats where they occur proximal to sage scrub and where they may be utilized for the biological needs of dispersal and foraging, and (3) undeveloped areas, including agricultural areas, that provide or could provide connectivity or linkage between or within larger core, areas, including open space and disturbed areas that may receive only periodic use (Federal Register 65:63680). Life History The California gnatcatcher is primarily insectivorous, nonmigratory, and exhibits strong site tenacity (Atwood 1990). Diet deduced from fecal samples resulted in leaf- and plant-hoppers and spiders predominating the samples. True bugs, wasps, bees, and ants were only minor components of the diet (Burger et al. 1999). Gnatcatcher adults selected prey to feed their young that was larger than expected given the distribution of arthropods available in their environment. Both adults and young consumed more sessile than active prey items (Burger et al. 1999). The California gnatcatcher seems to become highly territorial by late February or early March each year, as males become more vocal during this time period (Mock et al. 1990). In southwestern San Diego County the mean breeding season territory size ranged from 5 to 11 ha (12 to 27 ac) .per pair and non-breeding season territory size ranged from 5 to 17 ha (12 to 42 ac) per pair (Preston et al. 1998). During the nonbreeding season, gnatcatchers have been observed to wander in adjacent territories and unoccupied habitat increasing their home range size to ! approximately 78 percent larger than their breeding territory (Preston et al. 1998). The breeding season of the gnatcatcher extends from mid-February through the end of August, with the peak of nesting activity occurring from mid-March through mid-May: The gnatcatcher's nest is a small, cup-shaped basket usually found 0.3 to 1 m (1 to 3 ft) above the ground in a small shrub or cactus. Clutch sizes range between three and five eggs, with the average being four. Juvenile birds associate with their parents for several weeks (sometimes months) after fledging (Atwood 1990). Nest building begins in mid-March with the earliest recorded egg date of March 20 (Mock et al 1990). Post-breeding dispersal of fledglings.occurs between late May and late November. Nest predation is the most common cause of nest failure (Grishaver et al. .1998). Gnatcatchers are persistent nest builders and often attempt multiple broods, which is suggestive of a high reproductive potential. This is, however, typically offset by high rates of nest predation and brood parasitism (Atwood 1990). Nest site attendance by male gnatcatchers was determined to be equal to that of females for the first nest attempt and then decline to almost a third of female nest attendance for later nesting attempts (Sockman 1998). Gnatcatchers typically live for two to three years, although ages of up to five years have been:. recorded for some banded birds (Dudek and Associates 2000). Observations indicate that gnatcatchers are highly vulnerable to extreme cold, wet weather (Mock et al, 1990). Predation occurs in greater proportion in the upper and lower third of the nest shrub. Predation is lower in nests with full clutch sizes (Sockman 1997). Potential nest predators are numerous, and include snakes, raccoons, and corvids (Grishaver et al. 1998). The California gnatcatcher also is known to be affected by nest parasitism of the brown-headed cowbird (Motothrus ater). Nest parasitism apparently has resulted in earlier nesting dates of the gnatcatcher which may help compensate for Received: 1 721 /O4 1 :1 O( -> usace regulatory branch; P 1 7 flCOE REGULflTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:09 P. 17_ Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 11 the negative effect of parasitism (Patten and Campbell 1998). However, the gains in nest success from decreased nest parasitism appear to be negated by increased nest abandonment due to predation before cowbirds have migrated into an area (Braden el al. 1997). The natal dispersal, for a nonmigratory bird, such as the gnatcatcher, is an important aspect of the biology of the species (Galvin 1998). The mean dispersal distance of gnatcatchers banded in San Diego County is reported at less than 3 kilometers (km) (1.9 miles (mi)) (Bailey and Mock 1998). Although the mean dispersal distances that have been documented above are relatively low, dispersal of juveniles is difficult to observe and to document without extensive banding studies. Therefore, it is likely that the few current studies underestimate the gnatcatcher's typical dispersal capacity (Bailey and Mock 1998). Juvenile gnatcatchers are apparently able to traverse highly man-modified landscapes for a least short distances (Bailey and Mock 1998). Natural and restored coastal sage scrub habitat along highway corridors is used for foraging and nesting by gnatcatchers and may serve important dispersal functions (Famolaro and Newman 1998). Typically, however, the dispersal of juveniles requires a corridor of native vegetation which provides foraging and cover opportunities to link larger patches .of appropriate sage scrub vegetation (Soule 1991). These dispersal corridors may facilitate the exchange of genetic material and provide a path for recolonization of areas from which the species has been extirpated (Soule 1991, Galvin 1998). Population Trend The gnatcatcher was considered locally common in the mid-1940's, but by the 1960's this subspecies had declined substantially in the United States owing to widespread destruction of its habitat (Atwood 1990). By 1980, Atwood (1980) estimated that no more than 1,000 to 1,500 pairs .remained in the United States. In 1993, at the time the gnatcatcher was listed as threatened, the Service estimated that approximately 2,562 pairs of gnatcatchers occurred in the .United • States. Of these, 30 pairs occurred in Los Angeles County, 757 pairs occurred in Orange County, 261 pairs occurred in Riverside County, and 1,514 pairs occurred in San Diego County. In 1997, the total number of gnatcatchers in the United States was estimated at 2,899 pairs with two-thirds occurring in San Diego County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996), after subtracting out all gnatcatcher pairs authorized for take under Habitat Loss Permits, approved Natural Community Conservation Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, and section 7 consultations. These population estimates were intended to represent a coarse approximation of the number of gnatcatchers in southern California. Confidence intervals have not been calculated for these estimates and therefore, we can not be sure of their precision. Threats The loss, fragmentation, and adverse modification of habitat are the principal reasons for the gnatcatcher's federally threatened status (Federal Register 58:16742). The amount of coastal sage scrub available to gnatcatchers has continued to decrease during the period after the listing of the species. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of coastal sage scrub vegetation has been lost as a result of development and land conversion (Westman I981a, 19816, Harbour and Major 1977), and coastal sage scrub is considered to be one of the most depleted habitat-types in the Received: 1 /31/O4 1 :11 pl^ -> usace regulatory branch; P 1 8 flCOE REGULRTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:10 P. 18 i Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 12 United States (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1977, O'Leary 1990). The fragmentation of habitat may artificially increase populations in adjacent preserved habitat; however, these population i surpluses may be lost in subsequent years due to crowding and lack of resources (Scott 1993). In addition, agricultural use, such as grazing and field crops, urbanization, air pollution, and the introduction of non-native plants have all had an adverse impact on extant sage scrub habitat. A consequence of urbanization that is contributing to the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of coastal sage scrub is an increase in wildfires due to anthropogenic ignitions. High fire frequencies and the lag period associated with recovery of the vegetation may significantly , reduce the viability of affected subpopulations (Dudek and Associates 2000). Furthermore, nestr i parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Unitt 1984) and nest predation threaten the recovery of ] the gnatcatcher (Atwood 1980, Unitt 1984). Habitat fragmentation and urbanization may result ; in decreased numbers and distribution of coyotes (Corn's latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufits), or decreased use of gnatcatcher habitat by these predators due to fragmentation and isolation of i - habitat. Coyotes and bobcats are thought to benefit gnatcatcher populations through control of populations of smaller predators that depredate gnatcatcher nests (Crooks and Soul6 1999). i ; ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR §402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the i action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have undergone section 7 consultation, and the impacts of State and private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress. _.-•••.- i The proposed project area occurs within the planning area for the Multiple Habitat Conservation I ' Program (MHCP), a subregional plan that will address north coastal San Diego County under the. ' NCCP program. Furthermore, this area occurs within the planning area of the draft Carlsbad Subarea Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is a subarea plan under the MHCP. The HMP was used as a guideline in formulation of biological resource conservation measures and open i space boundaries associated with this project. The May 12,1998 Biological Technical Report (Helix 1998) characterized the 145-acre site as consisting of a gentle east to west sloping canyon, spanning most of the length of the property. . Vegetation on the site consists of a complex mosaic of vegetation types. A paved drag strip runs about two-thirds of the length of the property, artificially diverting the drainage for much of the length of the drag strip. Where the drainage is not diverted by the drag strip, it is lined intermittently with patches of southern willow scrub. North of the drainage the vegetated areas i are dominated by a mosaic of Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral. The coastal sage scrub and chaparral along the northern border of the site includes relatively few exotic plants. Under the MHCP composite habitat evaluation model (Conservation Biology ' Institute 2000) the intact coastal sage scrub and chaparral on-site is considered very high quality. However, numerous unvegetated din roads and motorcycle paths dissect the site into many small but closely-spaced vegetated fragments. South of the drainage, vegetated areas are dominated by Received: , 1/21/O4 1 :11 P^P -> usace regulatory branch; ^ fiCOE REGULGTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:10 fV19_ Colonel Richard G.Thompson (2 124.3) 13 annual grassland and disturbed areas. In total, vegetation types on-site include disturbed habitat (57.8 acres) annual grassland (32.6 acres), southern mixed chaparral (26.3 acres), Diegan coastal sage scrub (19.2 acres), agriculture (4.7 acres), southern willow scrub (3.42 acres), freshwater marsh (0.8 acte), and mule fat scrub (0.18 acre). The land characterized as "agriculture" has not actually been used for agriculture since prior to October 1999, but is disced regularly (John Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs.). The property is bounded by industrial development to the east, west, and along most of the northern border of the parcel. Roughly the central third of the northern border interfaces with native wildlife habitat, consisting of chaparral and sage scrub extending northeast into La Mirada Canyon. Wildlife habitat; in the northwest corner of the site is contiguous with a 400-500 acre block of habitat on the Tchiang property, which is proposed for development in the draft BMP'. To. the south, the properly borders the Palomar Forum property, which consists of a mosaic of non-native grassland (primarily disced) and coastal sage scrub. To the south of the narrow, lens- shaped Palomar Forum property is Palomar Airport Road: a high-volume, high-speed major thoroughfare. Palomar Airport road is bordered to the south by residential development, except for a strip of primarily native vegetation about 400-500 feet wide on the eastern end of the interface with Palomar Forum. Because Palomar Airport road is flanked by industrial and/or residential development on one or both sides for approximately 6.5 kilometers west of the site, and approximately 19 kilometers east of the site, this strip of native vegetation offers the only opportunity for gnatcatcher habitat connectivity between the Carlsbad Raceway Property and other lands to the north, with gnatcatcher habitat in southern Carlsbad, the MHCP core gnatcatcher conservation area, and habitat near Lake Hodges. Because of this habitat connectivity, gnatcatchers on-site have the potential to interact with gnatcatchers throughout the remaining interconnected habitat areas in north coastal San Diego County, contributing to genetic and demographic diversity of the population, and contributing to the local gnatcatcher population's resilience to stochastic disturbances. ' ' Gnatcatchers are known to occupy contiguous areas of suitable habitat within 500 meters of the site, on the Tchang property to the northwest, and La Mirada Canyon to the north. Surveys were conducted for gnatcatcners in March and April of 1998, and in January of 2003. Surveys followed the Service's recommended gnatcatcher survey protocol (USFWS 1997): No gnatcatchers were observed on-site during focused surveys. However, on September 25, 2000, John Martin of the Service detected a gnatcatcher of undetermined age and sex in chaparral and coastal sage scrub in the north-central portion of the site, while visiting the site with the applicant. In addition, a gnatcatcher was observed a short distance off-site during the January 2003 surveys. Based on the availability of suitable habitat on-site, and the average size of a gnatcatcher' s home range, it is reasonable to assume that the gnatcatcher observed off-site uses the Raceway property to some extent. Mapped areas of critical habitat for the gnatcatcher encompass 50.5 acres on site, consisting of most of the northern half of the site, and the planned wildlife corridor on the eastern end (Figure 3). However, areas containing constituent elements of gnatcatcher critical habitat within the mapped area total 49.8 acres, include 1S.4 acres of coastal sage scrub, 16.3 acres of chaparral. 14.3 acres of annual grassland, and 3.8 acres of riparian vegetation. Gnatcatchers are known to Received: 1 /21 /O4 1 ; 12P -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULflTDRY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:10 P.20 ! Colonel Richard G.Thompson (2124.3) 14 j use vegetation types other than coastal sage scrub seasonally, for dispersal, or for 1 thermoregulatory purposes (Campbell ei al. 1998), and they are considered constituent elements of gnatcatcher critical habitat (Federal Register 65:63680). : Coyotes and bobcats are thought to benefit gnatcatcher populations through control of populations of smaller predators that depredate gnatcatcher nests (Crooks and Soul€ 1999). A coyote was observed on the project site on September 25,2000 (John Martin, USFWS, pers. ! obs.). Bobcats have been observed on and immediately adjacent to the Tchang property, which is ; contiguous with the Raceway property to the Northwest (several USFWS personnel, pers. obs,). j A bobcat (N. Kehoe, USFWS, pers. obs.) was found dead beside Palomar Airport Road in the •\ vicinity of the proposed wildlife corridor near the east end of the Carlsbad Raceway property. In I light of this evidence and the presence of suitable habitat, it is reasonable to assume that these two species of predators use the site. • EFFECTS OF THE ACTION Effects of the action refer to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or .critical habitat,'together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated and interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. • . Direct effects The proposed development would reduce the available gnatcatcher habitat by a total of 31..57 acres, including 9.6 acres of the gnatcatcher's primary habitat (Diegan coastal sage scrub), and 22.01 acres of habitat types that gnatcatchers may use, including 21.6 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 0.13 acre of mule fat scrub, and 0.37 acre of southern willow scrub. Also, development would result in direct, permanent impacts to approximately 47.3 acres of disturbed habitat, 28 acres of annual grassland, 4.7 acres of agricultural land, 0.15 acre of freshwater marsh. 0.22 acre of wetland, and 0.05 acre of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The project would impact a total of 50.5 acres of designated critical habitat for the gnatcatcher. Areas of constituent elements within critical habitat areas proposed for impact total 25.9 acres, including 5.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, 10.9 acres of chaparral, 9.3 acres of grassland, and 0.2 acres of riparian habitat Received:1 /21 /O4 1 : 1 2P fCOE REGULflTORY -> usace regulatory branch; Fax =8586745388 21 Jan 21 ^004 12:11 P. 21 Rece±ved: 1 /21 /O4 1 : 1 3PP -> usace regulatory branch; P 22 • flCOE REGULflTORY Fax: 8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12 = 12 P. 22 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 16 Revegetation of disturbed areas and manufactured slopes on the site with coastal sage scrub would total 17.5 acres. Subtracting this amount from the amount of coastal sage scrub proposed .for direct impact indicates that the project should result in a net gain of 7.9 acres of coastal sage scrub. However, there is a temporal loss of coastal sage scrub until the revegetated area becomes habitable to gnatcatchers. It is possible that revegetation may not be successful. However, if revegetated areas of coastal sage scrub or riparian vegetation do not meet success criteria presented in the revegetation plans (Helix 2002a, 2002b) approved by the Service, the applicant proposes to implement a remediation program. If the coastal sage scrub revegetation is not successful, the project proponent proposes to submit a revised or supplemental mitigation program, to compensate for the portions of the revegetation that fail to reach success criteria. The applicant proposes to conduct a remediation program, agreed upon with the Service, within 60 days of the determination that success criteria have not been met. A Based on the observation of a gnatcatcher on-site on September 25, 2000, and immediately off- site in January 2003, the proposed project would directly impact one gnatcatcher by the removal of 9.6 acres of coastal sage scrub and 22.01 acres of other potential gnatcatcher habitat. If the loss of habitat occurs during the breeding season, direct impact is expected to occur through the interruption of courtship, nest building, destruction of eggs, and disturbance or death of unfledged young. The applicant proposes to avoid clearing or grubbing of native vegetation between February 15 and August 31. Thus, there should be no impacts to nesting birds, eggs, or chicks. If habitat is removed during the non-breeding season, impact to an adult gnatcatcher is still . expected due to the elimination of necessary foraging and sheltering areas for the one gnatcatcher observed oh and adjacent to the property. The removal of 9.6 acres of coastal sage scrub is substantial because it reduces the ability for that individual to find alternate, suitable habitat to forage. Variable gnatcatcher breeding and post-breeding season territories and home range areas reflect the changing size needed to meet the particular breeding, feeding, and sheltering requirements of the species at any given part of the year. For example, Bontrager (1991) notes an 82 percent increase in home-range size during the non-breeding season, Preston et al. (1998), found a 78 percent increase in post breeding home range size, and Braden et al. (1994) found an 86 percent increase in home range size during the non-breeding season. Therefore, reduction of available habitat will harm individual gnatcatchers by reducing the available resources for individual gnatcatcher survival. Gnatcatchers need large non-breeding season territories for adequate sheltering opportunities to reduce predation and increase survival. The Carlsbad Raceway project has been designed to maintain a block of native, habitat on the •northern portion of the property that will be contiguous with adjacent open space in La Mirada Canyon and on the Tchang property, to the north and northwest, respectively. Approximately 9.6 acres of extant coastal sage scrub, 4.7 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 3.05 acres of southern willow scrub, 0.05 acre of mule fat scrub, and 4.6 acres of non-native grassland will be preserved on-site. In addition, approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slopes, and 9.0 acres of currently disturbed land will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub. Together these 39.5 acres are expected to provide habitat that the gnatcatcher may use for breeding, foraging, sheltering, dispersal, or other activities necessary 10 survival. However, the temporal loss of 9.6 acres of Received: 1/21/O4 1 :13f -> usace regulatory branch; P 23 flCOE REGULfiTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:12 P.25 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 17 coastal sage scrub is expected to reduce the habitat area available for breeding, foraging, or sheltering of a gnatcatcher for a period not likely to exceed five years. The creation of 1.44 acres of wetland vegetation (including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and freshwater marsh) on currently disturbed areas is expected to increase the likelihood of gnatcatcher population persistence, by providing alternative habitat that gnatcatchers may use in times of drought and/or extreme temperatures (Campbell et al 1998). Revegetation of 8.5 acres of manufactured slopes and 9 acres of currently disturbed habitat with coastal sage scrub is expected to provide habitat for gnatcatchers, and improve the quality of existing coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat by decreasing the fragmentation caused by the network of motorcycle trails on-site. Active management (i.e., exotic vegetation removal, trash removal, fire management, control of human access, etc.) of the preserved areas is expected to reduce indirect. • impacts exacerbated by surrounding development, and to improve gnatcatcher habitat quality within these areas, which are already subject to deleterious indirect effects. These measures are intended to maintain a population of gnatcatchers and other sage scrub dependent species through, the preservation and management of moderate-sized blocks of sage scrub, contributing to connectivity between larger gnatcatcher populations north and south of Carlsbad Raceway. Indirect effects .. ..... .•- Several indirect impacts are associated with construction and occupancy of the Carlsbad Raceway project, and have the potential to cause significant adverse affects to the gnatcatchers within the action area. These indirect impacts include night lighting, human disturbance, reduction of large predator access to gnatcatcher habitat, and habitat degradation through introduction of exotic plants. " Illumination of gnatcatcher habitat by night lighting of the proposed development on-site has the potential to adversely affect gnatcatchers. Physiological, developmental, and behavioral effects of light intensity, wavelength, and photoperiod on domestic bird species are well-documented. In the wild, urban lighting is associated with early daily initiation of song activity in great tits (Parity major) and chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs) (Bergen and Abs 1997). Black-tailed godwits (Limosa limosd) placed their nests significantly farther from motorway lights than from unlighted controls (de Molenar et al, 2000). Placement of nests away from lighted areas implies that part. of the home range is rendered less suitable for nesting by artificial light. If potential nest sites are limited within the bird's home range, reduction in available sites associated with artificial night lighting may cause the bird to use a suboptimal nest site, that is more vulnerable to predation, cowbird parasitism, or extremes of weather. It is reasonable to assume that variations on the natural lighting regime may have similar effects on other bird species, including gnatcatchers. The applicant has proposed to reduce the potential for such impacts by shielding of lights, such that artificial lighting from the project is directed away from the open space. The narrowing of existing corridors of native habitat, in conjunction with increased human density and auto traffic, may be a significant impediments to movement of large predators such as coyotes and bobcats. Gibeau (1993) studying coyote use of urban habitats observed 21 study animals killed on highways between July 1991 and March 1993. This constituted a 35% highway Received: 1 /21 /O4 1:14P^^ -> usace regulatory branch; P^^ 24 flCOE REGULflTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:13 P.24 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 18 mortality rate. Coyote and bobcat prey includes smaller animals that prey upon gnatcatchers and their nests. Absence of coyotes and bobcats may thus result in local extirpation of gnatcatchers (Crooks and Soule 1999). The presence of a full complement of resident species is important to the health and viability of a naturally functioning ecosystem. Connectivity between proposed and existing preserve units must be provided through wildlife crossings. Traffic speed is thought to be correlated with risk of mortality of animals crossing roads (Evink et al 1996, Romin and Bissonette 1996, Jones 2000). Proposed wildlife undercrossing structures notwithstanding, it is expected that Poinsettia Avenue, because of its proposed 30-mile per hour speed limit, would present less risk of mortality to wildlife than Melrose Drive or Palomar Airport Road, both of which have or would have speed limits of 60 miles per hour. The proposed wildlife undercrossing beneath Melrose Drive is expected to allow coyotes and bobcats to access the preserved habitat with minimal risk of traffic-related mortality. The proposed wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road, if constructed, would have a similar beneficial effect. However, though construction of an undercrossing beneath Palomar Airport Road would be partially funded by this project, construction of this undercrossing is not part of the Carlsbad Raceway project. If the undercrossing beneath Palomar Airport Road is not constructed, the $325,865.90 contributed by the applicant toward the construction of the undercrossing may be directed toward acquisition of gnatcatcher habitat within the MHCP core area,... The project may facilitate human access to gnatcatcher habitat. Human disturbance may disrupt breeding or increase potential for predation, by altering spatial or temporal behavior patterns through alarm or avoidance responses. To decrease potential for disturbance during, the construction phase of the project, the applicant proposes to delineate the boundary between .conserved open space and impact areas by erecting temporary fencing. A biological monitor will oversee installation and removal of the fence. Because the proposed development consists of office and industrial facilities rather than residences, the development is expected to have less human disturbance of the wildlife and habitat on the preserved areas after construction is completed. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are those impacts of future non-Federal (State, local government, or private) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are reasonably certain to occur during the course of the Federal activity subject to consultation. Future Federal actions are subject to the consultation requirements established in section 7 of the Act, and, therefore, are not considered cumulative in the proposed project. We anticipate that a wide range of activities will be determined to affect the gnatcatcher. Such activities include, but are not limited to urban development, flood control, highway, and utility projects; as well as conversion or degradation of habitat resulting from agricultural and grazing use. The future MHCP Subarea Plan for the City is subject to consultation under section 7 of the Act. Therefore any projects potentially affecting the gnatcatcher would thus have a Federal nexus and be subject to section 7 of the Act, and cumulative effects of such projects would not be considered under this consultation. Should this process not result in the Service's issuance of a Received: 1 /21 /O«* 1=14^P -=• usace regulatory branch; F^P 25 flCOE REGULfiTORY Fax: 8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:13 P. 25 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 19 I0(a)(l)(b) permit, future land development projects in the City would continue to be regulated in accordance with NCCP guidelines and the 4(d) special rule, or through an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(l)(b) of the Act (which, as it is permitted by a Federal agency, is subject to consultation under section 7 of the Act and is not considered a cumulative effect). Future projects that impact wetlands would require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, therefore these would constitute Federal actions that would not be considered as contributing to cumulative effects. Unauthorized grading and filling of habitat would continue to affect the long-term viability of the gnatcatcher in a regional context. In recent years, there have been several incidents of illegal grading of gnatcatcher habitat within northern coastal San Diego County communities. Illegal • ' grading is expected to continue to occur, affecting the multiple species planning efforts in the area, Recreational bicycling and hiking may impact gnatcatchers on the preserved habitat on-site. On the adjacent Tchang property to the northwest, recreational bicycling and hiking in occupied gnatcatcher habitat is unregulated, and occurs daily. Active management of the preserved habitat on-site will entail measures to discourage trespass, minimizing impact of recreational activities. Human habitation (i.e., homeless encampments) is common in riparian areas in urban and suburban San Diego County, and as surrounding development and economic growth creates more demand for unskilled labor, it is anticipated that people who cannot afford conventional housing will continue to establish camps in native vegetation. This has the potential to impact gnatcatchers through direct human disturbance, disturbance by pets, destruction of vegetation, attraction of scavengers that may depredate gnatcatcher nests, and increased risk of fire. Active management of the preserved habitat on-site will include discouragement of trespass, and removal of encampments as they become established. • • • CONCLUSION After reviewing the current status of the gnatcatcher, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed Carlsbad Raceway development, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gnatcatcher, or adversely modify its critical habitat. The Service reached this conclusion for the following reasons: 1. The number of gnatcatchers expected to be affected by the project is not expected to have a significant effect on the species' overall numbers, distribution, or reproductive potential. 2. Impacts to the gnatcatcher through the direct loss of approximately 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 21.6 acres of southern mixed chaparral, and 0.37 acre of southern Received: 1/21/O4 1:15PW -> usace regulatory branch; P^ 28 flCOE REGULflTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:14 P.26 Colonel Richard G.Thompson (21 24.3) 20 willow scrub will be adequately offset through implementation of the conservation measures. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat ' modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding; feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The exemption in section 7(oX2) for incidental take is only granted to the applicant once the Corps issues a final permit for the project, pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water ACL The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity that is covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse, m order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps or the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402.14(0(3)] AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE The Service anticipates one gnatcatcher could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The take may be in the form of harm as a result of the temporal loss of approximately 9..6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.37 acre of southern willow scrub, and the permanent removal of 2 1 .6 acres of southern mixed chaparral. I Received: 1 /21 /O4 1:15PH^P -> usace regulatory branch; Pl^^ 27 I fiCCE REGULflTORY Fax.'8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:14 P.27i - i I Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 21 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of gnatcatchers: 1. Take of gnatcatchers, through harm, shall be minimized to the extent possible during construction by implementation of best management practices. 2. Take associated with unavoidable project impacts shall be minimized by the restoration of habitat and maintenance of wildlife corridor function. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Corps and the project proponent must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 1. The Corps and the project proponent shall implement reasonable and prudent measure 1 through the following terms and conditions: a. Conservation recommendation number 1 is modified to restrict removal of native vegetation to the non-breeding season for the gnatcatcher (September 1- February 14) unless otherwise approved by the Service. b. . Best management practices listed in the project description as Conservation Measures 2-7 are hereby incorporated as terms and conditions. c. The Service retains the right to access and inspect the project site for compliance with the proposed project description and with the terms and conditions of this biological opinion during the construction phases. 2. The Corps and the project proponent shall implement reasonable and prudent measure 2 through the following terms and conditions: a. Offsetting measures listed in the project description as Conservation Measures 8- 14 are hereby incorporated as terms and conditions. b. Conservation measure 15 is modified as follows: To allow continued wildlife corridor function in the project area, the applicant shall work with the City to . ensure construction of a wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road, so that large predators may access on-site gnatcatcher habitat, and other portions of the regional preserve, with reduced risk of traffic-related mortality. The wildlife undercrossing shall be included in the project grading plan, so that the Received: 1 /21 /O4- 1:1SPI^^ -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULfiTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:14 P.28_ Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 22 undercrossing will be built concurrently with the industrial development and habitat restoration, with the support of the City. The undercrossing structure shall be at least 60 inches in diameter, with a dirt substrate. The northern terminus shall be in the open space preserve associated with Rancho Carrillo on the north side of Palomar Airport Road, and its southern terminus in the open space, pteserve associated with Palomar Forum on the south side of Palomar Airport Road. The final design and construction shall be approved by the Service prior to implementation. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS In order to demonstrate compliance with the foregoing Terms and Conditions, the applicant shall submit an annual report to the Service, by September 30,2004, that describes and summarizes the implementation of the proposed project, its associated conservation measures, and the Terms and Conditions of this biological opinion. Disposition of Sick. Injured, or Dead Specimens: The Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office is to be notified within three working days should any endangered or'threatened species be found dead or injured during this project. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the carcass, and any,other pertinent information. Dead animals may be marked in an appropriate manner, photographed, and left on-site. Injured animals should be transported to. a qualified veterinarian. Should any treated animals survive, the Service should be contacted regarding the final disposition of the animals. The Service contact person is John Martin and may be contacted at the letterhead address or at (760) 431-9440. The Service retains the right to access and inspect the project site for compliance with the proposed project description and with the terms and conditions of this biological opinion. Any habitat destroyed that is not in the identified project footprint should be disclosed immediately to the Service for possible reinitiation of consultation. Compensation for such habitat loss will be requested at a minimum ratio of 5:1. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans or to develop information. 1. The Corps should work cooperatively with the Carlsbad Watershed Network, to assist them in implementing programs to improve wildlife habitat quality and wetland function in northern coastal San Diego County. »•• * ""• ' ; -> usace regulatpr-y branch; P^^ 2B flCOE REGULflTORY Fax =8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:15 P. 29 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 23 In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. REINITIATION NOTICE This concludes formal consultation on the development of the Carlsbad Raceway project, as outlined in the request for initiation. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the , action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action thai may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances, where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. If you have any questions or concerns about this biological opinion, please contact John Martin of my staff at (760) 431.-9440. Sincerely, Peter Sorensen Acting Assistant Field Supervisor0 Received: 1 /21 /O4 1 : 1 BfTS^ -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULflTORY Fax: 8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:15 P. 30 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 24 LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, Seventh Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pages. Atwood, J. L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65-78. _. 1988. Speciation and geographic variation in black-tailed gnaicatchers. Ornithological Monographs No. 42. . 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Mass. .. 1991. Subspecies limits and geographic patterns of morphological variation in California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica). Bulletin Southern California Academy of Sciences 90:118-133. , and J, S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California gnatcatchers in the United States. J. Reid Ornithology 63:159-168. Bailey, E. A. And P. J. Mock. 1998. Dispersal Capability of the California gnatcatcher: A landscape analysis of distribution data. Western Birds 29:351-360. Barbour, M. J., and J. Major, eds. 1977. Terrestrial Vegetation of California (2nd ed,), John Wiley and Sons, New York. Bergen, F. and M. Abs. 1997. Etho-ecological study of the singing activity of the blue tit (Pants caenileus), great tit (Parus major) and chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs). Journal fur Ormthologie 138(4):451-467 Braden, G. T, R. L. McKeman, and S. M. Powell. 1997. Effects of nest parasitism by.the brown-headed cowbird on nesting success of the California gnatcatcher. Condor 99: 858-865. , S. L. Love, and R. L. McKeman. 1994. Draft Report: Dispersal and non-breeding season habitat use by the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) in Western Riverside County. Report prepared for the Southwestern Riverside County Reserve management Committee and the Metropolitan Water District bytheUSFWS. October 1994,28 pages. Burger, J. C., M. A. Patten, J. T. Rotenberry, and R. A. Redak. 1999. Foraging ecology of the California gnatcatcher deduced from fecal samples. Oecologia (Berlin) 120:304-310. Campbell, K., R. Erickson, W. Haas and M. Patten. 1998. California Gnatcatcher Use of Received: 1/21/OA 1:1ePW^ -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULflTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:15 P.31 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 25 Habitats other than Coastal Sage Scrub: Conservation and Management Implications. Western Birds 29:421-433. Conservation Biology Institute. 2000. Public Review Draft MHCP. Crooks, K. R., andM. E. Soule*. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a • fragmented system. Nature 400:563-566. de Molenar, J. G., D. A. Jonkers, and M. E. Sanders. 2000. Road illumination and nature, m. Local influence of road lights on a black-tailed godwit (Limosa I. limosd) population. Report prepared for Directorate-General of Public Works and Water Management, by AlterraV Green World Research. Wagenmgen. Netherlands « .* . * •• * Dudek and Associates. 2000. Comprehensive species list. In: Understanding the plants and animals of the western-Riverside County MSHCP. ' rhltp://ecoregion.ucr.edu/mshcp/index.htmn. Evink,G-L., P. Barret, D.Zeigler,and J. Berry, eds. 1996- Trends in Addressing Transportation-related Wildlife Mortality. No. FL-ER-58-96. Florida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida. 395pp. Famolaro, P. And J. Newman. 1998. Occurrence and management considerations of California gnatcatchers along San Diego County highways. Western Birds 29:447-452. Galvin, J. P. 1998. Breeding and dispersal biology of the California gnatcatcher in Central . Orange County. Western Birds 29: 323-332. Gibeau, M. L. 1993. Use of urban habitat by coyotes in the vicinity of Banff, Alberta. MS Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 66 pp. Grishaver, M. A. P. J. Mock, and K. L. Preston. 1998. Breeding behavior of the California gnatcatcher in southwestern San Diego County, California. Western Birds 29: 299-322. Helix Environmental Planning. Inc. 1998. Carlsbad Raceway Project Biological Technical Report. Unpubl. report. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, California. 20 pp.. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2002a. Carlsbad Raceway Project Riparian Mitigation Plan. Unpubl. report. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, California. 17 pp. . Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2002b. Carlsbad Raceway Project Conceptual Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Plan. Unpubl. report. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, California. 11 pp. 7f^P; -> usacc regulatory branch; f^ifaReceived: 1 /21 /O-4 1:17 -> usacc regulatory branch; I 32 ftCOE REGULATORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:15 P.32 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 26 Jones, M. E. 2000. Road upgrade, road mortality, and remedial measures: impacts on a population of eastern quolls and tasmanian devils. Wildlife Research 27: 289-296. Kirkpatrick, J-, and C. Hutchinson. 1977. The community composition of California coastal sage scrub. Vegetatio 35:21-33. . .- Mock, P.J., B. L. Jones, and J. Konecny. 1990. California Gnatcatcher Survey Guidelines. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. Patten, M. A. And K. F. Campbell. 1998. Has brood parasitism selected for earlier nesting in the California gnatcatcher? Western Birds 29:290-298. Preston, K_ L., P. J. Mock, M. A. Grishaver, E. A. Bailey, and D. F. King. 1998. California gnatcatcher territorial behavior. Western Birds 29: 242-257.. Romin, L. A., and J. A. Bissonette. "1996. Temporal and spatial distribution of highway mortality of mule deer on newly constructed roads at Jordanelle Reservoir, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 56:1-11. Scott, T. A- 1993. Inmal.effects of housing construction on woodland birds along the wildland urban interface. In Interface between Ecology and Land Development in California. Edited by J. E. Keeley. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles. Sockman, K.W. 1997. Variation in life-history traits and nest-site selection affects risk of nest predation in the California gnatcatcher. Auk 114:324-332. 1998. Nest attendance by male California gnatcatchers. J. Field Ornithology 69:95- 102. Soule, M. E. 1991. Land use planning and wildlife maintenance: guidelines for conserving wildlife in an urban landscape. Journal of the American Planning Association 57:313- 323. Unitt, P. 1984. The birds of San Diego County, San Diego Society of Natural History: Memoir 13, San Diego, California. 276pp U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Biological Opinion 1-6-93-FW-37R1 on the Effects of Implementing the 4(d) Special Rule for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. October 18. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Carlsbad, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Coastal California gatcatcher (Polioptila cdifornica californicd) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. Unpublished. fjt, .. ', •. Received: 1 /21 /O4 1 :1 ~^^f -> usace regulatory .branch; flCOE REGULATORY Fax =8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12 = 16 P. 33 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (2124.3) 27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final determination of critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher; Final Rule Federal Register 65:63680-63743. Weaver, K. L. 1998. Coastal sage scrub variations of San Diego County and their influence on the distribution of the California gnatcatcher. Western Birds 29: 392-405. Westman, W, 1981a. Diversity relations and succession in California coastal sage scrub Ecology 62:170-184. Zink, R. M., and R. C. Blackwell. 1998. Molecular systematics and biogeography of arid land gnatcatchers (Genus Polwptila) and evidence supporting species status of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9: 26-32. 12-17-O4; 9:49AM; info tech dept ;76O6O28555 M ti 1-tNIUN CD PAGE B2/08 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 4949 Viewrldge Avenue San Diego, California 92123 Notification No.R5-2002-0088 AGREEMENT REGARDING PROPOSED STREAM OR LAKE ALTERATION THIS AGREEMENT, entered into between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter called the Department, and Mr. John Crowley. representing LSOF Carlsbad Land. LP. 717 N.Jteroood Street Suite 2100. Houston. TX75201. f214t)754- 8462. State of Texas. hereinafter called the Operator., is as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1603 of California Fish and Game Code, the Operator, on the 1§t day of March. 2002. notified the Department that they intend to divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or change the bed, channel, or bank of or use material from the streambed(s) of, the following waterfe): three unnamed drainages, tributary to Aaua Hodlonda Creek, tributary to the Pacific Ocean. San Diego County, California, Section 18 Townsftip 125 Range 3W. WHEREAS, the Department (represented byTamara Spear through a site visit on theg^ of Mav. 2002) has determined that such operations may substantially adversely affect those existing fisn and wildlife resources within the streambed of a three unnamed drainages. tributaries to Aqua Hedtonda Creek, specifically identified as follows: Birds; California qnatcatcher fPo//optf/a ca/ffbm/ca ca/^fom/ca). white-tailed kite (Elanus caeA/teus). Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperft. loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), California honied lark-SLI 7US) has(Eremophila a/pesfrfe).attGeothylois Mchesi. blue grosbeak (Gulraca caerulea). northern mockingbird - Brewick'Q wren (Thrvomanesi jlvalotfos). spotted towhee (Plpila maculatus). leplacalifomlca). wrentEk' l»F:Tl (Cfta/naea fasciata). house finch (Camodacus mexicanu$\ lessor goldfinch (CardiiellsD lopsaltria). mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). raven (Corvus California towhee (Ploilo crissalis): Ma imats: desert cottontail (SvMlaqus audubonit), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomvs bottae California ground squirrelJHInvertebrates; swallowtail (Pteroufus rutulus}. common white (Po/rtyap/t>totf/ceV i). western tiger ReoUles: western fence izard fSce/oporugocc/cfenfa//^. side-blotched lizard (Ufa : PJantsjLCalifam a adolohia (Adolohia calffbmica). Nuttall's scrub oak**aM*jvxjgn.•>«• .*!**/•:i-,^^p*^*A'*?<^-t—-••'-<m3*Li.'.i '^^^m~^fifjifisSS^^X^^^£StSi^Ux^^S!oUf^^'-il-"-^^fm* ^»*fc"*" ^ ^**i MM ^vti^ (Quercus aarffoJla). summer holly(Comamstaphvfos dlversffblia). These plants .and wildjj are associated v^th freshyyater marsh, mule fat scrub sQutbem willow scrub, unveaeta streambed and surrounding Dlegan coastal saoe scrub, southern nfcced chaparraL and non- rjatiye_qrassland. THEREFORE, the Department hereby proposes measures to protect fish and wildlife resources during the Operator's vork. The Operator herebyagrees to accept the following measunes/condmons as part ofthe proposed work. If the Operator's work changes from that stated in the notification specified above, this Agreement is no longer valid and a newnotificatton shall be submitted to the Department of Fish and Game. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement and witn other pertinent code sections, including but not United to Fish and Game Code Sections 5650, 5652, 5937, and 5948, may result in prosecution. Nothing In this Agreement authorizes the Operator to trespass on anyland or property, nor does It relieve the Operator of responsibility for compliance with applicable Page 1 of 6 :49AM; i n f o . uo tech dept M 13 I- LIN I UN UU ;78O6O28555 PAGE # 3/ 8 03/08 STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #R5-2002-0088 federal, state, or local laws or ordinances. A consummated Agreement does not constitute Department of Fish and Game endorsement of the proposed operation, or assure the Department's concurrence with permits required from other agencies. This Aareement becomes effective the date of Department's signature and terninates Eefaruary 23.2QOJ3_for project construction or v. This Aareement shall remain kieffeclfor that time necessary to satisfy the terms/conditions of this Agreement. 1. The following provisions constitute the limit of activities agreed to and resolved by this Agreement. The signing of this Agreement does not imply that the Operator is precluded from doing other activities at the site. However, activities not specifically agreed to and resolved by this Agreement shall be subject to separate notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 etseq. Project Location and Description: t 2. The Operator proposes to alter the streambed of three unnamed drainages, tributaries to Agua Hedionda Creek, tributary to the Pacific Ocean to accommodate the development of the Carlsbad Business Park Project, Construction activity includes grading and fill for the construction of roads, water detention a drainage structures and industrial park pads, impacting 0.89 acre of streambed. The project is located north of Palomar Airport Road, north of Palomar Forum and west of Business Park Drive in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County 3. The agreed work includes activities associated with No. 2 above. The project area is located within three unnamed drainages, tributaries to Agua Hediona Creek, tributary to the Pacific Ocean, San Diego County- Specific work areas and mitigation measures are described on/in the plans and documents submitted by the Operator, including a "Mitigated Negative Declaration for Carlsbad Raceway Business Park", SCH#2001071072, dated July 15,2001; a "Biological Technical Report for Carlsbad Raceway Project" dated May 12,1998, prepared by Helix Environmental; a "Riparian Mitigation Plan for Carlsbad Raceway" dated October 1,2002, prepared by Helix Environmental; end shall be implemented as proposed unless directed differently by this agreement. 4. The Operator shall not impact more than 0.89 acre of streambed comprised of 0.44 acre southern willow scrub, 0.14 acre mule fat scrub, 0,14 acre freshwater marsh, 0.17 acre unvegetated streambed. Mitigation: 5. Impacts to southern willow scrub shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, mule fat scrub and freshwater marsh shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio and unvegetated streambed shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and freshwater marsh shall be in-kind. A mitigation acreage of 2.05 acres is required (1.32 acres southern willow scrub, D.28 acre mule fat scrub, 0.28 acre fresh water marsh and 0.17 acre unvegetated streambed.) Of this acreage at least 0.89 acre must be creation. All mitigation shall occur on-site. All revegetation shall be installed no later than March 31.2006. 6. The Operator shall mitigate at a minimum 5:1 ratio for impacts beyond those authorized in this Agreement. In the event that additional mitigation is required, the type of mitigation Page 2 of 6 12-17-04; 9:49AM;,nfo tech dept ;76OeO28555 ^^ * 4' ±-j, ^OUH j.0.00 Di3ttiOK)j.ix H la hhNlUN CO PAGE 04/08 STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #R5-2002-0088 shall be determined by the Department and may include creation, restoration, enhancement and/or preservation. 7. The Operator shall submit a Final Revegetation, Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the 2,05 acre of restoration and enhancement occurring on-site. The Rnal RevegetatioiVMitigation plan shall be prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant revegetation techniques, the plan shall include at a minimum: a) the location of the mitigation site; b) the plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; c) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; d) planting schedule; e) a description of the irrigation methodology; f) measures to control exotic vegetation os site; g) specific success criteria; h) a detailed monitoring program; i) contingency measures, should the success criteria not be met; and j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity. Department approval of that plan is required prior to project initiation/impacts, Vegetation. Revegetation and Restoration;* '••"•"•^^™"^™^™^^^™*«««"«™'*™™"™i"»^"^^^"— j 8. All mitigation planting shall have a minimum 100% survival the first year and 80% survival thereafter and/or shaB attain 75 % cover of native wetland species after 3 years and 90% cover of native wetland species after 5 years. If the survival and cover requirements have not been met, the Operator is responsible for replacement planting to achieve these requirements. Replacement plants shall be monitored with the same survival and growth requirements for 5 years after planting. At the completion of the monitoring period, the mitigation site shall have received NO supplemental irrigation for a period of two consecutive years, nonnative plants shad not make up more than 5% of the entire cover of the site, no more than 5% of the site shall consist of bare ground and site shall be free of invasive exotic plants species. 9. AH planting should be done between October 1 and April 30 to take advantage of the winter rainy season. 10. An annual report shall be submitted to the Department by January 1 of each year for 5 years aferthe on-site restoration/planting. This report shall include the survival and percent cover. The number by species of plants replaced, an overview of the revegetation effort, and the method used to assess these parameters shall also be included along with photos from designated photo stations. Work Period and Time Limits: \ 1. The Operator shall not conduct project activity within the stream from March 15 to August 30 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Habitat Protection: 12. The Operator shall have a qualified biologist onsite daily during initial habitat clearing, weekly during project grading and every other week during project construction for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing conditions of this agreement. 13. Preparation shall be made so that runoff from steep, eradible surfaces will be diverted into stable areas with little erosion potential. Frequent water checks shall be placed on dirt roads, cat tracks, or other work trails to control erosion. 