HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-06; Palomar Forum; Tentative Map (CT) (10)City of Carls
Planning Department
RECIRCULATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION^ I
Project Address/Location: North of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive~and the
eastern City boundary.
Project Description:
IF D L E PGregory J. Smith, Recorder/County Clerk
DEC 1 5 2005
/. Y DEPUTY
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with* 3 open space lots on property located
north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and
future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south
wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the
northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
the City of .Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No
industrial buildings are proposed;
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or .agreed to by, the applicant before .the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:
CASE NO:
September 6,2001
GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
CASE NAME: Palomar Forum
PUBLISH DATE: September 6,2001
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 6O2-46OO • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLIRK
San Diego County on DEC 15 2005. • .
PosteJr.C 1 5 2QC5 Removed ••'''•'. ; • .
Returned to agency on _
Deputy.
MK4/-O3-O1 1O:O4A Teshima Design Gi~oup 619693118Z P.O1
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
TKSHIMA
PROJECT: CT 99-06 / HDP 99-03 PALOMAR FORUM
Dear Anne:
Per our meeting on Tuesday according to the biological mitigation plan submitted
DESIGN GROUP 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
l>i>-a'. U!it"ri>i.i'>:i II-I
IAX: I.SV<I f'Mi.1 I-V
Lotus scoparius
Baccharis sarothroides
Artemisia californica
Nassella lepida
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
Eriogonum fasciculatum
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
All of the above information shall be clearly shown on our conceptual landscape
plans for the up coming submittal.
-O3-Ol 1O:O4A Teshima Design Gr-oup 6196931182 p. 02
Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions,
srely, A Ai \
Ronald S. Teshima, ASLA
Principal
RSTjes
cc: Larry Nelson
Bill Hoffman / Stuart Fisk
File
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 f 4 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
Mr. Larry Nelson
Davis Partners, LLC
1420 Bristol Street North, Suite 100
Newport Beach, California 92660-2914
Subject: Addendum to the Biological Resources Report for the Palomar Forum
Project
Dear Mr. Nelson:
This letter provides an addendum to the Biological Resources Report of the Palomar
Forum Project (formerly PAR 62 project), and addresses off site impacts for traffic
circulation needs, should the Palomar Forum project proceed in advance of or
independently of the Carlsbad Raceway 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 Carlsbad Raceway
project immediately north of the project will be developed within timeframes that
will provide for necessary improvements to Melrose Drive and secondary access for
the Palomar Forum project. If, however, the Palomar Forum project is developed in
advance of or independently of the Raceway Project, the Palomar Forum project will
need to construct a portion of Melrose Drive and a secondary access on the Raceway
project. This report addresses potential impacts and mitigation requirements for
these off site impacts.
The Palomar Forum site is approximately 62.3 acres in size and is situated in the City
of Carlsbad, in northwestern San Diego County, California (Figures 1 and 2). It is
located north of Palomar Airport Road, south of the Carlsbad Raceway, and west of
Business Park Drive. The property to the west is currently undeveloped.
The Raceway site supports six vegetation communities (Table 1): coastal and valley
freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub,
southern mixed chaparral, and non-native grassland. In addition there are disturbed
habitat/agriculture, and developed areas.
Diegan coastal sage scrub on site is composed primarily of four shrub species:
California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera),
lemonadeberry (Rhits integrifolia), and California encelia (Encelia californica). Portions
of the Diegan coastal sage scrub are dominated by lemonadeberry, almost to the
exclusion of all other plants. Diegan coastal sage scrub is characterized by subshrubs
with relatively shallow root systems and open canopies. Approximately 19.2 acres of
planning, inc.
Letter to Mr. Larry Nelson
May 11,2001
Page 2 of 4
Diegan coastal sage scrub occur on site, with the larger patches occurring in the
north-central portion of the site.
Table 1
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ON THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY
Vegetation Community Acreage
Upland
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Southern Mixed Chaparral
Non-Native Grassland
19.2
26.3
32.6
Riparian/Wetland
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
0.8
3.42
0.18
Other
Agriculture
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL
4.7
57.8
145.0
Southern mixed chaparral occurs on many of the north-facing slopes on site. It is
composed of broad-leaved, deep-rooted shrubs that grow into dense stands.
Approximately 26.3 acres of southern mixed chaparral occur on site.
Non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses, often associated
with numerous species of showy-flowered native annual forbs. This association
occurs on gradual slopes with deep, fine-textured, usually clay soils. Characteristic
species include: oats (Avena sp.), bromes (Bromus sp.), and mustard (Brassica sp.).
Non-native grasslands are also important foraging areas for raptors and other
sensitive animal species. Approximately 32.6 acres of non-native grasslands occur on
site.
Riparian and wetland habitats are considered sensitive by local and state agencies.
They are also regulated by the ACOE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
by the CDFG under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Riparian habitat can
function as a wildlife corridor and both communities support sensitive species. Mule
fat scrub, southern willow scrub, and coast and valley freshwater marsh are
considered riparian and/or wetland habitats.
Mule fat scrub is characterized by stands that are dominated by mule fat (Baccharis
salicifolia), to the exclusion of almost all other plant species. Approximately 0.18 acre
of mule fat scrub occurs on site.
Southern willow scrub is a streambed plant community which is dominated by
willows (Salix sp.). On site, mule fat is the primary associate species. Understory
pvironinental planninQ. inc.
Letter to Mr. Larry Nelson
May 11,2001
Page 3 of 4
species include cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echoides),
and annual beard-grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Approximately 3.42 acres of
southern willow scrub occur on site.
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is composed of riparian monocots such as
bulrush (Typha sp.) and cattail (Typha sp.). These plants form dense clumps within
depressions that are wet for an extended period of time. Approximately 0.77 acre of
coast and valley freshwater marsh occtirs on site.
Disturbed habitat/agriculture areas are devoid of vegetation as a result of soil
compaction (as with dirt roads) or past grading, or have been used for agricultural
purposes. Some areas on site have been recently used for agriculture, primarily non-
irrigated farming, and have been disked. Approximately 62.5 acres of disturbed
habitat/agriculture areas occur on site.
Several areas on site are under the jurisdiction of the ACOE as wetlands. Any
alteration to or filling in these areas would be subject to regulation by the ACOE in
the form of a permit ptirsuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Section
401 certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is also
required. Impacts to riparian and wetland habitats (southern willow scrub, mule fat
scrub, coast and valley freshwater marsh) on site would be under the jurisdiction of
the CDFG and would require a Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
IMPACTS
Impacts were calculated based on the grading footprint for Melrose Drive and the
secondary access road (Figtire 3). Impacts to each habitat type are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2
OFF SITE IMPACTS ON CARLSBAD RACEWAY
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
' 0.5
3.5
0.15
0
0
0.8
3.0
5.9
13.85
Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern willow scrub would be
considered significant. Impacts to southern willow scrub will require a 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineeers, a 1603 agreement with the California
environmental planning, inc:
Letter to Mr. Larry Nelson
May 11,2001
Page 4 of 4
Department of Fish and Game, and a 401 water quality waiver/certification from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
No sensitive plant or animal species were observed within the proposed road
improvement footprints.
MITIGATION
Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub will be mitigated by preservation of existing
Diegan coastal sage scrub within the proposed open space corridor on the Raceway
project. Preservation will be at a 1:1 mitigation ratio.