14. The perimeter of the work site shall be adequately flagged to prevent damage to adjacent riparian habitat. Page 3 of 6 12-1 7-04; 9I49AM; info tech dept ; 76O6O28555 _„„_* 5/j.o;uo biatoatPiii H G FENTON CO PAGE 05/08 STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT 0R5-2002-0088 Structures: 15. This Agreement does not authorize the construction of any temporary or permanent dam, structure, flow restriction or fill except as described in the Operator's notification. 16. Flow diversions shall be done in a manner that shall prevent pollution and/or siltation and which shall provide flows to downstream reaches. Flows to downstream reaches shall be provided during all times that the natural flow would have supported aquatic life. Said flows shall be sufficient quality and quantity, an of appropriate temperature to support fish and other aquatic life both above and below the diversion. Diversions shall be engineered, installed and maintained to assure resistance to washout and erosion of the streambed and banks. Normal flows shall be restored to the effected stream immediately upon completion of work at that location. 17. Any temporary dam or other artificial obstruction shall be built from materials (i.e. clean gravel) which will cause little or no siltation, and shall be approved by the Department prior to construction. Upon completion of the project and after all flowing water in the area Is clear of turbidity, the temporary obstruction along with the trapped sediment shall be removed from the stream. Equipment and Access: 18. No equipment shall be operated in ponded or flowing areas. 19. Staging/storage areas for equipment and materials shall be located outside of the stream. 20. Access to the work site shall be via existing roads and access ramps. 21. Any equipment or vehicles driven and/br operated within or adjacent to the stream shall be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if Introduced to water could be deleterious to aquatic life. 22. The clean-up of all spills shall begin immediately. The Department shall be notified immediately by the Operator of any spills and shall be consulted regarding clean-up procedures. Turbiditv/Siltatlon: 23. Water containing mud, silt or other pollutants from aggregate washing or other activities shall not be allowed to enter a lake or flowing stream or placed in locations that may be subjected to high storm flows. Pollution. Litter and Cleanup: 24. The Operator shall comply with all litter and pollution laws. All contractors, subcontractors and employees shall also obey these laws and it shall be the responsibility of the operator to ensure compliance. 25, Spoil sites shall not be located within a stream, where spoil could be washed back into a stream, or where ft could cover aquatic or riparian vegetation. Page 4 of 6 ;7eO6O28SSS # 6X HGFENTONCO PAGE as/08 STREAM8ED ALTERATION AGREEMENT 3R5-2002-Q088 26. Raw cement/concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic life, resulting from project related activities, shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering the waters of the state. These materials, placed within or where they may enter a stream/lake, by Operator or any party working under contract, or with the permission of the Operator, shall be removed immediately. 27. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products or other organic or earthen material from any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter Into or placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, waters of the State. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the high water mark of any stream or lake. 28. No equipment maintenance shall be done within or near any stream channel where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas under any flow. 29. The Operator shall provide a copy of this Agreement to all contractors, subcontractors, and the Operator's project supervisors. Copies of the Agreement shall be readily available at work sites at all times during periods of active work and must be presented to any Department personnel, or personnel from another agency upon demand. 30. The Department reserves the right to enter the project site at any time to ensure compliance with terms/conditions of this Agreement 31. The Operator shall notify the Department, in writing, at least five (5) days prior to initiation of construction (project) activities and at least five (5) days prior to completion of construction (project) activities. Notification shall be sent to the Department at 4949 Vlewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 Attn: Tamara A. Spear 32. It is understood the Department has entered into this Streambed Alteration Agreement for purposes of establishing protective features for fish and wildlife. The decision to proceed with the project is the sole responsibility of the Operator, and is not required by this agreement. It is further agreed all liability and/or Incurred cost related to or arising out of the Operator's project and the fish and wildlife protective conditions of this agreement, remain the sole responsibility of the Operator. The Operator agrees to hold harmless the State of California and the Department of Fish and Game against any related daim made by any party or parties for personal injury or anyother damages. 33. The Operator shall request an extension of this agreement prior to its termination. Extensions may be granted for up to 12 months from the date of termfnation of the agreement and are subject to Departmental approval. The extension request and fees shad be submitted to the Department's Region 5 office at the above address, If the Operator fails to request the extension prior to the agreement's termination, then the Operator shall submit a new notification with fees and required information to the Department Any activities conducted under an expired agreement are a violation of Fish and Game Coda Section 1600 et. seq. 34. The Department reserves the right to suspend or cancel this Agreement for other Page 5 of 6 •76O6O28555 # "7'12-17-O4; 9:49AM; i n-fo teen dept ' ib:ub biyaauuill H Q FENTON CO PAGE 07/08 STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT #R5-2002-0088 reasons, including but not limited to the following: a. The Department determines that the information provided by the,Operator in support of the Notification/Agreement Is incomplete or inaccurate; b. The Department obtains new information that was not known to it in preparing Hie terms and conditions of the Agreement, c. The project or project activities as described in the Notification/Agreement have changed;d. The conditions affecting fish and wildlife resources change or the Department determines that project activities will result in a substantial adverse effect on the environment. 35. Before any suspension or cancellation of the Agreement, the Department will notify the Operator in writing of the circumstances which the Department believes warrant suspension or cancellation. The Operator will have seven (7) working days from the date of receipt of this notification to respond in writing to the circumstances described in the Department's notification. During the seven (7) day response period, the Operator shall immediately cease any project actMHes which the Department specified In rta notification. The Operator shall not continue the specified activities until that time when the Department notifies the Operator in writing that adequate methods and/or measures have been identified and agreed upon to mitigate or eliminate the significant adverse effect. CONCURRENCE USDF CoJHjbesid U«MV*J By; LSOF GenPar III, Inc., ,'*$ quxnl California Dept. of Fish and Game ^signature) ^ (date) (signature) (date) JohnCrowlev /tet ?f&Mf& C.F. Ravsbrook. Regional Manager (title) (title) Page 6 of 6 12-17-O4: 9:49AM;info tech dept ;76O60285S5 Jun-lO-04 86/1B/2004 13:17 B5B4674299 H 6 FENTON CO DPS SOUTH COAST # s,/ PAGE 08/08 P.oe PAGE 07 o twm and OOKflHora of VVBc. effaetonthe 3&B«tom«ry»u8»nBlcnwcanGftflaUonoftoJi^^ thaOpertterfri^rMafthadramfltenanwt^ suspm^aremgbBarL The DpiinrtBr «njl »•*» eavon (7)waridnfl da»» ftem tf Delateof raoilpt of this MtfRcHtion to IMDIUKI hi w Hk^p to Vta cktbiJUfmsjHKrtDid In «wDvptftoMillinaWlacten. Duimg«)0wvgn{7)d«fm4»iuHi* •"-*—•--- •- - - - --- -- i ilfi >U. i --j-«-V hi n ri a 11 • i J iin ii iMTncI In •« iBCTcaBBo «ny ptBjBOFvOavnaawrHQninv nuwi'uiwiH nununna innvr rtbr fltaU nal eenfiruiB thn «padfied acBvito* urtfl thnm when fee^ncfflittth9Op9tanrinwrtHMifut«dttqu^fnslho<faMen Mwmrw and agreed upon to nO&ta orwwr»{nrt»theBlgn)flcantadvcm»effM!t. CoUfcunla Oopt. oT Rah and Oem» o ZOO'ff BBOOl 89? 6T9 I REPLY TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAN DIEGO FIELD OFFICE 16885 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUITE 300A SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127 February 13, 2004 ATTENTION OF: Office of titie Chief Regulatory Branch LSOF Carlsbad Land, LP Attention: JohnCrowley C/O Hudson Advisors 717 N. Harwood Street, Suite 2100 Dallas, Texas 75201 Dear Mr. Crowley: Enclosed you will find a signed copy of your Department of the Army Permit (File # 982020500-RJL). Please retain this copy for your files. Thank you for participating in our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact Robert J. Lawrence at (858) 674-5384. Sincerely, Mark Durham Chief, South Coast Section Regulatory Branch Enclosure(s) LOS ANGELES DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: Mr. John Crowley, LSOF Carlsbad Land, LP Permit Number: 982020500-RJL Issuing Office: Los Angeles District Note: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "flu's office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: The permittee is authorized to affect 0.12 acre of wetland (freshwater marsh) and 0.17 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. at the Carlsbad Raceway Property, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The project includes the subdivision of the 146.3-acre site into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots. The impacts include those necessary for the construction of roads, water detention and drainage structures, planned industrial pads, and adjacent slopes. Project Location: In the unnamed wash on a 146.3-acre site located north of Palomar Airport Road and west of Business Park Road the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Permit Conditions: General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the authorized activity ends on February 1, 2009. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification from this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. If you sell the properly associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: 1. A total of approximately 0.41 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional areas. Streambed impacts will be mitigated through the relocation of tihe existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. A minimum of 0.24 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. Mitigation shall be completed according to the "Riparian Mitigation Plan," dated October 1,2002, prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 2. The permittee shall preserve in perpetuity all mitigation areas by placing a biological conservation easement in favor of an agent approved by the Corps on these areas. The permittee shall submit a draft easement to the Corps for approval prior to its execution and any impacts to waters of the United States. The easement shall state clearly that no other easements or activities that would result in soil disturbance and/or vegetation removal, except as approved by the Corps, shall be allowed within the biological conservation easement area. The permittee shall submit the final easement within ID. days of receiving Corps approval of the draft easement. The permittee is also required to record this permit with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining records of title to or interest in real property. 3. The permittee shall post a performance bond (or bonds) with the Corps, or other Corps approved agent, for grading, planting, irrigation, and for the 5 years of maintenance and monitoring of the restoration site (including a 20% contingency to be added to the total costs) prior to initiation of the project authorized herein. These bonds are to guarantee the successful implementation of the restoration plan, maintenance, and monitoring. The Surety Company used must be listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury Circular 570 as a company holding a Certificate of Authority as an Acceptable Surety on Federal Bonds. For a current list of Treasury-authorized surety companies, write or call the Surety Bond Branch, Financial Management Services, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20227; (202) 874-6850. 4. To minimize impacts to and avoid take of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), the Permittee shall implement all the conservation measures, terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion (BO) (FWS-Log No. 1-6-02-F-2124) dated March 20, 2003 and amendments to the BO dated January 7, 2004 (copies attached). A qualified restoration biologist shall oversee the mitigation work at the project site. The restoration biologist shall have stop-work authority over the construction crew in matters regarding the mitigation. 5. Prior to initiation of project construction, the Permittee shall notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in writing of the intended project initiation date and anticipated duration of the construction period. 6. This Corps permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species, in particular the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). In order to legally take a listed species, you must have separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (e.g. ESA Section 10 permit, or a Biological Opinion (BO) under ESA Section 7, with "incidental take" provisions with which you must comply). The enclosed Service BO contains mandatory terms and conditions to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with "incidental take" that is also specified in the BO. Your authorization under this Corps permit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the attached BO, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference in this permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the BO, where a take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit. The Service is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its BO and with the ESA. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities. You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: () Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). () Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project 3 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data. The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measure ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give you favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. Lard, PERMITTEE <J.D.DeU Vice President DATE I /Ig/W This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. : Durham Chief, South Coast Section Regulatory Branch P £d dlto/ DATE When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of tiiis permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. TRANSFEREE DATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 404(b)(l) EVALUATION PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER: 982020500-RJL APPLICANT: Mr. John Crowley LSOF Carlsbad Land, LP C/0 Hudson Advisors 7J7N. Norwood Street, Suite 2100 Dallas, Texas 75201 RE: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK 21 January 2004 Prepared by: Rob Lawrence Project Manager Date Reviewed by: Mark Durham Chief, South Coast Section Regulatory Branch Aaron Allen, Ph. D. Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch Date Date This document constitutes my Environmental Assessment, Statement of Findings, and review and compliance determination according to the 404(b)(l) guidelines for the proposed work (applicant's preferred alternative) described in the attached public notice: I. Proposed Project: The location and description of work are described below. I .oration: The Carlsbad Raceway Property is a 146.3-acre site located north of Palomar Airport Road and west of Business Park Road in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Existing development in the vicinity of the property includes light industrial land uses to the east and light industrial and office development to the north. The area immediately south of the property is currently undeveloped; however, an application for a Tentative Map for light industrial lots has been filed with the City of Carlsbad. The area to the west of the property is developed with light industrial and office uses. The property is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18, and is currently used as a racetrack and motorcycle test facility. The Carlsbad Raceway property includes a gentle east-to-west canyon on the northern half of the property. This drainage spans most of the length of the property. Two hills occur on the northern edge of the site and on the southwest corner of the site. A drag strip stretches across about two-thirds of the property, from the northeast corner to the south central area. The drag strip was created in the canyon bottom in the northeast area of the site, where water has been diverted to flow alongside it in a previously upland area. Also, numerous dirt roads created from off- road motorcycle activity occur in all areas of the site. Tributaries to the main drainage, which drain toward the north, occur in two smaller canyons on the southern half of the site. Three other tributaries to the main drainage enter from the north side of the property. The primary drainage on site is an unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek, which drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Activity: The proposed project includes the subdivision of the 146.3-acre site into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots. Including grading for prime arterial roadways, the project would involve 1,430,000 cubic yards of cut and 1,430,000 cubic yards of fill. Site access would be provided by a two-lane east-west roadway (Poinsettia Avenue). Access to the project would be provided from Business Park Road at the eastern end of the property and from Melrose Drive at the western end. Wildlife conveyance under Melrose will be facilitated by a 12-foot high arch under-crossing. In conformance to the goals of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan, a key north-south wildlife corridor is proposed to be maintained by the project. This corridor would provide a link between existing open space on the Rancho Carrillo project to the south and open space to the north of this site. Additional open space would be provided along the northern portions of the site and off site to the north and northwest. A. Changes to the proposed project since circulation of the public notice: None. B. Specific activity that requires a Department of Army permit: The proposed project includes the subdivision of the 146.3-acre site into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots. The project would affect 0.12 acre of wetland (freshwater marsh) and 0.17 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. The impacts include those necessary for the construction of roads, water detention and drainage structures, planned industrial pads, and adjacent slopes. C. Scope of Analysis under NEPA: Although anticipated impacts to endangered species potentially occurring on the project site requiring coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are analyzed in this document, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) scope of analysis under NEPA is restricted to areas related to or influencing their jurisdiction. Therefore, the Corps is not taking control and responsibility for the portion of the project beyond the limits of Corps jurisdiction, and Federal involvement is not sufficient to turn essentially a private action into a federal action [33 CFR 325 Appendix B (7)]. II. Environmental and Public Interest Factors Considered: A. Purpose and Need - for the Public Interest determination: 1. Specific (relevant) Public Interest factors considered: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit that reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof. Factors that will be considered include conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food production and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. In addition, because proposal would discharge fill material, the evaluation of the activity includes application of the EPA Guidelines (40 CFR 230) as required by Section 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act. B. Overall project purpose for 404(b)(l) analysis: Project Purpose is the "generic function" of the proposed activity. For example, the basic purpose of a residential development is housing, regardless of which type of housing might be proposed by the project. Overall project purpose is the basic project purpose plus consideration of costs and technical and logistical feasibility. Section 230.10(a) requires that if the overall purpose of a project is practicably met through several alternatives, the Corps can only authorize the least damaging alternative. The project purposes are to (1) provide planned industrial development and (2) provide related commercial and public facilities, consistent with the amended General Development Plan as approved by the City of Carlsbad. The project would be developed in a manner consistent with City of Carlsbad standards and guidelines, and consistent with City requirements for open space and infrastructure improvements. To demonstrate that all impacts to the aquatic ecosystem have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable, the applicant has submitted a preliminary alternatives analysis. C. Basic project purpose and water dependency: Basic project purpose is used to determine whether a proposed project is water-dependent (i.e., whether it requires siting in Waters of the U.S.). The basic project purpose is the development of industrial lots, which is not water-dependent. The applicant, therefore, has the burden of rebutting the presumption that there are practicable alternatives available that would not impact jurisdictional wetlands. D. Alternatives (33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10): 1. No Build: The No Build Alternative assumes that there are no project approvals in effect, and no future development of the project site would occur. The existing use of the property would continue and there would be no additional impact to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. This alternative recognizes the many benefits provided by wetlands including wildlife habitat, storm water conveyance, water quality enhancement through contaminant and sediment removal, and groundwater recharge. This alternative would preserve the existing jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S., covering 1.79 acres of the project site. Under the No Build Alternative, the existing use as a raceway and motorcycle testing facility would be presumed to continue. Although there would be 'no fiii of Waters of the U.S., those ongoing activities would continue to degrade the biological resources on site. In this case, the property is already part of an approved General Plan for growth and development and this alternative would preclude future development proposals for the site. The applicant has determined the No Build Alternative to be impracticable, because it would not meet the project purpose of providing planned industrial development and would not produce enough revenue to cover the cost of the loan on the property. 2. Wetland Avoidance Alternative: The Wetland Avoidance Alternative would avoid all impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. This alternative recognizes the many beneficial functions and values provided by the wetlands on site. It would preserve the existing jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S., covering 1.79 acres of the project site; therefore, no Section 404 permit would be required. This alternative would considerably reduce the footprint of developable area on site by precluding the applicant from developing any area that would result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. This Alternative would require complete redesign of the planned development and, since the jurisdictional areas extend in linear fashion throughout the upper one-third of the project site, their complete avoidance would reduce the project area by about one-third. This alternative would preclude the implementation of the wetland restoration plan. The proposed wetland restoration plan would enhance the existing natural resource value of the drainages on site through the creation of 0.41 acre of wetland and streambed habitat. The habitat preserved under the Wetland Avoidance Alternative is of lower quality than the restored wetland areas included in the Proposed Project Alternative, assuming successful mitigation. The applicant has asserted that this alternative is not practicable because the loss of one-third of the pad area and the added costs of a bridge would increase per unit construction cost to beyond what is consistent with industrial unit costs in the region and because the benefits to aquatic resources, preservation of 0.12 acre of wetland and 0.17 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. are not commensurate with the increased costs to the project. Community development requirements would not be satisfied under this alternative nor would this alternative meet the overall basic purposes of the project to provide planned industrial development and public facilities. For all of those reasons, the Wetland Avoidance Alternative was not the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). 3. Sequenced search for less environmentally damaging alternatives: a. Other Sites: Off-site alternatives were considered within the eastern Carlsbad area that could meet the stated project purpose. There are currently no parcels available within the study area to support a development comparable to that proposed. Other similar parcels in the area that could provide the needed planned industrial development including Palomar Forum and Bressi Ranch are already in the planning/permitting process and development on the sites would also result in impacts to jurisdictional areas. The project proponents have determined that they lack the financial resources to carry the project to fruition elsewhere or continue to carry this site without developing the project. Implementation of the Off-site Alternative was determined by the applicant to be economically infeasible. Since the Off-site Alternative does not meet the project purposes, it was not considered to be the LEDPA. b. Other project designs: None considered. E. Anticipated changes to the physical/chemical characteristics of the aquatic environment: (X) substrate: The project site would be subject to potentially significant project-related erosion through the removal of stabilizing vegetation and exposure of erodable materials on existing hillsides, as well as construction of manufactured slopes and graded pads. Such activities are proposed in areas tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would increase the potential for changes to the substrate of those wetlands. The proposed project incorporates a number of design and engineering features intended to avoid or reduce potential impacts related to erosion and sediment transport (which would result in substrate impacts), as detailed in the project's Concept Water Quality Plan. These measures include stabilization, diversion of runoff, velocity reduction measures and sediment trapping during construction; temporary desiltati°n basins following construction; and several permanent water quality basins associated with development of individual lots. A detention basin proposed at the Melrose Drive crossing of the existing drainage channel would minimize downstream erosion. Implementation of the proposed erosion control measures would adhere to the City's requirements and State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002. For this permit, the project applicant must conform to the applicable best management practices (BMPs) and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring program plan. All permanent drainage facilities also would be designed and built in accordance with City regulations and would incorporate the most current BMPs as defined in the NPDES guidelines. (X) currents, circulation or drainage patterns: The proposed project would increase surface flows as a result of increased impervious surfaces on the site. The mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. The proposed storm drain system would be adequate to handle the surface flows generated by the proposed development. All storm drain outlets for the project would be located upstream of the proposed 100-year flood detention basin. The basin would reduce peak flow in the drainage to below pre-development conditions, ensuring that no significant impact would occur to downstream properties due to increased runoff. (X) suspended participates; turbidity: Suspended particulate and turbidity issues are described above under Substrate. (X) water quality (temperature, salinity patterns and other parameters): Implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of land currently used for racing and motorcycle testing purposes to urban development, causing a change in pollutants from existing conditions. Pollutants associated with the proposed industrial uses could include fertilizers, pesticides, pathogens and solid waste, in addition to the oils, fuel residues and heavy metals (associated with gasoline) likely associated with the site's current uses. Agua Hedionda Lagoon, into which the project runoff ultimately would drain, is an impaired water body due to coliform bacteria, which typically comes from pet waste. Because the project does not involve residential uses, it would not be expected to affect the lagoon's impairment status. Water quality impacts will be controlled through compliance with the General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08, NPDES No. CAS000002) and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No. CAS0108758). In addition, industrial land uses are required to comply with Order No. 97-03-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001, Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities. NPDES discharge permitting requirements include implementation of an SWPPP, which consists of eight required elements necessary to control erosion, siltation and contaminated runoff from construction sites. The project proponent has prepared a Concept Water Quality Plan to assist in defining requirements associated with the four project phases: construction, post-construction, future development, and individual lots. Both source control and treatment BMPs are proposed as applicable. The proposed project also would expand and enhance additional riparian areas to provide on-site water quality enhancement before runoff leaves the project site. The created wetland would aid in the dissipation of flow velocities and increase the cycling of nutrients, the removal of elements and compounds, and the retention of sediment. These measures would ensure that project impacts to water quality remain less than significant. (X) flood control functions: The proposed project would provide flood protection to the project site and would control flows across the site through a storm drain system and several detention basins. The Melrose Drive detention basin will be designed to accommodate the projected 100-year storm flows. ( ) storm, wave and erosion buffers: Storm and wave considerations are not applicable to the proposed project due to its inland location. Erosion issues are described above under Substrate. (X) erosion and accretion patterns: Erosion and sedimentation issues are described above under Substrate. (X) aquifer recharge: The proposed project would not involve any consumption of, or direct recharge to, local groundwater resources. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the area to be graded. Any grading or construction activities which could impede the natural flow of underground water would be mitigated by the use of subdrains or other engineering solutions to relieve the potential for buildup of hydrostatic pressure. In the long term, the proposed project could result in minor impacts to local groundwater recharge capacity through effects such as creation of impervious surfaces; however, the proposed detention basin and enhanced riparian corridor would offset this effect. Potential effects on aquifer recharge are not, therefore, assessed as significant. () mixing zone, in light of the depth of water at the disposal site; current velocity, direction and variability at the disposal site; degree of turbulence; water column stratification; discharge vessel speed and direction; rate of discharge; dredged material characteristics; number of discharges per unit of time; and any other relevant factors affecting rates and patterns of mixing: Because the proposed project does not involve the discharge of any dredged material, this issue is not applicable. F. Anticipated changes to the biological characteristics of the Aquatic environment: (X) special aquatic sites (wetlands, mudflats, coral reefs, pool and riffle areas, vegetated shallows, sanctuaries and refuges, as defined hi 40 CFR 230.40-45): A jurisdictional delineation by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. identified jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland Waters of the U.S. within three drainages and three ponds on site. Corps jurisdictional areas on site consist of 1.28 acres of wetland and 0.51 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. The non-wetland portion of the drainages consists of intermittent streams from one to six feet wide that extend more than 3,900 feet across the project site. Those waters are interspersed with ponded areas containing stands of southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh. The ACOE jurisdictional wetlands on site varied in vegetation makeup because of factors such as topography and hydrological influence. Plant species found in wetland areas included southern cattail (Typha domingensis), brass buttons (Cotukt coronopifolia), pale spike-sedge (Eleocharis macrostachya), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolid). Jurisdictional wetlands include 0.52 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.76 acre of freshwater marsh. The proposed project would result in the loss of 0.12 acre of wetland consisting of freshwater marsh. The wetland area that would be affected by the proposed project is largely disturbed by raceway operations, and does not provide quality habitat for wildlife species usually associated with wetland and riparian habitats in Southern California. In addition, 0.17 acre of non-wetland Waters of die U.S. (2,120 linear feet of intermittent streambed and 1,330 linear feet of perennial streambed) would be affected. Proposed mitigation for project effects includes avoidance and on-site preservation of 1.16 acres of wetland and 0.34 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Mitigation for impacts to 0.12 acre of wetland and 0.17 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. would be accomplished through on-site creation, restoration, and enhancement with permanent preservation. A total of approximately 0.82 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to ACOE jurisdictional areas. Streambed impacts will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. A minimum of 0.24 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. (X) habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms: No fish are found on or migrate through the project site. The proposed project would result in a short-term loss of other aquatic organisms from portions of the approximately 3,900-foot long section of a tributary drainage of Agua Hedionda Creek. The conserved, restored, and created habitat on site is expected to provide habitat for all of the species that currently occur on site. As described above under Special aquatic sites, all impacts to jurisdictional areas (and aquatic habitat) would be reduced to below a level of significance through the identified mitigation measures. (X) wildlife habitat (breeding, cover, food, travel, general): Impacts and mitigation for wildlife habitat in jurisdictional areas is described above under special aquatic sites. Direct impacts to upland habitats resulting from the project would include 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 21.6 acres of southern mixed chaparral, and 28.0 acres of non-native grassland (impacts to non-jurisdictional freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub and mulefat scrub also would occur). With the exception of the habitats located in the north-central portion of the site, all habitats have been at least partially disturbed, and in most cases heavily disturbed, for a number of years by ongoing raceway operations. The proposed project impacts would result in the loss of some foraging habitat for raptors, breeding and foraging habitat for loggerhead shrike, and foraging habitat for the homed lark. The Cooper's hawk is the only Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) target animal species observed on site. The burrowing owl has the potential to occur. The project also would result in impacts to approximately 50 percent of the California adolphia (approximately 50 individuals) and all of the summer holly (less than 10 individuals) on the site. In accordance with the HMP, the project proposes a north-south wildlife corridor that would help link open space in the Rancho Carillo project to the south to a wildlife corridor provided along the northern portion of the site. The resulting project design provides for a minimum corridor width of 400 feet along the eastern portion of the site and a block of open space along the northern property boundary, which connects to open space to the north in the City of Vista and to open space to the west in the City of Carlsbad. The developer, or successor in interest, will maintain and protect the open space/wildlife corridor until ownership is transferred to the City or its designee. Upon transfer,*the developer would be responsible for providing a. funding mechanism to provide for management and conservation of the open space in perpetuity. A 12-foot high arched wildlife culvert is proposed to provide a connection to open space to the northwest. The applicant also would construct a wildlife undercrossing at Poinsettia Avenue. The proposed project's impacts also would be mitigated in accordance with the HMP. Mitigation for sage scrub impacts will occur at a 2:1 ratio and consist of (1) the on-site preservation of 9.6 acres of sage scrub; (2) restoration of approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slope areas; and (3) decompaction and seeding of approximately 9 acres that are currently disturbed. An excess of approximately 8 acres is being proposed that will be credited towards mitigation to impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland. The upland restoration areas will be planted with a minimum of 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly as container stock in order to mitigate impacts to those species. A mitigation monitoring program is required as part of the restoration program. In order to mitigate impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland, the applicant will pay the City $225,865.90 ($3,949/acre for non-native grassland and $7,897/acre for chaparral). Mitigation for potential impacts to burrowing owl will consist of surveys and, if observed, relocation. Other mitigation measures to be undertaken by the applicant relate to exotic invasive plant species, staging and equipment storage locations, and limits of grading, and lighting impacts. (X) endangered or threatened species: 1) Listed endangered and/or threatened species or designated critical habitat present on site: No listed species was observed on the parcel. Neither coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) nor Quino checkerspot butterfly (Buphydryas editha quino) was observed during focused surveys for those species. One individual gnatcatcher was heard north of the site in chamise chaparral on one occasion during a survey in March 2, 2001, but could not be relocated during two subsequent surveys. A single individual was also observed north of the site during January 2003 surveys. Nonetheless, in order to minimize any potential impacts, Diegan coastal sage scrub will not be removed during the breeding season unless it is confirmed that no California gnatcatchers are breeding within the habitat on site. Gnatcatcher habitat within 500 feet of the construction limits will be surveyed prior to construction to determine presence/absence. If the species is present, measures will be taken to minimize potential noise impacts. The project would impact 50.5 acres of designated gnatcatcher critical habitat. The mitigation measures noted above with regard to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatcher would reduce impacts to betow a level of significance. 2) Proposed listed endangered and/or threatened species or proposed critical habitat present on site: None. 3) Compliance with ESA - Formal/Informal consultation or conference: Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the proposed project is being addressed under Section 7 through formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (X) biological availability of possible contaminants in dredged or fill material, considering hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants; results of previous testing of material from the vicinity of the project; known significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or percolation; spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 311 of the CWA) hazardous substances; other public records of significant introduction of contaminants from industries, municipalities or other sources: The project site has been used for motocross and drag strip racing since the early 1960s. Potentially hazardous materials in the form of petroleum fuels and lubricants are associated with this land use. In addition, the site's topographically low relationship to adjacent properties formerly used for agricultural production poses a potential for residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals to have migrated onto the site. As a result, Phase I and II Environmental Assessments were conducted in 1990, 1991, 1997 and 1998. The conclusion of these studies was that the detected levels of contamination were not significant and no additional assessment or remediation was needed. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater are discovered during normal grading of the project, work will temporarily cease and a Health and Safety Plan will be implemented and the appropriate regulatory agencies will be notified. Fill that would be discharged into the current location of the Waters of the U.S. would be comprised of clean fill obtained on site. No significant impacts are, therefore, anticipated. G. Anticipated changes to the human use characteristics of the aquatic environment: () existing and potential water supplies; water conservation: As indicated above under Currents, circulation and drainage patterns, and Aquifer recharge, the proposed project would not significantly affect the quantity of local surface or ground water. The site is served by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), which has existing water lines in major roadways adjacent to the project, which would be extended onto the project site. CMWD receives water from the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) that, in turn, obtains water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. It would not, therefore, affect local water supplies. The project would comply with CMWD and CWA water conservation requirements. The project would not, therefore, result in significant impacts with regard to water supplies or water conservation. () recreational or commercial fisheries: The proposed project would not have any direct impacts on recreational or commercial fisheries. Potential indirect impacts would be associated with water quality issues and the potential to introduce contaminants into local receiving waters. These potential impacts are described above under Water quality, with the associated mitigation measures considered to reduce any potential fisheries impacts to below a level of significance. ( ) other water related recreation: Because the project is located inland and does not involve any bodies of water large enough to support water-related recreation, this issue is not applicable. (X) aesthetics of the aquatic ecosystem: The proposed project would lead to a short-term detrimental effect on the aesthetics of the site during construction and early phases of channel revegetation establishment. In the long-term, the channel is expected to recover to a habitat with floral and faunal diversity higher than that currently existing. ( ) parks, national and historic monuments, national seashores, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas, research sites, etc.: The project site does not encompass any of the above-listed designations or other applicable federal or state areas. Therefore, this issue is not applicable. () national natural landmarks program: Because the project site does not encompass any national natural landmarks, this issue is not applicable. (X) traffic/transportation patterns: The proposed project would result in an expected vehicle generation of approximately 10,320 average daily trips. The proposed project would construct arterial roadway connections and improvements to Melrose Drive, Faraday Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue as well as on-site Street "A", connecting a network of roadways adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. These roadway improvements would provide for additional routes of travel, reduce conflict on roadways and facilitate alternate modes of transportation. No direct significant effects are identified for the long-term buildout condition. In 1994, the City prepared and certified a Master Environmental Impact Report which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan (with which the proposed project would be consistent), and concluded that several intersections would be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control; these impacts would be considered cumulatively significant. In issuing an individual permit, the Corps' action would not directly contribute to traffic congestion in the project area. A cumulative increase in congestion would reasonably be expected as an indirect effect of issuing the permit; however, the Corps cannot condition the individual permit on the applicant's ability to avoid cumulative traffic impacts, which would occur with or without the proposed project. Because the Corps' action would not directly result in any traffic generation and cannot be held accountable for indirect, cumulative traffic impacts, the proposed action is considered to have a de minimis effect with regard to traffic. (X) energy consumption or generation: Proposed development within the project site includes industrial facilities and associated uses. No proposed energy generation would occur on site, with consumptive uses consisting of vehicle fuels and electricity and/or natural gas for activities such as heating/air conditioning, lighting and automatic irrigation. While such uses would constitute an increase over current energy consumption, no significant effects are anticipated based on the relatively small amounts of energy use associated with the described activities. () navigation: The proposed project would not involve any effects related to air or waterborne navigation, with this issue therefore not considered applicable. (X) safety: Potential impacts related to hazardous materials that may exist on the site from previous uses are discussed above under Biological availability. The industrial uses proposed on the site also may involve the use of hazardous materials, which is of concern due to the site's proximity to existing residential uses. The Fire Marshal will, therefore, require safeguards to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of hazardous materials that could otherwise be allowed. These conditions would minimize the potential risk of any release of hazardous materials used on the site. In addition, in order to avoid an increase in fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes containing high-fuel native vegetation, the project landscape plans identify a 30-foot wide fire suppression zone. No significant impacts related to safety are, therefore, anticipated. (X) air quality: The proposed project site is located in the western portion of the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Atmospheric conditions within the SDAB limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse air pollution. The SDAB also experiences high smog levels along the coast when air pollution from the South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles) drifts southward, causing unhealthy air conditions over much of San Diego County despite diligent air pollution control measures. The SDAB is in serious non-attainment of federal national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, but it is in attainment for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and suspended paniculate matter. The California State Implementation Plan (SIP) addresses the continual non-attainment of the NAAQS for ozone by the SDAB. The proposed project relates to the SEP through land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the planning document for air quality. The EIR for the City's General Plan identified significant cumulative impacts to air quality related to plan buildout, and identified a variety of measures to lessen or minimize the associated impact The applicable measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. The project would, therefore, not result in individually significant impacts but, despite implementation of the mitigation measures, would contribute to the cumulatively significant air quality impact. As noted in USEPA's Federal Register Notice "Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93, page 63221)", "As implemented by this rule, section 176(c) of the Act requires that a federal agency ensure conformity with an approved state SIP for those emissions that would be brought about by agency action, and that are subject to a continuing program responsibility of that agency. A federal agency has no responsibility to attempt to limit emissions that do not meet those tests, or that are outside of the federal agency's legal control. Moreover, neither section 176(c) of the Act nor this regulation requires that a federal agency attempt to 'leverage' its legal authority to influence or control non-federal activities that it cannot practicably control, or that lie outside the agency's legal authority. For example, neither section 176(c) of the Act nor this regulation requires a federal agency to withhold a federal grant of financial assistance to a grant applicant that otherwise satisfies legal requirements in order to obtain assurances from the applicant with respect to the applicant's activities that the agency cannot practicably control, or that are beyond the agency's continuing program responsibilities, or lie outside the federal agency's jurisdiction." The Federal Register Notice also states, "Actions that a federal agency recognizes as clearly de minimis, such as actions that do not cause an increase in emissions, do not require positive determinations. Instead, such actions are exempt from the rule as provided in section 51.853(c)(l)." In the case of issuing an individual permit, the Corps' action is not anticipated to contribute any direct emissions in the non-attainment area. An increase in emissions will reasonably be expected as an indirect effect of issuing the permit; however, the Corps cannot condition the individual permit on the applicant's ability to achieve attainment nor affect in any way indirect emissions. Because the Corps will not be causing any direct emissions, and under USEPA's final rule, cannot be held responsible for indirect emissions, the Corps' proposed action is truly de minimis, under the meaning of USEPA's final rule, and is therefore exempt from the rule's conformity requirement as provided in section 51.853(c)(l). (X) noise: The proposed project would result in noise generation associated with both construction and operation. Noise generated by construction activities is regulated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to avoid noise impacts to sensitive receptors. Noise levels associated with future industrial development would be regulated by the City through discretionary approval of the Planned Industrial Development permit requirements, which include a performance standard for noise at the property line. Future specific proposed projects on the site would be required to prepare noise reports to ensure that interior noise standards for the use are met (potentially requiring acousticaJ design features). Due to these requirements, no significant impact related to noise is anticipated. (X) historic properties: The existence of three archaeological sites has been documented on the property. The area of real concern of one of these sites is located north of the property, buried beneath I a segment of Melrose Drive. The remaining two sites were determined not to offer a substantive ' ^ contribution to the current understanding of the prehistoric pattern for the area. The portions cf the sites within the project site were determined not to be significant cultural resources; impacts from the proposed project would not, therefore, be significant. (X) land use classification: As part of the City of Carlsbad's action approving the proposed project in 2001, the General Plan designation for the site was changed from Planned Industrial/Office to Planned Industrial and Open Space. An Open Space designation also was added to the zoning for the site. The project would be consistent with the adopted General Plan and zoning designations. No land use impacts would, therefore, occur. ( ) economics: The proposed project would rely entirely on private funding sources, with no j associated impacts anticipated. The proposed project would generate economic activity related to j short-term construction and long-term operation of industrial facilities, and would benefit the local economy through additional tax revenues. No adverse impacts are, therefore, anticipated. () prime and unique farmland (7 CFR Part 658): The property does not contain prime or unique ; agricultural lands. i () food and fiber production: The proposed project is not used for agricultural purposes. No impact on food of fiber production would, therefore, occur. .j (X) general water quality: This issue is addressed above under the headings of Suspended j particulates and turbidity, and Water quality. ( ) mineral needs: The site has not been used for mineral extraction and is not known to contain mineral resources. No impact is, therefore, expected. () consideration of private property: The entire property is currently in private ownership by the project applicant. Therefore, no significant impacts related to on-site private ownership issues would occur. H. Other anticipated changes to non-jurisdictional areas that have been determined to be within the Corps' NEPA scope of analysis: All changes within the Corps' NEPA scope of analysis are addressed in the preceding discussion. 11 I. Summary of indirect and cumulative effects from the proposed permit action: Cumulative effects are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or compound or increase other impacts. Cumulative impacts consist of environmental impacts from the related incremental effects of the proposed project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity. 1. Biological Resources: Because all impacts to wetlands would be mitigated in accordance with the "no net loss" policy, no cumulative impacts to wetland resources would occur. The City's Draft HMP anticipates future development within the City, and addresses biological impacts on a cumulative level. Implementation of the HMP will avoid a significant cumulative impact to biological resources. 2. Traffic/Circulation: Buildout of the City of Carlsbad's General Plan, including the proposed project, would result in cumulatively significant traffic impacts. As described above, however, the Corps' action is considered to have a de minimis impact on traffic. 3. Noise: No cumulatively significant impacts would occur from construction-related or operational noise. Development of the structures would require a site-specific acoustical study prior issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with city and state noise standards. These measures would reduce cumulative noise impacts to below a level of significance. 