All impacts to wetland habitats will be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 replacement
ratio. Because existing wetland habitats have been previously degraded, mitigation
ratios will likely be at between 1:1 and 2:1, and will occur on site. Final mitigation
ratios will be determined through consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game.
Please contact me if you have any questions about the contents of this letter.
Sincerely,
Barry L.
Senior Consulting Biofogist
Enclosures: Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 3 Vegetation and Sensitive Resources Off site Impact Map
Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, including enclosures
! RIVERSIDE .
COUNTY
ORANGE SANDIEGO
PROJECT
LOCATION
S/ilk/-^ UNITEP..STATES •—-TECATEYSj°22?W— ——-—""' MEXICO /
MILES ROSARITO
HELIX
Regional Location Map
PALOMAR FORUM
Figure 1
PROJECT
LOCATION
.•» >r\«».r»mr«Vl J~ ' \Base map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS® This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAP~t is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.
HELIX
Project Vicinity Map
PALOMAR FORUM
Figure 2
•;^".!^>vi4<-.' :!S3§?. '•'•—.. -*.,S. 'v^r • ..MJ>>;
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources
LEGEND
Vegetation
DCSS Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
SWS Southern Willow Scrub
SMC Southern Mixed Chaparral
NNG Non-native Grassland
AG Agriculture
DH Disturbed Habitat
Sensitive Plant Species
Qa Coast Live Oak (Qucrciis agrifolia)
Ac California Spine Bush (Adolphia califomica)
Do Western Dichondra (Dichondra occidcntalis)
Project Boundary
Palomar Forum
-. .-1
^^--^--r--;!^• - •», " \ "• • ' "\
mix Off-site Improvements/Palomar Forum
Figure 3
monmental planning, inc.
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 290
La Mesa, CA 91941-6452
e-mail: helix@4dcomm.com
fax (619) 462-0552
phone (619) 462-1515
April 26,1999
Ms. Ann Hysong
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Subject: Palomar Forum Biological Mitigation
Dear Ms. Hysong:
This letter summarizes the proposed mitigation plan for the Palomar Forum project
located within Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) 18 of the City of Carlsbad's
Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The applicant has worked with the City,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and
California Department of Fish and Game (Department) on a site design and
mitigation measures to fully mitigate this project. This program is consistent with
mitigation discussed with the Service, Corps, and Department.
The project has been designed to be consistent with the City's HMP and will be
considered a completed component of the HMP by providing a 400-foot wide
corridor through the eastern portion of the project site. The Linkage D Preserve
Planning Area (PPA), which goes through the far eastern portion of the Palomar
Forum site, links the Core 5 PPA, to the northwest of Palomar Forum, with the Core 6
PPA to the southwest. This linkage is present on site as 1.7 acres of open space and
connects with linkage areas on the Carlsbad Raceway Property to the north and, after
crossing the Palomar Airport Road, the Rancho Carrillo Property and Meadowlark
Estates Property to the south. Approximately 3.2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub
(100 percent) and 0.08 acre of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will be impacted.
There are three components to the mitigation program: 1) On-site upland habitat
restoration; 2) Off-site upland habitat acquisition; and 3) Off-site riparian
restoration. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio.
Impacts to unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The on-site
restoration will include restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of currently disturbed
areas to Diegan coastal sage scrub. Restoration of the corridor will maximize its
value for wildlife. A conceptual restoration plan will need to be developed prior to
final map approval that would require a detailed planting palette, maintenance
program, monitoring requirements and remediation measures.
The remaining upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the
acquisition of 1.5 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub or other habitat acceptable to the
City. Credits could also be purchased within an approved conservation bank. The
habitat must be located within the HMFs PPA's. If it is determined by the City that
no appropriate options are available in the City of Carlsbad, the applicant would be
allowed to purchase habitat or credits outside of the City.
Letter to Ms. Ann Hysong
April 26,1999
Page 2
Approximately 0.08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. impacts will be mitigated
by creation of 0.08 acre of riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the
Carlsbad Raceway property immediately to the north, or at another location
acceptable to the City.
Combined, these mitigation measures will fully mitigate biological impacts to the
Palomar Forum project. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BariyL Jones
Senior Consulting Biologist
Attachment: Wildlife Corridor Map
cc: Bill Allen-Professors Capital
Bill Hofman-Hofman Planning
Mitigation Measure
3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland
habitats, as described in Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
• Restore 1.7 acres of DCSS onsite within wildlife
corridor and develop a conceptual restoration plan prior
to final map.
• Acquire 1.5 acres of DCSS or other habitat acceptable to
the City and wildlife agencies
• Create .08 acre of riparian habitat or freshwater marsh
vegetation within the Carlsbad Raceway HMP wildlife
corridor
• Prior to final map approval, prepare an engineering and
feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under
Palomar Airport Road;
• Payment of $133,867.80 to mitigate impacts to non-
native grassland and southern mixed chaparral
• If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the
feasibility study is not required and the mitigation funds
shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the designated
core area as described in the City's HMP
• If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval,
the City in consultation with the wildlife agencies will
determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds
including but not limited to: a) acquisition of acreage in
designated County Core area; b) construction of wildlife
crossing under Palomar Airport Road; and c) other
programs as determined by City to enhance habitat
preservation in the City.
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
Monitoring
Type
Plancheck -
Receipt of
wildlife agency
permits
Yen
Monitoring
Department
Planning
fied Implementation = \
this column will be ir
Shown on
Plans
'hen mitigation measu:
itialed and dated.
Verified
Implementation
e has been implemented,
Remarks
01 ongoing iiuugauuii measure, ui lui uuii'i
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
• Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction
and relocate if necessary.
• Obtain all necessary permits from U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
California Department of Fish and Game prior to final
map approval.
• Submittal of wetland and coastal sage scrub restoration
program for approval by City and wildlife agencies
prior to construction activities
4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the
following mitigation measures will be incorporated into projects
prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for
each lot.
• Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs
unless project incorporates architectural treatment
consisting of architecture elements or parapets that are of
sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical
roof equipment.
• Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building
parapets or architecture elements that are integrated into the
architectural design of buildings;
• Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport
Road or Melrose Drive.
• Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building
elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive.
Plancheck Planning Future PIP site
plans
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
5. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure
to hazardous substances:
• No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any
residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic, or highly
toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire
code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined
in the most currently adopted fire code.
• Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g)
in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the
community.
Monitoring
Type
Plan check
Monitoring
Department
Fire/Planning
Shown on
Plans
Future PIP
building plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown.on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
• Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic
or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted
fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in
the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall
prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The
analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of
the California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through
2750.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the
residential community, the facility will not store, handle or
use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the
quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint
to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall
be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the
distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere.
Parameters such as temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability,
quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a
pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models.
• Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the
distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. Models
can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and
chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the
maximum harm potential is potential is determined for the
specifics of the material in question. The use of these
models is the most sophisticated method available to ensure
community safety.
6. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to
development of the property, the applicant shall solicit peer
review of these findings by San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division
(DEH-SAM) Technical Review Board and incorporate any
recommendations into the project.