4. Air Quality: Buildout of the San Diego Air Basin as forecasted will result in an increase in air emissions in the area due to stationary and mobile sources, which will result in a cumulative air quality impact. This impact is anticipated to be significant and unavoidable. As described in the project-specific air quality discussion, however, the Corps' proposed action is exempt from the conformity requirement. 5. Hydrology/Water Quality/Drainage: Runoff entering Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon from this and other projects in the vicinity may contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, thereby resulting in the potential to degrade downstream water quality in the area. Siltation resulting from exposed ground surfaces from grading also may affect downstream water quality. As each project is constructed, it will be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements, which include requirements for stormwater discharge and construction activities, as described above for the proposed project. The conditions associated with these permits would mitigate cumulative impacts to water quality to below a level of significance. 6. Hazardous Materials and Hazards: Buildout of the City of Carlsbad has the potential to expose additional persons to hazardous materials and hazards. Implementation of city, state and federal regulations and policies adopted to protect the population from hazards will avoid a significant cumulative hazardous material and hazards impact. J. Other cumulative effects not related to the proposed permit action: 1. Occurred on-site historically: The site has been affected for many years by raceway activities. A drag strip was created in the canyon bottom in the northeast portion of the site and water was diverted to flow alongside in an area that was previously an upland. Numerous dirt roads have been cut by off-road motorcycle use throughout the property. Those activities have degraded the Agua Hedionda Creek drainage and have undoubtedly reduced the acreage of riparian habitat present on the property. At the present time, raceway activities take place right up to the channel edge; riparian habitat is essentially restricted to the channel. Floodplain functions, other than recharge, have been eliminated on site. 19 2. Likely to occur within the foreseeable future: Buildout projections for the City of Carlsbad assume an increase of approximately 26 million square feet of non-residential square footage. The City also has proposed a Habitat Management Plan, which would protect important habitats remaining in the City. 3. Contextual relationship between the proposed action and (1) and (2) above: In addition to HMP preserve areas, the development proposed on the Carlsbad Raceway property is one of many proposed developments in the vicinity and is part of a current land use change from airport and agriculture to industrial uses. The project is consistent with the current planning goals of the City of Carlsbad. K. Mitigation proposed by applicant: 1. Avoidance, minimization, compensation sequence: The applicant demonstrated avoidance by not affecting 1.16 of 1.28 acres of jurisdictional wetland and 0.34 of 0.51 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. A total of approximately 33 acres of habitat would be avoided on the site, including 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 4.7 acres of southern mixed chaparral, and 4.6 acres of non-native grassland. Impacts would be minimized through measures including burrowing owl surveys and potential relocation, gnatcatcher surveys (potentially leading to restrictions on clearing dates or acoustical control measures), fencing of open space areas, biological monitoring during construction, storage and staging area placement, lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Mitigation for impacts to 0.12 acre of wetland and 0.17 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. would be accomplished through on-site creation, restoration and enhancement with permanent preservation. A total of approximately 0.82 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to ACOE jurisdictional areas. Streambed impacts will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. A minimum of 0.24 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. Mitigation for upland impacts is described above under biological resources. 2. Summary of why applicant's proposal does or does not reduce impacts to below significance: Through the project avoidance, minimization and compensation measures incorporated in the project, along with consistency with the City's HMP, the proposed project does reduce all impacts with respect to the Corps' action to below a level of significance. In particular, the mitigation allows for the drainage to be enhanced from its current poor condition. At the end of the five-year monitoring period of the mitigation site, the Corps expects the drainage to display many channel/riparian characteristics that are now degraded or nonexistent. The area would provide a significant natural refuge and have an enhanced function as a wildlife corridor. Ill Findings: A. Status of other authorizations and legal requirements: 1. Water quality certification: The applicant is required to obtain a water quality certification or waiver under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Section 401 requires that any applicant for an individual Section 404 permit provide proof of such action to the Corps prior to permit issuance. The 401 Certification was waived on May 20,2003. 2. Coastal zone management consistency determination: Not applicable. 3. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act: As described above, no significant historic resources occur on the project site. v . , 4. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act: The Corps has consulted with the Service with regard to impact to listed species, and those potential impacts are described in this EA. The applicant received a final Biological Opinion (1-6-02-F-2124) (BO) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act dated March 20, 2003. After lengthy discussions with the applicant and the Service, the Corps requested an amendment to the BO on December 19, 2003. The Service amended the BO by letter of January 7, 2004. 5. Compliance with Section 176(c)(General Conformity Rule review) of the Clean Air Act: The proposed permit has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the activities proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153 (SEIR, Section 4.8). Any later indirect, cumulative emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing program of responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For these reasons, a conformity determination is not required for this permit. 6. State and/or local authorizations: Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code requires that any person wanting to perform work in a streambed must notify CDFG and come to an agreement as to how to minimize impacts. The permittee is in the process of negotiating a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG. The proposed project has processed a Mitigated Negative Declaration through the City of Carlsbad. The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City prior to initiation of construction. B. Corps public notice and comment process: A public notice describing the project was issued on July 23, 2002 and sent to all interested parties (mailing list), including appropriate state and Federal agencies. All comments received on this action have been reviewed and are summarized below. 1. Summary of comments received. a. Federal agencies: 1) TT.S. Environmental Prptertion Agp.nny (KPA); None. 2) TT-S- Fish and WilHlife. Service fFWS): None. 3) National Marine Fisheries Serving (NMFS): None. 4) IJ.S. Coast Guard (irSffi): None. 14 5) Bureau nf T.and Management; None. 6) Bureau nf Reclamation; None. 7) Federal Emergency Management Agency; None. 8) Pederal Energy Regulatory rnmmissinn- None. 9) Federal Highway Administration; None. 10) National Park Service; None. 11) Natural Resources Conservation Service- None. 12) Advisory Council - Historic Preservation; None. b. State and local agencies: 1) State Coastal 7.nnp. Management agency None. 2) State. Fish and fiame agency: None. 3) State. T .ands agency; None. 4) State Historic Preservation Officer- None. 5) State Water Quality agency None. 7) Snil anrl Water Conservation District; None, c. Other organizations and individuals: 1) San Diegn Museum of Man; The Museum provided an archaeological site files record search. All of the information provided had been included in previous environmental documentation for the project. 2) Requests for public hearings: None. 2. Evaluation: I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents and factors concerning this permit application as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public. In doing so, I have considered the possible consequences of this proposed work in accordance with regulations published in 33 CFR Part 320 to 330 and 40 CFR Part 230. The following paragraphs include our evaluation of comments received and of how the project complies with the above-cited regulations. a. Consideration of comments: A summary of the comments received during the public review period and the Corps' responses to them are contained in the immediately 15 preceding section. None of the comments received affect the Corps' proposed issuance of a Section 404 Permit to the applicant. b. Evaluation of Compliance with 404(b)(l) guidelines (restrictions on discharge, 40 CFR 230.10). (A check in a block denoted by an asterisk indicates that the project does not comply with the guidelines.) . 1) Alternatives test: ., ; _±_ _X a) Based on the discussion in II B, are there available, practicable alternatives Yes No having less adverse impact on the Aquatic ecosystem and without other significant adverse environmental consequences that do not involve discharges into "waters of the United States" or at other locations within these waters? JL _± b) Based on II B, if the project is in a special Aquatic site and is not water- Yes No dependent, has the applicant clearly demonstrated that there are ^c practicable alternative sites available? 2) Special restrictions. Will the discharge: _5_ _X a) violate state water quality standards? Yes No _±_ _X b) violate toxic effluent standards (under Section 307 of the Act)? Yes No _±_ _X c) jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat? Yes No JL. _X d) violate standards set by the Department of Commerce to protect marine Yes No sanctuaries? _X_ . _* e) Evaluation of the information in II C and D above indicates that the proposed Yes No discharge material meets testing exclusion criteria for the following reason(s). () based on the above information, the material is not a carrier of contaminants () the levels of contamination are substantially similar at the extraction and disposal sites and the discharge is not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site and pollutants will not be transported to less contaminated areas (X) acceptable constraints are available and will be implemented to reduce contamination to acceptable levels within the disposal site and prevent contaminants from being transported beyond the boundaries of the disposal site 3) Other restrictions. Will the discharge contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the U.S." through adverse impacts to: * X a) human health or welfare, through pollution of municipal water supplies, fish, Yes No shellfish, wildlife and special Aquatic sites? .... *.. _X b) life states of Aquatic life and other wildlife? Yes No 17 * _X c) diversity, productivity and stability of the Aquatic ecosystem, such as the loss of Yes No fish or wildlife habitat, or Joss of the capacity of wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce wave energy? _*_ _X d) recreational, aesthetic and economic values? Yes No _X_ _5 4) Actions to minimize potential adverse impacts (mitigation). Will all appropriate and Yes No practicable steps (40 CFR 23.70-77) be taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the Aquatic ecosystem? Proposed Special Conditions: 1. A total of approximately 0.41 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional areas. Streambed impacts will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. A minimum of 0.24 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. Mitigation shall be completed according to the "Riparian Mitigation Plan," dated October 1,2002, prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 2. The permittee shall preserve in perpetuity all mitigation areas by placing a biological conservation easement in favor of an agent approved by the Corps on these areas. The permittee shall submit a draft easement to the Corps for approval prior to its execution and any impacts to waters of the United States. The easement shall state clearly that no other easements or activities that would result in soil disturbance and/or vegetation removal, except as approved by the Corps, shall be allowed within the biological conservation easement area. The permittee shall submit the final easement within ID days of receiving Corps approval of the draft easement. The permittee is also required to record this permit with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining records of title to or interest in real property. 3. The permittee shall post a performance bond (or bonds) with the Corps, or other Corps approved agent, for grading, planting, irrigation, and for the 5 years of maintenance and monitoring of the restoration site (including a 20% contingency to be added to the total costs) prior to initiation of the project authorized herein. These bonds are to guarantee the successful implementation of the restoration plan, maintenance, and monitoring. The Surety Company used must be listed on the U.S. Department of the Treasury Circular 570 as a company holding a Certificate of Authority as an Acceptable Surety on Federal Bonds. For a current list of Treasury-authorized surety companies, write or call the Surety Bond Branch, Financial Management Services, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20227; (202) 874-6850. 4. To minimize impacts to and avoid take of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica), the Permittee shall implement all the conservation measures, terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion (BO) (FWS-Log No. 1-6-02-F-2124) dated March 20, 2003 and amendments to the BO dated January 7, 2004 (copies attached). A qualified restoration biologist shall oversee the mitigation work at the project site. The restoration biologist shall have stop-work authority over the construction crew in matters regarding the mitigation. 5. Prior to initiation of project construction, the Permittee shall notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in writing of the intended project initiation date and anticipated duration of the construction period. .*/<<., 6. This Corps permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species, in particular the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomicd). In order to legally take a listed species, you must have separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (e.g. ESA Section 10 permit, or a Biological Opinion (BO) under ESA Section 7, with "incidental take" provisions with which you must comply). The enclosed Service BO contains mandatory terms and conditions to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with "incidental take" that is also specified in the BO. Your authorization under this Corps permit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the attached BO, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference in this permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the BO, where a take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit. The Service is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its BO and with the ESA. c. General Evaluation (33 CFR 320.4(a)): 1} The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed work: The proposed work would allow the private project applicant to recoup funds spent to date on permit processing and land carrying costs. The public also would benefit through the provision of light industrial buildings, planned links in the transportation system and tax revenues. 2) The practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed structure of work: As described in the Alternatives section of this document, there are no available practicable off-site ! alternatives that would result in less impact to aquatic and other sensitive environmental resources. Also, the wetland avoidance alternative is not considered : practicable. The proposed project is, therefore, considered the least environmentally { damaging practicable alternative. I ! 3) The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the proposed structures or work may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited: The development proposed in association with the proposed i action, while it could be changed at some point, can be reasonably assumed to be permanent. It is unlikely that lands developed now would revert to open space in the future. While some minor impacts would occur throughout the life of the project (e.g., runoff from developed areas), the majority of impacts would occur during the I construction phase. The open space set aside is done so in perpetuity. Thus, the public i gains a permanent benefit of conserved and managed habitat. 3. Determinations:i | a. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (33CFR Part 325): Having reviewed the | information provided by the applicant, all interested parties and our assessment of j environmental impacts contained in Part II B of this document, I find that this permit action | will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. b. 404(b)(l) Compliance/Noncompliance Review (40 CFR 230.12): 19 (X) The discharge complies with the guidelines. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). () All of the appropriate and practicable conditions listed in III.B.2.b.4 to minimize pollution or adverse effects to the affected ecosystem have been included as part of the proposed action or were required by special conditions of the permit. This revised and/or conditioned project is the LEDPA. () The discharge fails to comply with the requirements of these guidelines because: "" ' () There is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have Jess adverse effect on the Aquatic ecosystem and that alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. () The proposed discharge will result in significant degradation of the Aquatic ecosystem under 40 CFR 230.10(b) or (c). () The discharge does not include all appropriate and practicable measures to minimize potential harm to the Aquatic ecosystem, namely... () There is not sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment as to whether the proposed discharge will comply with the guidelines. c. Public interest determination: I find that issuance of a Department of the Army permit (with special conditions), as prescribed by regulations published in 33 CFR Parts 320 to 330, and 40 CFR Part 230, is not contrary to the public interest. Received: 1/21/O4 1:O4pA -> usace regulatory branch; KAZ .•'- flCOE RE6ULRTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21^004 12:03 P.02 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carl&bad, California 92009 \ In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-2124.5 IAtj A*i 9nftA Colonel Richard G. Thompson HtCtlVtO District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OANi 0 9 2004 Los Angeles District P.O.BOX 532711 REGULAR Los Angeles, California '90053-2325 .«••••• - - - - - Attn: Mr. Robert J. Lawrence Re: Biological Opinion on the Carlsbad Raceway Project (1-6-02-F-2124), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Corps File No. 982020500-RJL) Dear Colonel Thompson: The U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service (Service) received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on December 22,2003, requesting an amendment to the Biological Opinion that the Service issued on the Carlsbad Raceway Project on March 20,2003. Since the issuance of the Biological Opinion, the applicant and the Corps have expressed serious concerns regarding the feasibility of including the proposed wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road in the project. The Corps and applicant have negotiated with the Service and the City of Carlsbad (City), to ascertain prior to construction whether the construction of the wildlife undercrossing is feasible as proposed. Based on those discussions, the Corps' request, and our consideration of the status of the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica californicd) on-site and in the network of planned and existing wildlife preserves in north coastal San Diego County, the Service hereby amends the Biological Opinion as follows: Term and Condition 2.b. is deleted and replaced with the following text: b. To allow for enhanced wildlife movement through the wildlife corridor, the applicant shall, in conjunction with the City and Service, conduct a 12-month feasibility study of the potential to construct a wildlife undercrossing at Palomar Airport Road. The study period shall commence upon the date of issuance of this biological opinion.' In the event that applicant, the Service, and the City - reasonably concur that the construction of such undercrossing is not "feasible" (as 1 defined below)j then applicant shall not be obligated to construct such undercrossing; if applicant, Service, and City determine that the construction of ' ' sucn undercrossing is feasible, then the applicant shall construct such undercrossing. Received: 1/21/O4 1:O4^^B -> usace regulatory branch; flCOE REGULflTORY Fax=8586745388 Jan 21~2004 12=03 P. 03 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (FWS-SDG-2124.5) 2 The construction of such undercrossing shall be deemed feasible only if all of the following conditions have, in the applicant, Service, and City's reasonable judgment, been satisfied by the end of the study period: 1. The City shall have permitted the funds which have or will be contributed by applicant (a) in mitigation of impact to non-native grassland and chaparral habitat, and (b) in lieu of construction of a wildlife undercrossing on Lionshead Avenue (previously identified in this Biological Opinion as Poinsettia Avenue) to be released to applicant and used for the construction of such undercrossing. The amounts of such funds are estimated to be $225,866 by applicant for mitigation measures, and $100,000 by applicant in lieu of construction of the Lionshead undercrossing. • ••—— •-• - • •• •* 2. The City shall have permitted the funds which have or will be contributed by Palomar Forum Associates for mitigation of impact to non-native grassland and chaparral habitat in the approximate amount of $133,867.80, to be released to applicant and used for the construction of such undercrossing. 3. The City and applicant shall have entered into an escrow agreement which provides for the deposit of all funds described in Paragraph 1 and 2 above and the retention of such funds in escrow until the determination of feasibility, at which time either the funds will be released to applicant (if the construction of the undercrossing is determined to be feasible) or otherwise released to the City. The escrow agreement shall confirm diat the deposit of the above-described funds by applicant shaJl satisfy the conditions relating to such payments which are contained in the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Planning Commission on October 17,2001 as Resolution No. 5024, and that if the funds are released to the City, . applicant shall have no further liability to the Service (with respect to the construction of the undercrossing), or to the City (with respect to mitigation measures and fees due in lieu of the Lionshead undercrossing as described above). 4. Applicant shall have obtained, or verified that it will be able to obtain, all necessary federal, state and City governmental permits, approvals and authorizations to allow the construction of such undercrossing. 5. Applicant shall have obtained all necessary private approvals (including, but not limited to, any requisite easements) to allow the construction of such undercrossing, without any fees or other consideration being paid by the applicant for same. 6. Applicant and the Service shall have agreed upon the exact location, size, Received: 1/81/O4 1:OsA -> usace regulatory branch; ^ . flCOE REGULflTORY Fax:8586745388 Jan 21 2004 12:04 P.04 Colonel Richard G. Thompson (FWS-SDG-2124.5) 3 materials and other specifications for the construction of such undercrossing. 7. The total cost of construction of such undercrossing (including all requisite governmental permits, architectural fees and other consulting fees) shall not exceed the total amount of funds which shall have been deposited into the escrow described above, or the Service shall have unconditionally committed to fund any deficiency, which deficiency shall be paid to applicant concurrently with the release of funds from the escrow described above. If the ujidercrossmg is not feasible, funds contributed to the escrow account described above shall l?e released to the City to be used for habitat acquisition :within the core area southeast of Carlsbadr • • •- •- •- — -•-..•- The changes made above do not affect our conclusion, our assessment of the number of gnatcatchers taken, or the other terms and conditions of the biological opinion. All other portions of the biological opinion remain unchanged. If you have any questions regarding this amendment, or the consultation in general, please contact John Martin of my staff at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, O'Rourke Assistant Held Supervisor H.G. FENTON COMPANY (619)400-0120 August 27, 2004 (619) 400-0111 FAX Mr. Marshall K. Plantz Senior Civil Engineer City of Carlsbad 1653 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Bid Documents for Raceway: Grading and Storm Drain in Melrose Drive Dear Marshall: Thank you very much for meeting with Tim Carroll and me recently to discuss the bid documents for the grading and storm drain work at the Raceway. Enclosed for your review are the following items 1) Bidders List (inserted in the front cover of the notebook) 2) Contract Documents 3) Grading and Erosion Control Plans for Melrose Drive Core 4) Improvement Plans for Melrose Drive Core I look forward to your review of these materials; please let me know of any questions you have or of any necessary revisions. You can reach me at 619-400-0134. Thank you. Sincerely, Allen M. Jones Vice President 7588 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, CA 92108 H. G. FENTON COMPANY Bidders List For: Grading Projects No. Contractor: 1 W. R. Connelly 9210 Olive Drive Spring Valley, CA91977 Contact: Phone: Fax: Gus Connelly (619)465-4697 (619)465-4688 Perry & Shaw, Inc. 475 West Bradley Ave. El Cajon, CA 92020 Bud Perry (619) 390-6500 (619) 390-8831 Signs & Pinnick, Inc. 685 Front St. El Cajon, CA 92 Steve Hamilton (619) 579-8333 (619) 579-0719 Erreca's, Inc. 12570 Highway 67 Lakeside, CA 92040 Max Frazier (619) 390-6400 (619) 443-3002 5 Sukut Construction, Inc. 3156 Vista Way, Su 205 Oceanside, CA 92056 Mike Zaniboni (760) 754-9100 (760) 754-9130 B 3 Architectural Graphics & Branding July 24, 2003 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Anne, Please find the following revised Carlsbad Raceway Business Park sign program for your review. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at 714.744.2300 ext.211. Thank you. Best regards, Liz Chung JB3D Cc: Geoff Phillips 731 N. Main Street • Orange, California 92868 714.744.2300 • 714.744.8061 fax jb3d.com • C.L. #612831 |J Hofmon Planning LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Associates Planning Fiscal Analysis Environmental DATE: April 30, 2003 PROJECT: Carlsbad Raceway DELIVERED BY: HPA ATTENTION: Anne Hysong FROM: Stuart Fisk Message: Attached are clean and redline versions of the Carlsbad Raceway CC&Rs that have been revised per your March 31, 2003 comments. I am forwarding both to you at the request of Matt Hill. 5900 Pasteur Court • Ste 150 • Carlsbad • CA • 92008 • 760-438-1465 • Fax 760-438-2443 May 3, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 760/ 602-8559 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 TESHIMA DESIGN GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING (858) 693-8824 9903 Businesspark Avenue Suite C San Diego, California 92131-1120 FAX: (858)693-1182 PROJECT: GPA 98-05 / LFMP 87-18(B) / CT 98-10 / HDP 98-09 CARLSBAD RACEWAY Dear Anne: Per our meeting on Tuesday this is to confirm that according to the biological mitigation plan submitted to the City, the manufactured slope area shown on our sheet L6 shall be re-vegetated with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (D.C.S.S.) from containers. The specific non-evasive seed mix per Helix Environmental shall be as follows: COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SEED Mix SEED MIXTURE LBS. / ACRE Lotus scoparius Baccharis sarothroides Artemisia californica Nassella lepida Eriophyllum confertiflorum tnogonum T'asciculaturn Nassella pulchra Lasthenia californica Mimulus aurantiacus Hemizonia fasciculata Lupinus bicolor Rhus integrifolia Plantago ovata Salvia melifera Deerweed Broom baccharis Coastal sagebrush Foothill needlegrass Goldfields Flat-top buckwheat Purple needlegrass Goldfields Monkeyflower Fascicled tarweed Lupine Lemonadeberry Woolly plantain Black sage TOTAL LBS./ACRE 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 10.0 3.0 42.0 TESHIMA All of the above information shall be clearly shown on our conceptual landscape plans for the up coming submittal. We shall also prepare a quick design sketch for your review on the I.D.I, property. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions. Ronald S. Teshima, ASLA Principal RST:jes cc: Jon Kurtin Bill Hoffman / Stuart Fisk Pat Corkill File Fax: 760/438-2443 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING J City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 22, 2003 Stuart Fisk Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CARLSBAD RACEWAY CC&R's Dear Stuart, I have reviewed the Carlsbad Raceway CC&R's, and although it appears that the applicant has corrected the CC&R's as I previously requested, there are some additional changes that need to be made to the document to avoid future misunderstanding between the Carlsbad Raceway Association and the City. On Page 3, Section 27, a definition of "Planning and Design Guidelines" is provided. This definition is not accurate in that the only planning and design guidelines approved for the Raceway project other than compliance with the Planned Industrial Ordinance (Chapter 21.34 of the Zoning Ordinance) are the mitigation measures restricting or limiting roof equipment, screen walls, loading areas, etc. The definition suggests that the Planning and Design Guidelines on file at the City can be amended by the Board of Directors. This definition should be revised so that it is clear that the regulations set forth by the Planned Industrial Ordinance and/or Carlsbad Raceway Mitigation Measures constitute the Planning and Design Guidelines and that these may not be amended by the Board of Directors. The definitions provided by Sections 19, 20, 34, and 35 and other provisions throughout the document all refer to the "Planning and Design Guidelines" in error. Additionally, the definition of a rear lot line provided by Section 29 on Page 4 and the definition of setbacks provided by Section 3 on Page 15 are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. In all cases, CC&R definitions should refer to and be consistent with the applicable Zoning Ordinance standards and regulations to avoid confusion when development is proposed. Please have the applicant correct these items and any others that may conflict with applicable City regulations prior to resubmittal. Sincerely, L^/J^--K_«—- ANNE HYSONG Associate Planner AH:bd Attachment 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - RACEWAY Response to Comments (Comments dated October 1, 2001) 1. Comment: Section VI, Circulation, page 17: Please provide the entire Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Transportation Analysis for review. Response: A copy of the Raceway Industrial Park Transportation Analysis will be forwarded to your office. 2. Comment: The transportation analysis should examine all State-owned facilities (freeway sections, interchanges, and intersections) on Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78) that are affected by this project. Response: The selection of study intersections in the traffic study was based on the San Diego County Congestion Management Plan guidelines, which indicate that intersections with greater than 50 project-generated peak hour trips and freeway segments with 150 or more project-generated peak hour trips should be included for analysis. Based on the findings presented in the traffic study, the proposed project does not contribute a significant amount of peak hour trips to State-owned facilities that would warrant additional analysis. Distribution of project-generated trips is illustrated in Exhibit 4-2 for the future roadway network and in Exhibit 5-2 for the existing (1998) roadway network. 3. Comment: The transportation analysis should have been done in accordance with the Department's Guide for Preparation of traffic impact studies, dated January 2001 (TIS guide). Minimum contents of the traffic impact study are listed in Appendix "A" of the TIS guide. Response; The traffic study prepared for the proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad adopted traffic study guidelines. It should also be noted that the proposed project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the State's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies." 4. Comment: Analyze all State-owned signalized intersections affected by this project using the intersecting lane vehicle (ILV) procedure from the Department of Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21. Response: Please see response to Comment 2. 5. Comment: The level of service (LOS) for operating State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOE) (see Appendix "C-2" of the TIS guide). The Department endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" (see Appendix "C-3" of the TIS guide). IF any existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained. Response: Comment noted. Carlsbad - Raceway Response to Comments dated October 1, 2001 Page 2 of 2 6. Comment: If certain traffic mitigation projects are identified as appropriate, then the Department supports the concept of "fair share" contributions on the part of the developer. Response: Comment noted. C:\WINNTVProfiles\ecobb\Desktop\Forum_RTC.doc to: organization: fax number. from: FAX TRANSMITTAL October 15,2001 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad (760)602-8559 Barry Jones Responses for the Palomar Forum and Raceway projects page 1 of: job number DPLOI Anne-Here are the responses. For the UCSD responses I used different numbers starting with #8 for the Palomar Forum project. These are circled (8-10). Call me if you have any questions. Barry Cc: Larry Nelson (949)752-8776 Jon Kurtin (858)793-7977 Bill Hofman (760)438-2443 8100 La Mesa Blvd.. Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6452 e-mail: barrvi@hclixopi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 •AN3 XI13H ZSSO 619 51=60 T002,9T'I30 RACEWAY Response to Comments (Comments dated October 4, 2001) Circulation 1. Comment: The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on Melrose south of Faraday - an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on this neighborhood need to be specifically addressed. Response: The average daily traffic volumes shown on Figure 3-1 represent recorded daily trips. Where volumes are a 1,000 average daily trips (ADT) or less, they are not recorded; such is the case for Melrose Drive south of Faraday Avenue per SANDAG traffic forecast for Year 2000. Although "cut-through" traffic on local streets is a concern, staff believes that the proposed project would not introduce a condition that would encourage "cut- through" traffic. Rather, the proposed project introduces alternative vehicle routes (i.e, Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue) that are direct and reliable, and would not be hindered by slower traffic associated with local residential streets. Since the project distribution demonstrated no relationship with the adjacent Vista neighborhood, no subsequent analysis of local residential roadways was required pursuant to the City's analysis criteria. 2. Comment: The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project alone is expected to generate 5-1 Ok ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected either the baseline conditions or future traffic conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assessed, possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home depot and other key projects. Response: As noted in the study, Year 2005 conditions is based on SANDAG/Carlsbad Year 2005 Regional Traffic Model. The interim model assumptions reflect those land uses and densities not only consistent with the city of Carlsbad, but also the surrounding cities of Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos. In the specific reference to Home Depot, the Year 2005 and 2020 traffic model does account for future commercial trips within the Home Depot zone (approximately 6,400 ADT). The proposed Home Depot development is forecasted to generate 5,900 ADT, respectively. Carlsbad - Raceway Response to Comments dated October 4, 2001 Page 2 of 4 3. Comment: There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring cities-whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements shown on page 7-19 includes several in the city of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other referenced improvements being in place. Response: The lane geometry shown for intersections within adjacent jurisdictions are recommendations only, are not mandatory, as the city of Carlsbad cannot impose mitigation on other jurisdictions, and visa-versa. Thus, the cities of Carlsbad and Vista are working closely to ensure roadway improvements within their respective jurisdictions will be coordinated and completed as necessary. City traffic engineers from both Carlsbad and Vista have met to discuss the proposed improvements along Melrose Avenue, which are consistent with the planned improvements to be conditioned of the Home Depot project, according to City of Vista staff. In an effort to assure that planned improvements occur with the phasing of development, the Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan requires annual monitoring of intersections to identify any deficiencies and determine what improvements are required within the city of Carlsbad. 4. Comment: The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy. Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition of its extension-particularly from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway extension. The controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives-such as a reduced roadway configuration. Response: (Environmental Response) 5. Comment: The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a done deal. Response: By the year 2005 with the project, the intersections of Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real (LOS D) and Business Park Drive/Poinsettia Avenue (LOS E) are forecast to operate at deficient levels of service if alternate routes are not constructed, as discussed in Section 6.0 of the traffic report. The extension of Melrose Drive is a key component of maintaining an acceptable level of service Carlsbad - Raceway Response to Comments dated October 4, 2001 Page 3 of 4 at both of these intersections by relieving some of the congestion along El Camino Real. Likewise, the extension of Faraday Avenue is a key component to reducing traffic volumes along Palomar Airport Road. Without the extension of Faraday Avenue, traffic conditions along Palomar Airport Road will continue to deteriorate through 2005. The City feels these two links are key components to the circulation system for the City and region as a whole, and were therefore included in the 2005 analysis. 6. Comment: The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no El Fuerte extension. Response: The buildout network conditions was based on the assumed network in the SANDAG/Carlsbad Year 2020 Regional Traffic Model. The buildout network conditions assumed are also consistent the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and Local Facilities Management Plan. 7. Comment: Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However, the failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the threshold levels the require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored. Response: As acknowledged, the forecasted traffic volumes do not warrant a freeway interchange analysis. 8. Comment: Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad Forum report-although both claim to be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements. Response: The Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service (CMP Analysis) tables, including Table 10-1 of the Forum and Raceway traffic studies, have been reviewed for consistency. Minor revisions are required, and have been forwarded to the Commission as an errata to the traffic analysis. The conclusions presented in the Raceway traffic study remain the same even with the revisions of the referenced tables. 9. Comment: There are several discrepancies between existing traffic volumes, and proposed mitigation as shown in this project and the nearby city of Vista Home Depot project. These discrepancies occur along the prime arterial (S. Melrose Drive) at major intersections. The Home Depot project adds a signal at Oakridge Way and Melrose Dr, which is not addressed in this project. Coordination of analysis and mitigation along this roadway is essential-and clearly has not taken place at this preliminary planning stage. (See Attachment A) Carlsbad - Raceway ^^ Response to Comments dated October 4, 2001 Page 4 of 4 Response: The discrepancy between the forecasted volumes within the proposed project and the Home Depot study is the result of the different traffic models applied. As noted previously, the proposed project uses the SANDAG Carlsbad Regional Traffic Model. The traffic study did analyze Melrose Drive, and identified several intersections outside of the City of Carlsbad that fall below acceptable levels of service limits, such as: Sunset Drive/Melrose, Sycamore/Melrose, and Park Center Drive/ Melrose. Although the project has an impact that is deemed significant according to SANTEC guidelines (creates a delay of greater than 2.0 seconds), the project does not have the ability to mitigate these impacts in adjacent jurisdictions. Likewise, adjacent jurisdictions are facing similar impacts associated with new development impacting Carlsbad. Thus, the City of Carlsbad continues to work with local agencies to implement improvements that would off-set impacts within their respective jurisdictions. 10. Comment: This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic. Instead of contribution to more roads these project(s) should be providing funds for transit capital improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new projects in this corridor. Response: There are several transit uses available to the project, as well as supplemented by improvements conditioned on the proposed project. This project is conditioned to complete several roadway improvements along the project frontage, which include on-street bicycle lanes along Melrose Drive, Faraday Avenue, El Fuerte, and Palomar Airport Road, and bus stops adjacent to the project site along Palomar Airport Road. Since the traffic study findings represent the worse case scenario, trip credit for alternative modes of transportation was not applied. C:\WINNT\Profiles\ecobb\Desktop\Forum_RTC.doc date: to: organization: from: subject job number MEMORANDUM October 15,2001 Ann Hysong City of Carlsbad Barry Jones Carlsbad Raceway Response to Comments KPM01 Anne-Provided are responses to comments related to biological issuevS from Diane Nygaard, Isabelle Kay, and the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service. LI.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game 1. Tlie City has agreed to spend the mitigation funds for the construction of a 60-inch wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road. Remaining funds will be used for additional acquisition of open space. The City does not agree that spending mitigation dollars on a study of the wildlife undercrossing is appropriate. The City is basing the design of the undercrossing from input provided by the Service and Department and monitoring is not deemed necessary. 2. The applicant will construct a wildlife undercrossing at Poinsettia Lane. 3. An open space easement shall be provided to the City that will ensure the long-term conservation of the project open space. Long-term management would be a component of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) upon its approval. 4. The applicant has agreed to burrowing owl surveys and a relocation effort should the species be observed on site. 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 la Masa,CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 •AN3 xnan 6T9 ST-60 planning, inc. message (cont): 5700 la Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 MEMORANDUM Preserve Calavara 1. The project has been designed to be consistent with the City of Carlsbad HMP. The HMP has been developed to allow for preservation of key biological resources within the context of anticipated growth and City infrastructure needs. The project as proposed provides for a key wildlife corridor within the HMP, and fully mitigates impacts to biological resources 2. A conceptual mitigation plan has been prepared for wetland and upland habitat restoration requirements. This plan provides specific success criteria which will need to be met to insure the $uccess of the mitigation program. 3. BMFs required for the project are a standard mitigation measure for potential water quality issues. Additionally, the project will require 401 certification or waiver from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiating construction. 4. See response #3 above. 5. The applicant has agreed to provide a wildlife undercrossing of Poinsettia Road. This fully mitigates for potential impacts to wildlife movement. 6. All surveys required for a project of this scope have been completed. Additional surveys are not warranted. 7. Surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher followed Service protocol. No additional surveys are warranted. 8. The scrub oak on the site is the more common variety not considered sensitive by resource agencies. Surveys conducted in late summer may have revealed coastal California gnatcatchers on the site since they are known to occur immediately offsite. For purposes of project permitting with the resource agencies/ the site will be considered occupied by the gnatcatcher. The locations identified as supporting gnatcatchers are both proposed for open space, and the highest quality gnatcatcher habitat on site is preserved in contiguous open space with open space off •AN3 2SSO 619 31=60 TOOZ.9TI30 message (cont): 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@helixepi,com phone: (619)462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 MEMORANDUM site to the north. The additional data represented on the map does not alter mitigation requirements for the project. 9. No native grassland has been observed on site and no mitigation is required. '10. The project is providing for wildlife movement through the construction of wildlife undercrossings at Melrose and Poinsettia, and for restoration of wildlife movement under Palomar Airport Road. East-west movement is retained within open space on site and no additional mitigation is required. 11. The proposed undercrossing design is consistent with those being used throughout San Diego County, The purpose is for movement of wildlife, not humans. No additional mitigation is recommended. 12. There may be some short-term impacts to wildlife movement within the corridor. These impacts are not considered significant however, because these will not permanently impact wildlife movement. Additionally, the construction of the undercrossing at Palomar Airport Road will enhance wildlife movement over the long-term. 13. The project is consistent with the HMP, which would be a completed component of the MHCP. 14. See response #2 above. 15. The mitigation requirements arc consistent with HMP. Areas currently disturbed are proposed to be restored. 16. Mitigation requirements are consistent with the HMP. Chaparral is typically mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as proposed for this project. 17. The mitigation areas identified in the Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas are currently disturbed and are appropriate for mitigation. This would include removing non-native species such as pampas grass. 18. See response #1 above. 19. The applicant worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game in reducing •AN3 xnan ZSSO 619 SI;60 message (cent): MEMORANDUM impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. The southern willow scrub being impacted is highly disturbed, and a 2:1 mitigation ratio is appropriate. 20. Biological monitoring will be required during initial habitat clearing and grading adjacent to project open space. 21. Cumulative impacts to biological resources are addressed through onsite preserve design, enhancement of wildlife movement in the region through the construction of the Palomar Airport Road wildlife undercrossing, and funding of mitigation consistent with the HMP, 22. Construction of the wildlife undercrossing will be & requirement of the grading permit for the project. 23. Project mitigation will be done concurrently with project impacts. 24. The applicant is allowed to pursue an incidental take permit under Section 7 or Section I0(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve 1. The HMP developed by the City considered all of these factors in developing a preserve design for this portion of the City. This project is consistent with that design. 2. Impacts to these species were adequately mitigation by the project, Additional significant impacts to sensitive resources are not anticipated because surveys conducted would have identified any high priority sensitive species, and lower priority species would not occur in significant numbers to warrant additional mitigation, 3. The impacts to the habitats identified were considered significant but mitigated by the project mitigation measures. 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 01941-6476 e-mail: bariyj@helixepi.com phone: (619) 462-15 IS fax (619) 462-0552 •AH3 XI13H 6T9 message (cont): MEMORANDUM 4. The project proposes to construct a wildlife undercrossing at Palomar Airport Road, Poinsettia and Melrose. The open space configuration is consistent with the HMP which fully mitigates impacts to wildlife movement. 5. The mitigation proposed occurs in areas that have appropriate hydrology, or with minor recontouring, will have appropriate hydrology. 6. The restoration will need to meet success criteria outlined in the mitigation plan. Restoration of the slopes will provide contiguous natural habitat through the corridor/open space on the project. All fire protection will occur within developed areas. 7. Only individual oaks are being impacted. These impacts are being mitigated by including oaks within the planting plan for the site. 8. The site has been surveyed on numerous occasions and the project has been reviewed by City staff, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Pish and Game. The data base used for the project analysis was considered adequate by the City and resource agencies. 9. The applicant will provide a wildlife undercrossing of Poinsettia Lane adequate to facilitate wildlife movement. A bridge will not be required at this location, however. 10. The fee developed for the HMP is not intended to purchase an acre of land with $3,949 or $7,897. Rather, this fee will be used to acquire enough habitat to meet overall open space obligations to meet multi-species requirements within the region. "11. Mitigation plans do not require council consideration. City staff as well as state and federal resource agency review will be provided. 12, See response #1 and 4 above. 8100 la Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 •AN3 XIT3H 61$ 91-60 TOOZ.9T130 MEMORANDUM ITieSSage (COnt): IS. The detention basin located just north of the proposed development will provide wetland habitat, which provides cover for wildlire movement. The water entering the basin will be treated for water quality prior to entering the basin and will serve as an additional water source for wildlife. Water detention will also occur at Melrose during peak storm events, and will actually benefit downstream open space by minimizing downstream erosion. Water detention basins are provided within development areas, and water is treated prior to entering the open space area. 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa. CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@hdlixepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 10/12/2001. 1.2:_5i .7 ' PA13E 02 P, 02 900! C«tt«*PM» M* WiWMfc Ofto Cttty 431-9440 CftyofCWrt* Re.- Common on {151)4*7.4201 MX (151) 407-4W October lo, 20QJ for (he CvUb*d JUwway Depmnwmt of FUh and Chm» Swvlcc (3ervke), tioo CMND) brfoCvtifad Riccwty B , Ilw Wiidltf* ArncUi provldfd commwrt on od th» US, Fi»h «nd WIJdMft d MJtJe»(»d Nttauv «n4 offftr 0»e roUowJnc Th« fbUewitif wnmwu mdncomAMd«i&ni w^ued on me cunwt vmton of Qt» m^nf \^th thi City flrd project oon»ulurt» «B October 3, 3001: 1 . Tho Wildlife ApncJei concur With tlw yropcmd initi|Mian he* for imptou fnMltfftf «nd on^ptmi, Th« 4229.869,90 niiitgniwi Ae tfiould be ewsbined wJtfi ai few prppoicd for the ntyaamt P*lore«y Forum prpj#« to cmrie « wJUUifft uftifciwowinj widftr Pilpnw Aliyon fc<*d. Dwring the OetoMr 9 mwonf with the a<y, th» mutti of in MfbiMdns ftviWlity itvdy wn acating aa Wlinp«» umbr Palanur Aiipen Rotd «h9w«4 the* tlttiMJivct to OMtiflf «u» ttsuttwv, After input from biologiKi cooducdof fold itudto on nwimn»H«n pndator wt o( undfipuiM and culvert* within wiithcw Cnllfornji, wt "^""jpf-f tfait the tout mpfBilVf tltenwi vc bo bnpIemftniBd. TH» d}i»nuu< v« would tnfno<J»PiloflurAirp«Ko«d, We believe that flui ooyv City. tt f30|,|9a ThcSZ25,565.Win AM from this pn>(«ct, oombia«4 with th« S133,«67.80 to te« (him OM> «dj>o«it Momr Forum j»of «*> ihould provide wTfielent fkmdj (J359,733.70) U> p«y fcf th« •AN3 XI13H 6T9 PAGE 93WOPMAN PLANNING U^L.U D ire7684382443,... ,. ^VI0. nurn" r«A NU, /W OlK tfbbH r. U3 US PIH AMB At hwi tfx to twelve i*dw or nttmJ eoti iboold be pl^m U»e Joftom of thi me to jrovto i 9*0,1 »ub«tr»» to wfldft* emncai, «itf «««• «tt«rbed in »• vfctaiiy of to undrrpui pptnlnfl i»v«|ttMed wJ* cowt«J im pcn^, Ul» of thv «ulv«rt vJ» wck counts «uV«r rtmotely triutotd omttu ihpul d be conducts toMttto the crmlni'l f»r«|vwew, Ju¥»cuth* oiHtti wlldUIt oonidor. aMnvet «o «cwpnW» v»il4Jif. crewioi w contribw 5100,000 to th« Oiy. B*cwu« wfficiem aiti|tfion tadi «tt iv«JUbJe for the * itanir A^ipen Ko»d uxdncroiifKi, Uif projtot shouU iBWtpctW «n •pprepcn* wil«ifr cnwrinf into (he dedcnrt (Pdr>wn<« UrtJ, W« a»t »yftil»W» ID UMI th» u^oet proponcot »nd the Cfty 3. mHtOMW Plan for Nvunl CottnwnWM (HMP>. 4. BwiwMnf owl wty* wd Mloouion, if wioiuvy, ihottld b* condoned acccwiui to die The WlWl«f« Afencto* «ppf»dt» *« oppomuJty to cowmeat on (he Rcdrenj«w4 Mitifited Neptm Dedintion for ^ propovaa CwlibwJ R»e*w*x Bu»in«i J-w* It ii our unftnwdbti, b«fld on ntettan w«b tho pro)wt cgn>ulti«, Mr. Pony tool, that the Kojeot «vpli9im wfll bo pmutoi u «*«nption for iaddcnttl UM for w«m CtUfond* CMlotvhcn thpwth fprml cooiuftition Witt tho US. Atny Corja of Bnflnefw titwtar Otbociw of *« Oep«rt«iB« « «W <W-5W3 or JohW40, to oonflnn our wdentwdtni of in* yropoMd «on»uHetion prwcM wi if you h»v« >ny NwcyGlbort US, Pith and WiMIHie 9crvfet> cc; DepartmentC.F,«»yi»>fook 35SO m 619 ^ = 60 f t (\IKt\l\'S. RECEIVED r~7 o j "Mt CITY OF CARLSBADNG DEPT. Ann Hysong Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Dear Ms. Hysong: October 4,2001 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway MND Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that ail of the projects in the surrounding area still result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this area. This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for years. This is a high risk tradeoff for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts. «• We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report(EIR), However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of CEQA, <- Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more damaging that what is proposed with this project We are anxious for the issues around this roadway and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while Iof8 10/4/0110-.28PM en-m «J:~L.