Monitoring
Type
Plan Check
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Grading Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
Steve Nissen
DIRECTOR
October 5, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum - CT 99-06
SCH#: 2001071073
Dear Anne Hysong:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state
agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on October 4, 2001, and the comments
from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify
the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in
future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.LITML
uocummii
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
2001071073
Palomar Forum - CT 99-06
Carlsbad, City of
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate open space, and a
Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for a 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road
between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a
north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the
adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar
Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial
buildings are proposed.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Agency
Phone
email
Address
City
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad -
760-602-4622
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad
Fax
State CA Zip 92008
Project Location
County San Diego
City Carlsbad
Region
Cross Streets Melrose Drive/ Palomar Airport Road
Parcel No. 221-012-10,-17
Township 12S Range 4W Sect/on 13,18 Base
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
I-5
McClellan/Palomar
NCTD
Pacific Ocean
Vacant
Planned Industrial (P-M)
Planned Industrial (PI)
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Public Services;
Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse
Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish
Agencies an(j Game, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics;
California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9;
Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; State Lands Commission
Date Received 09/05/2001 Start of Review 09/05/2001 End of Review 10/04/2001
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRAN^fcBTATlON AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAV»S, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406. MAIL STATION 60. SAN DIEGO. 62186-5406Telephone: (619)988-6954Fax: (619)688-4299
October 1, 2001
Mr. Scott Morgan
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
fi1
ST
H g i
OCT -1
1 I H
20B J
Of. CLEARING HOUSE
ll-SD-078
PM9.1
(K.P. 14.6)
Dear Mr. Morgan:
Draft ND for the Palomar Forum - SCH 2001071073
The California Department of Transportation (Department) comments are as follows:
• Section VI, Circulation, Page 14: Please provide the entire Palomar Forum
Transportation Analysis for review.
• The transportation analysis should examine all State-owned facilities (freeway
sections, interchanges, and intersections) on Interstate Route 5 (1-5) and State Route
78 (SR-78) that are affected by this project.
• The transportation analysis should have been done in accordance with the
Department's Guide for the 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.
• Analyze all State-owned signalized intersections affected by this project using the
intersecting lane vehicle (ILV) procedure from the Department Highway Design
Manual Topic 406, page 400-21.
• 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 an existing State highway
facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the existing MOE should be
maintained.
• 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.
Our contact person for 1-5 and SR-78 is Erwin Gojuangco, Route Manager, at (619) 688-
6610.
Sincerely,
BILL FIGGE, Chief
Development Review and Public Transportation Branch
** TOTflL PflGE.04 **
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR
DATE:
TO:
RE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
September 20, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Palomar Forum - CT 99-06
SCH#: 2001071073
Steve Nissen
DIRECTOR
This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document
for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is:
Review Start Date:
Review End Date:
Septembers, 2001
October 4, 2001
We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments:
California Coastal Commission
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans, District 11
Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics
Department of Conservation
Department of Fish and Game, Region 5
Department of Parks and Recreation
Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9
Resources Agency
State Lands Commission
The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your
attention on the date following the close of the review period.
Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process.
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
Steve Nissen
DIRECTOR
August 24, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum
SCH#: 2001071073
Dear Anne Hysong:
The enclosed comment (s) on your Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse
after the end of the state review period, which closed on August 13, 2001. We are forwarding these
comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final
environmental document.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project.
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2001071073) when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
/
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760)431-9440
FAX (760),431-9624
CADept. of Fish & Game
South Coast Regional Office
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(858)467-4201
FAX (858) 467-4299
j;A;ugustl5,2001In Reply, Refer to: FWS-SDG-2127.1
Ms. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palomar Forum Business Park
Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (FWS-SD-2127) (Case No.
GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03)
Deaf Ms. Hysong:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) (hereafter referred to as the Wildlife Agencies), have reviewed the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Palomar Forum site and are providing these comments on this
project. The following comments are based upon that primary document, the supporting
Biological Technical Report for the project (dated January 1 5, 1 999) prepared by Helix
Environmental Planning (Helix), and a tour of the site on August 13, 2001, by Meredith Osborne
of the Department and representatives of Helix and Hofman 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. 153 1 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 proposed project would develop the entire 62.3-acre property as a business park with the
exception of 1.7 acres of open space set aside as a north-south wildlife corridor on the east end of
the site. This corridor will be revegetated with coastal sage scrub, plus an additional 1.5 acres of
coastal sage scrub habitat will be acquired off site. The corridor will also extend through the
adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property directly north of the site (reference August 15, 2001
Wildlife Agencies' review and comment letter regarding the proposed Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park). Approximately 0.08 acres of unvegetated waters of the U.S. would be impacted
Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2127) 2
and mitigated through wetland creation on the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park site to the north.
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. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project would impact 53.7 acres of land
described as disturbed in the 1998 Biological Technical Report. The Department disagrees
with the characterization of these areas. The map contained in the HMP defines the
vegetation in the northeastern and northwestern portions of the site (comprising
approximately 50% of the area contained within the property) as non-native grassland. Based
on a recent visit to the site by representatives of the Department, much of the areas described
as disturbed are currently better characterized as non-native grassland based upon the
dominant plant species present, vegetative structure, and use by native wildlife. About half
of the site (the western portion) has been disced between August 10 and August 13,2001,
and has apparently been disced annually for approximately the last four years. This activity is
causing the value of this habitat to be kept artificially low, yet it does in fact possess value as
grassland habitat, particularly for foraging raptors and grassland-associated species. The plant
materials observed on the surface of the disced soil on the August 13 site visit seemed to
consist primarily of grasses. The un-disced eastern portion of the property had a higher
percentage of cover by mustard (Brassica nigrd) but about 40-50% of the cover was
estimated to be comprised of grasses [(primarily wild oats (Avena sp.)].
The Wildlife Agencies believe that the non-native grassland and areas described as disturbed
as well as the 3.3 acres of chaparral that would be impacted by the project are undervalued in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Biological Technical Report. Open grasslands
provide valuable foraging areas for raptors, including the sensitive white-tailed kite (Elanus
leucurus) observed during the 1998 biological surveys, as well as potentially occurring
wintering raptor species [e.g., northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)]. Non-native grassland is
valuable to species specifically associated with such habitat, such as black-tailed jackrabbit
(Lepus californicus bennettii) which is a state species of special concern and typically found
in extensive blocks of habitat. Chaparral provides valuable cover for a variety of birds,
reptiles, and mammals and foraging areas for raptors.
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 mitigation of 0.5:1 for non-native grassland and
1:1 for chaparral is consistent with mitigation requirements utilized in other parts of the
County of San Diego.
2. 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.
Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2127)
3. The proposed project would require authorization from the Department, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for impacts to the on-site waters of
the U.S. 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£t
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.
4. The Wildlife Agencies will need to review and concur with coastal sage scrub and wetland
revegetation plans before the project begins construction.
5. 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 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.
The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Palomar Forum. If you have any questions, please contact Meredith Osborne
of the Department at (858) 636-3163 or John Martin of the Servige aU760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Gilbert
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
w William E. Tippets
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
California Department of Fish and Game
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
Steve Nissen
DIRECTOR
August 14, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum
SCH#: 2001071073
Dear Anne Hysong:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state
agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 13, 2001, and the comments
from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify
the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in
future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base^
SCH# 2001071073
Project Title Palomar Forum
Lead Agency Carlsbad, City of
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate open space, and a
Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for a 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road
between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a
north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the
adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar
Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial
buildings are proposed.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Anne Hysong
City of CarlsbadAgency
Phone
email
Address
City
760-602-4622
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad
Fax
State CA Zip 92008
Project Location
County
City
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
San Diego
Carlsbad
Melrose Road and Palomar Airport Road
221-012-10, -17
12S Range 4W Sect/on 13, 18 Base
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
I-5
McClellan/Palomar
NCTD
Pacific Ocean
Vacant
Planned Industrial (P-M)
Planned Industrial (PI)
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Public Services;
Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of
Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics;
California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; Air Resources Board, Major Industrial Projects;
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native
American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; State Lands Commission
Date Received 07/13/2001 Start of Review 07/13/2001 End of Review 08/13/2001
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
flUG 13 2081 15:28 FR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION SUP HOUSING AGENCY>TOH
TO 847S018 P.02/02
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT n, P.O. BOX esdoe. MAIL STATION so. SAN DIEGO. 92186-5406
Telephone: (£19)686-6954
Fax: (919J88M299
August 10, 2001
MjtM \ fw~' \
-SD-078
M9.1
•"-^ \ ^tttnimtEdraiiuuftKr^ ~" * lVyMr. Scott Morgan
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Morgan:
ND for the Palomar Forum - SCH 2001071073
The California Department of Transportation (Department) comments are as follows:
• Section VI, Circulation, Page 14: Please provide the entire Palomar Forum Transportation
Analysis for review.
• The transportation analysis should examine all State-owned facilities (freeway sections,
interchanges, and intersections) on Interstate Route 5 (1-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78) that are
affected by this project.
• The transportation analysis should have been done in accordance with the Department's Guide
for the 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.
• Analyze all State-owned signalized intersections affected by this project using the intersecting
lane vehicle (ILV) procedure from the Department Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page
400-21.
• 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 an existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the
existing MOE should be maintained.
• 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.
Our contact person for 1-5 and SR-78 is Erwin Gojuangco, Route Manager, at (619) 688-6610.
Sincerely,
FIGGE, Chief
Development Review and Public Transportation Branch
** TOTfiL PflGE.02 **
NOTICE OF COMPLETION.
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044,Sacramento, CA 95812 - (916) 445-0613
Project Title: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park - CT 98-10
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hysong
See NOTE Below:
SCH#
Street Address: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: (760)602-4622 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008
COUNTY
County: SAN DIEGO
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community:Carlsbad
Cross Streets: Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 146.3
Assessor's Parcel No. 221-011-03:-04:-05 and 221-010-22 Section: 12. 13. 18 Twp. 125 Range: 3W&4W Base:_
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: Q NOP [
Q Early Cons [
IXI Mitigated [
Neg Dec
PI Draft EIR
]] Supplement/Subsequent
3] EIR (Prior SCH No.)
^] Other:
NEPA: Q
D
D
n
NOI
EA
Draft EIS
FONSI
OTHER: Q
D
D
Joint Document
Final Document
Other:
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
Q| General Plan Update
^ General Plan Amendment
| | General Plan Element
| | Community Plan
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Annexation
Redevelopment
Coastal Permit
Other: Zone Change to Open
Space/Hillside Development
Permit
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
D
DD
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational:
Recreational:
Units
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres 146
Employees
Employees
Employees
D
D
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Water:
Other:
MODType
Type
Mineral
Type Watts_
Type
Type
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
g] Aesthetic/Visual
| | Agricultural Land
E3 Air Quality
^ Archaeological/Historical
| | Coastal Zone
IXI Drainage/Absorption
| | Economic/Jobs
Fiscal
| | Flood Plain/Flooding
| | Forest Land/Fire Hazard
| | Geological/Seismic
I | Minerals
[ | Noise
[ | Population/Hsg. Balance
ER] Public Services/Facilities
M Recreation/Parks
Schools/Universities 1X1
Septic Systems [ |
Sewer Capacity 1X1
Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading |XI
Solid Waste Q
Toxic/Hazardous ^
Traffic/Circulation Q
Vegetation |~1
Water Quality
H2O Supply/Ground H2O
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Carlsbad Raceway/Planned Industrial (P-M)/Planned Industrial/Office (PI/O)
Project Description:
A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office (O) General Plan Designation and redesignate proposed open space to the Open
Space (OS) General Plan Designation, a zone change to add Open Space zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned
Industrial Permit for an 146 acre, 25 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road between the
City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design includes a 400 foot wide north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to
an east-west wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the property. Access to the industrial lots will be provided by construction of the
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary and the extension of Poinsettia Avenue from its
existing westerly terminus in the City of Vista to Melrose Drive. No industrial buildings are proposed as part of the project.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of
Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:North side of Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose Drive
and the eastern City boundary.
Project Description: A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office (O)
General Plan Designation and redesignate proposed open space to the Open Space (OS) General
Plan Designation, a zone change to add Open Space zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 146 acre, 25 lot, industrial subdivision
with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's
eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design includes a 400 foot wide north-
south wildlife corridor that provides access to an east-west wildlife corridor within the northern
portion of the property. Access to the industrial lots will be provided by construction of the
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista
boundary and the extension of Poinsettia Avenue (Street "B") from its existing westerly
terminus in the City of Vista to Melrose Drive. No industrial buildings are proposed as part of
the project.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (ElA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:SEPTEMBER 6, 2001
CASE NO: GPA 98-05/ZC 01-07/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2001
MIGHAEL/f. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director '
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 98-057 ZC 01-07LFMP 87-18(BVCT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01
DATE: May 3, 2001
RECIRCULATION DATE: August 31, 2001
1.
2.
3.
4.
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park
APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates/Raceway Properties, LLC
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Suite 150.
Carlsbad. CA 92008. (760)438-1465
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 4, 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office
(O) General Plan Designation and redesignate proposed open space to the Open Space (OS) General
Plan Designation, a zone change to add Open Space zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 146 acre, 25 lot, industrial subdivision
with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern
boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design includes a 400. foot wide north-south wildlife
corridor that provides access to an east-west wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the
property. Access to the industrial lots will be provided by construction of the remaining segment of
Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary and the extension of
Poinsettia Avenue (Street "B") from its existing westerly terminus in the City of Vista to Melrose
Drive. No industrial buildinRS are proposed as part of the project.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
[X] Transportation/Circulation I I Public Services
1X1 Biological Resources I I Utilities & Service Systems
I | Energy & Mineral Resources 1X1 Aesthetics
^ Hazards IXI Cultural Resources
I 1 Noise I I Recreation
I | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
CD I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[H I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
IXI I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
Date
Planr/(n4^5rrect^r's Signature / Date '/
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be
impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely
on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No
Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards
and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on
the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are
present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have
been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required
(Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but
not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer
does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less
than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of
significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be
given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-
18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs5.1-l-5.1.15;#4)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#4)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15; #4)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15'
#4)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1-15; #4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
nn
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-ll;#2, #2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-ll;#2;#2)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2; #3 )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1
-5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -
5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22; #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -
5.4-24; #5)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -
5.4-24; #5)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #5;)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #5)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -
5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 -5.13-9)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D D D
D
D
D
D D
D D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-
5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1
-5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15)
XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ()
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-
5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -
5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-
3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.12.2-1-5.12.3-7)
XIII.
a)
b)
c)
XIV.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
XV.