•AN3 ficvised Carlsbad Raceway Commons other more damaging projects are put on hold. The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing 1,' biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad. The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization. Water 1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further degrade the lagoon. 2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the cumulative impacts of projects in this area. 3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the lagoon and further impair this waterway. This is a particular concern with the proposed use of the creek as part of the system of detention basins. The Regional Water Quality Control Board no longer approves in creek detention basins. A new plan will be required- and should have been developed prior to the issuance of the MND. The use of a mitigation that is not supported by the permitting agency does not constitute adequate mitigation. Circulation Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is needed to adequately address these impacts. 1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on this neighborhood need to be specifically addressed. 2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic 2ofS J6/4/OI l<>:25 PM Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed, possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects. 3. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements shown on pages 7-19 and 7-20 include several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon ail of these other referenced improvements being in place. 4. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy. Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a reduced roadway configuration. 5. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a done deal. 6. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no El Fuerte extension. 7. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored. 8. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Palomar Forum report- although both claim to be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements. 9. There are several discrepancies between existing traffic volumes, and proposed mitigations as shown in this project and the nearby city of Vista Home Depot project. These discrepancies occur along the prime arterial (S. Melrose Dr) at major intersections. The Home Depot project adds a signal at Qakridge Way and Melrose Dr, which is not addressed in this project. Coordination of analysis and mitigations along this roadway is essential- and clearly has not taken place at this preliminary planning stage. (See Attachment A) 10. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements- all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic. Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital 3 of* 10/4/01 10.25 PM •AN3 XI1BH 2SSO 39» 6T9 81 = 60A Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new projects in this corridor. Biological Resources We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern californians love our outdoors- and we dont have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that preserves our quality of life, and assures adequate preservation of habitat for the native plants and animals. •s 1. The construction of Poinsettia Road through to connect with Melrose bisects the proposed wildlife corridor. The open space that remains will only function as stepping stones for bird migration, and not as viable wildlife corridors. Providing a low elevation roadway across a wildlife corridor leads to a lot of roadkill- not to a healthy animal population. This constitutes a significant adverse impact which was not adequately addressed. The project should be conditional upon Poinsettia being reconfigured as a cul-de-sac. Stating that full paved roadways are required as part of the fire management plan is not an acceptable argument. Thousands of acres of land will be preserved in north county- and paved access roads are not required every few feet Air tankers and buckets are used for fire suppression in these areas* and have a track record of success. The fire management program needs to be revised to reflect current planning to protect sensitive habitat- minimizing the use of roads. ^s 2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to^' assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted over just a few weeks and failed to address normal seasonal variations. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled for any sensitive fish species.~-^ The survey for the CCG is of particular concern- a three day sample in March does not constitute a *~~j representative survey for this sensitive species- especially when there are documented sightings on \ essentially all of the adjacent properties.. -"""^ We conducted a field observation on August 31,2001 and found numerous examples of sensitive species 1 Q that had not been identified in the official biological survey reports. (See attached map and notes,) A I <£? pair of Ca Coastal gnatcatchers were observed on site and potentially a third was heard. (See map ^J locations #5 and #6.) Mitigation for the sensitive species within the proposed area for development has not been addressed in I a theMND. Further mitigation is required. At a minimum this should include mitigation for the small I » patch of native grassland. -^ 3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have / * o identified the presence of a resident bobcat in the area of the Melrose connector. Loss of the bobcat ( ' 4 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM T9 6T:6° Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments population in this area with adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to assure that a viable predator population remains. Furthermore field observation makes it clear that the existing upland dirt roads that parallel the raceway in the proposed preserved areas along the riprian corridor are a veritable wildlife freeway. Bobcat, coyote, racoon, bird, lizard, and three snake trails were observed- with high volumes of recent use. The eastern end of this corridor is cut-off by Business Park Rd. There is connectivity to the core area on the western end- but the corridor is extremely constrained at the area marked # 12 on the map. This pinch point could be mitigated by integrating plantings on the slopes for the Vista industrial sites along this finger canyon. The area identified as a wildlife corridor marked # 11 on the map is along the power line easement, shows signs of prior clearing, and goes across the natural canyon- not a normal movement path for wildlife. This is a corridor that looks like a corridor on a piece of paper- but does not function as a viable corridor in the real world. 4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the existing regional wildlife corridor that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek, into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the introduction of dirt floor and some plant cover. There also needs to be provision for drainage - which is clearly not adequate in the existing culvert undercrossing. >- Furthermore the culvert design neds to specifically address the need for human as well as animal movement through this area. Employees in the local industrial businesses use this open space for recreation, and it is linked by long established informal trails to the core area to the northwest. Human access needs to be planned for so it occurs where it will have minimal adverse impact on sensitive plants and the wildlife corridors, ^ 5. There is no provision for protection of the existing wildlife corridor during construction. Specific 7 mitigation is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this { I construction. 6. Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. While this is consistent with Carlsbad's draft HMP4 it is not consistent with the standards of the draft regional MHCP. Wildlife corridors require a minimum 1,000 feet width with a pinch point of no less than 500' for a maximum length of 400'. Furthermore sensitive waterways require a minimum buffer of 100' from each bank. Neither of these criteria have been met. The MND must provide for full compliance with the standards included in the MHCP. 7. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND. IOM/OMO;25 PM xnan 2590 m 619 61 = 60 . Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments 8. There are six distinct sensitive vegetative communities that will be impacted by this project. The proposed mitigation in most cases is replanted manufactured fill slopes. Such habitat offers little value for native wildlife, and is a poor substitute for what currently exists- Direct impacts from grading include 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub(DCSS) and 21.6 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral, plus additional impacts to Freshwater Marsh, Southern Willow Scrub, and Mule Fat Scrub, non-native grassland, and a small patch of native grassland The mitigation acreages fail to accurately account for the large amount of land within the proposed preserved area that is not currently supporting habitat- the extensive network of roads and trails- in some places 20' wide, and other areas degraded by the racecourse use. If these areas are to be included within the mitigation acreage then the mitigation plan needs to fully address the amount and location of this restoration or this acreage needs to be deducted. 9. The proposed mitigation does not take into account the reduced value of the remaining habitat. Reducing the area of habitat significantly reduces the value of the habitat. The proposed mitigation for \ i/" DCSS at 2:1 correctly assumes this is occupied habitat, but not all areas were mapped and accounted for and the chapparral is functioning as CCG habitat which was not factored in.. —10. The mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet success criteria. The map titled Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas does not address all of the mitigation issues, For example, there are invasive plants (pampas grass) in the area marked 13 on the map. The mitigation plan needs to address the need to remove invasives and do some restoration work in the areas proposed for preservation. -*- 11. The area proposed for grading is poorly planned and does not take advantage of already disturbed I areas but instead proposes to grade sensitive undisturbed habitat. Alternatives should include more \ sensitive site planning that place a higher regard on protection of the little that remains of undisturbed V sensitive habitat This should include the areas marked 1,2,3, and 4 on the map. J 12. Wetlands impacts are specifically protected under the MHCP. The MKD fails to identify any effort to avoid wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. Southern Willow Scrub has a poor success ratio for replanting. The mitigation ratio should therefor be increased to at least 3:1 with adequate monitoring to ensure success. •*- —A13. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-she monitors may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources. _J 14. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats has been ignored and must be included in the MND. 15. The payment of fees to the city of Carlsbad for non-native grassland mitigation and for a potential wildlife corridor under Palomar Airport Rd requires some assurances that the proposed work will be done, in a timely manner, with adequate public input. We are very pleased that the need for a Palomar Airport Rd wildlife undercrossing has been acknowledged. This is an important issue for regional wildlife movement between core habitat- and this location is a priority area of concern. However, paying fees toward a wildlife crossing is not the same as r>of8 10/4/01 10:23 PM win 'ANS xnan zggo m 612 02 = 60 i (\ Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments building a wildlife crossing. Carlsbad does not have a good track record of using funds allocated for ] mitigation to actually complete the mitigation as planned. We are concerned that the same thing that [ happened with Mt Calavera could happen here- the city accepts funds, puts them in the bank, does no \ mitigation work for years, and then only does part of the work that was planned. \ There needs to be a control system in place to assure that funds are spent in a way that really benefits 1 wildlife movement- and habitat replacement No grading permits should be issued until a detailed plan I is in place. Penalties and sanctions should be tnclcuded in the plan so that if the city fails to complete I the work as planned there will be funds provided for another agency to direct the work. ^J 16. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction. Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed. The mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or mitigation for sensitive species on the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat. 17. Carlsbad has used all of their authorized take of DCSS under the provisions of rule 4(d). The city"°~~\ _ is therefor not authorized to issue take permits, nor is any other agency allowed to authorize further take \ \ permits until approval of Carlsbad's HMP. —-^ Noise People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations for this project need to address both. 1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and construction activity during the breeding season. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from 1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required. 3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose. Cultural Resources 1. We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented. 2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical 7 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM 'AN3 XinaH ZSSO m 619 OZ'60 native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation management plan. 3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains. Recreational l.This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west Employees of the other industrial parks in this area commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors. 2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise this project proposal so that we ail end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space, Sincerely, Diane Nygaard on behalf of Preserve Calavera Att: Map JO/4/01 10:25 PM •AN3 XI13H SS50 39fr 6T9 Oct. 08 Ot 03:29p p.2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO BERKELEY • DAVlS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVgftSiOE • SAN DIEGO • SA* FKA UCSD SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRL7. NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM TELEPHONE: (£5x) 534-2077 9500 OILMAN DRIVE FAX (858) 5M-7J04 or 822-0696LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92003-0116 e-n,aii. ik^n^^d.^ October 5,200] Planning Commission Ciiy of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559 Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department Re; Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 98- 05/LFMP 87-lS(B)/CT98-10/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Commissioners: The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve ("Reserve"), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core, high quality habitat in the North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad1 s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and willow woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the reserve has lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of habitat inland, and habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including gojden eagle, mule deer, and mountain lion. We are, however, fortunate to still have several species at the highest trophic levels, including coyote, bobcat, fox, and many species of raptors, This is almost certainly because of the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to individuals of these species, through connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The City of Carlsbad has recognized the importance of such connections, and called them out in the core and linkage concept of the HMP, The two properties under consideration by the Commission for development approval contribute significantly to one of these connections: Linkage Area D connects the Reserve to extensive areas of natural open space through die Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial project, and •AN3 XI13H 619 Oct 03 01 03s29p p.3 thus to major core open space to the south, northeast, and east Within the City of Vista to the north of the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these connections. The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum jeopardize the realization of a functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of Carlsbad and the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The remainder of this letter details die specifics of our concerns regarding this plan. I. Need for a full Environmental Analysis The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a fu]] environmental analysis; a mitigated negative declaration is clearly inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the applicant - to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is the environmentally preferred alternative. This has not been determined, since an environmental analysis of alternatives has not been carried out. Furthermore, it is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major impacts on the remaining open space in the area, with the resulting consequences, including habitat loss, storm water runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of' views, etc. However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been analyzed. We suggest that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact, through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two projects were superficially (and inconsistently) combined for impact analysis, there is not enough effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of. the HMP and MHCP should be presented. When tliis is done, to say that the project "conforms with.." these plans will not be sufficient; a case needs to be made to support this contention, with precise and specific information, and clear-cut examples. In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (El A) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case, it is certainly out of date. In any case, the following environmental factors will be subject to potentially signiGcant impacts under the proposed projects; they should therefore have been checked (in addition to those that were) as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated", or "Potentially Significant Impact", in the extended Environmental Impact Assessment form (pages 5-10), whether or not the impacts are mitigated: !. LAND USE AND PLANNING. d) Agricultural resources: agricultural land will be converted to industrial; C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 2 of 7 •AN3 xnaa ZS90 12=60 not oa 01 O3s30p ' p.4 e) Disruption of the community: the introduction of more traffic and industrial area will exacerbate the division of south Carlsbad from north Carlsbad. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS . f) significant changes in topography will accompany these projects; g) land subsidence is likely unJess alluvial material is removed 95 mitigation. IV. WATER. There WJLL be: a) changes in absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff; b) exposure of people and property to flooding, both upstream and downstream; d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon; h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.) IV. AIR QUALITY. The projects as designed will likely: b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants; c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature Jocally due to hardscaping; d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes. In addition, there is no clear evidence thai any measures other than circular reasoning have been undertaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city's update of the General Plan does not mean lhat any such measures have been incorporated. They are certainly not explicitly called out- Furthermore, the MEIR is no longer adequate as it is older than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time. VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION. The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects: b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The proposal would result in impacts to: b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including Ouercus dumosa, Quercus agrifolia, Comaroslaphylus diversifolia, Adolphia califorriica, Ferocactus viridescens, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper's hawk, Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing owl); this does not mean that other sensitive and target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their status on the sites (e.g. particular herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparraJ, ^ mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed; *" The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as "Potentially Significant Impact": d) Wetland habitat: riparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak woodland; and Chad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:30p p.5 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is severely */ compromised by the plan as proposed. " J * VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. a) Adopted energy conservation plans, such as those incorporated into the county-wide REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated communities, and fewer roads. b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites. The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG's recommendations for "Smart Growth" are being incorporated. See, for example, their website describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities: http://w^vw.sandag.org/whats_riew/work_prograrn/work_program_l O5.hunl#l 05.14 IX. HAZARDS. c) The development of the industrial parks will almost certainly lead to the importation of materials that pose a hazard to human and environmental health. These problems should be examined during this stage of the development process, since to wait until individual parcels are developed would be illegally piecemealing the project, The introduction of industrial processes, vehicle traffic, and thousands of individuals into an area of habitat that is highly flammable, and the resulting increased likelihood for Fire is not discussed. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Fire protection: the reduced level of service that might be available if the lesser environmentally damaging projects are built are discussed in the document; the "potentially significant impact" column should have been checked. d) The need for indefinite maintenance of the infrastructures supporting these industrial parks, including roads, sewer, storm drains, street lighting, etc. could have a significant impact on the ability of the city's departments to provide adequate service to their residents in the long-term. This item should have been checked as having at least a "Potentially significant impact." XII- UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Sewer systems are identified as being impacted, albeit at a level deemed below significant. It is not clear why water treatment and distribution facilities (c) and stormwater drainage (e) are not impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects, XII. AESTHETICS. The project will most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed (impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics: and creating light and glare) and should thus be recognized at that level. XV. RECREATION. Contrary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checklist, there WILL most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of the employees of the business parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need Chad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 4 of 1 XI13H 2550 39& 6T9 Oct OS 01 03:31p p.6 for recreational facilities in competitive business areas, as employees need to exercise or relax before, during, and after work. In addition, trails and paths that are offered as amenities by the business park will be used to access the open space, thus requiring the development of a larger trail system. Finally, if bicycles are to be encouraged as a form of transportation in the area" the necessary facilities should likely be a recreational resource as well. a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance 10 view wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc,) will surely be negatively impacted by these projects. 2. Mitigation for habitat impacts a) Wetlands The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is topologjcally unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation see Figure 3. Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix, 1998.) In addition, the 0.08 acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum project are not included in existing 1 aplans. b) Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured (2:1) slopes. It is not clear that ihis will result io functional wildlife habitat, or that this is an adequat j acreage for restoration, at 1:1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore, there appears to be no plan for fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area. c)Oaks There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Ouercus agrifolia and Ouercus dumosd) on either of the projects, in spite of the fact that oak woodland is to be conserved unde; the HMP. d) Overlooked species aod occurrences " It is not clear whether the ten Comarostaphytos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and oiher species were overlooked. Examples: fo1. Camarastaphyhs was observed on the north-facing slope at the east end of the dragstrip, but was not shown on the map. 2. Large clusters of Ouercus dumosa. to the west of the Comorostaphylos were not recorded on the map. 3. Ouercus agrifolia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked. 4. An area of Baccharis scrub in the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a barev j disturbed area. 5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for impacts to sensitive species and habitats. C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 5 of 7 L$ZZ# 'ANS xnaa zsso m 619 Zf-eo Oet 08 01 03s32p p.7 Non- / c< ite. for / ' J c) Inadequate mitigation In addition, the remaining mitigation proposed for impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral. Non- native grassland, and the transaction of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia appear inadequa the following reasons: 1. $100,000 is not sufficient to construct a, major bridge such as would be required. 2. NO land in the vicinity of Carlsbad can be purchased for S3.949 per acre, so this is ^^ inadequate mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland; additionally, the targeted acquisitions need to be identified as pan of the mitigation proposal. 3. Similarly, land cannot be purchased for 57,897 per acre, as proposed for mitigation for chaparral, so this is also inadequate mitigation. Any such purchase alternative needs to identify the acquisition parcels prior to project approval. —' In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be *~\ made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that / culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public I review. 3. \Vildlifecorridors "-«, The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects make up the northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D- 6) "The northern section of this linkage includes die disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a moderately effective corridor for birds and mammals." However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow (less than 400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completely transected by roads in two places. Most noticeable is the obstacle created by placing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest corner of the Raceway site. The wildlife undercrossing proposed appears to be a culvert that is 1 SO feet long, 12 feet high, and 5-20 feet wide. A bridge would provide a far superior solution to the problem, and should be studied as a real alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible :o visualize either of these with the plans provided., as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.) The Poinsettia (aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering it another "sink" for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative impact on the population at large. There are numerous suidies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages and corridors, and the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successful. Please contact my office if you do not already have copies of these references for the Planning Commission before the hearing. — 4. Circulation "The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated." (p. 15, EIA). The mitigation proposed is to complete all the planned roads in the area. It has not yet been decided C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 6 of 7 •AN3 619 Oct. 08 01 03: 33p p. 8 whether these projects (Faraday, El Fuertc, etc.) should be constructed. Therefore there appears to be a very real need for a. thorough alternatives analysis, in the form of an Environmental Impact Report, This section of the document also presents unsubstantiated conclusions that fly in the face of current evidence to the contrary, i.e. that building more roads eases congestion and encourages alternative forms of transportation; "The. additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road) will... reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate modes of transportation.'' Finally, the justification for using the 1994 MEIR vo allow the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to stand is that"... no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.,," and that'"...there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified." In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the past 5 years on San Diego's freeways, these statements should be re-examined. 5. Hydrology The proposal to use the wildlife corridor/riparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill- " conceived. This very same concept has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad Oaks' North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildlife passage. Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the ^~ difference. Sincerely» IsabeltT Manager, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve cc: USFWS CDFG Preserve Calavera C'badRaeeway comment 10/05/0) Page 7 of 7 'AN3 XI13H ZS90 Z9l! 6T9 €2:60 US Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-9624 CA Dept. of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 October 10, 200In-Reply, Refer to: FWS-SDG-2124.1 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Comments on the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ca Business Park Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Ms. Hysong: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project and offer the following comments. The Wildlife Agencies provided comments on the previous version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in an earlier letter dated August 15, 2001 (reference FWS-SDG-2124.1). The following comments and recommendations are based on the current version of the document, plus a meeting with the City and project consultants on October 3, 2001: 1. The Wildlife Agencies concur with the proposed mitigation fees for impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral. The $225,865.90 mitigation fee should be combined with mitigation fees proposed for the adjacent Palomar Forum project to create a wildlife undercrossing under Palomar Airport Road. During the October 3 meeting with the City, the results of an engineering feasibility study on creating an underpass under Palomar Airport Road showed three alternatives to creating this structure. After input from biologists conducting field studies on mammalian predator use of underpasses and culverts within southern California, we recommend that the least expensive alternative be implemented. This alternative would insert a concrete pipe under Palomar Airport Road with a minimum diameter of 60 inches, and a length of approximately 220 feet. This pipe could be installed without disrupting traffic on Palomar Airport Road. We believe that this structure will allow for the passage of coyotes and bobcats, and reestablish a terrestrial corridor across this major arterial road in the City. The proposed cost of this undercrossing was estimated at $308,190. The $225,865.90 in mitigation fees from this project, combined with the $133,867.80 in fees from the adjacent Palomar Forum project, should provide sufficient funds ($359,733.70) to pay for the Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) 2 underpass installation. At least six to twelve inches of natural soil should be placed in the bottom of the pipe to provide a natural substrate to wildlife movement, and areas disturbed in the vicinity of the underpass openings revegetated with coastal sage scrub. In addition, fencing should be installed along both sides of the road, and in such a way as to funnel wildlife toward the undercrossing. Finally, a minimum of two years of monitoring of wildlife use of the culvert via track counts and/or remotely triggered cameras should be conducted to assess the crossing's effectiveness. 2. The MND proposes two options to mitigate impacts from the construction of Street "B" on the on-site wildlife corridor, construct an acceptable wildlife crossing or contribute $100,000 to the City. Because sufficient mitigation funds are available for the Palomar Airport Road undercrossing, the project should incorporate an appropriate wildlife crossing into the design of Street "B" (Poinsettia Lane). We are available to assist the project proponent and the City in designing this undercrossing. 3. Please provide us with more detail regarding the mechanisms by which funding for maintenance of the open space/wildlife corridor will be obtained and ensured over time. Measures, such as a conservation easement given to the City, must be taken to ensure the long-term protection of this key open space component of the City's draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP). 4. Burrowing owl surveys and relocation, if necessary, should be conducted according to the Department's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. It is our understanding, based on meetings with the project consultant, Mr. Barry Jones, that the project applicant will be pursuing an exemption for incidental take for coastal California gnatcatchers through formal consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Please contact Meredith Osborne of the Department at (858) 636-3163 or John Martin of the Service at (760) 431- 9440, to confirm our understanding of the proposed consultation process and if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nancy Gilbert 1* v~ William E. Tippets Assistant Field Supervisor . Environmental Program Manager Carlsbad Field Office South Coast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game cc: Department C.F. Raysbrook UCSD ITA BARB/fR'/y • SANTA CRUZfit l (858) 534-2077 FAX (858) 534-7108 or 822-0696 e-mail: ikay©ucsd.edu UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM 9500 OILMAN DRIVE LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 October 5, 2001 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559 Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 98- 05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Commissioners: The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve ("Reserve"), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core, high quality habitat in the North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and willow woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the reserve has lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of habitat inland, and habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including golden eagle, mule deer, and mountain lion. We are, however, fortunate to still have several species at the highest trophic levels, including coyote, bobcat, fox, and many species of raptors. This is almost certainly because of the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to individuals of these species, through connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The City of Carlsbad has recognized the importance of such connections, and called them out in the core and linkage concept of the HMP. The two properties under consideration by the Commission for development approval contribute significantly to one of these connections: Linkage Area D connects the Reserve to extensive areas of natural open space through the Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial project, and thus to major core open space to the south, northeast, and east. Within the City of Vista to the north of the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these connections. The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum jeopardize the realization of a functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of Carlsbad and the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The remainder of this letter details the specifics of our concerns regarding this plan. 1. Need for a full Environmental Analysis The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a full environmental analysis; a mitigated negative declaration is clearly inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the applicant — to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is the environmentally preferred alternative. This has not been determined, since an environmental analysis of alternatives has not been carried out. Furthermore, it is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major impacts on the remaining open space in the area, with the resulting consequences, including habitat loss, storm water runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of views, etc. However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been analyzed. We suggest that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact, through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two projects were superficially (and inconsistently) combined for impact analysis, there is not enough effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of, the HMP and MHCP should be presented. When this is done, to say that the project "conforms with.." these plans will not be sufficient; a case needs to be made to support this contention, with precise and specific information, and clear-cut examples. In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (EIA) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case, it is certainly out of date. In any case, the following environmental factors will be subject to potentially significant impacts under the proposed projects; they should therefore have been checked (in addition to those that were) as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated", or "Potentially Significant Impact", in the extended Environmental Impact Assessment form (pages 5-10), whether or not the impacts are mitigated: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. d) Agricultural resources: agricultural land will be converted to industrial; C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 2 of 7 e) Disruption of the community: the introduction of more traffic and industrial area will exacerbate the division of south Carlsbad from north Carlsbad. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. f) significant changes in topography will accompany these projects; g) land subsidence is likely unless alluvial material is removed as mitigation. IV. WATER. There WILL be: a) changes in absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff; b) exposure of people and property to flooding, both upstream and downstream; d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon; h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.) IV. AIR QUALITY. The projects as designed will likely: b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants; c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature locally due to hardscaping; d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes. In addition, there is no clear evidence that any measures other than circular reasoning have been undertaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city's update of the General Plan does not mean that any such measures have been incorporated. They are certainly not explicitly called out. Furthermore, the MEIR is no longer adequate as it is older than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time. VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION. The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects: b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The proposal would result in impacts to: b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including Quercus dumosa, Quercus agrifolia, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Adolphia californica, Ferocactus viridescens, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper's hawk, Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing owl); this does not mean that other sensitive and target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their status on the sites (e.g. particular herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed; The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as "Potentially Significant Impact": d) Wetland habitat: riparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak woodland; and C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of 7 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is severely compromised by the plan as proposed. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. a) Adopted energy conservation plans, such as those incorporated into the county-wide REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated communities, and fewer roads. b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites. The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG's recommendations for "Smart Growth" are being incorporated. See, for example, their website describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities: http://www.sandag.org/whats_new/work_program/work_program_105.html#105.14 IX. HAZARDS. c) The development of the industrial parks will almost certainly lead to the importation of materials that pose a hazard to human and environmental health. These problems should be examined during this stage of the development process, since to wait until individual parcels are developed would be illegally piecemealing the project. The introduction of industrial processes, vehicle traffic, and thousands of individuals into an area of habitat that is highly flammable, and the resulting increased likelihood for fire is not discussed. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Fire protection: the reduced level of service that might be available if the lesser environmentally damaging projects are built are discussed in the document; the "potentially significant impact" column should have been checked. d) The need for indefinite maintenance of the infrastructures supporting these industrial parks, including roads, sewer, storm drains, street lighting, etc. could have a significant impact on the ability of the city's departments to provide adequate service to their residents in the long-term. This item should have been checked as having at least a "Potentially significant impact." XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Sewer systems are identified as being impacted, albeit at a level deemed below significant. It is not clear why water treatment and distribution facilities (c) and stormwater drainage (e) are not impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects. XII. AESTHETICS. The project will most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed (impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics; and creating light and glare) and should thus be recognized at that level. XV. RECREATION. Contrary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checklist, there WILL most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of the employees of the business parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 4 of 7 for recreational facilities in competitive business areas, as employees need to exercise or relax before, during, and after work. In addition, trails and paths that are offered as amenities by the business park will be used to access the open space, thus requiring the development of a larger trail system. Finally, if bicycles are to be encouraged as a form of transportation in the area, the necessary facilities should likely be a recreational resource as well. a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance to view wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc.) will surely be negatively impacted by these projects. 2. Mitigation for habitat impacts a) Wetlands The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is topologically unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation see Figure 3, Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix, 1998.) In addition, the 0.08 acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum project are not included in existing plans. b) Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured (2:1) slopes. It is not clear that this will result in functional wildlife habitat, or that this is an adequate acreage for restoration, at 1:1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore, there appears to be no plan for fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area. c) Oaks There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Quercus agrifolia and Quercus dumosd) on either of the projects, in spite of the fact that oak woodland is to be conserved under the HMP. d) Overlooked species and occurrences It is not clear whether the ten Comarostaphylos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and other species were overlooked. Examples: 1. Comarostaphylos was observed on the north-facing slope at the east end of the dragstrip, but was not shown on the map. 2. Large clusters of Quercus dumosa to the west of the Comarostaphylos were not recorded on the map. 3. Quercus agrifolia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked. 4. An area of Baccharis scrub in the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a bare, disturbed area. 5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for impacts to sensitive species and habitats. C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 5 of 7 e) Inadequate mitigation In addition, the remaining mitigation proposed for impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Non- native grassland, and the transection of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia appear inadequate, for the following reasons: 1. $100,000 is not sufficient to construct a major bridge such as would be required. 2. NO land in the vicinity of Carlsbad can be purchased for $3,949 per acre, so this is inadequate mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland; additionally, the targeted acquisitions need to be identified as part of the mitigation proposal. 3. Similarly, land cannot be purchased for $7,897 per acre, as proposed for mitigation for chaparral, so this is also inadequate mitigation. Any such purchase alternative needs to identify the acquisition parcels prior to project approval. In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public review. 3. Wildlife corridors The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects make up the northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D- 6) "The northern section of this linkage includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a moderately effective corridor for birds and mammals." However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow (less than 400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completely transected by roads in two places. Most noticeable is the obstacle created by placing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest corner of the Raceway site. The wildlife undercrossing proposed appears to be a culvert that is 180 feet long, 12 feet high, and 5-20 feet wide. A bridge would provide a far superior solution to the problem, and should be studied as a real alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible to visualize either of these with the plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.) The Poinsettia (aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering it another "sink" for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative impact on the population at large. There are numerous studies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages and corridors, and the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successful. Please contact my office if you do not already have copies of these references for the Planning Commission before the hearing. 4. Circulation "The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated." (p. 15, EIA). The mitigation proposed is to complete all the planned roads in the area. It has not yet been decided C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 6 of 7 whether these projects (Faraday, El Fuerte, etc.) should be constructed. Therefore there appears to be a very real need for a thorough alternatives analysis, in the form of an Environmental Impact Report. This section of the document also presents unsubstantiated conclusions that fly in the face of current evidence to the contrary, i.e. that building more roads eases congestion and encourages alternative forms of transportation: "The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road) will ... reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate modes of transportation." Finally, the justification for using the 1994 MEIR to allow the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to stand is that"... no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified..." and that ".. .there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified." In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the past 5 years on San Diego's freeways, these statements should be re-examined. 5. Hydrology The proposal to use the wildlife corridor/riparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill- conceived. This very same concept has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildlife passage. Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the difference. Sincerely, IsabeT Manager, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve cc: USFWS CDFG Preserve Calavera C' bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 7 of 7 RECEIVED OCT 0 5 2801 CITY OF CARLSBAD . PLANNING DEPT. October 4,2001 AnnHysong Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Subject Carlsbad Raceway MND Dear Ms. Hysong: Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this area. This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts. We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during mis comment period is a clear violation of CEQA. Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while I of 8 10/4/01 10:28 PM 5020 Nighthawk Way - Ocean Hills, CA 92056 www.preservecatavera.org Revised .Carlsbad Raceway Comments v! other more damaging projects are put on hold. The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad. The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization. Water 1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further degrade the lagoon. 2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the cumulative impacts of projects in this area. 3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the lagoon and further impair this waterway. This is a particular concern with the proposed use of the creek as part of the system of detention basins. The Regional Water Quality Control Board no longer approves in creek detention basins. A new plan will be required- and should have been developed prior to the issuance of the MND. The use of a mitigation that is not supported by the permitting agency does not constitute adequate mitigation. Circulation Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is needed to adequately address these impacts. 1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on this neighborhhood need to be specifically addressed. 2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic 2 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM Revised.C.arlsbad Raceway Comments\ >« conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed, possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects. 3. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements shown on pages 7-19 and 7-20 include several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other referenced improvements being in place. 4. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy. Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a reduced roadway configuration. 5. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a done deal. 6. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no El Fuerte extension. 7. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored. 8. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Palomar Forum report- although both claim to be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements. 9. There are several discrepancies between existing traffic volumes, and proposed mitigations as shown in this project and the nearby city of Vista Home Depot project. These discrepancies occur along the prime arterial (S. Melrose Dr) at major intersections. The Home Depot project adds a signal at Oakridge Way and Melrose Dr, which is not addressed in this project. Coordination of analysis and mitigations along this roadway is essential- and clearly has not taken place at this preliminary planning stage. (See Attachment A) 10. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements- all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic. Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital 3 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new projects in this corridor. Biological Resources We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern californians love our outdoors- and we don't have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that preserves our quality of life, and assures adequate preservation of habitat for the native plants and animals. 1. The construction of Poinsettia Road through to connect with Melrose bisects the proposed wildlife corridor. The open space that remains will only function as stepping stones for bird migration, and not as viable wildlife corridors. Providing a low elevation roadway across a wildlife corridor leads to a lot of roadkill- not to a healthy animal population. This constitutes a significant adverse impact which was not adequately addressed. The project should be conditional upon Poinsettia being reconfigured as a cul-de-sac. Stating that full paved roadways are required as part of the fire management plan is not an acceptable argument. Thousands of acres of land will be preserved in north county- and paved access roads are not required every few feet. Air tankers and buckets are used for fire suppression in these areas- and have a track record of success. The fire management program needs to be revised to reflect current planning to protect sensitive habitat- minimizing the use of roads. 2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted over just a few weeks and failed to address normal seasonal variations. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled for any sensitive fish species. The survey for the CCG is of particular concern- a three day sample in March does not constitute a representative survey for this sensitive species- especially when there are documented sightings on essentially all of the adjacent properties.. We conducted a field observation on August 31,2001 and found numerous examples of sensitive species that had not been identified in the official biological survey reports. (See attached map and notes.) A pair of Ca Coastal gnatcatchers were observed on site and potentially a third was heard. (See map locations # 5 and #6.) Mitigation for the sensitive species within the proposed area for development has not been addressed in the MND. Further mitigation is required. At a minimum this should include mitigation for the small patch of native grassland. 