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs5.11-l -5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1-5.8-10)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1
-5.8-10)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
FINDINGS OFMANDATORY
SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
n
n
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Setting
The Carlsbad Raceway property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City's northeast
quadrant. The property is surrounded by open space and industrial park development to the north,
vacant industrial property and a small commercial development in the City of Vista to the east, a
vacant industrially zoned property and Palomar Airport Road to the south, and the existing Carlsbad
Oaks East industrial park to the west. The property is characterized by gentle slope terrain which
descends northward into a prominent east/west canyon on the northern half of the property in which a
drainage spans most of the length of the property. Tributaries to the main drainage occur in two
smaller canyons on the southern half of the site which drain towards the north. Three other
tributaries to the main drainage enter from the north side of the property. The drainage on site is an
unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek which drains into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Two larger
hills occur on the northern edge of the site and on the southwest corner of the site, and elevations
range from approximately 310 feet to 495 feet above sea level.
A drag strip stretches about two thirds of the property from the northeast corner to the south central
area. Much of the site is heavily disturbed in that a 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. The southwestern portion of the site has also been used for agriculture, and a SDG&E
powerline easement bisects the eastern half of the property. The north-central portion of the site,
which is abutted by dedicated open space in the City of Vista, is the least disturbed portion of the
property. The northern and eastern portions of the Raceway property comprise a hardline area in the
City's draft HMP, which identifies it as a part of a linkage (Linkage Area D) that connects core areas
to the north and south of the property.
I. LAND USE
The Carlsbad Raceway property is currently designated by the General Plan for Planned
Industrial/Office (PI/O) land use and zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The project includes a General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the property's dual PI/O General Plan designation to
PI and Open Space (OS) thereby eliminating the O designation. The General Plan Amendment
would retain only the PI designation on the portion of the property proposed to be developed with
industrial lots, and the 43.36 acres of the property proposed to be dedicated as permanent open space
would be redesignated to OS. Justification for elimination of the O designation, which allows office
and related commercial use, is that it is unnecessary since professional offices that are incidental to
the industrial uses and not retail in nature, are permitted by P-M zoning under the PI land use
designation. Limited retail commercial uses that provide services to occupants of the industrial zones
are also permitted by conditional use permit. To ensure zoning consistency with the proposed
General Plan land use designations, the portion of the property redesignated as OS would be rezoned
to the O-S zone.
The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and
therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The
project is located within the eastern portion of the airport flight activity zone. The project, which
consists of industrial lots to be developed in the future with industrial buildings that are consistent
with the P-M zone standards, is consistent with the CLUP.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will require the construction of the last segment of Melrose Drive between its existing
11 Rev. 03/28/96
northerly terminus in the City of Vista and Palomar Airport Road and Faraday Avenue between its
existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City's easterly boundary. These
extensions of prime and secondary arterial roadways are part of the City's circulation arterial
roadway system necessary to support existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and
to alleviate regional traffic congestion. Given that existing development surrounds the Carlsbad
Raceway property, construction of these roadways cannot be considered to be directly or indirectly
growth inducing.
III. GEOLOGY
Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by Vinje & Middleton, Inc., the development of
the Carlsbad Raceway property as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the
recommendations for remedial grading and site development are followed. A brief summary of
findings of the investigation indicate that:
• Hard bedrock units are present in the north central areas of the property where only
minor grading is proposed.
• Topsoils, alluvium and existing fill soils at the project site are not suitable in their
present conditions for support of structures or new graded fills and will need to be
removed.
• Groundwater conditions at the project are not expected to be significant, although
some dewatering may be necessary in connection with alluvial removals in the
northwest portion of the property.
• Expansive soils are present and not recommended at pad or roadway finish grade
levels
• Liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not impact the proposed
development
• Landslide conditions are not indicated at the site.
• Soil collapse will not be a factor
IV. WATER
The project, upon ultimate development, will consist of industrial lots with a large coverage of
building and parking. Storm water runoff from each lot will be picked up in a subsurface storm drain
pipe and will flow underground into the public storm drain under the streets. The public storm drain
outlets into one of two detention basins which drain into a tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek. The
mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. As the lots are
developed, the site will absorb less water than in the undeveloped condition. The project includes
work to constrict the inlet to the existing storm drain culvert under Melrose Drive in the City of
Vista. This will create a detention basin to the east of Melrose Drive and reduce the peak flow in the
Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre-development conditions. Due to the reduced peak
flows, the project will have no impact on erosion downstream.
The project drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is an Impaired Waterbody on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list. The beneficial uses of aquatic life, Recreation-1 (non-contact) and
Recreation-2(contact), and shellfish harvest are impaired by sediment and coliform respectively.
Beneficial uses are currently impaired due to coliform bacteria. The typical pollutant source for
coliform bacteria is pet waste. An industrial project is not anticipated to have significant impacts due
to the absence of residential uses. The total maximum daily load (TMDL) for coliform has not been
established for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently
in the process of developing six TMDL's in the San Diego area. Since the TMDL priority for
12 Rev. 03/28/96
coliform in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed as low, it will be some time before a TMDL is
established.
During construction, the project will be required to implement extensive erosion control
measures pursuant to City standards. Mitigation measures for the containment of silt on the site
during construction are contained in the City Engineering Standards and will be further specified
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) prepared with the grading and
erosion control plans for the project. The general measures to be employed are listed in the
Preliminary SWPPP prepared for the project. Specifics cannot be shown until the detailed
construction plans are prepared, however, the preliminary SWPPP for the project identifies the
mitigation measures to prevent sediment from impacting the lagoon. It lists Best Management
Practices (BMPs) from the Contractor Activities and the Erosion and Sedimentation sections of
the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook. The specific BMPs will be
referenced in the construction SWPPP prior to issuance of a grading permit. These will be
maintained by the developer and inspected by the City, and will reduce the impact of sediment to
less than significant during grading. After grading is complete, slopes will be planted, pads will
be hydroseeded, and temporary desiltation basins will be constructed on each lot to remove
sediment from storm water runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. The detention basin
at the end of the storm drain system provides redundancy. These mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant after grading operations. As the lots are
developed, they will be paved and landscaped, and the potential impact of sediment will be less
than significant.
The development of the project into industrial lots will create an increase in pollutants discharged in
storm water. These pollutants, detailed in the Summary NPDES Study ("Study"), entitled "Carlsbad
Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention", prepared for the project by O'Day
Consultants, include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The
Study indicates a potential impact totaling 8 pounds of pollutants per acre per year. Many of these
pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in the "first flush" of rainfall.
The Study lists potential structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used, their
effectiveness at removing the anticipated pollutants, and some preliminary sizing calculations. The
sample BMPs listed in the study are:
Oxygen Demand
• Infiltration/constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
• Wet ponds
• Biofilters
• Etended ponds
• Media filtration
• Oil/water sep.
• Multiple systems
Nutrients
• Constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
• Wet ponds
• Biofilters
• Etended ponds
• Media filtration
• Oil/water sep.
• Multiple systems
13 Rev. 03/28/96
Heavy Metals
• Infiltration/constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
• Wet ponds
• Biofilters
• Etended ponds
• Media filtration
• Oil/water sep.
• Multiple systems
Oil and Grease
• Infiltration/constructed wetlands/oil/water sep. (most effective BMPs)
• Wet ponds
• Bio filters
• Extended ponds
• Media filtration
• Multiple systems
State Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Order 2001-01 Section E requires that best
management practices based on the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) technology based standard
be applied to industrial activity. Prior to development of each lot, a SWPPP will be prepared that
evaluates the building coverage, extent of pavement, and specific business activities proposed,
calculates the anticipated pollutants, and specifies the required BMPs necessary to mitigate the
impact of development to the MEP standard, i.e., selected and sized to remove the type and quantity
of the anticipated pollutants from the storm water before it enters the storm drain system. Ultimately
the maintenance procedures and frequency will depend on the BMPs installed. The maintenance of
the permanent BMPs will be specified in the SWPPP that will be a condition of the Planned
Industrial Permit required prior to development of each industrial lot. BMPs will be maintained by
the industrial park association. Backup water quality treatment will be provided by two detention
basins into which storm drains will empty prior to stormwater flow into the Agua Hedionda Creek
tributary.
Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface water
body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the area to be
graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than significant.
Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be offset by infiltration
from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind Melrose Drive.
V. AIR QUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the
build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a
"non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of
14 Rev. 03/28/96
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially
Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This
"Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Final
Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
(The information presented in this section is summarized from the Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park
Transportation Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated May 3,2001)
The project will consist of approximately 75 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected
vehicle generation of 10,320 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 1,135 vehicle trips in the AM
peak hour (split 1,022 inbound and 114 outbound) and 1,238 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (split
248 inbound and 991 outbound).
The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to complete'the City's circulation network
in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are:
• Poinsettia Ave will be extended from its existing terminus west of Business Park Drive to
Melrose Drive.
• Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in the
City of Vista.
• Faraday Ave. will be extended from the existing terminus near Melrose Drive in Vista to the
existing terminus near Orion Circle in Carlsbad. This extension will add another arterial
parallel to Palomar Airport Road that provides direct access to the City's industrial corridor
and reduces traffic on Palomar Airport Road, a regional arterial serving the City's of
Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos.
• Onsite, Street "A" will connect to Palomar Forum, providing another link and secondary
access to Palomar Airport Road and to Melrose Drive/ Business Park Drive.
A) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased
vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway connections and
improvements to Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave., (Street "B") connecting a
network of roadways adjacent to Palomar Airport Road are identified as mitigation for this project.
(See mitigation plan below).
15 Rev. 03/28/96
B) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safety and
also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widening of
Palomar Airport Road intersection at Melrose Drive will provide a safer roadway free of lane
transitions and bottleneck roadway design.
C) The industrial lots will receive access from Street B, an east-west street that will connect to
Business Park Drive in the City of Vista to the east and Melrose Drive to the west. To avoid Street
B from bisecting a north-south wildlife corridor, it was suggested that Street B be designed so that it
culdesacs on each side of the corridor. A culdesac design would require that industrial lots located
on the east side of the corridor receive access via Business Park Drive in the City of Vista. It is the
responsibility of the City of Carlsbad Fire Department in cooperation with surrounding mutual aid
cities to respond if evacuation and emergency response is necessary due to a chemical spill, fire or
other incident. The Carlsbad Fire Department has a five minute response standard for all Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) incidents throughout the City. Without the connection of Street B through
the project, the Fire Department response to the eastern lots could be delayed; therefore, this five
minute EMS standard would be exceeded. Response to the project by mutual aid units from
surrounding cities could also be delayed. As designed, the project is proposing that Street B provide
the through connection required to satisfy the Fire Department emergency response threshold. The
arterial connection of Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave. (Business Park Dr. to
Melrose Drive) will improve emergency access to the adjacent development in the City's of
Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos.
E) The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road)
will provide for additional routes of travel, reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate
modes of transportation. Information provided by NCTD regarding future service scenarios to the
proposed business park indicate likely locations required for bus stops. These future locations are
shown on the tentative map to ensure their availability thereby facilitating future bus service to the
site.
F) The project as conditioned and designed will support alternative modes of transportation including
but not limited to: Additional bus routes, bus turnouts, bike lanes, car pooling, ride sharing, and
walking.
Mitigation Plan:
Unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, there is a likelihood that
significant impacts resulting from increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion will occur.
Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for the
following roadways:
• Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad
/ Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional Right turn
lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
• Poinsettia Ave. ("B" Street) shall be constructed as an Industrial Collector from Business
Park Drive to Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia /
Melrose intersection to accommodate turn lanes.
• Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to:
Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal modification
and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
Prior to recordation of a final map:
• Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from
the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in
the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
A financing mechanism for the above-mentioned improvements is identified in the Local Facility
Management Plan for Zone 18.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased
traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12
full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major
intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a
number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance
standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto
City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable
and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial
Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the
General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations"
applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR. This project is within the scope of
that MEIR, This document is available at the Planning Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing
of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine
whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more
than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes
have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only
potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real,
has been mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available
information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was
certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the "Carlsbad Raceway Project Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by Barry
Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. and mitigation proposed in a July 1, 1998 letter to the
17 Rev. 03/28/96
USFWS, the site supports six vegetation communities: coastal and valley freshwater marsh, southern
willow scrub, mule fat scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and non-native
grassland. In addition, there are disturbed habitat/agriculture and 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. The following table identifies the acreages of each vegetation community:
Vegetation Community
Upland
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Southern Mixed Chaparral
Non-native Grassland
Riparian/Wetland
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Other
Agriculture
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL:
Acreage
19.2
26.3
32.6
0.8
3.42
0.18
4.7
57.8
145.0
Sensitive plant species observed on the site include summer holly and California adolphia. These
species occurred in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitats onsite. The
summer holly is an HMP target species. Approximately 50 percent of the California adolphia
(approximately 50 individuals) and all of the summer holly (less than 10 individuals) will be lost as a
result of the project.
Sensitive animal species observed onsite include Cooper's hawk, Loggerhead shrike, White tailed
kite, and California horned lark. Some foraging habitat for raptors, loggerhead shrike breeding and
foraging habitat, and foraging habitat for the horned lark will be lost as a result of the project. Of the
four species observed, only the Cooper's hawk is a HMP target species. There is also a low potential
for burrowing owl to occur on the site.
Protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted on March 2, 11, and 19, 2001,
and 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.
This bird could not be relocated during the two subsequent surveys.
The most significant resources on site are the wetland habitats and the Diegan coastal sage scrub
along the northern property boundary. Direct impacts that result from the project total 112.01 of the
145 acres and are shown on the following table:
IMPACTS
Vegetation
Community
Upland
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Southern Mixed
Chaparral*
Non-native Grassland*
Acreage
19.2
26.3
32.6
Acres
Impacted
9.6
21.6
28.0
Acres
Preserved
9.6
4.7
4.6
18 Rev. 03/28/96
Riparian/Wetland
Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Other
Agriculture
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL:
0.77
3.42
0.18
4.7
57.8
145.0
.15
.53
.13
4.7
47.3
112.01
.62
3.05
.05
0
10.53
33.15
"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. Impacts
to non-native grassland total 28 acres. Approximately 4.6 acres of non-native grassland is being
preserved; therefore, the mitigation requirement is 23.4 acres.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Jurisdiction
ACOE Wetland
ACOE non-
vegetated waters
of the U.S.
CDFG
jurisdictional
areas
Existing
1.28
0.51
4.79
Project Impacts
0.24
0.18
0.91
Total Impacts
0.24
0.18
0.91
Remaining
1.04
0.33
3.88
POTENTIAL IMPACTS 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
Wildlife Corridors
In accordance with the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the project proposes a north-
south wildlife corridor that will help link open space within the Rancho Carrillo 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 larger
block of open space along the northern property boundary that connects to open space to the north in
the City of Vista and to open space to the west in the City of Carlsbad. Melrose Drive crosses the
wildlife corridor at the northwestern corner of the property. A 12' high arched wildlife culvert is
proposed below Melrose Drive (outside the floodplain) to provide a connection to open space to the
northwest. Street "B", which provides access to the industrial lots between Melrose Drive and
Business Park Drive will bisect the north-south wildlife corridor at the eastern end of the property
and mitigation for the Street "B" crossing is described below.