3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have identified the presence of a resident bobcat in the area of the Melrose connector. Loss of the bobcat 4 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments S i ' population in this area with adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to assure that a viable predator population remains. Furthermore field observation makes it clear that the existing upland dirt roads that parallel the raceway in the proposed preserved areas along the riprian corridor are a veritable wildlife freeway. Bobcat, coyote, racoon, bird, lizard, and three snake trails were observed- with high volumes of recent use. The eastern end of this corridor is cut-off by Business Park Rd. There is connectivity to the core area on the western end- but the corridor is extremely constrained at the area marked # 12 on the map. This pinch point could be mitigated by integrating plantings on the slopes for the Vista industrial sites along this finger canyon. The area identified as a wildlife corridor marked # 11 on the map is along the power line easement, shows signs of prior clearing, and goes across the natural canyon- not a normal movement path for wildlife. This is a corridor that looks like a corridor on a piece of paper- but does not function as a viable corridor in the real world. 4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the existing regional wildlife corridor that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek, into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the introduction of dirt floor and some plant cover. There also needs to be provision for drainage - which is clearly not adequate in the existing culvert undercrossing. Furthermore the culvert design neds to specifically address the need for human as well as animal movement through this area. Employees in the local industrial businesses use this open space for recreation, and it is linked by long established informal trails to the core area to the northwest. Human access needs to be planned for so it occurs where it will have minimal adverse impact on sensitive plants and the wildlife corridors. 5. There is no provision for protection of the existing wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction. 6. Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. While this is consistent with Carlsbad's draft HMP, it is not consistent with the standards of the draft regional MHCP. Wildlife corridors require a minimum 1,000 feet width with a pinch point of no less than 500' for a maximum length of 400'. Furthermore sensitive waterways require a minimum buffer of 100' from each bank. Neither of these criteria have been met. The MND must provide for full compliance with the standards included in the MHCP. 7. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND. 5 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments 8. There are six distinct sensitive vegetative communities that will be impacted by this project. The proposed mitigation in most cases is replanted manufactured fill slopes. Such habitat offers little value for native wildlife, and is a poor substitute for what currently exists. Direct impacts from grading include 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub(DCSS) and 21.6 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral, plus additional impacts to Freshwater Marsh, Southern Willow Scrub, and Mule Fat Scrub, non-native grassland, and a small patch of native grassland. The mitigation acreages fail to accurately account for the large amount of land within the proposed preserved area that is not currently supporting habitat- the extensive network of roads and trails- in some places 20' wide, and other areas degraded by the racecourse use. If these areas are to be included within the mitigation acreage then the mitigation plan needs to fully address the amount and location of this restoration or this acreage needs to be deducted. 9. The proposed mitigation does not take into account the reduced value of the remaining habitat. Reducing the area of habitat significantly reduces the value of the habitat. The proposed mitigation for DCSS at 2:1 correctly assumes this is occupied habitat, but not all areas were mapped and accounted for and the chapparral is functioning as CCG habitat which was not factored in.. 10. The mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet success criteria. The map titled Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas does not address all of the mitigation issues. For example, there are invasive plants (pampas grass) in the area marked 13 on the map. The mitigation plan needs to address the need to remove invasives and do some restoration work in the areas proposed for preservation. 11. The area proposed for grading is poorly planned and does not take advantage of already disturbed areas but instead proposes to grade sensitive undisturbed habitat. Alternatives should include more sensitive site planning that place a higher regard on protection of the little that remains of undisturbed sensitive habitat. This should include the areas marked 1,2,3, and 4 on the map. 12. Wetlands impacts are specifically protected under the MHCP. The MND fails to identify any effort to avoid wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. Southern Willow Scrub has a poor success ratio for replanting. The mitigation ratio should therefor be increased to at least 3:1 with adequate monitoring to ensure success. 13. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources. 14. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats has been ignored and must be included in the MND. 15. The payment of fees to the city of Carlsbad for non-native grassland mitigation and for a potential wildlife corridor under Palomar Airport Rd requires some assurances that the proposed work will be done, in a timely manner, with adequate public input. We are very pleased that the need for a Palomar Airport Rd wildlife undercrossing has been acknowledged. This is an important issue for regional wildlife movement between core habitat- and this location is a priority area of concern. However, paying fees toward a wildlife crossing is not the same as 6 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments building a wildlife crossing. Carlsbad does not have a good track record of using funds allocated for mitigation to actually complete the mitigation as planned. We are concerned that the same thing that happened with Mt Calavera could happen here- the city accepts funds, puts them in the bank, does no mitigation work for years, and then only does part of the work that was planned. There needs to be a control system in place to assure that funds are spent in a way that really benefits wildlife movement- and habitat replacement No grading permits should be issued until a detailed plan is in place. Penalties and sanctions should be inclcuded in the plan so that if the city fails to complete the work as planned there will be funds provided for another agency to direct the work. 16. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction. Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed. The mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or mitigation for sensitive species on the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat. 17. Carlsbad has used all of their authorized take of DCSS under the provisions of rule 4(d). The city is therefor not authorized to issue take permits, nor is any other agency allowed to authorize further take permits until approval of Carlsbad's HMP. Noise People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations for this project need to address both. 1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and construction activity during the breeding season. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from 1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required. 3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose. Cultural Resources 1. We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented. 2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical 7 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM Revised Carlsbad Raceway Comments * , •^ ^r- native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation management plan. 3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains. Recreational 1 .This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west. Employees of the other industrial parks in this area commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors. 2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise this project proposal so that we all end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard on behalf of Preserve Calavera Art: Map 8 of 8 10/4/01 10:25 PM 1 1 Corethrogyne sp. 2 Cordylanthus sp. 3 >Adolphia californica - Ca. spinebush 4 >Quercus delmosa 5 Pair of CCG landed on Adenostema fasciculatum 6 Heard CCG Additional native plants that were 8 East end, graded slope facing nc Drive: Malosma laurina (laurel sur (lemonadeberry); Quercus dumosa 9 S-facing slope of NE corner: Adc integrifolia, Malosma laurina, Salt Artemisia californica (coastal sage Lonicera sp. (honeysuckle); 10- At East end of raceway, N-facir diversifolia (Summer holly) - rare (have photo) LEGEND DCSS sws MFS FWM SMC NNG AC DIS -D Diegan coastal sage scrub Southern willow scrub Mule fat scrub Freshwater marsh Southern mixed chapparal Non-native grassland Agriculture Disturbed habitat/developed Indicates disturbed habitat Cd Ac Qa Sc Age Pe Ce Summer Holly (Comarostaph California adolphia (Adolphu Coast Live Oak (Quercus agn Ashy-spike moss (Selaginella Del Mar manzanita (Arctosta^ Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago < Owl's Clover (Castilleja exser HELIX Wetland and Upland IV CARLSBAD RAC] oberved but not shown on old map:- rth, adjacent to Business Park ac); Rhus integrafolia Iphia californica, Rhus ia mellifera (black sage), ), Nassella lepida (bunchgrass), 11 "Wildlife Corridor" across canyon 12 Pinch point 13 Invasive plants- pampas grass g slope: Comarostaphylos shrub; several large specimens r los diversifolia) California) blia) -inerascens) hylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) -ecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host l) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) plarr VI Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded Potential Wetland Restoration Areas Streambed Restoration Area oti 0 100 KM ICO itigation Areas WAY figure? file:///Untitled 1 of 6 1635 Farday Carlsbad, Ca 92008 SubjectCarlsbad Raceway MND Dear Ms. Hysong: Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this area. This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts. We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of CEQA. Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while other more damaging projects are put on hold. The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad. The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization : Water 1 . The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further 5020 Nighthawk Way - Ocean Hills, CA 92056 ww^.preserveca.avera.org file:///Untitled degrade the lagoon. 2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the cumulative impacts of projects in this area. 3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the lagoon and further impair this waterway. Circulation Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a resiiential neighborhood, increased congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is needed to adequately address these impacts. 1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed. 2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed, possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects. 3. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements shown on pages 7-19 and 7-20 include several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvments will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other referenced improvments being in place. 4. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy. Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a reduced roadway configuration. 5. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or 2 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM file:///Untitled Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a done deal. 6. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no El Fuerte extension. 7. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored. 8. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Palomar Forum report- although both claim to be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements. 9. There are several discrepancies between existing traffic volumes, and proposed mitigations as shown in this project and the nearby city of Vista Home Depot project. These discrepancies occur along the prime arterial (S. Melrose Dr) at major intersections. The Home Depot project adds a signal at Oakridge Way and Melrose Dr, which is not addressed in this project. Coordination of analysis and mitigations along this roadway is essential- and clearly has not taken place at this preliminary planning stage. (See Attachment A) 10. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements- all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic. Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new projects in this corridor. Biological Resources We have very little left of our precious open spcae in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern californians love our outdoors- and we don't have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that preserves our quality of life, and more of the native plants and animals. 1. The construction of Poinsettia Road through to connect with Melrose bisects the proposed wildlife corridor. The open space that remains will only function as stepping stones for bird migration, and not as viable wildlife corridors. Providing a low elevation roadway across a wildlife corridor leads to a lot of roadkill- not to a healthy animal population. This constitutes a significant adverse impact which was not adequately addressed. The project should be conditional upon Pinsettia being reconfigured as a cul-de-sac. 2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted over just a few weeks and failed to 3 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM file:///Untitled address normal seasonal variations. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled for any sensitive fish species. The survey for the CCG is of particular concern- a three day sample in March does not constitute a represntative survey for this sensitive species- especially when there are documented sightings on essentially all of the adjacent properties.. 3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area. Loss of the bobcat population in this area with adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to assure that a viable predator population remains. 4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek, into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor. . This 5' wide constricted concrete space does not allow for necessary light and plant cover that would allow this to function for adequate wildlife movement. A divided roadway with natural light, dirt floor, and native plant cover is required. 5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction. 6. Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. While this is consistent with Carlsbad's draft HMP, it is not consistent with the standards of the draft regional MHCP. Wildlife corridors require a minimum 1,000 feet width with a pinch point of no less than 500' for a maximum length of 400'. Furthermore sensitive waterways require a minimum buffer of 100' from each bank. Neither of these criteria have been met. The MND must provide for full compliance with the standards included in the MHCP. 7. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND. 8. There are six distinct sensitive vegetative communities that will be impacted by this project. The proposed mitigation in most cases is replanted manufactured fill slopes. Such habitat offers little value for native wildlife, and is a poor substitute for what currently exists. Direct impacts from grading include 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub(DCSS) and 21.6 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral, plus additional impacts to Freshwater Marsh, Southern Willow Scrub, and Mule Fat Scrub. 4 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM file:///Untitted The proposed mitigation does not take into account the reduced value of the remaining habitat. Reducing the area of habitat significantly reduces the value of the habitat. Mitigation ratios should therefor be at least 2:1 and greater for occupied Gnatcatcher areas. One to one replacement with manufactured fill slopes is not equivalent and does not compensate for the reduced area of habitat after development. Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for success, identify funding mechanizims, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet success criteria. The replacement of 9 acres of DCSS with replanted manufactured slsopes (9 acres) is a poor substitute for native habitat and should be valued accordingly. 9. The areas proposed for grading is poorly planned and does not take advantaged of already disturbed areas but instead proposes to grade sensitive undisturbed habitat. Alternatives should include more sensitive site planning that place a higher regard on protection of the little that remains of undisturbed sensitive habitat. 10. Wetlands impacts are specifically protected under the MHCP. The MND fails to identify any effort to avoid wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. Southern Willow Scrub has a poor success ratio for replanting. The mitigation ratio should therefor be increased to at least 3:1 with adequate monitoring to ensure success. 11. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources. 12. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats has been ignored and must be included in the MND. Noise People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations for this project need to address both. 1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and construction activity during the breeding season. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from 1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required 5 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM file:///Untitled 3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose. Cultural Resources (p. 25) 1. We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented. 2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation management plan. 3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains. Recreational l.This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west. Employees of the other industrial parks in this area commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors. 2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise this project proposal so that we all end up with a project mat is a benefit to this area- and not just a blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space. Sincerely, ,-. Diane Nygaard on behalf of Preserve Calavera 6 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM Mitigation Summaries: Home Depot Traffic Impact Analysis Mitigation (Year 2005 and 2015), for the City of Vista, April 2001, Page 48: Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore > Restripe the eastbound through-right shared lane to separate through and right-turn lanes; and, > Modify the signal phasing to provide overlap right-turn phasing for northbound, eastbound, and westbound traffic. This would require prohibitions of U-turns at the westbound, eastbound, and southbound approaches. Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive > Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-lane, and one right-turn lane; and > Convert the shared through-right-turn lane to a right-turn lane at the westbound approach. Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road > Add a second right-turn lane at the southbound approach and at the westbound approach. Home Depot Traffic Impact Analysis ADT, Page SO (Year 201 S) S. Melrose Drive North of Sycamore 45,560 Sycamore Ave and Oak Ridge Way 63,900 Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Drive 61,000 Park Center Drive and Palomar Airport Rd 53,490 Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Mitigation, Page 9-11 These mitigation are listed as responsibility of the City of Vista Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Add Westbound and Southbound Dual Left Turn Lanes Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive (Faraday Avenue) Add Southbound and Eastbound RTO Lane Palomar Airport Road/Business Park Drive Add Westbound Through, RTO Lane Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park ADT (2020), Page 9-3 S. Melrose Drive Shadowridge Drive to Sycamore 45,000 Sycamore to Palomar Airport Rd 51,000 Mitigation Comments It appears that the City of Vista and the City of Carlsbad have different views about mitigation necessary and projected volumes. The discrepancies occur along a prime arterial (S. Melrose Drive) at major intersections. Cooperative development of the roadway will be necessary to ensure that future congestion and poor air quality are avoided. The Home Depot analysis also includes installation of a traffic signal at S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way, Page 35. The Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park analysis does not consider the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way in the analysis. Significant Impacts to the roadway network may occur if the true ADT projections and mitigation are not settled now. Similar comments can be made with regards to the Transportation Analysis for the Palomar Forum project. The ADT's for 2020 are on Page 9-3. The mitigation is listed on Page 9-11. Please check the mitigation list here against the negative mitigated declaration. They do not always match. LEGEND DCSS Diegan coastal sage scrub SWS Southern willow scrub MFS . Mule fat scrub FWM Freshwater marsh SMC Southern mixed chapparal NNG Non-native grassland AC Agriculture DIS Disturbed habitat/developed -D Indicates disturbed habitat Cd Ac Qa Sc Age Pe Ce Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia) California adolphia (Adolphia California) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Ashy-spike moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago erecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Owl's Clover (Castilleja exserta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded Potential Wetland Restoration Areas Streambed Restoration Area 0 100 200 300 mix"Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas CARLSBAD RACEWAY fipe? 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6452 fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 August 28, 2001 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway Project. Dear Ms. Hysong: On behalf of Raceway Properties, LLC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and the City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final mitigation measures necessary to fully mitigate the Carlsbad Raceway project. Additionally, I have spoken directly with David Lawhead of the Department on two occasions over the past two days. The purpose of these discussions has been to address concerns raised by the Department regarding impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland habitats, as well as several sensitive plant and animal species. The following summarizes the applicant's additional mitigation measures agreed to in concept by David Lawhead that are proposed to fully mitigate project impacts. Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design Impacts and acres preserved on site are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 IMPACTS Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Willow Scrub Freshwater Marsh Mulef at Scrub Non-native Grassland Agricultural Disturbed TOTAL Total On-Site 19.2 26.3 3.42 0.77 0.18 32.6 4.7 57.83 145.0 Acres Impacted 9.6 21.6 0.37 0.15 0.13 28.0 4.7 47.3 111.85 Acres Preserved 9.6 4.7 3.05 0.62 0.05 4.6 0 10.53 33.15 Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong August 28,2001 Page 2 In addition to on site preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS), approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated to DCSS and approximately nine acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. Based on a 2:1 mitigation ratio, an excess of 8.5 acres of mitigation is being proposed that will be credited towards mitigation of impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland. Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 21.6 acres. Approximately 4.7 acres will be preserved and credited as mitigation for chaparral, resulting in a mitigation requirement of 16.9 acres. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the City of Carlsbad recommends a fee of $7,897 per acre of chaparral impacted. The resulting fee is $133,459.30. Impacts to non-native grassland total 28.0 acres. Approximately 4.6 acres of non- native grassland is being conserved, therefore the mitigation requirement is 23.4 acres. The HMP for the City of Carlsbad recommends a fee of $3,949 per acre of non- native grassland impacted. The resulting fee is $92,406.60. The combined fee requirement is $225,865.90. The excess mitigation for DCSS of 8.5 acres of restoration will be credited towards the $225, 865.90 fee requirement. The amount credited will be based on verified costs (costs verified by the City of Carlsbad) of the 8.5 acres of DCSS restoration. Wetland Mitigation A total of approximately 0.48-acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:1 mitigation ratio). Southern willow scrub will be planted over at least 0.34 acre, and 0.14 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. Streambed impacts totaling 0.18 acre (Corps and Department jurisdictional) will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel (approximately 0.38 acre) running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. Exotic weeds will be removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. No other restoration is proposed in the channel. An additional 0.98-acre of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the additional 0.49 acre of impacts (2:1 mitigation ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by the Department but not jurisdictional by the Corps. The restoration mitigation total for the project is 1.82 acres and is shown on the attached figure. Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong August 28,2001 Page 3 Table 2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ON THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROPERTY Jurisdiction ACOE wetland ACOE non- vegetated Waters of the U.S. CDFG jurisdictional areas Existing1 1.28 0.51 4.79 Melrose Drive Impacts1 0.252 Carlsbad Raceway Property Project Impacts1 0.24 0.18 0.66 Total Impacts1 0.24 0.18 0.91 Remaining1 1.04 0.33 3.88 1 All figures are in acres 2 Impacted area consisted of State only jurisdictional southern willow scrub Table 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROJECT TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS Jurisdictional Habitat Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Streambed TOTALS Federal (acres) 0.07 0.17 0 0.18 0.42 State (acres) x 0.07 0.53 0.13 0.18 0.91 1 State Jurisdictional Areas include Federal Jurisdictional Areas Sensitive Species Mitigation Impacts to 50 California adolphia (Adolphia californica) individuals and 10 summer holly (Comarostahylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia) will be mitigated by including these species in the restoration efforts on the site. A minimum of 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly will be planted as container stock within the upland restoration areas. Although the potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) to occur on site is considered low, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of this species. If the owl is observed on site, it will be relocated to open space elsewhere on the project site. Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong August 28,2001 Page 4 Combined, these measures will fully mitigate all impacts to sensitive resources on the site. Sincerely, Barry L,_Jones Senior Consulting Bio ist Attachment: Wetland Mitigation Location cc: Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Michael Holzmiler, City of Carlsbad David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game John Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jon Kurtin, Raceway Properties, LLC Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt & McGuire Bill Hof man, Hof man Planning Wb/lb/^801 lb:03 6194674299 DEPT OF FISH AND GAM PAGE 02 US Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-9624 CA Dept. of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridj?e Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (858)467-4201 FAX (858) 4674299 In Reply, Refer to: FWS-SDG-2124.1 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (FWS-SD-2124) (Case No. GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-l8(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Ms. Hysong; The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project and are providing these comments. The following comments are based upon that primary document, the supporting Biological Technical Report (dated September 16, 2000) prepared by Helix Environmental Planning (Helix), a site visit by John Martin of the Service on September 25. 2000, and a tour of the site on August 13, 2001, by Meredith Osborne of the Department accompanied by representatives of Helix and Hoffinan Planning Associates. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S-C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program. The project site is located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad (City) on the Carlsbad Raceway property north of Palomar Airport Road. The property is currently surrounded by a combination of undeveloped natural land, industrially zoned property, and industrial or business developments. The northern portion of the property consists of an east/west canyon containing a tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek, which was previously diverted to flow adjacent to a dragstrip HB/lb/2001 16:03 .5194674299 DEPT OF FISH AND GAM PAGE 03 Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) 2 in the canyon bottom. The northern portion of the property, including the canyon, is a proposed hardline preserve area in the City's draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP), which identifies it as part of Linkage Area D connecting core areas of wildlife habitat to the north and south of the property The proposed project would develop 112 of the 145 acres of the property as a business park and retain the northern portion as open space. The plan also includes a minimum 400-foot wide wildlife corridor running from north to south along the east side of the property that -would connect the east/west open space on the northern part of the property with preserved areas across Palomar Airport Road to the south. Preservation of existing coastal sage scrub and revegetation of disturbed areas within the corridor would mitigate project impacts to sage scrub. Extensions of two existing roads are planned that would cross the designated open space. A twelve foot high undercrossing would be constructed where Melrose Avenue crosses the wildlife corridor on the western portion of the property. Poinsettia Avenue is proposed to be recessed below grade where it would cross the north-south portion of the corridor on the eastern half of the property. The Wildlife Agencies offer the following observations, comments, and recommendations to assist the City of Carlsbad in avoiding or minimizing impacts to biological resources: 1. The Wildlife Agencies are very concerned with the proposed crossing of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia Road. Given the already constrained nature of this key wildlife corridor in the proposed HMP, there does not seem to be a compelling reason for the road crossing. Though the proposed recessing of Poinsettia Road below grade where it crosses the north/south wildlife corridor on the east side of the property may reduce the likelihood of direct mortality to birds as they cross over the road, terrestrial animals (mammals, reptiles, etc.), and to some extent birds, are likely to be adversely affected (through direct mortality and through fragmentation effects) in the resulting habitat fragments. The Wildlife Agencies propose that the road be constructed so that the paving ends in a cul de sac on either side of the corridor. Access for emergency vehicles could still be provided by a gravel road extending between the two cul de sacs. The function of an emergency access road is probably not incompatible with limited plant cover in the road. Given the importance of this corridor to the function of the proposed HMP preserve, we stongly urge that the integrity of the corridor not be compromised by the crosing of Poinsettia Road. 2. According to the MND, the proposed construction would directly impact 28 acres designated as non-native grassland and 21.6 acres of southern mixed chaparral. The Wildlife Agencies believe that the non-native grassland and chaparral are undervalued in the MND and the Biological Technical Report. Open grasslands provide valuable foraging areas for raptors, including sensitive species identified during the biological surveys [e.g., white-tailed kite (Elanus leucunts\ Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus}] as well as probable occurring wintering raptor species [e.g., northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)}. Other state species of special concern, such as black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bemettii\ Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), and California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) use grassland habitat, and further loss of grasslands 08/15/2801 IB:03 6194674299 DEPT OF FISH AND GAM PAGE 64 Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) 3 increases risk of endangerment for these and other species. Chaparral is a valuable source of cover for birds, reptiles, and mammals and also supports foraging raptors. Coastal California gnatcatchers are known to forage and occasionally nest in chaparral habitats, especially when contiguous with coastal sage scrub (Campbell et al. 1998). Chaparral on-site is likelv to be used by gnatcatchers, as gnatcatchers occupy the site, and it contains coastal sage scrub as well as chaparral. Grassland habitat is clearly limited in extent within the City's jurisdiction. Cumulatively, raptor foraging habitat loss may be significant, and impacts to this resource warrant mitigation. Both non-native grassland and chaparral habitats are important to building the natural open space areas within the City, and a mitigation ratio of 1; 1 for chaparral and 0.5:1 for non-native grasslands is consistent with mitigation requirements utilized in other parts of the County of San Diego. 3. Three gnatcatcher surveys of unspecified duration were conducted in 1998, and again in March 2001. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed on site during the 1998 or 2001 surveys. However, during one of these surveys, a singing male was heard just north of the site in chamise chaparral, and on September 25, 2000, John Martin of the Service heard a gnatcatcher on the site. In light of recent observations of gnatcatchers in suitable habitat on- site and in contiguous suitable habitat immediately off-site, the site should be considered occupied by gnatcatchers. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers need to be addressed through either a habitat loss permit; a habitat conservation plan pursuant to section 10 of the Act, or through a section 7 consultation if it is determined that a federal nexus exists. 4. Borrowing-owls or their burrows were not detected on site during the 1998 biological surveys; however, no focused investigations were performed. The burrowing owl is a federal and state species of special concern and has been historically reported in the project vicinity (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park). This species should be surveyed for prior to any grading activities on the property. 5. The proposed development would cause direct impacts to the sensitive plant species California adolphia (about 100 individuals, or approximately 50% of the on-she population) and summer holly (all 10 individuals on-site). These individuals should be salvaged and planted in the area of native vegetation to be conserved on-site. 6. The wetland mitigation program summarized in the MND was developed through cooperative negotiations between the applicant, the Service, the Department, and the City, as described in a letter dated July 1, 1998, from Helix to Julie Vanderwier of the Service, copied to David Lawhead and Terri Dickerson of the Department. The final MND should clarify the following: the type of wetland habitats that comprise the 1.28 acres reported in the second table on page 21 of the current document, the third paragraph on page 21, and specify appropriate mitigation for the 0.24 acres of impacts to wetlands that are specified in the second table on page 21. The Department will finalize the wetland mitigation program 08/15/2081 16:03 6194674299 DEPT OF FISH AND GAM PAGE 85 Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process. The on-site, unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek and the smaller tributaries to this streambed are considered streams and wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. and the proposed project would require authorization from the Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for impacts to these stream channels. The proposed project will require a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), The Department's issuance of an SAA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency. The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the City's MND for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the final MND should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream and riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement. An SAA notification package may be obtained by writing to The California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 or by calling (858) 636-3160. In addition, the applicant may be required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well. 7. The Wildlife Agencies recommend the use of native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas adjacent to and/or near mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas. The applicant should not plant, seed or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas adjacent and/or near the mitigation/open space area and/or wetland/riparian areas. Exotic plant species not to be used include those species listed on Lists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council's list of "Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999." This list includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas grass, fountain grass, ice plant, myoporum, black locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom, A copy of the complete list can be obtained by contacting the California Exotic Pest Plant Council at 32912 Calle del Tesoro, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-4427, or by accessing their web site at http://www.oaleppc.org. 8. The Wildlife Agencies will need to review and concur with Coastal Sage Scrub and Wetland Revegetation Plans before the project may commence construction activities. Please provide a map in the final MND that shows where revegetation of both upland and wetland areas will occur. t-"" iblHd blS4b/4*sa 08/15/01 14:28 FAZ 760 431 9618 Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) DEPT OF FISH AND GAM FWS-CARLSBAD FWO RACE 06 The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. If you have any questions, please contact Meredith Osbome of the Department at (858) 636-3163 or John Martin of the Service at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Nancy Gilbert Assistant Field Supervisor Carlsbad Field Office U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service Wiliiiam E. Tippets Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region California Department of Fish and Game Literature Cited: Campbell, Kurt F., R. A. Erickson, W. E. Haas, and M. A. Patten. 1998. California Gnatcatcher use of habitats other than coastal sage scrub: conservation and management implications. Western Birds 29(4): 421-433. MEMORANDUM date: August s, 2001 to: Stan Welter Organization! Hofman Planning ffOm: Barry Jones Subject Carlsbad Raceway Response to Comments job number. KPMOI Anne-Provided are responses to comments related to biological issues from 'Douglas Djener and Diane Nygaard. 1 , Piecemeal development-The project as proposed is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The purpose of the HMP is to provide planning for biological resources at a regional scale throughout the City of Carlsbad, rather than on a project by project basis. The proposed corridor and on site open space is specifically designed to connect with open space to the south , north and west, and provide for a contiguous wildlife corridor through this portion of the City. 2. Project could be developed without further impacts to surrounding open space-The project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the most sensitive biological resources on the site. These included the Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparral along the northern property boundary and the riparian habitat along the creek bisecting the property. More importantly, the open space configuration provides for connectivity off site with open space to the south, north and west. 3. Provide corridors that provide little value to wildlife-The corridor configuration was developed through close 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryf@hetLxepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 SOO'd OTSO#•AN3 YIT3H 619 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: bafryf@helixepi.com phone: (619)462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 MEMORANDUM coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Pish and Game (CDFG). The corridor width meets minimum corridor width requirements as outlined in the BMP. Existing connectivity through this area is reduced because of the disturbed nature of the habitat through much of the corridor. The proposed project will provide for habitat restoration through the corridor, enhancing its value to wildlife. 4. Mitigation ratios too low-The mitigation ratios are consistent with mitigation requirements in the HMP. Final mitigation requirements for wetland impacts will be determined through consultation with the USFWS, CDPG, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 5. Appoximately 43 percent of the site is disturbed and an additional 22 percent supports very disturbed non-native grassland. The native habitat on the southern two-thirds of the site is highly fragmented and of limited value to wildlife. Because so much of the site is disturbed, the mitigation provided is very appropriate. Specific restoration areas are provided in the biological Technical Report for the project. Detailed restoration plans will be required as part of final project approvals. 6. North county coastal area has limited opportunities to eontri'bniie open space-This project does provide regionally significant open space. See response '1 and 3 above. 7. Wildlife corridors offer little value-Restoration of slopes within the wildlife corridor will significantly enhance of the value of the corridor. See response 3 above. 8. Typical mitigation ratios are "about 3 to 5 to l"-Becau$e of the highly disturbed nature of the wetland habitat on site, a 2:1 mitigation ratio is considered appropriate. The replacement habitat will be of much higher quality than the habitat being lost. Additionally, with restoration being oiso#'AM3 XIT3H S590 619 1003.80'OfiY MEMORANDUM proposed/ there will be no net loss of sage scrub and wetland habitats. See also response 4 above. 9. Monitoring should be included- Monitoring will be included in any restoration plans for the project. See also response 4 above. 10. Additional field surveys required-The applicant has been working with the resource agencies since 1997 on the project. All required surveys have been done at least once, and twice tor rare plants and the coastal California gnatcatcher. No additional surveys are needed. 11. Cumulative impacts ignored-The HMP specifically addresses cumulative impacts. See also response I above. Diane 1 . Significant loss of habitat, impacts to regional watershed, and wildlife corridor-Impacts to biological resources were considered significant but mirigable through mitigation measures proposed for the project. The project impacts are clearly defined, and mitigation measures consistent with the HMP and agency requirements are required. See also response 4 above. 2. Mitigation plans should be clearly defined-Flnal mitigation plans will be reviewed by the City and resource agencies prior to any grading of the site. These plans will provide detailed monitoring and success criteria. 3. BMFs must be more specific and further environmental review is required-BMP's are being implemented through permit requirements with the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Further environmental review is not required for review of restoration plans. 4. Corridor not adequate-The corridor is consistent with the HMP. The corridor configuration was developed through 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 OISO*•AN3 3950 6T9 8JOO la Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 MEMORANDUM close coordination with the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California 'Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The corridor width meets minimum corridor width requirements as outlined in the HMP. Existing connectivity through this area is reduced because of the disturbed nature of the habitat through much of the corridor. The proposed project will provide for habitat restoration through the corridor, enhancing its value to wildlife. 5. Surveys inadequate-See response 10 to Dlener. 6. Loss of bobcat and coyote will affect bird populations- Connectivity to existing open space to the south, north and west has been retained. A wildlife undercrossing at Melrose is being provided to insure continued wildlife movement between the project open space and off site open space. 7. Melrose undercossing is inadequate-The undercrossing design was developed in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG. The height and location of the undercrossing is based on these consultations. 8. Corridor will be constrained during 'construction-While wildlife movement may constricted for short periods of rime during some of the construction phases, this constriction will not be of sufficient duration to permanently impact wildlife populations in the open space. Long-term maintenance of wildlife movement is the critical goal in preserve design, and the Melrose undercrossing provides this. 9. Site specific mitigation requirements-See response 9 (Diener) and 2 (Nygaard) above, 10. 100 percent of three sensitive vegetation communities destroyed-This statement is not correct. Approximately 50 percent of the fragmented portions of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be loss to project development. This will be offset by restoration of 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub for no net loss of this habitat on site. There will be a net increase 500'd OI50#•AN3 XI13H ssso 6:9 ioos,80'9nv nii..viiiinuiHnta! playing, inc. 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite ISO La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: bariyj@kellxepi.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 MEMORANDUM in wetland acreages on site because of the 2:1 wetland restoration ratios proposed. 11. Should avoid waters of the U.S.-The applicant worked closely with the Corps and CDFG to minimize impacts to wetland vegetation. The project was significantly redesigned to specifically avoid wetland resources. Further reductions are not feasible. 12. Field monitoring of grading-This will be Included as a condition of grading plans for the project.. 13. Cumulative impacts-See response 11 (Diener) above. 14. Noise avoidance during the gnatcatchcr breeding season- Protocol surveys for the gnatcatcher were conducted during two separate years, including 2001 and no gnatcatchere were observed on site. No noise restrictions are required. 900-<3 0190*'AN3 XI13H 619 Attention: Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 August 5,2001 Dear Ms. Hysong, I enclose comments related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the North side of Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose Drive and the eastern City boundary dated July 15,2001, Case Name: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. The development of the few remaining large parcels in North County containing native habitat is of prime concern to me. The city of Carlsbad is at a crossroads in terms of its vision for the future. The city vision can be "business as usual" with the piece meal bartering of another parcel of open space for a new street and business pads, another victory for the developer and another loss for the residents. The proposed business park development will add to the already unbearable traffic congestion and contribute significantly to further deterioration of the air and water quality in the region. A better vision of Carlsbad should be one that understands the importance of preserving open space and native habitats. The proposed project does contain portions of disturbed habitat and portions of the property could be developed without further impacts to surrounding open space areas, natural habitats, and biological resources. Unfortunately, the proposed project will cause significant loss of native habitat, provide wildlife corridors that offer little value for wildlife because of their design, size, and proposed corridors will be impacted by the surrounding development to such an extent that their value for wildlife will be minimal. The proposed mitigation is inadequate and the ratios for mitigation of designated impacts are ridiculously low. It is a clear failure of city government when the mayor believes the only way to achieve proclaimed city improvements is to allow developers wholesale destruction of open space and native habitat for another crowded and congested street and the addition of more business building pads to be developed at a future date. The protection of open space will benefit the community long after the last land parcel in Carlsbad has been developed and the glitter of another new business park has faded Specific Concerns and Issues 1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Aqua Hedionda Creek and Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The negative declaration needs to address the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities to further impair the lagoon for sedimentation. Additionally, a study needs to be conducted to determine the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the lagoon from the property and the mitigated negative declaration must address the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the lagoon and further impair this waterway. 2. Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. Because of the existing native habitats (6 distinct vegetative communities) and proximity of this parcel to adjacent open space, the development for this parcel should be permitted for less than half of the total acreage. The mitigated negative declaration needs to include site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for determining mitigation success, and discuss alternatives for long-term funding for monitoring mitigation sites, and for implementing corrective measures if mitigations fail to achieve success criteria. 3. Because the North County coastal area has limited opportunities to contribute significant amounts of native habitat to the regional habitat conservation goals of the wildlife agencies, this project needs to consider how changes in the proposed development plan could enhance the regional managed habitat area. 4. Proposed wildlife corridors offer little real value for wildlife, as they are narrow strips surrounded by development. Manufactured slopes replanted along wildlife corridors are a poor substitute for native habitat and offer little value for native wildlife. Mitigation for the loss of habitat linkage and wildlife corridors that would be significantly impacted by the proposed development need to be defined and a monitoring plan developed and funded. 5. The proposed project is speculative development as there are no buildings being planned and thus, the pronouncement of a negative declaration seems speculative as the impacts can only be addressed in a vague manner and not as a specific assessment of project impacts associated with business park development. Since the plan is vague, it is essentially a plan to destroy sensitive habitat and remove the property for possible inclusion into HMP. Thus, the negative declaration must assume the worst case scenario for the development of each building pad in terms of maximum possible building size, number of people working on site, number of vehicle days, and impacts to air pollution. The catch all phrase of saying that everything will be developed using Best Management Practices is not specific or adequate for a negative declaration of impacts. 6. The proposed areas to be graded for business pads is poorly planned and does not take advantage of already disturbed areas and instead proposes to grade sensitive undisturbed habitats. This suggests poor site planning and a disregard for the native habitats.. 7. Direct impacts from grading 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 21.6 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral represents a significant loss of this type of habitat. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and impacts to Freshwater marsh habitat, Southern Willow scrub, and Mule Fat Scrub are some of the most sensitive and limited habitats in the area. Any loss of these habitats needs to be mitigated. Typical mitigation measures for this type of habitat would be replacement in kind of about 3 to 5 to 1, i.e., for every acre of habitat graded it would need to be replaced with 3 to 5 acres of undisturbed or equivalent habitat. In addition, since the value of the habitat is significantly degraded by reducing the area (reduces the habitat value) and the loss of this habitat for inclusion into the MHCP and HMP, additional mitigation acreage should be set aside. There should be no net loss of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (19.2 acres). Mitigation measures need to include site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for determining mitigation success, and identify funding sources for monitoring mitigation sites and for implementing corrective measures if mitigations fail to achieve success criteria. The mitigation and replacement of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub with replanted manufactured slopes (9 acres) is a poor substitute for native habitat and should be valued accordingly. 8. The loss of 0.37acres Southern Willow Scrub is a significant impact to wetlands and mitigation should be greater than the proposed 2:1 ratio for area to be replanted. Based upon past successes this ratio should be 3 to 5:1 ratio. Mitigation would be required and monitoring would be needed to ensure mitigation success. 9. Additional field surveys are needed to adequately describe the existing biological resources and for assessing project impacts. Surveys need to consider not only resident species but also seasonal utilization of the habitats or migration patterns of biota along the wildlife corridors. Vegetation surveys need to be conducted seasonally to identify small annual species. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian utilization of the habitats. Sensitive and threatened species surveys need to be conducted including surveys for Arroyo southwestern toad, California red- legged frog, American Peregrine falcon (nesting pair just east of site in Vista that forage on the site), California gnatcatchers, and Least Bell's vireo. The streams should be sampled to determine if any sensitive fish species may exist in the drainage. Of specific concern is surveys for California gnatcatchers (3 days in March hardly constitute a representative survey for this endangered species 10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitats and the further fragmentation of critical habitats appear to be ignored and need to be included in the negative declaration Thank you for the inclusion and consideration of my comments. Douglas-Ddsner, Ph.D. Office (619) 299-1743 San Diego and Imperial Counties Conservation (619) 299-1741 3820 Ray Street Fax (61Q) 299-1742 San Hipcm TA Q91 OA-1.fi'>* Volce MaU {619) 29^^7^ban Diego, CA 92104-3623 EBBS (619) 299.4O18 August 9, 2001 Ann Hysong Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway MND Dear Ms Hysong: The Sierra Club has a long history of opposition to roadway extensions through sensitive habitat. We believe the Melrose connector should move forward in order to reduce the need for extending Faraday and El Fuerte streets, nearby roadways that would seriously degrade the largest remaining contiguous native habitat in coastal North County. However, we have serious problems with the MND as currently proposed. We believe the severity of the problems with the MND, and the local controversy about the roadway extension portion of this project justifies a complete EIR. However, if you fully address the issues raised in comment letters to the MND this will essentially serve the same purpose. Failure to fully address these issues would violate the provisions of CEQA. We also request that the Sierra Club be included in review and comment on the draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan prior to its submittal for formal approval. The current plan is not acceptable and will require extensive revisions once the responses to comments are incorporated. Specific concerns about the MND have been identified in comment letters from Preserve Calavera, Dr. Doug Diener, and the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve, among others. We concur with those comments and include them by reference in this letter. It is also our understanding that the comment period for the MND closes on August 13, 2001 and that the matter is scheduled for action by the Planning Commission on August 15,2001. This does not imply a good faith effort to review and respond to comments. We would further ask that this be pulled from the August 15th agenda and be rescheduled at such time as comments have received adequate review, and all commenters have been properly notified of the schedule for action on this project. Failure to do so would be a clear indication of inadequate response to comments and would also be a CEQA violation. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely,V Deb Schmidt Conservation Coordinator North Coastal Group Sierra Club cc: Janet Anderson- SD Chapter Conservation Coordinator Diane Nygaard - Preserve Calavera Dr. Douglas Diener Isabelle Kay- Reserve Manager Dawson-Los Monos Reserve Printed on 50% recycled paper Department of Toxic Substances Control Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue .... . ,, ... , Cypress, California 90630 _ „. .Winston H. Hickox ^ Gray Davis Agency Secretary Governor California Environmental Protection Agency August 6, 2001 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK-SCH# 2001071072 Dear Ms. Hysong: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project. Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: 1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the Project area. 2) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. 4) Since a significant hazardous impact is expected, the potential exists for the inadvertent release of hazardous materials from the future uses and storage of hazardous material. It should be addressed in detail in the ND. 5) The ND indicates that, some areas within the proposed property may be affected by contamination from previous and current uses of former heavy equipment storage, ASTs, agriculture chemical residue, 55-gallon drums, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), and Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB). Any hazardous wastes/materials encountered during construction should be remediated in The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. Fora list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site atwww.dtsc.ca.gov. ® Printed on Recycled Paper Ms. Anne Hysong August 6, 2001 Page 2 accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to initiating any construction activities, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at the site. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the general extent of the contamination. Also, it is necessary to estimate the potential threat to public health and/or the environment posed by the site. It is necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If it is not an immediate threat, final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies rather than excavation of soil prior to any assessments. 6) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose them rather than placing them in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) are applicable to these soils. Also, if the project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7) If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, stop construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DISC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further, please contact Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484-5479. Sincerely, Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch Cypress Office cc: see next page Ms. Anne Hysong August 6, 2001 PageS cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis August 15, 2001 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-96/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 (Palomar Forum) and GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ZC 01-07/CT98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01- 01 (Carlsbad Raceway Business Park) Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the owners of the abovementioned projects, we would like to formally protest the continuance of this project for the purpose of re-circulating the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The reasons for our protest are as follows: 1. The City Staff is recommending the addition of a condition requiring increased biological mitigation because of the assumed presence of non-native grasslands on the property. This condition was added based on an unsigned draft memo from the Department of Fish and Game and was not based on any official documentation from that agency. We believe this creates a dangerous precedent in the establishment of mitigation conditions for projects within the City of Carlsbad. 2. We believe there is insufficient basis that would require the re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The factual basis for this belief is the following: a. Both the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have reviewed the biological resources, the biology reports and have been on the site to inspect the biology on numerous occasions and had not previously identified any additional non-native grassland. The opinion provided by the Department of Fish and Game is not supported by any expert representation. b. This new condition was presented less than 48 hours before the Planning Commission hearing. We believe this condition is being placed in an attempt to extract additional open space over and above 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 that which was proposed by the City under its Habitat Management Plan. c. The re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration causes a postponement for an indefinite period of time, which will create an extreme financial hardship for both property owners. For these reasons we respectfully request that these items be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration not be re-circulated. Respectfully submitted, BillHofman cc: Larry Nelson Jon Kurtin Hugh Hewitt, Esq. Ron Ball Michael Holzmiller Anne Hysong US Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431-9624 CA Dept of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Vicwridgc Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (858)467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 October 10, 2001Tn-Reply, Refer to: FWS-SDG-2124.1 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Comments on the Recirculatcd Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Case No. GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Ms. Hysong: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project and offer the following comments. The Wildlife Agencies provided comments on the previous version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in an earlier letter dated August 15, 2001 (reference FWS-SDG-2124.1). The following comments and recommendations are based on the current version of the document, plus a meeting with the City and project consultants on October 3, 2001: 1. The Wildlife Agencies concur with the proposed mitigation fees for impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral. The $225,865.90 mitigation fee should be combined with mitigation fees proposed fgr the adjacent Palomar Forum project to create a wildlife undcrcrossing under Palomar Airport Road. During the October 3 meeting with the City, the results of an engineering feasibility study on creating an underpass under Palomar Airport Road showed three alternatives to creating this structure. After input from biologists conducting field studies on mammalian predator use of underpasses and culverts within southern California, we recommend that the least expensive alternative be implemented. This alternative would insert a concrete pipe under Palomar Airport Road with a minimum diameter of 60 inches, and a length of approximately 220 feet. This pipe could be installed without disrupting traffic on Palomar Airport Road. We believe that this structure will allow for the passage of coyotes and bobcats, and reestablish a terrestrial corridor across this major arterial road in the City. The proposed cost of this undercrossing was estimated at $308,190. The $225,865.90 in mitigation fees from this project, combined with the $133,867.80 in fees from the adjacent Palomar Forum project, should provide sufficient funds ($359,733.70) to pay for the 1U/11/2UU1 14:UO hAA IDU4J1D»UZ L!S MSB AIM; YYlUULlft, Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2 1 24) 2 underpass installation. At least six to twelve inches of natural soil should be placed in the bottom of the pipe to provide a natural substrate to wildlife movement, and areas disturbed in the vicinity of the underpass openings revegetated with coastal sage scrub. In addition, fencing should be installed along both sides of the road, and in such a way as to funnel wildlife toward the undercrossing. Finally, a minimum of two years of monitoring of wildlife use of the culvert via track counts and/or remotely triggered cameras should be conducted to assess the crossing's effectiveness. 2. The MND proposes two options to mitigate impacts from the construction of Street "B" on the on-site wildlife corridor, construct an acceptable wildlife crossing or contribute $100,000 to the City. Because sufficient mitigation funds are available for the P alomar Airport Road. undercrossing, the project should incorporate an appropriate wildlife crossing into the design of Street "B" (Poinsettia Lane). We are available to assist the project proponent and the City in designing this undercrossing. 3. Please provide us with more detail regarding the mechanisms by which funding for maintenance of the open space/wildlife corridor will be obtained and ensured over time. Measures, such as a conservation easement given to the City, must be taken to ensure the long-term protection of this key open space component of the City's draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP). 4. Burrowing owl surveys and relocation, if necessary, should be conducted according to the Department's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. It is our understanding, based on meetings with the project consultant, Mr. Barry Jones, that the project applicant will be pursuing an exemption for incidental take for coastal California gnatcatchers through formal consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Please contact Meredith Osborne of the Department at (858) 636-3163 or John Martin of the Service at (760) 431- 9440, to confirm our understanding of the proposed consultation process and if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nancy Gilbert "ir William E. Tippets Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager Carlsbad Field Office South Coast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game cc: Department C.F. Raysbrook US Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431-9440 FAX (760) 431 -9624 CA Dept. of Fish & Game South Coast Regional Office 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 FAX (858) 467-4299 In Reply, Refer to: FWS-SDG-2124.1 /&' diSjftf ^\ August 15,2001 fi\ ^mnMt lira*! ii 5" Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (FWS-SD-2124) (Case No. GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Ms. Hysong: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project and are providing these comments. The following comments are based upon that primary document, the supporting Biological Technical Report (dated September 16, 2000) prepared by Helix Environmental Planning (Helix), a site visit by John Martin of the Service on September 25, 2000, and a tour of the site on August 13, 2001, by Meredith Osborne of the Department accompanied by representatives of Helix and Hoffman Planning Associates. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has. legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program. The project site is located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad (City) on the Carlsbad Raceway property north of Palomar Airport Road. The property is currently surrounded by a combination of undeveloped natural land, industrially zoned property, and industrial or business developments. The northern portion of the property consists of an east/west canyon containing a tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek, which was previously diverted to flow adjacent to a dragstrip in the canyon bottom. The northern portion of the property, including the canyon, is a proposed Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) hardline preserve area in the City's draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP), which identifies it as part of Linkage Area D connecting core areas of wildlife habitat to the north and south of the property. The proposed project would develop 112 of the 1,45 acres of the property as a business park and retain the northern portion as open space. The plan also includes a minimum 400-foot wide wildlife corridor running from north to south along the east side of the property that would connect the east/west open space on the northern part of the property with preserved areas across Palomar Airport Road to the south. Preservation of existing coastal sage scrub and revegetation of disturbed areas within the corridor would mitigate project impacts to sage scrub. Extensions of two existing roads are planned that would cross the designated open space. A twelve foot high undercrossing would be constructed where Melrose Avenue crosses the wildlife corridor on the western portion of the property. Poinsettia Avenue is proposed to be recessed below grade where it would cross the north-south portion of the corridor on the eastern half of the property. The Wildlife Agencies offer the following observations, comments, and recommendations to assist the City of Carlsbad in avoiding or minimizing impacts to biological resources: 1. The Wildlife Agencies are very concerned with the proposed crossing of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia Road. Given the already constrained nature of this key wildlife corridor in the proposed HMP, there does not seem to be a compelling reason for the road crossing. Though the proposed recessing of Poinsettia Road below grade where it crosses the north/south wildlife corridor on the east side of the property may reduce the likelihood of direct mortality to birds as they cross over the road, terrestrial animals (mammals, reptiles, etc.), and to some extent birds, are likely to be adversely affected (through direct mortality and through fragmentation effects) in the resulting habitat fragments. The Wildlife Agencies propose that the road be constructed so that the paving ends in a cul de sac on either side of the corridor. Access for emergency vehicles could still be provided by a gravel road extending between the two cul de sacs. The function of an emergency access road is probably not incompatible with limited plant cover in the road. Given the importance of this corridor to the function of the proposed HMP preserve, we strongly urge that the integrity of the corridor not be compromised by the crossing of Poinsettia Road. 2. According to the MND, the proposed construction would directly impact 28 acres designated as non-native grassland and 21.6 acres of southern mixed chaparral. The Wildlife Agencies believe that the non-native grassland and chaparral are undervalued in the MND and the Biological Technical Report. Open grasslands provide valuable foraging areas for raptors, including sensitive species identified during the biological surveys [e.g., white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)} as well as probable occurring wintering raptor species [e.g., northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)]. Other state species of special concern, such as black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), and California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actid) use grassland habitat, and further loss of grasslands increases risk of endangerment for these and other species. Chaparral is a valuable source of Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) cover for birds, reptiles, and mammals and also supports foraging raptors. Coastal California gnatcatchers are known to forage and occasionally nest in chaparral habitats, especially when contiguous with coastal sage scrub (Campbell et al. 1998). Chaparral on-site is likely to be used by gnatcatchers, as gnatcatchers occupy the site, and it contains coastal sage scrub as well as chaparral. Grassland habitat is clearly limited in extent within the City's jurisdiction. Cumulatively, raptor foraging habitat loss may be significant, and impacts to this resource warrant mitigation. Both non-native grassland and chaparral habitats are important to building the natural open space areas within the City, and a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for chaparral and 0.5:1 for non-native grasslands is consistent with mitigation requirements utilized in other parts of the County of San Diego. 3. Three gnatcatcher surveys of unspecified duration were conducted in 1998, and again in March 2001. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed on site during the 1998 or 2001 surveys. However, during one of these surveys, a singing male was heard just north of the site in chamise chaparral, and on September 25, 2000, John Martin of the Service heard a gnatcatcher on the site. In light of recent observations of gnatcatchers in suitable habitat on- site and in contiguous suitable habitat immediately off-site, the site should be considered occupied by gnatcatchers. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers need to be addressed through either a habitat loss permit; a habitat conservation plan pursuant to section 10 of the Act, or through a section 7 consultation if it is determined that a federal nexus exists. 4. Burrowing owls or their burrows were not detected on site during the 1998 biological surveys; however, no focused investigations were performed. The burrowing owl is a federal and state species of special concern and has been historically reported in the project vicinity (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park). This species should be surveyed for prior to any grading activities on the property. 5. The proposed development would cause direct impacts to the sensitive plant species California adolphia (about 100 individuals, or approximately 50% of the on-site population) and summer holly (all 10 individuals on-site). These individuals should be salvaged and planted in the area of native vegetation to be conserved on-site. 6. The wetland mitigation program summarized in the MND was developed through cooperative negotiations between the applicant, the Service, the Department, and the City, as described in a letter dated July 1, 1998, from Helix to Julie Vanderwier of the Service, copied to David Lawhead and Terri Dickerson of the Department. The final MND should clarify the following: the type of wetland habitats that comprise the 1.28 acres reported in the second table on page 21 of the current document, the third paragraph on page 21, and specify appropriate mitigation for the 0.24 acres of impacts to wetlands that are specified in the second table on page 21. The Department will finalize the wetland mitigation program through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process. Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) The on-site, unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek and the smaller tributaries to this streambed are considered streams and wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. and the proposed project would require authorization from the Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for impacts to these stream channels. The proposed project will require a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA). The Department's issuance of an SAA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency. The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the City's MND for the project. To minimize additional requirements by the Department pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the final MND should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream and riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement. An SAA notification package may be obtained by writing to The California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 or by calling (858) 636-3160. In addition, the applicant may be required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well. 7. The Wildlife Agencies recommend the use of native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape areas adjacent to and/or near mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas. The applicant should not plant, seed or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas adjacent and/or near the mitigation/open space area and/or wetland/riparian areas. Exotic plant species not to be used include those species listed on Lists A & B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council's list of "Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999." This list includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas grass, fountain grass, ice plant, myoporum, black locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom. A copy of the complete list can be obtained by contacting the California Exotic Pest Plant Council at 32912 Calle del Tesoro, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-4427, or by accessing their web site at http://www.caleppc.org. 8. The Wildlife Agencies will need to review and concur with Coastal Sage Scrub and Wetland Revegetation Plans before the project may commence construction activities. Please provide a map in the final MND that shows where revegetation of both upland and wetland areas will occur. Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2124) The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. If you have any questions, please contact Meredith Osborne of the Department at (858) 636-3163 or John Martin of the Service at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Nancy Gilbert "fa-- William E. Tippets Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager Carlsbad Field Office South Coast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game Literature Cited: Campbell, Kurt F., R. A. Erickson, W. E. Haas, and M. A. Patten. 1998. California Gnatcatcher use of habitats other than coastal sage scrub: conservation and management implications. Western Birds 29(4): 421-433. Qct 08 01 03:29p p.2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FKANCI5CO UCSD SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRU7. NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM TELEPHONE: (858) 534-2077 9500 OILMAN DRIVE FAX (858) 534-7108 or 822-0696 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 e-mail: ikav@ucsd.edu October 5, 2001 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559 Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 98- 05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT98-10/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Commissioners: The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve ("Reserve"), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core, high quality habitat in the North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and willow woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the reserve has lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of habitat inland, and habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including golden eagle, mule deer, and mountain lion. We are, however, fortunate to still have several species at the highest trophic levels, including coyote, bobcat, fox, and many species of raptors. This is almost certainly because of the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to individuals of these species, through connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The City of Carlsbad has recognized the importance of such connections, and called them out in the core and linkage concept of the HMP. The two properties under consideration by the Commission for development approval contribute significantly to one of these connections: Linkage Area D connects the Reserve to extensive areas of natural open space through the Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial project, and Oct 08 01 03:29p P-3 • W » j|^ ^^^_ thus to major core open space to the south, northeast, and east. Within the City of Vista to the north of the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these connections. The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum jeopardize the realization of a functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of Carlsbad and the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The remainder of this letter details the specifics of our concerns regarding this plan. 1. Need for a full Environmental Analysis The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a full environmental analysis; a mitigated negative declaration is clearly inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the applicant - to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is the environmentally preferred alternative. This has not been determined, since an environmental analysis of alternatives has not been carried out. Furthermore, it is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major impacts on the remaining open space in the area, with the resulting consequences, including habitat loss, stormwater runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of' views, etc. However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been analyzed. We suggest that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact, through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two projects were superficially (and inconsistently) combined for impact analysis, there is not enough effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of, the HMP and MHCP should be presented. When this is done, to say that the project "conforms with.." these plans will not be sufficient; a case needs to be made to support this contention, with precise and specific information, and clear-cut examples. In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (EIA) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case, it is certainly out of date. In any case, the following environmental factors will be subject to potentially significant impacts under the proposed projects; they should therefore have been checked (in addition to those that were) as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated", or "Potentially Significant Impact", in the extended Environmental Impact Assessment form (pages 5-10), whether or not the impacts are mitigated: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. d) Agricultural resources: agricultural land will be converted to industrial; C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 2 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:30p P-4 e) Disruption of the community: the introduction of more traffic and industrial area will exacerbate the division of south Carlsbad from north Carlsbad. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. f) significant changes in topography will accompany these projects; g) land subsidence is likely unless alluvial material is removed as mitigation. IV, WATER. There WILL be: a) changes in absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff; b) exposure of people and property to flooding, both upstream and downstream; d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon; h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.) IV. AIR QUALITY. The projects as designed will likely: b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants; c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature locally due to hardscaping; d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes. In addition, there is no clear evidence that any measures other than circular reasoning have been undertaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city's update of the General Plan does not mean that any such measures have been incorporated. They are certainly not explicitly called out. Furthermore, the MEIR is no longer adequate as it is older than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time. VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION, The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects: b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The proposal would result in impacts to: b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including Quercus dumosa, Quercus agrifolia, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Adolphia californica, Ferocactus viridescens, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper's hawk, Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing owl); this does not mean that other sensitive and target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their status on the sites (e.g. particular herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc,) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed; The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as "Potentially Significant Impact": d) Wetland habitat: riparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak woodland; and C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:30p P-5 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is severely compromised by the plan as proposed. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. a) Adopted energy conservation plans, such as those incorporated into the county-wide REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated communities, and fewer roads. b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites. The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG's recommendations for "Smart Growth" are being incorporated. See, for example, their website describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities: htrp://www.sandag.org/whats_new/work_program/work_program_105.html#105.14 IX. HAZARDS. c) The development of the industrial parks will almost certainly lead to the importation of materials that pose a hazard to human and environmental health. These problems should be examined during this stage of the development process, since to wait until individual parcels are developed would be illegally piecemealing the project. The introduction of industrial processes, vehicle traffic, and thousands of individuals into an area of habitat that is highly flammable, and the resulting increased likelihood for fire is not discussed. XL PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Fire protection: the reduced level of service that might be available if the lesser environmentally damaging projects are built are discussed in the document; the "potentially significant impact" column should have been checked. d) The need for indefinite maintenance of the infrastructures supporting these industrial parks, including roads, sewer, storm drains, street lighting, etc. could have a significant impact on the ability of the city's departments to provide adequate service to their residents in the long-term. This item should have been checked as having at least a "Potentially significant impact." XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Sewer systems are identified as being impacted, albeit at a level deemed below significant. It is not clear why water treatment and distribution facilities (c) and stonnwater drainage (e) are not impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects. XII. AESTHETICS. The project will most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed (impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics; and creating light and glare) and should thus be recognized at that level. XV. RECREATION. Contrary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checldist, there WILL most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of the employees of the business parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 4 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:31p P-6 for recreational facilities in competitive business areas, as employees need to exercise or relax before, during, and after work. In addition, trails and paths that are offered as amenities by the business park will be used to access the open space, thus requiring the development of a larger trail system. Finally, if bicycles are to be encouraged as a form of transportation in the area, the necessary facilities should likely be a recreational resource as well. a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance to view wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc.) will surely be negatively impacted by these projects. 2. Mitigation for habitat impacts a) Wetlands / The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is topologically unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation see Figure 3. Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix, 1998.) In addition, the 0.08 acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum project are not included in existing plans. b) Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured (2:1) slopes. It is not clear that this will result in functional wildlife habitat, or that this is an adequate acreage for restoration, at 1:1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore, there appears to be no plan for fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area. c) Oaks There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Quercus agrifolia and Quercus dumosa) on either of the projects, in spite of the fact that oak woodland is to be conserved under the BMP. d) Overlooked species and occurrences It is not clear whether the ten Comarostaphylos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and other species were overlooked. Examples: 1. Comarostaphylos was observed on the north-facing slope at the east end of the dragstrip, but was not shown on the map. 2. Large clusters of Quercus dumosa to the west of the Comarostaphylos were not recorded on the map. 3. Quercus agrifolia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked. 4. An area of Baccharis scrub in the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a bare, disturbed area. 5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for impacts to sensitive species and habitats. C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 5 of 7 Get 08 01 03:32p P-7 e) Inadequate mitigation In addition, the remaining mitigation proposed for impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Non- native grassland, and the transection of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia appear inadequate, for the following reasons: 1. $100,000 is not sufficient to construct a major bridge such as would be required. 2. NO land in the vicinity of Carlsbad can be purchased for $3,949 per acre, so this is inadequate mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland; additionally, the targeted acquisitions need to be identified as part of the mitigation proposal. 3. Similarly, land cannot be purchased for $7,897 per acre, as proposed for mitigation for chaparral, so this is also inadequate mitigation. Any such purchase alternative needs to identify the acquisition parcels prior to project approval. In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public review. 3. Wildlife corridors The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects make up the northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D- 6) "The northern section of this linkage includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a jnoderatelv effective corridor for birds and mammals." However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow (less than 400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completely transected by roads in two places. Most noticeable is the obstacle created by placing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest corner of the Raceway site. The wildlife undercrossing proposed appears to be a culvert that is 180 feet long, 12 feet high, and 5-20 feet wide. A bridge would provide a far superior solution to the problem, and should be studied as a real alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible to visualize either of these with the plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.) The Poinsettia (aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering it another "sink" for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative impact on the population at large. There are numerous studies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages and corridors, and the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successful. Please contact my office if you do not already have copies of these references for the Planning Commission before the hearing. 4. Circulation "The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated." (p. 15, EIA). The mitigation proposed is to complete all the planned roads in the area. It has not yet been decided C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 6 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:33p P-8 whether these projects (Faraday, El Fuerte, etc.) should be constructed. Therefore there appears to be a very1 real need for a thorough alternatives analysis, in the form of an Environmental Impact Report. This section of the document also presents unsubstantiated conclusions that fly in the face of current evidence to the contrary, i.e. that building more roads eases congestion and encourages alternative forms of transportation: "The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road) will ... reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate modes of transportation." Finally, the justification for using the 1994 MEIRto allow the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to stand is that"... no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified..." and that".. .there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified." In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the past 5 years on San Diego's freeways, these statements should be re-examined. 5. Hydrology The proposal to use the wildlife corridor/riparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill- conceived. This very same concept has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildlife passage. Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the difference. Sincerely, Isabel Manager, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve cc: USFWS CDFG Preserve Calavera C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 7 of 7 environmental planning, inc 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6452 fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 August 28, 2001 Ms. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway Project. Dear Ms. Hysong: On behalf of Raceway Properties, LLC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and the City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final mitigation measures necessary to fully mitigate the Carlsbad Raceway project. Additionally, I have spoken directly with David Lawhead of the Department on two occasions over the past two days. The purpose of these discussions has been to address concerns raised by the Department regarding impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland habitats, as well as several sensitive plant and animal species. The following summarizes the applicant's additional mitigation measures agreed to in concept by David Lawhead that are proposed to fully mitigate project impacts. Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design Impacts and acres preserved on site are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 IMPACTS Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Willow Scrub Freshwater Marsh Mulef at Scrub Non-native Grassland Agricultural Disturbed TOTAL Total On-Site 19.2 26.3 3.42 0.77 0.18 32.6 4.7 57.83 145.0 Acres Impacted 9.6 21.6 0.37 0.15 0.13 28.0 4.7 47.3 111.85 Acres Preserved 9.6 4.7 3.05 0.62 0.05 4.6 0 10.53 33.15 Ms. Anne Hysong August 28,2001 Page 2 In addition to on site preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS), approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated to DCSS and approximately nine acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. Based on a 2:1 mitigation ratio, an excess of 8.5 acres of mitigation is being proposed that will be credited towards mitigation of impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland. Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 21.6 acres. Approximately 4.7 acres will be preserved and credited as mitigation for chaparral, resulting in a mitigation requirement of 16.9 acres. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the City of Carlsbad recommends a fee of $7,897 per acre of chaparral impacted. The resulting fee is $133,459.30. Impacts to non-native grassland total 28.0 acres. Approximately 4.6 acres of non- native grassland is being conserved, therefore the mitigation requirement is 23.4 acres. The HMP for the City of Carlsbad recommends a fee of $3,949 per acre of non- native grassland impacted. The resulting fee is $92,406.60. The combined fee requirement is $225,865.90. The excess mitigation for DCSS of 8.5 acres of restoration will be credited towards the $225, 865.90 fee requirement. The amount credited will be based on verified costs (costs verified by the City of Carlsbad) of the 8.5 acres of DCSS restoration. Wetland Mitigation A total of approximately 0.48-acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:1 mitigation ratio). Southern willow scrub will be planted over at least 0.34 acre, and 0.14 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. Streambed impacts totaling 0.18 acre (Corps and Department jurisdictional) will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel (approximately 0.38 acre) running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. Exotic weeds will be removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. No other restoration is proposed in the channel. An additional 0.98-acre of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the additional 0.49 acre of impacts (2:1 mitigation ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by the Department but not jurisdictional by the Corps. The restoration mitigation total for the project is 1.82 acres and is shown on the attached figure. s. Anne Hysong August 28,2001 Page 3 Table 2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ON THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROPERTY Jurisdiction ACOE wetland ACOE non- vegetated Waters of the U.S. CDFG jurisdictional areas Existing1 1.28 0.51 4.79 Melrose Drive Impacts1 0.252 Carlsbad Raceway Property Project Impacts1 0.24 0.18 0.66 Total Impacts1 0.24 0.18 0.91 Remaining1 1.04 0.33 3.88 1 All figures are in acres 2 Impacted area consisted of State only jurisdictional southern willow scrub Table 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROJECT TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS Jurisdictional Habitat Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Streambed TOTALS Federal (acres) 0.07 0.17 0 0.18 0.42 State (acres) * 0.07 0.53 0.13 0.18 0.91 1 State Jurisdictional Areas include Federal Jurisdictional Areas Sensitive Species Mitigation Impacts to 50 California adolphia (Adolphia californica) individuals and 10 summer holly (Comarostahylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia) will be mitigated by including these species in the restoration efforts on the site. A minimum of 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly will be planted as container stock within the upland restoration areas. Although the potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaed) to occur on site is considered low, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of this species. If the owl is observed on site, it will be relocated to open space elsewhere on the project site. Letter^^Is. Anne Hysong August 28,2001 Page 4 Combined, these measures will fully mitigate all impacts to sensitive resources on the site. Sincerely, Senior Consulting Bio" Attachment Wetland Mitigation Location cc: Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Michael Holzmiler, City of Carlsbad David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game John Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jon Kurtin, Raceway Properties, LLC Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt & McGuire Bill Hof man, Hof man Planning LEGEND DCSSsws MFS FWM SMC NNG AC DIS -D Diegan coastal sage scrub Cd Southern willow scrub AC Mule fat scrub Qa Freshwater marsh Sc Southern mixed chapparal Age Non-native grassland Pe Agriculture Ce Disturbed habitat/developed. Indicates disturbed habitat Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia) California adolphia (Adolphia California) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Ashy-spike moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago erecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Owl's Clover (Castilleja exserta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded Potential Wetland Restoration Areas Streambed Restoration Area 0 100 MO 300 mix Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas CARLSBAD RACEWAY figure? •San Diego ^_^ . ASSOCIATION OF June5'2000 ' '• * ^ A ^LV GOVERNMENTS . TT . . . „. <s 401 B Street, Suite 800Anne Hysong, Associate Planner ^V San Diego, CA 92101-4231 1635 Faraday » c^P* <£\gr (619) 595-5300 • Fax (619) 595-5305 City Of Carlsbad \ * ^ www.sandag.cog.ca.us Carlsbad, CA 92006-7314 RE: Palomar Forum and Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Dear Ms. Hysong: This letter is in response to your letters regarding the compatibility of two proposed industrial subdivisions to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. As you know the San Diego Association of Governments serves as the region's Airport Land Use Commission. As such, SANDAG has the responsibility to protect the region's airports from new incompatible development. SANDAG staff has reviewed the proposed projects. SANDAG's Airport Land Use Commission rules and regulations allow the staff to make a determination of compatibility if the proposal is "clearly consistent" with an airport's adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The SANDAG Board of Directors, serving as the Airport Land Use Commission, has not reviewed the following staff comment. The two industrial subdivisions are within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area. The eastern flight activity zone impacts portions of both subdivisions. The community plan designations for the parcels have not changed since the time the CLUP was adopted. Because the proposed subdivisions are consistent with the community plan designations that existed at the time the CLUP was adopted, the proposals are clearly consistent with the McClellan-Palomar CLUP. However, if the applicants are proposing developments that require zone changes that are inconsistent with the community plan designations then SANDAG reserves the right to reevaluate the proposals. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 595-5372. Thank you for allowing SANDAG to participate in the City's development planning process. Sincerely, /JACK KOERPER Special Projects Director JK/dak cc: Floyd Best, Airport Manger MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, North San Diego County Transit Development Board, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, S.D. County Water Authority, and Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico. 08/03/2001 11:05 7604382443 HOFMAN PLANNING PAGE 01 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis FAXTRANSMITTAL DATE: August 3,2001 PROJECT: LFMP Zone 18 Sewer Mitigation and Flow Transfer Agreement FAX: (760) 602-8559 (760) 602-8559 NO. PAGES: 3 ATTENTION: Gary Wayne CC: AnneHysong If aljpages are not received, please call C760) 43R-146S Message: For your information, attached to this transmittal is a copy of a letter we received from the City of Vista RE: the LFMP Zone 18 Sewer Mitigation and Flow Transfer Agreement. If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 438-1465. FROM: Stan Weiler (RP) 5900 Pasteur Court • Ste 150 • Carlsbad • CA •92008 760-438-1465 • Fax 760-438-2443 08/03/2001 11:05 7604382443 HOFMAN PLANNING PAGE 02 At/G f 2001 City of Vista July 26, 2001 Lloyd Hubbs City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: LFMP Zone 1 8 Sewer Mitigation and Flow Transfer Agreement Dear Mr. Hubbs: This letter is written to outline the understanding reached ar our meeting with your staff and the development team representing the Raceway and Palomar Forum properties held on July 25, 2001. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the sewer mitigation for the Raceway and Palomar Forum properties located in the City of Carlsbad. At this meeting, your staff and development team proposed a condition (see attached) that would allow the sewage generated from these properties to flow into the Raceway Pump Station and Outfall system after an agreement is secured between the City of Vista and the property owners of these two properties. These properties would be allowed to sewer into the Buena/San Marcos (BSM) outfall line and use the City of Vista or Buena Sanitation District credits for this line until reaching the wastewater treatment facility. Upon reaching the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, the project would use Carlsbad credits for wastewater treatment. The BSM outfall would be used until the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI) line is in place. At that time, these properties would then flow into the SAHI line. Based on the Zone 18 LFMP, the projected build out average sewer flow for Watershed A is 246,708 GPD. Therefore, the flow credits that may be provided would be for 0.25 MOD. Our staff can accept this condition and will negotiate with the property owners of Raceway and Palomar Forum to allow for use and credits of the Raceway Pump Station and Outfall system until the SAHI is in place. Any such agreement entered into will be subject to the approval of the Vista City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at (760)726-1340, ext. 1321. Sincerely, Terry Principal Engineer I'eterNicblas Lurry Marshal] Plant?, Put 0' Day Steve Jantz Bill Civile Wickham Bill 600 Eucalyptus Av«nu* • P.O. Box 1988 « Vista, California 92085 • (760)726-1340* www.ci.vista.ea.u» 08/03/2001 11:05 7B04382443 HOFMAN PLANNING ™ ^ SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM A. ALL WATERSHEDS All development within Zone 18 will be required to pay the appropriate sewer connection fee prior to issuance of any building permit. B. WATERSHED A: 1. All Zone E benefit area fees and sewer connection fees shall be paid to the City of Carlsbad. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of any development permit within Watershed A of Zone 18, the developer/owner shall provide for sewer service in conformance with the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Sewerage (sewer master plan). The current sewer master plan has identified this project to be within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAMI) sewer basin. The financial guarantee may be in the form of an assessment district or other means as approved by the City Council. If the sewer master plan facility is not immediately available: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the city may consider allowing the developer to enter into a temporary out of basin agreement with the City of Vista to utilize Vista's Raceway Sewer Pump Station arid Vista's portion of the outfall. The temporary agreement shall extend until a permanent solution is available and must also be approved by the City Engineer to satisfy the LFMP requirements on an interim basis. This temporary agreement is only to be used until the SAHI or other sewer master plan facility is available for service. At the time the sewer master plan facility is available, the developer/owner shall convert the temporary tie to the pump station and use the said facility as provided in the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Sewerage. C. WATERSHED B: All major sewer facilities have been constructed. Hofman Planning tetter of Transmittal * "• A s s o c i a t e s Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis Date: July 24, 2001 Project: Carlsbad Raceway Delivered by: HPA Attention: Anne Hysong Message: As requested in your letter dated July 16, 2001, attached are the 600' owners list, mailing labels and radius map for the Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98-10). There are two sets of mailing labels with 75 mailing labels in each set. Therefore, I have paid $51.00 for the mailing costs (150 labels at $0.34 each). If you have any questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465. RECEIVED JUL 2 4 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. From: 5900 Pasteur Court • Ste 150 • Carlsbad • CA • 92008 • 760-438-1465 • Fax 760-438-2443 City of Carlsbad Planning Department August 7, 2001 Mr. Stan Weiler Hofman Planning 5900 Pasteur Court Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7317 SUBJECT:CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK Dear Stan: Pursuant to the recently adopted Assembly Bill 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, it has been determined that your project is subject to filing fees of $1,275.00 levied by the State Department of Fish and Game. This fee is payable to the County on approval of your project. Please submit a check for the above amount (payable to the City of Carlsbad) to the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Please note the application will not be scheduled for a hearing until the fee has been received by the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 602-4622. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG, Associate Planner AHcs c: Raceway Properties, LLC, 12672 Caminito Radiante, San Diego, CA 92130 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us NOTE ADDITIONAL FEES. STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME Cities and Counties throughout California has been notified of legislation (AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990) which became effective on January 1, 1991. This law requires the State of California Department of Fish and Game to levy a fee to all project applicants (public and private) subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. Projects which are categorically exempt from CEQA and which have no adverse impact on fish and wildlife or projects which are denied, are not subject to the fee. All other projects are subject to the following fees: Projects with Negative Declarations $1,275. Projects with EIRs $875. Due to State Law constraints the City of Carlsbad will collect the fee where applicable and pass it to the County of San Diego. After submission, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department will make an Environmental Assessment of your application. After this initial assessment the Planning Department will notify you if the fee is required. State Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento CA 94244-2090 (916) 445-3531 Rug 03 01 03:42p p.l UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • L.OS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEOO • SAN FRANCISCO NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM 9500 OILMAN DRIVE LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 UCSD SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ TELEPHONE: (858) 534-2077 FAX (858) 822-0696 e-mail: ikav@ucsd.edu August 3, 2001 Anne Hysong Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 920 VIA FACSIMILE to 760-602-8559 and email toahyso@ci.carlsbad.ca.us re: CASE NO. GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01 Dear Ms. Hysong: Thank you for the two documents (Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II) for the Palomar Forum Business Park and the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park, reference numbers above, that I received via messenger on Monday this week. Unfortunately, they do not contain enough information to make informed comment on the projects: there are no maps, no explanation of the numbers and pages referred to in the checklist and no cumulative impacts assessment, to name but the most obvious omissions. I therefore have the following requests: 1) That the Carlsbad Planning Department extends the comment deadline past the 20 days from July 15, based on the lack of notification of the University of California Natural Reserve System, and the controversy surrounding the projects. 