19 Rev. 03/28/96
The impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS), non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral,
southern willow scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, mulefat scrub, and the Street "B"
wildlife corridor crossing are considered significant without mitigation. Additionally, impacts to
sensitive plant species including California adolphia and summer holy and potential impacts to the
burrowing owl require mitigation.
Mitigation
The City has adopted a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) that has been used as a standard of review
for assessing cumulative biological impacts and imposing mitigation requirements. The following
mitigation requirements are consistent with the HMP.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub TDCSS)
The mitigation ratio for the DCSS, which is considered occupied, is 2:1, and the proposed mitigation
consists of: 1) the onsite preservation of 9.6 acres of DCSS; 2) restoration of approximately 8.5 acres
of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated; and 3) approximately 9 acres of areas currently
disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. 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 amount credited will be based on verififed costs (costs
verified by the City of Carlsbad) of the 8 acres of DCSS restoration.
Southern Mixed Chaparral/Non-native Grassland/Street "B" wildlife crossing
Prior to approval of final map, the applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and feasibility study for
a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; 2) either construct an acceptable wildlife
crossing on Street "B" or shall pay the City $100,000 to mitigate the effect of the Street "B" crossing
of the wildlife corridor if an acceptable wildlife crossing is not constructed; and 3) shall pay the City
$225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland ($3,949/acre) and chaparral ($7,897/acre).
If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the feasibility study shall not be required, and
the funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the designated core area as described in the
City's HMP. If the HMP is not approved, the City in consultation with the wildlife agencies, will
determine the most beneficial use of funds including but not limited to one or more of the following:
a) acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b) construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c) other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
Wetlands
A total of approximately .48 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:1 mitigation ratio). Southern willow scrub
will be planted over at least .34 acre and .14 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the
margins of the restoration area. Streambed impacts totaling .18 acre (Corps and CDFG
jurisdictional) will be mitigated through 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 .38 acre)
running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the project.
Exotic weeds will be removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of
the channel. An additional .98 acre of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the
additional .49 acre of impacts (2:1 mitigation ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by
CDFG but not jurisdictional by the Corps. The .18 acre of streambed. Impacts will be mitigated
through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of
20 Rev. 03/28/96
the drag strip into a 15 foot wide channel (approximately .38 acre) running through the proposed
wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the project. Exotic weeds will be removed
from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. The restoration
total for the project is 1.84 acres.
Sensitive Species
A minimum of 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly will be planted as container stock
within the upland restoration areas.
Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of the burrowing
owl. If the owl is observed on the site, it will be relocated to open space on the site.
The applicant shall use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscaped areas adjacent to
and/or near mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas. The applicant shall not plant,
seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas adjacent and/or
near the mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland riparian areas. Exotic species not to be used
include those species listed on Lists A and 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, fountaingrass, ice plant, myoporum, blak
locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch
broom, and Spanish broom.
The project would require authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game (1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement) and may require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for stream and wetland impacts. The project will
also require Incidental Take Authorization (Section 10(a) process) under the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
A mitigation monitoring program will be required as part of the final wetland and coastal sage scrub
restoration program. This restoration program shall be approved by the City and wildlife agencies
prior to commencement of construction activities. The project has been conditioned to require the
developer or his successor in interest to maintain and protect the open space/wildlife corridor until
such time that ownership is transferred to the City or its designee. Simultaneous with the transfer of
ownership, the developer would be responsible for the transfer of funding or other acceptable
financial mechanism to provide for the management and conservation of the open space in
perpetuity.
To summarize, the proposed mitigation plan consists of the following:
• Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site.
• Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor.
• Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix.
• Create 1.84 acres of wetland habitat.
• Plant as container stock 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly in upland restoration
areas.
• Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction and relocate if necessary.
• Use native plants and avoid invasive exotic species in landscaped areas adjacent to
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas.
• Provide a 12' high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
• Obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and California Department of Fish and Game prior to final map approval.
21 Rev. 03/28/96
Submit a wetland and coastal sage scrub restoration program, including a mitigation
monitoring program for approval by the City and the wildlife agencies prior to
commencement of construction activities.
Prior to final map approval:
o provide an engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under
Palomar Airport Road;
o either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing on Street "B" or pay $100,000 to
mitigate the effect of the Street "B" crossing of the wildlife corridor if an acceptable
wildlife crossing is not constructed;
o pay $225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland ($3,949/acre) and
chaparral ($7,897/acre).
If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the engineering and feasibility study
shall not be required, and the mitigation funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the
designated core area as described in the City's HMP.
If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval, the City in consultation with the
wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds including but not
limited to one or more of the following:
a. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b. construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
VIII. HAZARDS
Due to the project's proximity to existing residential development located to the south across
Palomar Airport Road and within 1,000 feet, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the project could
pose a potentially significant risk to residents through exposure resulting from the accidental release
of hazardous substances. Generally, the Fire Marshal has requested that safeguards be incorporated
into the project to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of hazardous materials that
could otherwise be allowed under current fire or building code regulations as well as applicable state
or federal statutes. Of major concern was the storage or use of hazardous materials that could pose
hazards even under non-fire conditions and may not provide adequate warning or notification of a
hazardous condition to either the occupants in the residential areas and/or the fire department.
Based on research of building and fire codes as well as state and federal statutes, the Fire Department
agreed to mitigation conditions that would significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous
substances:
1. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or
use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at
quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire
code.
2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined
in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in
the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence
analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA shows the release
22 Rev. 03/28/96
could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the
material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance
to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to
utilize the material in that quantity.
Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material
can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, wind speed,
atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a
pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be overlayed
onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release.
Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and chemical release
conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for the
specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most sophisticated
method available to ensure community safety.
The Carlsbad Raceway property has been used as a raceway since approximately 1961. In that time,
various parts of the property have been subject to direct or indirect storage/use of hazardous
substances (petroleum hydrocarbons). To ensure that no potentially significant health hazard exists
on the site, a site assessment was performed, "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update" for
the Carlsbad Raceway Property dated May 8, 1998, prepared by MVE Environmental, Inc., that
included findings of three previous Phase I and/or II site assessments performed on the Raceway
property since 1990. Based on findings of the first 1990 Phase I site assessment performed by GEI,
a Phase II site assessment was performed in 1991. Surveys consisted of four test trenches from
which soils were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPH), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and the installation of one groundwater
monitoring well from which water was analyzed for the above in addition to orgnochlorine pesticides
and organophosphorus pesticides. The conclusion was that based on the general hydrogeologic
characteristics of the site and surrounding areas and the detected levels of concentration were not
significant and no additional assessment of the site would be needed. It was noted, however, that the
due to the past application of oil for dust control on the unpaved entry road a thin layer,
approximately 1/8 inch - % inch thick and located below 2-4 inches of soil cover, was detected.