2) That you send me copies of all the relevant documents, including those referenced on page 26 of the EIA form for Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. Please let me know immediately if these requests cannot be met. Thank you, Isabelle Kay UCSD Natural Reserve System *» T^ City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 24, 2001 Hofman Planning Associates Ste 150 5900 Pasteur Ct Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ZC 01-07/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01- 01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you on Friday, July 27, 2001 . This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on August 6, 2001 . A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 10:00. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. Your colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your project could be rescheduled to a later time. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Anne Hysong at (760) 602-4622. CITY OF CARLSBAD E. WAYNE U Assistant Planning Director GEW:AH:cs c: Raceway Partners, LLC, 12672 Caminito Radiante, San Diego CA 92130 -ile Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis July 16, 2001 Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT. Waiver of Application Fees for Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum. Dear Michael: This letter is a formal request to have certain application fees waived for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects. The fees in question are: a Zone Change application for the Raceway property, and a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application for the Palomar Forum property. The reason we are making this request is that the applicants did not seek these applications nor does law require them. The city has requested that these applications be submitted to allow for the open space easements that are to be dedicated as part of the subdivision maps to be designated and zoned as Open Space. It is intended as a cleanup change so that the open space easements remain permanently as open space. We do not object to the properties being zoned as open space, however, we do not believe the total fees of $8500.00 for these applications is justified (Raceway Zone Change = $3,277.50; Pal For GPA = $2805.00; and Pal For ZC = $2418.75). The only things needed to process these applications are the application forms. Staff will not need to do any additional work on the applications. Since these applications were all city initiated less than one month ago, and the applicant has been in process for nearly three years, we believe the applicant should not be forced to pay these additional fees. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bill Hofman cc: Ann Hysong Jon Kurtin, Raceway Properties Larry Nelson, Davis Partners 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 e-mail: admin @ helixepi. com fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 May 11, 2001 RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Jon Kurtin Kurtin Property Management 12672 Caminito Radiante San Diego, California 92130 Subject: Addendum to the Biological Resources Report for the Carlsbad Raceway Project Dear Mr. Kurtin: This letter provides an addendum to the Biological Resources Report of the Carlsbad Raceway Project, and addresses off site impacts for traffic circulation needs, should the Carlsbad Raceway project proceed in advance of or independently of the Palomar Forum project. INTRODUCTION HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) previously prepared a Biological Resources Report for the project site. This report addressed all impacts associated with on site development for the project. It is anticipated that the Palomar Forum project immediately south of the project will be developed within timeframes that will provide for necessary improvements to Melrose Drive for the Carlsbad Raceway project. If, however, the Carlsbad Raceway project is developed in advance of or independently of the Palomar Forum project, the Carlsbad Raceway project will need . to construct a portion of Melrose Drive on the Palomar Forum project. This report addresses potential impacts and mitigation requirements for these off site impacts. The Carlsbad Raceway site encompasses approximately 145 acres in the City of Carlsbad, northwestern San Diego County, Calif ornia (Figures 1 and 2). Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land and industrial development to the north, undeveloped land and Palomar Airport Road to the south, commercial development to the east, and undeveloped land to the west. The Palomar Forum site supports three vegetation communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland. A large portion of the property has been previously disced for agricultural purposes and currently exists as disturbed land, including all of the area proposed for the extension of Melrose Drive. IMPACTS The extension of Melrose Drive will impact 2.1 of existing agriculture (Figure 3). These impacts are not considered significant. No impacts are anticipated to sensitive plant or animal species. KPM-01 /' Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin April 19, 2001 Page 2 of 3 MITIGATION Because no significant impacts will occur, no mitigation is reqiiired. Please contact me if you have any questions about the contents of this letter. Sincerely, Barry L. Jones Senior Consulting Biologist Enclosures: Figure 1 Regional Location Map Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map Figure 3 Vegetation and Sensitive Resources Impact Map Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, including enclosures KPM-01 ORANGE j SANDIEGO PROJECT LOCATION JAlNr/-^ UNITEDSTAJES • \\ JIDROTSs^.— — " MEXICO HELIX Regional Location Map CARLSBAD RACEWAY Figure 1 •DTo g <> o 5 m n K) bfc-* i^-liitflil^ ''•„'- •'.X'^-x'.XT-. i wr:'/''$$4A \ ••.';&%?^,-*\.:il^/'--'/.>f<-v,:i~;r "/';'",-••' >'' "?-"-*...rl;:^;..--"';, ^.,^ .;:,.• orrOF VISTA Vfc J^|i^^^^f^|^7^^^^^^V'"~~-''--:.k/! •'"'•-.-. - .'"^--./l r . - ••••••' ' V**'/" * '•- .'•'. :''''.-;--/, ,^S"i- v':-v''--~...-'-^*'~''''L'.'>->''-"''-1'"' "."''r'-- );!'"•,'"•'•-•:.-.. '.^^ i *| \ ''"''.•—ta*')-'^'.-.-.^^^"^^*' .>'.!'.'" ".''••"^' •••-'' VX '"*•••-.'•• '-.'^'ii-- **'S^-_ JA.'i •••' -• . • .""_>-. ..- t.._ i vr< .';. •••:' t: •. :• • ''.'" ;/'.ir>; ••'.'••*v; : ..'"••• •:•'..-<..;": •'.',-;'':'• -; •,...•--• .~*"--iii1^,' . i \ ._.. '• '•"• ".'":v-'-^nu.'':-*>S:1S5'C"*'^ i' '•-. "L't" •''•• ""•^..._/*:;-, j^^- *2f-" a Carlsbad Raceway 1 ."•x."m^>r,;^s::. ^<?^ti ;"X0;- .:.m~^^-^:":r •^I'v^lilv '"^-^:;i,'-Mlit -K^- K^S &-^: t& ---d;;•f-fc~ ll ' y^^&$^$$ip^ i%v^|||^^^w,: ^ ,-i(_..-.^; L-^^.M^%,-•;• f: :^:-S/;^r; • 1M$$W^$*$ rl \:,]MWi^i Carlsbad Raceway !?'^C^^v(' ProJect BoundaryI '••' ' '''••'(*• ^ *':';-^:.'-\. 1: /.i•••-: A:1 ••-;:.:. ;.-•*.• ••-/• •—"-s-sr: J.-•"-'••' f: t:',"," '•:•..-,,,1,-:: r.—•-*.—v~~ '^<;l DH .L \ •>Palomar Forum .-Off-site improvements l^-./.^X^"~"^--3" LEGEND Vegetation DH Disturbed Habitat SCAIE I" - 100' HEIIX Off-site Improvements/Carlsbad Raceway Figure 3 eimroniD.ei).tBl plantiiip 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 La Mesa, C\91941-6476 e-mail: admin @ helixepi. com fax (619) 462-0552 - phone (619) 462-1515 April 19, 2001 Mr. Jon Kurtin Kurtin Property Management 12672 Caminito Radiante San Diego, California 92130 Subject: Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the Carlsbad Raceway Dear Mr. Kurtin: This letter presents the results of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica) for the Carlsbad Raceway. The raceway site encompasses approximately 145 acres in the City of Carlsbad, northwestern San Diego County, California (Figures 1 and 2). Surrounding land uses include undeveloped land and industrial development to the north, undeveloped land and Palomar Airport Road to the south, commercial development to the east, and undeveloped land to the west. INTRODUCTION HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) performed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher to determine the presence or absence of gnatcatchers on the raceway site. This letter describes the methods used to perform the surveys and the results. A copy of this report will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a condition of HELIX's Threatened and. Endangered Species Permit TE77S195-5. METHODS Three site visits were made according to the schedule in Table 1 to survey for the gnatcatcher. Coastal sage scrub (and intermixed patches of southern mixed chaparral) was surveyed on foot (Figure 3) with the aid of binoculars and taped gnatcatcher vocalizations that were played infrequently. Approximately 19 acres of coastal sage scrub were surveyed during each site visit. Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Date of Survey March 2, 2001 March 11, 2001 March 19, 2001 Personnel D. Pudoff S. Taylor D. Pudoff Start/Stop Times 0900/1100 0905/1145 1000/1115 Acres Surveyed/ Coverage Rate 19 acres/9.5 acres per hour 19 acres/ 10 acres per hour 19 acres/15.2 acres per hour Weather Conditions Hazy sun to overcast, 55°F-58°F, wind 0-3 mph Overcast, 60°F-62°F, wind 0-2 mph Clear, 75°F, wind 0-5 mph KPM-01 environmental planning, inc ; Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin Page 2 of 3 -"' April 19, 2001 PLANT COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS The site supports six vegetation communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and non-native grassland (Figure 3). In addition there are disturbed habitat/developed areas. With the exception of the habitats located in the north- central portion of the site, all habitats have been at least partially disturbed and, in most cases heavily disturbed, for a number of years by ongoing raceway operations. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub on site is composed primarily of four shrub species and is quite tall and dense with a fair amount of dead wood present. The four species are California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), lemonadeberry (RJuis integrifolia), and California encelia (Encelia californica). Portions of the Diegan coastal sage scrub are predominated by lemonadeberry, almost to the exclusion of all other shrubs. Approximately 19 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub occur on site, with the larger patches occurring in the north-central portion of the site. Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal and valley freshwater marsh on site is composed of riparian monocots such as bulrush (Scirpus sp.) and cattail (Typha sp.). These plants form dense clumps within depressions that are wet for an extended period of time. Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub on site is a streambed plant community that is predominated by willows (Salix sp.). On site, mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) is the primary associate species. Understory species include cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), bristly ox- tongue (Picris echioides), and annual beard-grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Mule Fat Scrub Mule fat scrub on site is characterized by stands that are dominated by mule fat, to the exclusion of almost all other plant species. Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern mixed chaparral occurs on many of the north-facing slopes on site. It is composed of broad-leaved, deep-rooted shrubs such as lemonadeberry, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) that grow in dense stands. KPM-01 environmental plainiingfiiic Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin April 19, 2001 Page 3 of 3 Non-Native Grassland Non-native grassland on site is a sparse to dense cover of annual grasses and forbs. Characteristic species include oats (Avena sp.), bromes (Bromus sp.), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Disturbed Habitat/Developed Disturbed habitat/developed area is devoid of vegetation as a result of soil compaction (as with dirt roads) or past grading, and/or contain paved surfaces or physical structures associated with the raceway operations. SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSION No gnatcatchers were observed or detected on the raceway site; however, one individual gnatcatcher was heard north of the site in chamise chaparral on one occasion during the first survey (Figures 2 and 3). This bird could not be relocated during the two subsequent surveys. Please contact Barry Jones or me if you have any questions about the surveys or the contents of this letter. Sincerely, Deborah Pudoff Biologist Enclosures: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Regional Location Map Project Vicinity Map Vegetation and Sensitive Resources Map (with gnatcatcher locations and survey route) Christine Moen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including enclosures Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, including enclosures KPM-01 ORANGE I SANDIEGO PROJECT LOCATION DIEGO * Sweetwater ^TLD Reservoir SAI^T/-^ UNITED STATES , • jj YSIDRO7S>^— ' " MEXICO HELIX Regional Location Map CARLSBAD RACEWAY fips LEGEND DCSS sws MFS FWM SMC NNG AC DIS -D Diegan coastal sage scrub Southern willow scrub Mule fat scrub . Freshwater marsh Southern mixed chapparal Non-native grassland Agriculture Disturbed habitat/developed. Indicates disturbed habitat Cd Ac Qa Sc Age Re Ce Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia) California adolphia (Adolphia California) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Ashy-spike moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago erecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Owl's Clover (Castilleja exserta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) >l __ . ' ' 'Q 0 100 200 300 HELIX Vegetation and Sensitive Resources CARLSBAD RACEWAY Hofman Planning Associates Letter of Transmittal Corporate Office: 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tel: (760) 438-1465 Fax: (760) 438-2443 Date: 15 July 1998 Project: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Delivered By: Hedy Levine Attention: Anne Hysong Message: Please see the accompanying copy of the Jurisdictional Delineation report prepared by Helix Environmental regarding the Carlsbad Raceway. Please call me if you have any questions. From: Hedy Levine 08/24/1993 11:6^ 6134626552 STATS Of CALIFORNIA - TH^^SOURCES AGENCY HELIX ENVIRONMEM AL DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 4949 VieWRtOGE ORSAN DIEGO. CA 92123 (619) 467-4213 Augusts, 1998 Mr. Barry Jones Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 8 100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 290 La Mesa, CA 91 94 1-6452 Proposed Project Design and Biological Mitigation for the Carlsbad Raceway Project, City of Carlsbad Dear Mr. Jones: The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed your July I, 1998 letter addressed to Ms. Julie Vanderwier of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and copied to the DFG summarizing our most recent discussions concerning project design and biological mitigation for the Carlsbad Raceway Project in the City of Carlsbad. The DFG concurs that your letter accurately summarizes the results of our discussions. Our fonnal comments concerning project design and mitigation will be submitted after our review of the project's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document when it is released for public review. However, we believe that the project proponent has made a diligent effort to address our concerns regarding project design and conformance to the goals of the City's proposed Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Please note that our discussions regarding the design and mitigation of project impacts were conducted under the assumption that the HMP would be finalized and approved by the DFG and USFWS. Although we do not anticipate this situation, should the HMP not proceed to completion this may result in our need to re-evaluate these issues. If you have any question please contact David Lawhead at (619) 467-421 1 . Thank you. Sincerely, <' ' William E. Tippets Habitat Conservation Supervisor cc: Department of Fish and Game Mr. Ron Rempel o. HELIX PAGE 08/24/1333 ll:0b Mr. Barry Jones August 5, 1 998 Page Two Ms. Gai! Presley Sacramento Mr. David Lawhead San Diego U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ssrvics Ms. Sherry Barrett Ms. Julie Vanderwier Carlsbad Field Station FILE: Chrcn CRLSRCWY.LTR 08/24/1933 11:Ob 6134628552 HELIX R-WIRONMEN'AL PAGE FAX TRANSMITTAL date: August 24, 1995 to: Jon Kurtin Organization: fax number from: Subject page 1 of: job number meSS3Q6: Kurban Properties 793-7977 Barry Jones Carlsbad Raceway 3 KPMOI Letter from Cal. Dept, of Fish and Game responding to cny summary letter on the project. Still waiting from letter from the Service, although Julie Vanderwier did say that she was in agreement with my letter. Will continue to follow up. cc: Rick Dendt-Dendt Properties Hedy Levine-Hofman Planning 8100 La Mesa Blvd,t Suite 290 La Mesa, CA 91941-6452 e-mail: helix@4dcomm.com phone: (619) 462-1515 fax (619) 462-0552 X eniironmeiital planning,int. SI00 La Mesa Blvd.. Suite 290 La Mesa, CA 91941-6452 e-mail: belix@4dcomm.com fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 July 1,1998 Ms. Julie Vanderwier U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway Project. Dear Ms. Vanderwier: On behalf of Raceway Properties, LLC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and the City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final open space configuration and mitigation measures necessary to fully mitigate the Carlsbad Raceway project. The purpose of these discussions has beerj to design a project that, when implemented, will be fully consistent with the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), and will meet all of the requirements of the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. This letter summarizes the proposed project and mitigation program developed jointly with the Service, Department and City. Project Description The proposed project would develop approximately 112 of the 145 acres on site as a business park consistent with existing zoning for the property (Figure 1). Access through the site will be provided by a two lane roadway (Poinsettia Boulevard) running east-west. The City is currently reviewing the Service and Department's request to eliminate Poinsettia Blvd. through the wildlife corridor. Access onto the property will be from Business Park at the eastern end and Melrose Drive at the western end. Currently, it is uncertain whether the Project will construct Melrose Drive within the project boundaries, or whether some other funding source will be available. The Project also proposes to provide a key wildlife corridor running north- south that will help link existing open space on the Rancho Carrillo project to the south with additional open space provided along the northern portions of the site as well as off site to the north and northwest. Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design The applicant has worked closely with the Service, Department and City in the development of an open space configuration that meets the goal of providing a wildlife corridor through the project, as well as expanding existing open space off site to the north to provide for larger contiguous blocks of habitat. The resulting project design provides for a minimum corridor width of 400 feet along the eastern portion of the site, and a larger block of open space that extends off site to the north into the City of Vista. The project was further modified based on Service, Department and City input to pull back the pad area by over 100 feet at the junction where the open space veers to the west from the north-south trending portion of the corridor. As a result, approximately 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS) (50 percent), 4.7 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 15.1 acres of non-native uH-M^—SgaJsWs ,-r^^r^f^^^^^' ^-.5",— T2--2i LEGEND DCSS SWS MFS FWM SMC NNG AG DIS -D Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Freshwater Marsh Southern Mixed Chaparral Non-Native Grassland Agriculture Disturbed Habitat/Developed Indicates Disturbed Habitat Cd Ac Qa Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia) California adolphia (Adolphia California) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated 0 100 200 300 HELIX Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts CARLSBAD RACEWAY figure lifteowaiEienlal planning, inc. Letter t July 1, s. Julie Vandervvier Page 2 grassland/disturbed areas, and 3.72 acres of wetland vegetation will be preserved. Table 1 provides a summary of impacts to vegetation communities. Table 1 IMPACTS Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Willow Scrub Freshwater Marsh Mulefat Scrub Non-native Grassland Agricultural Disturbed TOTAL Total On-Site 19.2 26.3 3.42 0.77 0.18 32.6 4.7 57.83 145.0 Acres Impacted 9.6 21.6 0.37 0.15 0.13 28.0 4.7 47.3 111.85 Acres Preserved 9.6 4.7 3.05 0.62 0.05 4.6 0 10.53 33.15 In addition to on site preservation of DCSS, restoration of approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated to DCSS and approximately nine acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. The applicant has also agreed to provide a wildlife undercrossing where Melrose Drive bisects the corridor. This wildlife undercrossing shall be 12 feet high at its center with an arched design. The undercrossing will be located towards the top of the slope of the roadway. The Service and Department have also requested that Poinsettia Blvd. be removed where it bisects the corridor in the eastern portion of the site if allowable under City of Carlsbad development standards. The applicant has met with the City, and has requested that the removal of Poinsettia Blvd. from the corridor be considered in the development planning process. The City is reviewing this proposal. Because this decision is outside the control of the applicant, the removal of Poinsettia Blvd. is not currently part of the final mitigation program. The applicant will, however, make every effort to work with the City towards the elimination of this roadway through the corridor. Wetland Mitigation A total of approximately 0.48 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:1 mitigation ratio), excluding the 0.18 of streambed. Streambed impacts (Corps and Department jurisdictional) will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel (approximately 0.38 acre) running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. Exotic weeds will be eniironmental planning, in! Letter t Julyl,WTO . Julie Vanderwier Page3 removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. No other restoration is proposed in the channel. Southern willow scrub will be planted over at least 0.34 acre, and 0.14 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. An additional 0.4S acre of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the additional 0.24 acre of impacts (2:1 mitigation ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by the Department but not jurisdictional by the Corps. The restoration mitigation total for the project is 0.96 acre. If the Melrose Drive impacts are included in this project's impacts, an additional 0.5 acre of southern willow scrub would be created to mitigate these impacts. Table 2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ON THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROPERTY1 Jurisdiction ACOE wetland ACOE non- vegetated Waters of the U.S. CDFG jurisdictional areas Existing2 1.28 0.51 4.79 Melrose Drive Impacts2 . . . 0.25' Carlsbad Raceway Property Project Impacts2 0.24 0.18 0.66 Total Impacts2 0.24 0.18 0.91 Remaining2 1.04 0.33 3.88 1 Impacts are based on the Preliminary Plan dated: April 199S by O'Day Consultants 2 All figures are in acres 3 Impacted area consisted of State only jurisdictional southern willow scrub Table 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROJECT TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS1 Jurisdictional Habitat Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Streambed TOTALS Federal (acres) 0.07 0.17 0 0.18 0.42 State (acres)2 0.07 0.25 0.13 0.1S 0.66 1 Impacts are based on the Preliminary Plan dated: April 1998 by O'Day Consultants and do not include impacts from the extension of Melrose Drive :State Jurisdictional Areas include Federal Jurisdictional Areas IBS-:enmooinental planning, inc. Letter t^fefs. Julie Vandenvier ^^ Page 4 Julyl, Ws The mitigation concept is to create native wetland vegetation along the main east- west trending channel, and along the drainage entering from off site at the north- central portion of the site. Figure 2 depicts the approximate area (1.42 acres) needed for habitat creation in addition to additional areas that may be enhanced for future use as mitigation credits on other projects. Figure 2 also shows areas proposed for upland restoration and enhancement. In summary, the project will provide the following mitigation measures to mitigate both wetland and upland habitats, as well as in order to be consistent with the Draft Carlsbad HMP: • Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site. • Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on project slopes. Approximately 9.0 acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix • Provide a wildlife movement undercrossing at Melrose Drive. • Work with the City on the possible elimination of the Poinsettia Blvd. crossing of the corridor. • Create 1.42 acre of wetland habitat and 0.38 acre of streambed habitat. The project will require Incidental Take Authorization under the federal Endangered Species Act. Because of the current status of the City's HMP, the applicant will be requesting that the project be processed through the Section 10(a) process. We are requesting that you provide written confirmation that the mitigation program outlined above is consistent with the mitigation measures we have discussed regarding this project. Your immediate response would be appreciated. Sincerely, BarryH-. Jones Senior Consulting Biologist Enclosures cc: David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game Terri Dickerson, California Dept. of Fish and Game David Zoutendyk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Jon Kurtin, Raceway Properties, LLC LEGEND DCSS Diegan coastal sage scrub SWS Southern willow scrub MFS FWM SMC NNG AC DIS -D Mule fat scrub Freshwater marsh Southern mixed chapparal Non-native grassland Agriculture Disturbed habitat/developed Indicates disturbed habitat Cd Ac Qa Sc Age Pe Ce Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia) California aclolphia (Adolphia California) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Ashy-spike moss (Selaginella cinerascens) Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago erecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Owl's Clover (Castilleja exserta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Permanent impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded Potential Wetland Restoration Areas 0 100 200 300 HELIX Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas CARLSBAD RACEWAY f i jure I ^^ . ^^ City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 16, 2001 Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 1 50 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 98-10 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2001. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by July 24, 2001, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial. 1. Please submit the following plans: A) 16 copies of your (tentative map, hillside exhibits, and landscape plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 8/2' x 11" size. B) One 81/2" x 11" copy of your reduced tentative map, hillside exhibits, and landscape plans. These copies must be of a quality which is photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans. 2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form: A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls. B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us CT 98-10 - CARLSBAD mCEWAY BUSINESS PARK July 16, 2001 Page 2 apartment or suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the street address line. DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt, Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt, and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows: UNACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE Mrs. Jane Smith Mrs. Jane Smith MRS JANE SMITH 1 23 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 1 23 Magnolia Ave. APT 3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Apt. #3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE Carlsbad, CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 D) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required scale is impractical. E) Fee - a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash check (payable to the City of Carlsbad) and credit cards are accepted. Sincerely, ANNEHYSONG, ' (J Associate Planner AH:cs Attachment CT 98-10 - CARLSBlS RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK July 16, 2001 Page 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES. APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BY: DATE: RECEIVED BY DATE: City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 12, 2001 Stuart Fisk Hofinan Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92009-7317 SUBJECT: CT 98-10 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK Dear Stuart: The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of the subject tentative map. The following issues require revision. Please resubmit revised plans for final plan check immediately. Planning: 1 . The proposed open space lots will be redesignated to General Plan Open Space as part of the legislative action. Please submit a Zone Change application so that the property can also be rezoned to open space to ensure consistency with the General Plan. 2. Please submit tentative map sheets that are plotted so that each lot can be seen entirely on one sheet, or attach an exhibit at 1 00 scale that shows the entire development on one or two sheets. 3. Please correct the Assessor Parcel No.s provided on Sheet 1: 221-01 1-03;-04;-05 and 221-010-22. 4. The draft HMP corridor boundaries are not consistent with the project boundaries. This appears to have been a mistake, however, the HMP document was approved by the City Council with boundaries different than proposed. Staff will alert the wildlife agencies of this error. The applicant has agreed to reduce the pad areas by moving the lots 50' to the north. Please submit map with the new boundaries and change grading quantities. 5. The entire 400' wide corridor should be shown within Lots 27 and 28. Please put the lot lines back at the bottom of slope as previously shown to ensure that the entire corridor is a part of the open space lots on each side of the road. This will also ensure that the entire corridor falls under the responsibility of a separate entity to manage and maintain at some point in the future. 6. Please rotate the Lot 13-14 property line a minimum of 75 feet to the west so that a minimum of 150' of frontage is provided to somewhat normalize the lot configuration. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 CT 98-10 - CARLSBAD RwAY BUSINESS PARK JULY 12, 2001 PAGE 2 _ 7. On Sheet 8, remove the 14 lot number from the corner of Lot 28. 8. Landscape plan check comments were submitted to Hofrnan Planning on June 14, 2001 for review and correction by biologist, Barry Jones, and Landscape Architect, Ron Teshima. The landscape plan should be resubmitted immediately for plan check. 9. Please identify on the Tentative Map a 30' fire suppression zone from the top of slope for all lots abutting the habitat corridor where manufactured slopes are being revegetated with native species. Since the P-M Zone setback standard only requires 10' of the 30' to be landscaped, the type of vegetation permitted in Zone A-2 for manufactured slopes should be proposed. 10. Add a note indicating what the ** represent on the lot area table on Sheet 2. Engineering: 1 . Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner prior to public hearing. 2. The NPDES preliminary SWPP needs to be resubmitted in its final form. 3. The driveway locations need to be corrected as discussed with Tim Carroll, O'Day Consultants. 4. Lot 13 needs to be merged/removed or redesigned per discussion above. If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ANNEHYSONG Associate Planner c: Chris DeCerbo Clyde Wickham Glen Van Peski File Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis RECEIVED M 2001MavlO.2001 ' CITY OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT. Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA Subject: Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98- 1 0) - Resubmittal of Plans Dear Anne: Attached is the revised Tentative Map for the Carlsbad Raceway. We believe that all of the Tentative Map issues listed in your issues letter dated March 8, 2001 have been addressed as described below: PLANNING: 1 . Gnatcatcher and Thornmint Surveys - Per your request, gnatcatcher and thornmint surveys were recently completed and submitted to you. 2. NPDES - O'Day has submitted a revised NPDES plan and added notes and symbols to the Tentative Map in relation to the NPDES plan. Clyde Wickham has informed me that he has reviewed the revised NPDES plan and that although it is close to what he wants to see, he does have a few more comments. We are currently trying to get a meeting set up between Clyde, Glen Van Pesky and Tim Carroll so that the remaining NPDES issues can be resolved. HPA will provide you with draft mitigation text once all of the Engineering Department's issues have been resolved. 3. Traffic Report - Per discussions with Susan O'Rourke, Susan determined that the traffic report for this project is adequate and she will submit a letter to the Engineering Department confirming the adequacy of the traffic study by Monday, May 14, 2001. 4. Photo Simulation - We are aware that a photo simulation must be provided in order to address the aesthetics section of the EIA. Per previous discussions with you, we had been waiting to have the photo simulation prepared until we had come to an agreement on the grading for the site. Since grading issues have been worked out, Davis Partners is currently 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 seeking proposals for the photo simulation on behalf of both the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum, which we will submit as soon as possible. 5. Redlined Landscape Plan Check Print - The landscape plans are currently being revised to address the comments on the redlined landscape plan check print. Teshima is scheduled to have this plan revised and submitted by Monday, May 14, 2001. ENGINEERING: 1. Driveway Spacing - As requested, the Tentative Map has been revised so that all medium and high use driveways meet the 300 foot spacing requirement. Joint use driveways have been used where feasible. 2. Access to Parcel B PM 15413 - As requested, we have contacted the City of Vista and are in the process of obtaining a letter signed that states that indicates that existing access for the parcel is adequate and no additional access is desirable. 3. Southerly Property Line - Per previous discussions, the subdivision boundary is shown at the top of slope. A lot line adjustment will be processed concurrent with the Final Map. The lot line adjustment will be recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map per our telephone conversation (between you, Tim Carroll Bill Hofman and I) on May 7, 2001. 4. Tentative Map Signatures - As requested, the Tentative Map will be signed by the Owner prior to public hearing. 5. Letters of Permission to Grade - A letter of permission to grade between Davis Partners and Kurtin Properties has been sent to Lloyd Hubbs by Larry Nelson. After discussing this letter with Larry Nelson, it was decided that the letter will be revised to be more specific. This letter is expected to be submitted next week. Letters for permission to grade for areas located to the north and ease of the project have not been secured, however, negotiations are in progress. As we discussed, for these areas we will submit a letter to you which will explain where we are in the negotiation process and will list the persons the negotiations have been taking place with. 6. Redlined Check Print - As requested, the redline comments are included with this resubmittal. 7. Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit - To be addressed by NPDES plan. O'Day has submitted a revised NPDES plan and added notes and symbols to the Tentative Map in relation to the NPDES plan. Per our discussion, although the revised plan is close to what you want to see, you do have a few more comments. We are currently trying to get a meeting set up between with you, Glen Van Pesky and Tim Carroll so that the remaining NPDES issues can be resolved. We hope that the revisions as described above address your concerns. If you have any questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465. Sincerely, Stuart Fisk cc. Clyde Wickham Jon Krutin Bill Hofman Tim Carroll City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 8, 2001 Mr. Stuart Fisk Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 00-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY Dear Stuart: Pursuant to our meetings regarding the subject project, this correspondence documents the following items/issues discussed during our meetings that still require completion/resolution prior to performing environmental review and/or scheduling the subject project for a public hearing: 1. To enable completion of the environmental impact assessment for this project, I have been advised by Jon Martin at USFWS that completion of the gnatcatcher survey and probably the San Diego Thornmint survey will be required to assess potential impacts of these species. 2. The proposed NPDES analysis and mitigation is inadequate to make a determination that a potentially significant impact will not result from the project. To enable completion of the water quality section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, please submit the following information (please refer to the attached letter from the RWQCB outlining their requirements for environmental review of the Calavera Hills project and to engineering comments provided below): • Impacts: Please prepare and submit a report that addresses the questions posed in the letter under water quality, beneficial uses, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts. • Mitigation: a phased NPDES plan must be submitted that addresses compliance with newly adopted California RWQCB water quality standards (Order No. 2001-01 SDRWQCB). This phased plan must include mitigation for each lot during the grading operation, post grading condition, and developed condition. 3. To enable completion of the circulation section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, an adequate traffic study is required that determines the mitigation measures necessary for the project. Confirmation that the traffic reported submitted on March 2, 2001 is adequate has not yet been received. 4. The aesthetics section of the environmental impact assessment must address the impact to Melrose Drive. The photo simulation previously requested by staff will assist in addressing that issue. 5. Please review the attached redlined landscape plan check print and revise plans as requested. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 6O2-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ClPB-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 00-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY MARCH 8, 2001 PAGE 2 Engineering: 1. Proposed driveways need to meet City standards for spacing. Standards require that all medium and high use driveways meet intersection spacing requirements, or 300 feet. City standards also require that joint use driveways shall be used wherever feasible. 2. Provide access to offsite Parcel B PM 15413 from Lot 13, or provide letter from City of Vista indicating that existing access for the parcel is adequate and no additional access is desirable. 3. Add note to tentative map that the southerly property line will be adjusted to the top of the final slope. Show the top of the slope as the subdivision boundary. Annotate the existing property line as *to be relocated by lot line adjustment prior to submittal of final map.* 4. Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner prior to scheduling for public hearing. 5. Letters of permission to grade for proposed offsite grading will be required prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. The applicant will be conditioned to provide recorded temporary construction easements prior to issuance of grading permit. A letter of permission is needed from the owner of Palomar Forum, since the Raceway tentative map shows grading on that property. 6. Additional minor comments are provided on a copy of the tentative map. Please return redlined check print with your next submittal. 7. The proposed project is within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which is classified as impaired waters due to the following 303(d) pollutants of concern: • Coliform bacteria • Nutrients • Sediment The proposed project qualifies under several Priority Development Project Categories listed in Order 2001-01 ("Permit") of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The permit identifies as priorities: • Commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet. • All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet (development on slopes of 25% or greater). • All development located directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an environmentally sensitive area. • Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more. • Street, roads, highways and freeways of 5,000 square feet or more. The structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be designed "...close to pollutant sources, when feasible, and prior to discharging into receiving waters supporting beneficial uses" BMPs to treat the "first flush" of runoff are only effective if they are located prior to discharge into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4). In the case of larger, "end of pipe" treatments, by the time the first flush arrives at the basin, the basin will be full of "non-first-flush" flows from closer subareas of the drainage area. Staff realizes that final design of structural BMPs is premature at tentative map stage. However, since structural BMPs require either area (sand filters, vegetated filter strips, extended detention ponds), or some cost and design considerations (Vortechs®, Baykeeper®, Downstream GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CWB-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 00-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY MARCH 8, 2001 PAGE 3 Defender®), clear notification must be provided on the tentative map. Since there is no EIR for this project to list mitigation conditions, required mitigation at a conceptual level must be reflected on the tentative map. Staff is ready to meet with you to review and discuss your proposed symbols, annotation and notes, to assist you in mitigating the impact of water quality and avoiding a environmental impact report. If you have any questions regarding the above issues, please contact me at (760) 602-4622. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG Associate Planner Attachments Chris DeCerbo Jon Kurtin, Kurtin Properties Glen Van Peski Clyde Wickham City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 8, 2001 Mr. Stuart Fisk Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 00-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY Dear Stuart: Pursuant to our meetings regarding the subject project, this correspondence documents the following items/issues discussed during our meetings that still require completion/resolution prior to performing environmental review and/or scheduling the subject project for a public hearing: 1. To enable completion of the environmental impact assessment for this project, I have been advised by Jon Martin at USFWS that completion of the gnatcatcher survey and probably the San Diego Thornmint survey will be required to assess potential impacts of these species. 2. The proposed NPDES analysis and mitigation is inadequate to make a determination that a potentially significant impact will not result from the project. To enable completion of the water quality section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, please submit the following information (please refer to the attached letter from the RWQCB outlining their requirements for environmental review of the Calavera Hills project and to engineering comments provided below): • Impacts: Please prepare and submit a report that addresses the questions posed in the letter under water quality, beneficial uses, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts. • Mitigation: a phased NPDES plan must be submitted that addresses compliance with newly adopted California RWQCB water quality standards (Order No. 2001-01 SDRWQCB). This phased plan must include mitigation for each lot during the grading operation, post grading condition, and developed condition. 3. To enable completion of the circulation section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, an adequate traffic study is required that determines the mitigation measures necessary for the project. Confirmation that the traffic reported submitted on March 2, 2001 is adequate has not yet been received. 4. The aesthetics section of the environmental impact assessment must address the impact to Melrose Drive. The photo simulation previously requested by staff will assist in addressing that issue. 5. Please review the attached redlined landscape plan check print and revise plans as requested. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/C^fs-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 00-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY MARCH 8, 2001 PAGE 2 Engineering: 1. Proposed driveways need to meet City standards for spacing. Standards require that all medium and high use driveways meet intersection spacing requirements, or 300 feet. City standards also require that joint use driveways shall be used wherever feasible. 2. Provide access to offsite Parcel B PM 15413 from Lot 13, or provide letter from City of Vista indicating that existing access for the parcel is adequate and no additional access is desirable. 3. Add note to tentative map that the southerly property line will be adjusted to the top of the final slope. Show the top of the slope as the subdivision boundary. Annotate the existing property line as *to be relocated by lot line adjustment prior to submittal of final map.* 4. Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner prior to scheduling for public hearing. 5. Letters of permission to grade for proposed offsite grading will be required prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. The applicant will be conditioned to provide recorded temporary construction easements prior to issuance of grading permit. A letter of permission is needed from the owner of Palomar Forum, since the Raceway tentative map shows grading on that property. 6. Additional minor comments are provided on a copy of the tentative map. Please return redlined check print with your next submittal. 7. The proposed project is within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which is classified as impaired waters due to the following 303(d) pollutants of concern: • Coliform bacteria • Nutrients • Sediment The proposed project qualifies under several Priority Development Project Categories listed in Order 2001-01 ("Permit") of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The permit identifies as priorities: • Commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet. • All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet (development on slopes of 25% or greater). • All development located directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an environmentally sensitive area. • Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more. • Street, roads, highways and freeways of 5,000 square feet or more. The structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be designed "...close to pollutant sources, when feasible, and prior to discharging into receiving waters supporting beneficial uses." BMPs to treat the "first flush" of runoff are only effective if they are located prior to discharge into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4). In the case of larger, "end of pipe" treatments, by the time the first flush arrives at the basin, the basin will be full of "non-first-flush" flows from closer subareas of the drainage area. Staff realizes that final design of structural BMPs is premature at tentative map stage. However, since structural BMPs require either area (sand filters, vegetated filter strips, extended detention ponds), or some cost and design considerations (Vortechs®, Baykeeper®, Downstream GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CSP8-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 00-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY MARCH 8, 2001 PAGE 3 Defender®), clear notification must be provided on the tentative map. Since there is no EIR for this project to list mitigation conditions, required mitigation at a conceptual level must be reflected on the tentative map. Staff is ready to meet with you to review and discuss your proposed symbols, annotation and notes, to assist you in mitigating the impact of water quality and avoiding a environmental impact report. If you have any questions regarding the above issues, please contact me at (760) 602-4622. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG Associate Planner Attachments Chris DeCerbo Jon Kurtin, Kurtin Properties Glen Van Peski Clyde Wickham City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 8, 2001 Mr. Stuart Fisk Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 00-03 - PALOMAR FORUM Dear Stuart: Pursuant to our meetings regarding the subject project, this correspondence documents the following items/issues discussed during our meetings that still require completion/resolution prior to performing environmental review and/or scheduling the subject project for a public hearing: 1. In our October 31, 2000 correspondence, staff requested that plans be revised to incorporate the alternative grading design submitted by O'Day. Additionally, staff requested that the applicant explore a grading design on Lot 12 to eliminate the slopes to enable an enhanced entry statement into the industrial area. None of the above was shown on your revised plans. Staff was advised that some effort was made to contact the owners of Carlsbad Oaks Lots 33 and 34; however, no evidence of this was provided. The property owner's name and address has been provided to staff at our request so that we can contact the owner with a proposed grading design. While staff will assist you in this effort, it should be recognized that efforts by City staff to acquire agreement from the adjacent property owner will lengthen processing time. As a result of my phone conversation with Bill Hofman, we have agreed to provide a grading design schematic prepared by Glen Van Peski to present to the adjacent property owner. Bill Hofman will schedule a meeting to be attended by the applicant, adjacent property owner, and City staff. 2. Because each project must stand alone, please provide separate impact analysis and mitigation plan for offsite improvements including Melrose Drive, the reclaimed water line, water and sewer, and an all weather access road. 3. The proposed NPDES analysis and mitigation is inadequate to make a determination that a potentially significant impact will not result from the project. To enable completion of the water I quality section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, please submit the ' following information (please refer to the attached letter from the RWQCB outlining their requirements for environmental review of the Calavera Hills project and to engineering comments provided below): • Impacts: Please prepare and submit a report that addresses the questions posed in the letter under water quality, beneficial uses, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts. • Mitigation: a phased NPDES plan must be submitted that addresses compliance with newly adopted California RWQCB water quality standards (Order No. 2001-01 SDRWQCB). This phased plan must include mitigation for each lot during the grading operation, post grading condition, and developed condition. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 6O2-4600 • FAX (760) 6O2-8559 CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 00-0>ALOMAR FORUM MARCH 8, 2001 PAGE 2 4. To enable completion of the biology section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, I have been advised by Jon Martin at USFWS that completion of the gnatcatcher survey will be required to assess potential impacts of these species. 5. To enable completion of the circulation section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, an adequate traffic study is required that determines the mitigation measures necessary for the project. Confirmation that the traffic reported submitted on March 2, 2001 is adequate, has not yet been received. 6. The aesthetics section of the environmental impact assessment must address the impact to Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive. The photo simulation previously requested by staff will assist in addressing that issue. As we agreed at our February 14, 2001 meeting, the hillside compliant grades on should be used for the simulation. 7. Please review the attached redlined landscape plan check print and revise plans as requested. Landscape plans should include the Lot 12 enhanced landscape plan treatment including passive recreational use area, water feature, signage, and trail signage. Please address the request for dense screening along Palomar Airport Road as requested and incorporate the screening into the photo simulation. Engineering: 1. The proposed grading or "notch roadway" should match the gradual terrain from the south. The proposed 2:1 slope on the south side of Poinsettia Avenue shall be reduced to less that 5:1 and shall be revegetated as directed by USFWS. 2. The proposed animal crossing arch pipe must remain above 100 year flood elevation with a minimum of 2' freeboard. 3. Add note to tentative map that the southerly property line will be adjusted to the top of the final slope. Show the top of the slope as the subdivision boundary. Annotate the existing property line as to be relocated by lot line adjustment prior to submittal of final map. 4. Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner prior to public hearing. 5. The landscape plan should include sight distance lines. 6. Project depends on Carlsbad Raceway Business Park CT 98-10 for sewer, water and storm drain. Project will be conditioned to construct offsite facilities as necessary to provide service. The tentative map needs to show alignment and grade of offsite sewer, water, reclaimed water and storm drain necessary for the Forum to be a stand-alone project. 7. Cut back slopes as required at intersections and driveways to provide sight distance per City standards. 8. Tentative map needs to reflect enough reclaimed water lines to provide irrigation for major slopes. 9. These comments have been redlined on a copy of the tentative map where appropriate. The applicant should return this redlined print with the next submittal. CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 00-clwALOMAR FORUM MARCH 8, 2001 PAGE 3 ; 10. We have completed our review of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) study prepared by O'Day Consultants for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. In our opinion, the impacts of the proposed development on water quality have not been adequately addressed. 11. The proposed project is within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which is classified as impaired waters due to the following 303(d) pollutants of concern: • Coliform bacteria • Nutrients • Sediment The proposed project qualifies under several Priority Development Project Categories listed in Order 2001-01 ("Permit") of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The permit identifies as priorities: • Commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet. • All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet (development on slopes of 25% or greater). . • All development located directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an environmentally sensitive area. • Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more. • Street, roads, highways and freeways of 5,000 square feet or more. The structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be designed "...close to pollutant sources, when feasible, and prior to discharging into receiving waters supporting beneficial uses." BMPs to treat the "first flush" of runoff are only effective if they are located prior to discharge into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4). In the case of larger, "end of pipe" treatments, by the time the first flush arrives at the basin, the basin will be full of "non-first-flush" flows from closer subareas of the drainage area. Staff realizes that final design of structural BMPs is premature at tentative map stage. However, since structural BMPs require either area (sand filters, vegetated filter strips, extended detention ponds), or some cost and design considerations (Vortechs®, Baykeeper®, Downstream Defender®), clear notification must be provided on the tentative map. Since there is no EIR for this project to list mitigation conditions, required mitigation at a conceptual level must be reflected on the tentative map. Staff is ready to meet with you to review and discuss your proposed symbols, annotation and notes, to assist you in mitigating the impact of water quality and avoiding a environmental impact report. If you have any questions regarding the above issues, please contact me at (760) 602-4622. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG, Associate Planner Attachments Chris DeCerbo Bob Emri, Professors Capital Glen Van Peski Clyde Wickham i. .City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 31,2000 Stuart Fisk Herman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY Dear Stuart: The Planning, Engineering, and Fire Departments have completed their review of your project submittal and offer the following comments regarding the_ remaining issues of concern for this project. Planning: 1. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan is currently being reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments. Comments will be forwarded under separate cover. 2. It has come to staffs attention that industrial subdivisions in the P-M zone require processing of a Planned Industrial Permit along with the subdivision map. Please submit an application for a Planned Industrial Permit for this project. 3. The proposed grading alternative is a preferable design to the proposed tentative map in that slopes are lowered to an acceptable level. Please address the following issues: • Please propose undulating slopes and identify their location. • Since no discussion is provided regarding the feasibility of providing utilities to these lots, it is assumed that they can be provided in a manner acceptable to the City (within Street B). If this is not the case, it appears that lots south of Poinsettia can be lowered and lots north of Poinsettia can be raised to enable provision of utilities while still complying with hillside slope height regulations. • This alternative proposal includes panhandle lots which are not permitted by the P-M zoning ordinance; therefore, either combine the panhandle lots with the frontage lot or propose a non-residential planned development. • To enable reduced slope heights along Melrose Drive, please lower the grade along the western side of the roadway (Lot 23) to be consistent with the proposed Melrose Drive elevation. This can be achieved through acquiring permission to remove the slope (offsite) separating the Carlsbad Oaks East lots abutting Lot 23. • In all instances where slopes are proposed on Open Space Lot 25 to achieve grades on abutting lots, please revise the grading design so that slopes are on those abutting lots. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-lsAcT 98-10/HDP 98-09 - CARLSBAD October 31,2000 Page 2 4. Please review the attached letter from NCTD regarding future bus stop locations and design plans in accordance with their request 5. As previously requested, please submit an exhibit which clearly identifies the location of the proposed contour grades (i.e., transition from 2:1 to 3:1 or 4:1 slopes). 6. The hillside exhibit prepared to illustrate what the development would look like under strict adherence to hillside regulations includes grading of 40% slopes. Disturbance to areas of 40% slope should be excluded from this grading proposal. Areas of 40% slope that are less than 15' in height and 10,000 square feet are excluded from this requirement. 7. Staff is still awaiting a determination as to whether the Poinsettia corridor crossing (through street) is required to ensure acceptable levels of service at all intersections. The environmental analysis to be submitted to the wildlife agencies must include this information. 8. Landscape plans: Please respond to landscape comments by Larry Black on the enclosed red lined check print. Per his request, please provide landscaping within the front and side setback of each lot and be aware that the CC&Rs for this project will be required to include a provision for the association to maintain the landscaping within the front setback (30' on local streets and 50' on Melrose Drive), side yard setbacks, and rear manufactured slopes to ensure landscape maintenance. Additionally, please remove sign locations from the landscape plans. 9. An associated landscape issue is that according to the biological mitigation plan submitted to the City, the manufactured slope areas are to be revegetated with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). Landscaping is proposed on these slopes, however, the species proposed are not DCSS habitat. Please define and note on the landscape plans the areas proposed to be revegetated. A revegetation plan will be required prior to grading permit. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover proposed adjacent to the revegetated area should be non-invasive. 10. The information requested in the following Engineering issues, Item 1, will be required to make a determination that the proposed pollutant treatment method is adequate to avoid a potentially significant environmental impact.The photo simulation requested in previous correspondence will still be necessary, however, pad grades and landscaping should be agreed upon prior to its preparation. Engineering: 1. This project will contain significant amounts of impervious area. An NPDES analysis should be submitted that identifies anticipated pollutants based on anticipated uses, evaluates the most effective treatment method for removal of the anticipated pollutants, calculates preliminary sizing for the treatment structures, and shows specific or typical layouts. Staff is concerned that proposed basins are too far downstream of furthest impervious area to be effective. Proposed pollution control measures need to be analyzed as referenced above. Applicant should research and reference latest staff report and municipal permit from San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. Please include a summary of the anticipated traffic generation on the tentative map for reference. GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18^^7 98-10/HDP 98-09 - CARLSBAD IWEWAY October 31, 2000 Page 3 _ 3. Proposed driveways need to meet City standards for spacing, both from street intersections and from each other. Show distances between driveways on tentative map. 4. Provide access to offsite Parcel B PM 15413 from Lot 13. Show conceptual easement location and note on tentative map. 5. Provide justification for Melrose Drive grade of over 6% through intersection with "B" Street- 6. Provide justification for intersection of "B" Street and Melrose Drive not being perpendicular. 7. Clarify ownership of utility lines (i.e. sewer and water). 8. Provide access per City standards to all proposed detention basins if they are intended to be permanent facilities. Access to include sufficient turning radii and incorporate turnarounds where required by standards. 9. The southerly property line needs to be either at the top of the final slope, or the Palomar Forum project will have to construct a terrace drain along property line to prevent cross-lot drainage. 10. Show cut/fill lines to allow analysis of proposed grading. 1 1 . Show how lots 1 7 - 22 are provided sewer service. 12. Hillside Development Ordinance requires undulation of slopes. Show undulation, plot 10- foot contours on slopes to clearly show the contour grading. 13. If available, provide "mass excavation diagram" showing depths of cut/fill throughout project on a detailed grid, color-keyed if possible. 14. North of lot 14, show slope protection at toe of slope to protect sewer line, or provide hydrology calculations demonstrating that no erosion protection is necessary. 15. Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner. 16. Circulation impacts may require phasing of building permits, with only a certain number of ADT allowed before construction of Faraday offsite. This issue will be addressed when the traffic report has been completed. 17. Indicate disposition of existing easements on sheet 2 i.e. "to be abandoned", "to be quitclaimed", etc. There appear to be a number of easements to private parties that will have to be quitclaimed prior to development. 18. Provide letters of permission to grade for proposed offsite grading shown. 19. On HDP exhibit, explain how sewer service will be provided to lots 17-22. Adjust property line to be at top of slope, or adjust slope or provide terrace drain along southerly boundary. The design shown on the exhibit appears to address a number of concerns such as grading GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(^bl 98-10/HDP 98-09 - CARLSBAD R.WEWAY October 31,2000 - Page 4 quantities and slope heights. Revise tentative map to reflect this design, or provide justification for not meeting Hillside Development Permit requirements. 20. Additional comments are provided on a copy of the tentative map and the HDP Exhibit, attached. Fire; 1. Relocate proposed fire hydrants on lots 8, 10 and 12 to points adjacent to proposed driveway aprons. 2. The use or storage of toxic or acutely hazardous materials will be prohibited on any proposed lots that lie within 1000 feet of off-site residential land uses. If you have any questions please give me a call at (760) 602-4622. Sincerely, Anne Hysong (J \j Associate Planner AH:cs 4 City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 25, 1999 Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(8) - CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. Although the traffic report requested from you earlier to make your General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, Tentative Map, and Hillside Development Permit, applications complete has not been received and reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the traffic report incomplete items discussed in our October 8, 1998 letter will now be considered issues requiring resolution prior to a Planning Commission hearing. The tentative map and hillside development permit, applications no. CT 98-10 and HDP 98-09, will not be formally deemed complete until the legislative actions, i.e., General Plan Amendment and Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, are approved. It has been determined that the subject applications are now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:AH:vd Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers Ken Quon, Project Engineer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Raceway Properties LLC % Kurtin Properties 12750 Carmel Country Road, Suite 204 San Diego, CA 92130 Planning Aide 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis January 30, 2001 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Grading for the Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98-10/HDP 98-09) Dear Anne: This letter is in response to grading issues listed in your letter dated October 31, 2000 for the Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98-10/HDP 98-09). One of the issues was based on the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and concerned potential grading of slopes that are 40% or greater. Your letter stated that the proposed grading alternative is a preferable design to the proposed tentative map. However, Section 21.95.120.B.l.d (Hillside Development and Design Standards) of the Municipal Code provides exemptions to the grading of slopes based on the prominence of the land forms, slope elevation differential and preservation of open space. This section states that natural slopes which have all of the following characteristics shall be undevelopable: a. A gradient of greater than forty percent; and b. An elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet; and c. A minimum area of ten thousand square feet; and d. The slope comprises a prominent land form feature. While there are some natural gradients on the property that are greater than 40%, most of these gradients have an elevation differential of less than fifteen feet. There are only a few natural slopes comprising a minimum area often thousand square feet, and as shown by the Hillside Development Permit and Constraints exhibits previously submitted to the City, 43.6% of the site has been previously graded to accommodate the raceway, parking and roads. Many of the natural slopes have been disturbed and degraded by racing activities. Furthermore, none of the sl.opes on the Carlsbad Raceway property comprise prominent land forms. All of the 40% slopes on this property are down slope from all public viewing angles, essentially placing the slopes in a hole that is not generally visible and certainly not prominent. Thus, none of the slopes on this property are considered undevelopable per Section 21.95.120.B.l.d of the City of Carlsbad's Hillside Development Regulations. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443 / i Additionally, contrary to City policy the grading as shown on the HDP exhibit would require "off- street" sewer for the lots along the northern property boundaries of both the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects since the lots in these areas, under this plan, would sit at an elevation much lower than the streets that front the lots. With the grading as proposed on the tentative map, all of the lots would be able to sewer to a system within the proposed streets (please O'Day Consultant's attachment to the redline check print that accompanies the January 30, 2001 resubmittal for details on how sewer is provided for the proposed Tentative Map). We hope that this addresses your concerns regarding the proposed grading. As stated in the letter for the Palomar Forum, we believe that the proposed grading is no different from that approved for other industrial projects in the City and that the Hillside Development Ordinance provides for exemptions for industrial projects because the City has recognized that industrial developments need large, flat pads. If you have any questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465. Sincerely, Stuart Fisk cc. Clyde Wickham Bob Emri Tim Carroll Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis January 30, 2001 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98-10) - Response to October 31, 2000 Issues Letter Dear Ms. Hysong: The following addresses the incomplete items and issues of concern for the Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98-10) as listed in your letter dated October 31, 2000: PLANNING ISSUES OF CONCERN: 1 . We understand that the Zone 1 8 LFMP is currently being reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments and we are awaiting review comments. 2. You stated in your letter that it had come to staffs attention that a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) would be required along with the subdivision map. Per our telephone conversation, the PIP for this application will not address floor plans or elevations. With the development of each lot, a new PIP will be processed for the review of the floor plans and elevations, however, the PIP for the tentative map (CT 99-06) will not have to be amended. The tentative map has been revised to show the information required for the PIP application. We have started to prepare the PIP application and will submit it shortly. 3. • 10 foot contours have been added to the slopes and the slopes along Melrose Drive are shown as varying and undulating. • Lowering lots south of Poinsettia and raising lots north of Poinsettia creates problems with sewer, which would have to be provided "off-street". Please see the grading justification letter for further discussion of this issue. • As proposed, panhandle lots are not included in the project. • Reducing the slope on Lot 23 would require extensive grading into off-site property. The property owner has had conversations with the owner of Carlsbad Oaks East, however, this property owner was not interested in allowing for grading onto their property. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 « Fax: (760)438-2443 • In all instances where slopes were prosed on Open Space Lot 25, the plans have been revised so that the slopes are on the abutting lots. Lot lines were adjusted and open space easements will be recorded to achieve this. 4. Bus stops have been added to the plans as requested in the NCTD letter dated July 26, 2000. 5. As requested, a colored exhibit showing the undulation of slopes is included with this resubmittal and 10' contours have been added to the Tentative Map. 6. Please refer to the grading justification letter, which accompanies the resubmitted plan sets, for an explanation of the proposed grading. 7. The traffic studies prepared by Urban Systems Associates have indicated that the Poinsettia corridor crossing (through street) will not be required to ensure acceptable levels of service at all intersections. However, as requested by the applicant, the revised plans utilize a through street. : 8. The landscape plans which accompany this resubmittal have been revised to address Larry Black's landscape comments. 9. A note has been added to the landscape plans for DCSS hydroseeding mix and calling out where the use of this mix will occur. 10. An NPDES analysis is included with this resubmittal. It has been our understanding that the photo simulation is required for lots along Palomar Airport R'oad, which is relevant to the Palomar Forum, but not to the Raceway. ENGINEERING ISSUES OF CONCERN: 1. An NPDES analysis is included with this resubmittal. 2. As requested, the anticipated average daily traffic for the project has been added to the tentative map cover sheet 3. All but one of the proposed driveways meet City standards for spacing. Per the applicant's request, we will be requesting a variance for the driveway spacing at lot 11. Distances between driveways have been added to the tentative map. 4. Parcel B of PM 15413, which is located within the City of Vista, already has access (a curb cut) from the existing portion of Poinsettia Avenue. The Raceway property owners are negotiating grading and a revised access point with the Parcel B owners. However, these discussions are in the preliminary stages at this time. Therefore, for the time being the access to this site has not been changed on the tentative map. 5. The grade of over 6% for Melrose Drive through the intersection with Street "B" is in accordance with the Rick Engineering plan for Melrose Drive, which is the plan that the City directed O'Day Consultants to use. 6. As proposed, Street "B" is within 6 degrees of being perpendicular to Melrose Drive. This is well within the City standards which allow for being within 10 degrees of perpendicular. This design optimizes the land use for this area between open space and pad area. 7. As requested, notes have been added to the Tentative Map to clarify ownership of utility lines. 8. As shown on the tentative map, "Proposed Temporary Desilt Basin W/Riser & S.D. Outlet" are temporary detention basins which areinot intended to be permanent facilities. 9. A lot line adjustment will be processed concurrent with the final map to place the property line at the top of slope. Per Clyde Wickham's request, the lot line adjustment will be shown on the tentative map (although it is not shown on the plans for this resubmittal) with a note stating that the lot line adjustment will be processed with the final map. 10. As requested, cut/fill lines have been added to the tentative map. 11. Please see the exhibit accompanying this resubmittal which shows how sewer service will be provided for lots 17-22. 12. The undulation of slopes is shown on the color exhibit which accompanies this resubmittal. The Tentative Map also shows the undulation of slopes and 10' contours. 13. As requested, a "mass excavation diagram" showing depths of cut/fill throughout the project on a color-keyed detailed grid is provided with this resubmittal. 14. Please see Section C-C of the Tentative Map regarding slope protection at the toe of slope for protection of the sewer line. 15. If it does not create significant issues, the preference is to wait to sign the tentative map until revisions to the map have been completed (i.e., prior to the Planning Commission hearing). 16. It has been our understanding that building permit phasing will not be required. If necessary, we can discuss this matter after the Engineering Department has completed their review of the latest traffic study (dated December 19, 2000). 17. As requested, a "disposition" column has been added to the easement table on sheet 2 of the tentative map to indicate which easements will be quitclaimed and which will remain. 18. The property owners are currently in the process of obtaining letters of permission to grade for proposed off-site grading and we will submit these letters to you as soon as they become available to us. 19. Strict adherence to the Hillside Development Ordinance (as shown on the HDP exhibit) would require additional "off-street" sewer for the lots along the northerly boundaries of both the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum. A lot line adjustment will be processed concurrent with the final map for this project to place the property line at the top of slope. As noted above, the lot line adjustment is not shown on the plans for this resubmittal but will be shown on future resubmittals. Please see the grading justification letter which accompanies this resubmittal for further discussion of the grading. 20. Revisions have been made per the comments provided on the copy of the previously submitted tentative maps. FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUES OF CONCERN: 1. The fire hydrants on lots 8, 10 and 12 have been relocated to points adjacent to proposed driveway aprons. 2. It has been noted that use or storage of toxic or acutely hazardous materials will be restricted when proposed building pads lie within 1,000 feet of residential laad uses. Hopefully we understood your concerns and have made significant progress toward addressing those concerns through these revisions and plan justification explanations. cc. Clyde Wickham Bob Emri Tim Carroll Bill Hofman 26,2000 Anne Hysong Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park (CT98-10/GPA98-05) Dear Mrs. Hysong The North County Transit District (NCTD) has reviewed the above referenced project and has the following comments: Existing Bus Service o NCTD bus route 344 provides hourly service Monday - Friday from 5:35am- 9:30pm and weekend service from 5:45am-9:30pm. Route 344 provides fixed route bus service from the Poinsettia Coaster Station, in Carlsbad to Palomar College in San Marcos, while providing service to Legoland and some of the business parks along the Palomar Airport corridor. Future Bus Service As you may already be aware, NCTD is in the middle of a major service plan for the North County Region. At this point in time, the study has developed two conceptual service scenarios, one for FY 2001-2002 and the other for FY 2005- 2015. You can view these service scenarios on NCTD's web page at: www.gonctd.com. As shown in the FY 2005-2015 service scenario, we are planning to have additional bus service in the area of the proposed Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. Though the plan does not currently show service penetrating the proposed Business Park, it is likely that actual service will. Part of the reason for which service is not show penetrating the proposed Business Park, in the service plan, is because current street maps do not show any existing street network at that location. WOETH COUWTV TRANSIT 01STSIO 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 920S4 760-967-2828 Street Patterns This project will complete the extension of Melrose Ave. from the Park Center Drive to Palomar Airport Road. By completing this extension, it will allow NCTD to research alternative ways to service the business corridor of eastern Carlsbad. Requested Bus Stop Improvement locations 1) On Melrose northbound farside of street "B" and southbound farside of street "B" 2) On street "B" (Please see attached map) > The above bus stops must provide a 10'-0" deep from face of curb by 15'- 0" boarding pad that meets ADA standards. The purpose of providing a boarding pad at these dimensions is so that if future ridership warrants the need for a bus stop shelter or bench, at the said locations, there will be sufficient space to provide one. Consideration for a bus stop turnout > Bus parking in the curb lane is prohibited. > Traffic in the curb lane exceeds 250 vehicles during peak hours. > Passenger volumes exceed 20 boardings an hour. > Traffic speed is greater than 45 mph. > Recurring accident patterns Sidewalks Being able to access transit stops by foot is one of the major factors in determining if some one will ride transit or not. Knowing this, it is important that this business park provide connecting sidewalks to allow for pedestrians to freely access transit stops from their place of work. It should also be assumed that by providing sidewalks, which future employees at this location could potentially take walks a lunch and during breaks. Relating to sidewalks are pedestrian crosswalks. Crosswalks should be provided at location where pedestrians can safely cross the street. It is preferable that these crosswalks are guarded with signalized intersections or stop signs. Signalized Intersections NCTD recommends that the intersection of Melrose and Palomar Airport Road be signalized. The reason for this is three-fold 1) it will help reduce the risk of auto, bus and pedestrian conflict; 2) it will allow buses and autos to make safe left hand turns from Melrose Ave on to Palomar Airport Road; 3) it will allow buses and autos to make a safe left hand turn from Palomar Airport Road onto Melrose Ave. NCTD would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this development. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (760) 967- 2859 or email me at mdaney@nctd.org Sincerely, Michael B. Daney Assistant Transportation Planner SSr^fW^ y-w••' / .•••»»'•" / /J M ;''' ,••.•• !,i i i i> ! City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 11, 2000 Mr. Jack Koerper San Diego Association of Governments Suite 800 401 "B" Street San Diego CA 92101 SUBJECT: CT 98-10 CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK - COMPLIANCE WITH PALOMAR AIRPORT C.L.U.P. The subject project is enclosed for your review. This project consists of a 24 lot industrial subdivision on an approximately 146 acre site. The project falls outside the noise contours and within the flight activity zone of the Palomar Airport influence area. The project is located north of Palomar Airport Road, east of the Carlsbad Oaks East Business Park, and is approximately 7,000 feet east of the Airport. Your written comments concerning the project's conformance with Palomar Airport's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, along with other factors that would assure compatibility with airport operations, are appreciated. It would be helpful if comments are received by May 11, 2000. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4622. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG, Associate Planner Attachment c: Floyd Best, Airport Manager, 2198 Palomar Airport Rd., Carlsbad CA 92008 File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-4600 • FAX (76O) 602-8559 • f ILE COPYCity of Carlsbad May 10, 1999 Planning Department Bill Hofman Hofman Planning Associates 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7317 SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09 - Carlsbad Raceway Environmental Review D^ar Bill: As you are aware from our meeting held May 3, 1999, also attended by Michael Holzmiller, Adrienne Landers, and owners and representatives of the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects, the City is obligated (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15102) to make its intent known regarding the environmental review procedure for this project within 30 days of deeming the project complete. The project was deemed complete on March 25, 1999, hence, we are beyond the 30 day time limit. Because of mutual consent of the City and you as the applicant's representative, we are able to extend this time for an additional 15 days. This letter serves to let you know the City's intent with respect to the environmental review of this project. The Planning Department sees three issues of concern that, if not resolved, would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. These concerns are: 1. Impacts created by traffic from the proposed project; 2. Impacts to biology caused by Poinsettia Lane crossing a planned wildlife corridor that has been designated on the City's proposed Habitat Management Plan; and 3. Offsite impacts to biology created by the South Agua Hedionda Intercept (SAHI) line if this project is required to use this sewer line. Based on information presented to date, it is the City's intent to require an Environmental Impact Report for this project unless these three issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. Resolution of these issues must include the following: 1. Traffic Impacts - A traffic report must be submitted based on the latest traffic model prepared by O'Rourke Engineering showing that no significant project impacts to the circulation system will be created. 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18TCT 98-10/HDP 98-09 - Carlsway RaSway Environmental Review May 10, 1999 Page 2 2. Biology (Poinsettia Lane Crossing) - Written verification from the Fish and Wildlife Service must be submitted indicating that it is not opposed to the crossing of the wildlife corridor by a public road and that such crossing will not become an issue with the Carlsbad HMP, or the traffic study indicates that a cul-de-sac design avoiding impacts to the wildlife corridor will not adversely effect traffic circulation in this area. 3. Biology (SAHI line) - Confirmation must be obtained from the City of Carlsbad Water District that there will not be a requirement for this project to use the SAHI line for sewer service. This confirmation must be based on assurances from the Vista Irrigation District that it can and will provide sewer service to the property for as long as needed. At this point, it is up to the applicant to either resolve these issues or go forward with the preparation of an EIR. If all of these issues are not resolved by the time the traffic report is submitted for City review, then an Environmental Impact Report must be initiated by the applicant. Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that a Notice of Preparation shall be prepared by the Lead Agency immediately after deciding that an Environmental Impact Report is required and Section 15102 provides that should the EIR be prepared under contract to a local agency, the contract shall be executed within 45 days from the date on which the agency releases a notice of preparation. Therefore, if after 45 days, no resolution has been reached, then the applicant must submit a legal waiver revoking their rights to these time limits. The applicant is also put on notice that by delaying the issuance of the Notice of Preparation, they are jeopardizing the completion of the EIR within the CEQA mandated time limits. This could result in project denial due to the applicants failure to complete the EIR within one year from the application being deemed complete. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONG Associate Planner AH:mh Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers Raceway Properties, LLC Ken Quon c/o Kurtin Properties Bob Wojcik 12750 Carmel Country Road, Ste. 204 San Diego, CA92130 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis October 16, 1998 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad - Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT JUSTIFICATION FOR GRADING Dear Anne: The proposed development for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park meets the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Although the total proposed grading exceeds 8,000 cubic yards per acre, we believe modifications to the grading volumes can be justified as allowed under Section 21.95.140 (D) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Hillside Development Ordinance recognizes that non-residential grading may exceed 10,000 cubic yards per acre. This proposed project will exceed 10,000 cubic yards per acre by 3,500 cubic yards per acre for a total of 13,500 cubic yards per acre. The proposed Tentative Map will allow for the subdivision of 146.3 acre site into 24 industrial lots and 3 open space lots. This is consistent with the General Plan designation of Planned Industrial and zoning for P-M (Planned Industrial) uses. The 24 industrial lots must have large, flat pads to support the industrial buildings. Large, flat pads are also required for parking lots to service the industrial lots. As shown by the Hillside Development Permit and Constraints Map exhibits previously submitted to the City, 43.6% of the proposed project site has been previously graded to accommodate a drag strip / raceway, parking and numerous roads. The existing terrain has been significantly altered by raceway uses and substantial remedial grading will be required for almost the entire site to make the site suitable for the intended industrial uses. The proposed grading amounts also result from the project's design which preserves large contiguous areas of open space in the northern portion of the site. 5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 « (760)438-1465 « Fax: (760)438-2443 If you require any additional information or clarification of the information that we have provided, please call me. Sincerely, Bill Hofman BH:HL cc: Jon Kurtin Rick Dentt Hofman Planning Associates a « • Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis August 31, 1998 $£p Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad - Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: CT 98-10/LFMP 87-18(B)/HDP 98-09 - Carlsbad Raceway Business Park Resubmittal Dear Anne: The following letter accompanies the resubmittal of the revised site plans, hillside development plans, landscape plans and tentative map for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. The revised plans, accompanying materials as well as this letter are intended to address the incomplete items addressed in your letter dated July 2, 1998. Incomplete Items Planning Item 1: Please see the accompanying letters from Professors Capital and Continental Homes agreeing to the preparation of an amendment to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. Item 2: According to the City of Carlsbad's Fee Schedule, dated July 1, 1998, notice 3s are included in the cost of the permit for all forms of development except for redevelopment. Item 3: Changes have been made to the constraints map and the tentative map to reflect 40% slopes. Please see the accompanying ten (10) sets of Tentative Maps, one (1) Constraints Map and five (5) copies of the Hillside Development Permit plans. Item 4: Please see the accompanying ten (10) sets of landscape plans which include a water conservation plan and estimate of yearly amount of irrigation. Item 5: Please see the accompanying three (3) copies of the archaeological survey and analysis study conducted on the property by Recon, dated March 22, 1989. 2386 Faraday Avenue « Suite 120 ° Carlsbad - CA 92008 ° (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 Item 6: Two (2) copies of the wetland delineation report were submitted to you on July 15, 1989 following the meeting with City staff and the applicant. Item 7: Please see the accompanying copy of a letter previously sent to you by Barry Jones of Helix Environmental, addressed to Julie Vanderwier, USFWS. This letter identifies proposed specific mitigation and provides acreages for the preserved and revegetated habitat as requested. Item 8: Project design will be coordinated with development plans for the adjacent property. At this time, the "Byron White" property is now owned by Professors Capital. It is the applicants' intention to coordinate with the new property owners. Additionally, the owner / developers of the "Byron White" property have indicated that they intend to use the same consultants. Engineering Item 1: As per your request, Richard Allen was contacted regarding the City's study. We have obtained a copy of this study, and its findings have been incorporated by O'Day Consultants into the Tentative Map plans. Please see the accompanying ten (10) sets of revised Tentative Maps. Please also see the accompanying (2) copies of excerpts from the Rick Engineering study concerning the Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project. Item 2: Please see the accompanying two (2) copies of the geological site plan. These are the best copies available of this exhibit. Item 3: Please see the accompanying three copies of a revised Transportation Analysis for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park, dated July 29, 1998. This revised study addresses traffic impacts for circulation alternatives including the three scenarios outlined in the 30 day letter. In addition to the above items, please find two (2) copies of the Sewer Availability letter from the City of Vista, dated July 23, 1998, indicating that there is enough capacity in the Raceway Basin Area for this development. Summary I hope that the above information is of assistance in your continued review of this project. I believe that with this resubmittal package, all the items of incompleteness have been addressed. Sincerely, £^f> / Bill Hofman SheaHomes^ Septembers, 1998 San Diego, Inc. Ms. Anne Hysong VIA U.S. MAIL City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Preparation of an Amendment to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Dear Ms. Hysong: My signature on this letter signifies that as property owners in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, we agree to allow Raceway Partners, LLC to prepare an amendment to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. However, my signature on this letter does not waive any rights we have to comment on or protest the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment when it is heard at a public hearing. Sincerely, SHEA HOMES uss Haley / Project Manager RH/ra cc: Mike Howes - Hofman Planning Associates P:\group\land\winword\Russ\AnneHysong-ltr.doc 10721 Treena Street, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92131, tel: 619-549-3156 fax: 619-549-0112 August 27, 1998 Anne Hysong City of Carlsbad - Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: PREPARATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Ms. Hysong: My signature on this letter signifies that as property owners in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, we agree to allow Raceway Partners, LLC to prepare an amendment to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. However, our signature on this letter does not waive any rights we have to comment on or protest the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment when it is heard at a public hearing. Sincerely, Dave Lother Continental Homes 12230 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 August 12,1998 AnneHysong City of Carlsbad - Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: PREPARATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE 18 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Ms. Hysong. My signature oa this letter signifies that as property owners in Local Facilities Management Zone 18, we agree to allow Raceway Partners, LLC to prepare an amendment to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. However, our signature on this letter does not waive any rights we have to comment oa or protest the Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment when it is heard at a public hearing. William C. Allen Vice President Acquisitions Profbsor* Capital 990 Highland Drive, Suite 320 Solana Beach, CA 92075 ii environmental planning, inc. 8100 La Mesa Bled.. Suite 290 Ld Mesa, CA 91941-6452 e-mail: helix@4dcomm.com fax (619) 462-0552 phone (619) 462-1515 July 1,1998 Ms. Julie Vanderwier U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Carlsbad Raceway Project. Dear Ms. Vanderwier: On behalf of Raceway Properties, LLC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and the City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final open space configuration and mitigation measures necessary to fully mitigate the Carlsbad Raceway project. The purpose of these discussions has been to design a project that, when implemented, will be fully consistent with the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), and will meet all of the requirements of the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. This letter summarizes the proposed project and mitigation program developed jointly with the Service, Department and City. Project Description The proposed project would develop approximately 112 of the 145 acres on site as a business park consistent with existing zoning for the property (Figure 1). Access through the site will be provided by a two lane roadway (Poinsettia Boulevard) running east-west. The City is currently reviewing the Service and Department's request to eliminate Poinsettia Blvd. through the wildlife corridor. Access onto the property will be from Business Park at the eastern end and Melrose Drive at the western end. Currently, it is uncertain whether the Project will construct Melrose Drive within the project boundaries, or whether some other funding source will be available. The Project also proposes to provide a key wildlife corridor running north- south that will help link existing open space on the Rancho Carrillo project to the south with additional open space provided along the northern portions of the site as well as off site to the north and northwest. Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design The applicant has worked closely with the Service, Department and City in the development of an open space configuration that meets the goal of providing a wildlife corridor through the project, as well as expanding existing open space off site to the north to provide for larger contiguous blocks of habitat. The resulting project design provides for a minimum corridor width of 400 feet along the eastern portion of the site, and a larger block of open space that extends off site to the north into the City of Vista. The project was further modified based on Service, Department and City input to pull back the pad area by over 100 feet at the junction where the open space veers to the west from the north-south trending portion of the corridor. As a result, approximately 9.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS) (50 percent), 4.7 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 15.1 acres of non-native LEGEND DCSSsws MFS FWM SMC NNG AC DIS -D Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Freshwater Marsh Southern Mixed Chaparral Non-Native Grassland Agriculture Disturbed Habitat/Developed Indicates Disturbed Habitat Cd Ac Qa L__J Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia] California adolphia (Adolphia California] Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated 0 100 200 300 HELIX Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts CARLSBAD RACEWAY Figure I lux eiwiaiHieDtdl plenoina. int. Lelter July vls. Julie Vandenvier Page 2 grassland/disturbed areas, and 3.72 acres of wetland vegetation will be preserved. Table 1 provides a summary of impacts to vegetation communities. Table 1 IMPACTS Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Willow Scrub Freshwater Marsh Mulefat Scrub Non-native Grassland Agricultural Disturbed TOTAL Total On-Site 19.2 26.3 3.42 0.77 0.18 32.6 4.7 57.83 145.0 Acres Impacted 9.6 21.6 0.37 0.15 0.13 28.0 4.7 47.3 111.85 Acres Preserved 9.6 4.7 3.05 0.62 0.05 4.6 0 10.53 33.15 In addition to on site preservation of DCSS, restoration of approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated to DCSS and approximately nine acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. The applicant has also agreed to provide a wildlife undercrossing where Melrose Drive bisects the corridor. This wildlife undercrossing shall be 12 feet high at its center with an arched design. The undercrossing will be located towards the top of the slope of the roadway. The Service and Department have also requested that Poinsettia Blvd. be removed where it bisects the corridor in the eastern portion of the site if allowable under City of Carlsbad development standards. The applicant has met with the City, and has requested that the removal of Poinsettia Blvd. from the corridor be considered in the development planning process. The City is reviewing this proposal. Because this decision is outside the control of the applicant, the removal of Poinsettia Blvd. is not currently part of the final mitigation program. The applicant will, however, make every effort to work with the City towards the elimination of this roadway through the corridor. Wetland Mitigation A total of approximately 0.48 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:1 mitigation ratio), excluding the 0.18 of streambed. Streambed impacts (Corps and Department jurisdictional) will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel (approximately 0.38 acre) running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed project. Exotic weeds will be Ill*siniiofimental planning, inc. Lette July s. Julie Vandervvier PageS [98 removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. No other restoration is proposed in the channel. Southern willow scrub will be planted over at least 0.34 acre, and 0.14 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area. An additional 0.4S acre of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the additional 0.24 acre of impacts (2:1 mitigation ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by the Department but not jurisdictional by the Corps. The restoration mitigation total for the project is 0.96 acre. If the Melrose Drive impacts are included in this project's impacts, an additional 0.5 acre of southern willow scrub would be created to mitigate these impacts. Table 2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ON THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROPERTY1 Jurisdiction ACOE wetland ACOE non- vegetated Waters of the U.S. CDFG jurisdictional areas Existing1 1.28 0.51 4.79 Melrose Drive Impacts2 ... 0.25J Carlsbad Raceway Property Project Impacts1 0.24 0.18 0.66 Total Impacts2 0.24 0.18 0.91 Remaining2 1.04 0.33 3.88 1 Impacts are based on the Preliminary Plan dated: April 1998 by O'Day Consultants 2 All figures are in acres 3 Impacted area consisted of State only jurisdictional southern willow scrub Table 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROJECT TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS1 Jurisdictional Habitat Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Streambed TOTALS Federal (acres) 0.07 0.17 0 0.18 0.42 State (acres)2 0.07 0.25 0.13 0.1S 0.66 1 Impacts are based on the Preliminary Plan dated: April 1998 by O'Day Consultants and do not include impacts from the extension of Melrose Drive 'State Jurisdictional Areas include Federal Jurisdictional Areas Ill* environmental planning, inc.,i (i -• i s. Julie Vandenvier ^^ Page 4 July The mitigation concept is to create native wetland vegetation along the main east- west trending channel, and along the drainage entering from off site at the north- central portion of the site. Figure 2 depicts the approximate area (1.42 acres) needed for habitat creation in addition to additional areas that may be enhanced for future use as mitigation credits on other projects. Figure 2 also shows areas proposed for upland restoration and enhancement. In summary, the project will provide the following mitigation measures to mitigate both wetland and upland habitats, as well as in order to be consistent with the Draft Carlsbad HMP: • Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site. • Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on project slopes. Approximately 9.0 acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix • Provide a wildlife movement undercrossing at Melrose Drive. • Work with the City on the possible elimination of the Poinsettia Blvd. crossing of the corridor. • Create 1.42 acre of wetland habitat and 0.38 acre of streambed habitat. The project will require Incidental Take Authorization under the federal Endangered Species Act. Because of the current status of the City's HMP, the applicant will be requesting that the project be processed through the Section 10(a) process. We are requesting that you provide written confirmation that the mitigation program outlined above is consistent with the mitigation measures we have discussed regarding this project. Your immediate response would be appreciated. Sincerely, BarryHl. Jones Senior Consulting Biologist Enclosures cc: David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game Terri Dickerson, California Dept. of Fish and Game David Zoutendyk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Jon Kurtin, Raceway Properties, LLC LEGEND DCSS sws MFS FWM SMC NNG AC DIS -D Diegan coastal sage scrub Cd Southern willow scrub Ac Mule fat scrub Qa Freshwater marsh Sc Southern mixed chapparal Age Non-native grassland Pe Agriculture Ce Disturbed habitat/developed Indicates disturbed habitat Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia) California aclolphia (Adolphia California) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Ashy-spike moss (Selaginetta cinerascens) Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago ei-ecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Owl's Clover (Castilleja exserta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant) Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded Potential Wetland Restoration Areas 0 10O 200 3OO HELIX Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas CARLSBAD RACEWAY figure? .t T; ^W"'^ ; ';•--:* • "' : :~: : ' ' ', ^fT?C^ Rash flood watch, highs in the 50s / C-10 NEWS FROM CARLSBAD, LA COSTA, OCEANSIDE, VISTA, CAMP PENDLETON, ENCINITAS, SOLANA BEACH, DEL MAR AND ALL NORTH COUNTY Duo uniting science, spirituality LIFE/E-1 SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25,2001 AN EDITION OF THE NORTH COUNTY TIMES $1.25 TAX INCLUDED Powell meets with Russian minister • Both pledge constructive approach to missile defenses, Iraq BARRY SCHWEID ASSOCIATED PRESS Raceway property plans move forward PAT STOREY STAFF WRITER CARLSBAD — Two pro- posed industrial parks quietly making their way through Carlsbad's approval system could result in groundbreaking of the Melrose Drive connec- tion before the end of the year. An owner of one of the busi- ness park properties said this week that the city's estimate that the project is still "two years off" is inaccurate and that the project could be done much sooner. Two industrial parks will include completion of Melrose connector Melrose now ends at the Vista city border, and commuters as well as neighboring city leaders have been pressuring Carlsbad city officials to complete Mel- rose through to Palomar Airport Road to alleviate traffic back- ups on their roads and to provide quicker access to Highway 76 and Interstate 5. Vista City Councilman Ed ' Estes Jr. began a Melrose Now! campaign last month, asking people to flood Carlsbad City Hall with postcards urging com- pletion of the road. A Vista resi- dent, as well as Oceanside May- or Terry Johnson, has suggested boycotting Carlsbad merchants until the road is finished. John- son later said a boycott was not the way to solve the problem. While controversy has contin- ued over the road, owners of two > RACEWAY, A-4 Proposed Palomar Forum and Carlsbad Raceway parks Palomar Forum MARK THORIMHILL/ STAFF ARTIST A4 SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25,2001 (C)NORTH COUNTY TIMES RACEWAY Continued from A-l Two industrial parks would be built on 216 acres proposed business parks at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and Business Park Drive have been steadily moving their plans through the approval process. "We would have liked this done yesterday," said Jon Kurtin, a partner in Raceway Properties, LLC, which is devel- oping one of the business parks. "We bought the property three years ago thinking all we need- ed was traffic studies." The two parks would be built on 216 acres at the northwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Business Park Drive and in- clude construction of the Mel- rose connector. Carlsbad Raceway Business Park, owned by Raceway Prop- erties, has submitted a tentative plan to city planners that calls for 25 industrial lots and three open-space lots on 146.3 acres. Palomar Forum, the planned park bordering the Raceway park to the south, is owned by Palomar Melrose, another limit- ed partnership. Forum's 70.6- acre parcel is tentatively planned to include 10 industrial lots and three open-space lots. Also in the plans for Carlsbad Raceway Business Park is anoth- er street — now called Street B — that would run from within the park roughly parallel to Palomar Airport Road, veer slightly northeast, and connect with Poinsettia Avenue. Another street — Street A — will connect at Street B within the Raceway Park property and run through the Palomar Forum property to connect with Palomar Airport Road. City planners say Streets A and B will help funnel traffic within the two parks off of Mel- rose and directly on to Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia. Kurtin, a partner in Rac^^y Properties LLC, said trUrc studies have been turned in to the city on their project and that a second set of biological studies requested by city plan- ners is in progress. City planner Anne Hysong said once the new biological studies are complete in another month or two, the next step is to take the plan back to the city where it will receive a list of conditions of approval from planners before being forward- ed for final approval to the City Council. Kurtin said he would like grading to begin on Melrose and the two parks before the end of the year. Bill Hofman of Hofman Plan- ning Associates in Carlsbad, who is representing both prop- ^fe plans to the city for the SHers, said the biological stud- ies should be done sometime in the spring. "They are basically just a re- view of our first studies to make sure nothing new has popped up," said Hofman. "We have to wait for the spring because cer- tain plants don't bloom until then." Hofman said the city has been careful in scrutinizing traf- fic studies to make sure the parks do not add to already con- gested conditions on certain in- tersections in the Palomar Air- port industrial corridor. He said owners of both busi- ness parks, as well as the busi- ness park to the west — Carls- bad Oaks North — are forming a Bridge and Thoroughfare dis- trict to financially guarantee the completion of Faraday Avenue. Each developer will pay fees to the district to finance street im- provements. The city has said Faraday must be completed ahead of Melrose. Traffic studies show that opening Melrose without Faraday will add to congestion on Palomar Airport Road, par- ticularly at the intersection with El Camino Real. Hofman said because plans for the Carlsbad Oaks North park are further be- hind in the approval process, Melrose would likely be com- pleted ahead of Faraday. "At that point, it will be a po- litical decision as to whether the city will open Melrose or keep it barricaded until Faraday is done. "Whether the city would find the added congestion accept- able in the interim is not some- thing I would venture to guess," he said. Contact staff writer Pat Storey at (760) 901-4068 or pstorey@nctimes.com.