GEI concluded that the thin oil layer is fairly immobile and therefore probably does not represent a
significant threat to contaminate the underlying groundwater. They further stated that the
contamination does not present a threat to human health or the environment under current conditions,
during development or foreseeable post development conditions. The most recent analysis prior to
the 1998 analysis was conducted in 1997. In 1997, based on a review of the previous site assessment
findings and conclusions, MVE performed additional soil sampling in areas deemed to present
potential liability for the future development of the property. That analysis revealed five areas on
the site not previously assessed where contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons would most likely
occur. The five areas of concern included: 1) former heavy equipment storage along east end of
south property line; 2) 10,000 gallon AST located on the south property line; 3) potential for south
adjacent property draining agriculture residue onto Raceway property; 4) 55 gallon drums labeled
Race Gas located in drag strip pit area; and 5) potential agricultural chemical residue in on-site
stream sediments resulting from up-stream greenhouse activity north and east of the site (Mount
Olive Floral and Marflor Farms). The results of the 1997 assessment revealed no concentrations of
hydrocarbons or agricultural chemical residue exceeding regulatory action levels or high enough to
be an environmental concern to occupants/tenants of the proposed development. The subsequent
1998 site assessment update included further soil sampling at the Raceway property that focused on
the petroleum hydrocarbons either stored on-site, disposed on-site, or accidentally spilled or leaked
into surficial soils of the property. The tests revealed only small concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons with the exception of the paved/oiled entry road where a very thin layer of TRPH
(6,200 mg/kg concentration) contamination at a depth of approximately 4 inches. MVE concludes
23 Rev. 03/28/96
that the only exposure concern this contaminant presents to human receptors if left on-site is by
ingestions and that an option to disposal would be a number of non-sensitive fill areas on the
property where this soil can be used in grading since a large percentage of the property wil be paved
with asphalt parking lots and roadways. MVE recommends that the soil be used in one of these fill
areas to eliminate the human concern. No environmental concerns are associated with these heavy
hydrocarbons due to the strong soil bond and restricted ability to migrate.
Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the
applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical Review
Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project.
To avoid an increase in the fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes
containing high fuel native vegetation, the project Landscape Plans identify a 30' wide fire
suppression zone in which the 10' closest to the top of slope must be landscaped in accordance with
the City's Landscape Manual provisions for manufactured slopes (Zone A-2).
IX. NOISE
The project consists of an industrial subdivision; therefore, an increase in existing noise levels
occurring from temporary grading and construction activity will result. Noise generated from
construction activities is regulated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to avoid noise impacts to
sensitive receptors. Noise levels resulting from future industrial development on each lot will be
regulated through discretionary approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. The Planned Industrial (P-
M) zone (Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) performance standard for noise generation
prohibits the generation of noise exceeding 65 dBA as measured at the property line. The property is
in proximity to two circulation arterial roadways resulting in exterior noise levels on lots adjacent to
the roadways that exceed the City's interior noise standard of 55 dBA Leq. for general office use and
65 dBA Leq. for industrial use. In accordance with the General Plan Noise element, required
mitigation consists of a Noise Report that is required in conjunction with future discretionary
applicatons for Planned Industrial Permits (PIP). The noise report must specify the acoustical design
features required to achieve the interior noise standard.
XI/XII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The
Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development
within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to
comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to meet
the additional demand generated by the project.
The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service area.
The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer system.
But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation
District (VSD) to the Raceway sewer lift station. The Zone Plan provides for temporary sewer in the
City of Vista's Buena Interceptor subject to a flow transfer agreement between the City of Carlsbad
and the City of Vista. This provision is made because the property is part of the Raceway Sewer Lift
Station Assessment District in the City of Vista.
XIII. AESTHETICS
While the project will result in alteration of the existing landform due to the necessity of grading
large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced
24 Rev. 03/28/96
below and partially screened by the Palomar Forum industrial development proposed on the property
to the south. As identified by photo simulations prepared for the Palomar Forum industrial project to
the south of the Carlsbad Raceway property, the project will be partially visible from Palomar
Airport Road, a scenic corridor circulation arterial roadway and Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial
roadway. Fifty foot landscape setbacks in which large specimen trees are required adjacent to these
roadways will partially screen the development, and compliance with the approved landscape plans
will ensure that parking lots and manufactured slopes are screened. Potentially significant visual
impacts could result from future industrial development that is visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive due to poor architectural design and/or visible rooftop equipment, and loading bays.
Mitigation necessary to reduce visual impacts from any industrial development that is visible from
Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive includes: 1) prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on
roofs unless project incorporates architectural treatment consisting of parapets that are of sufficient
height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment; 2) prohibit installation of roof screens
other than building parapets that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; 3) prohibit
loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive; and 4) require enhanced
architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive. These mitigation measures will be reviewed for compliance prior to approval of the
Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot.
XIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The existence of archaeological resources has been documented on the property by two
archaeological reports, "Results of the Archaeological Significance Assessment" performed by
RECON for the Melrose Drive extension project dated October 11, 1999, and the "Draft
Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the Wimpey Gentry Property: SDi-9041,-9042, -9043, and -
9045, Carlsbad California" performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two archaeological
reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the proposed Melrose
alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two additional sites not
previously surveyed, SDi-10,550 and SDi-10,552. The 1989 RECON report concluded that no
significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-9041, 9042, and 9043. The report recommended that
since an important source of information could remain in the area of SDi-9043 and SDi-9045
monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and documentation would be necessary.
The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad
Raceway property is an important site that should be fenced during the Carlsbad Raceway grading
and construction activities for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no
further work is necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property
has been buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also
indicated that no artifacts were recovered from SDi-10,550 and that the artifacts from SDi-10,552
revealed that it was a small stone flaking station offering no substantive contribution to our current
understanding of the prehistoric pattern for this area. No further work is recommended for these two
sites. The report concludes that the three sites investigated are not significant cultural resources;
therefore, impacts from the proposed development are not significant.
XVI. RECREATIONAL
The Carlsbad Raceway has operated under conditional use permit since 1963. The conditional use
permit for the motocross and drag racing activities expires in February, 2002. The property has been
designated for industrial land use for many years and within the past five years, the property has been
surrounded by industrial, residential, and commercial development. Although the Carlsbad
Raceway offers an existing recreational opportunity, its viability as a compatible conditional use in
an urbanized area has weakened. The proposed development, which is consistent with the General
Plan land use designation and is a permitted use, is the intended land use.
25 Rev. 03/28/96
The project includes a portion of a 1.7 acre landscaped mini-park located between Melrose Drive and
the western property line that will include picnic tables, a water feature, and a City-wide trail
segment that bisects the property from Melrose Drive to the adjacent property to the west. The 8'
wide trail will connect to another City-wide trail segment proposed through the canyon to the west.
The mini-park is intended to be utilized by employees of the surrounding industrial park as an
outdoor eating area.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760)
602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention", prepared by O"Day
& Associates, dated June 6, 2001.
3. "Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Transportation Analysis", prepared by Urban Systems
Associates, Inc. dated May 3, 2001.
4. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Industrial Development-Carlsbad
Raceway Property" dated August 26, 1997, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.
5. "Carlsbad Raceway Project Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc., dated May 12, 1998; "Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation
Plan", prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated June 1, 1998; Letters from
Barry Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to: Julie Vanderwier, USFWS dated July
1, 1998; Letter to Mr Jon Kurtin ("Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the
Carlsbad Raceway"), dated April 19, 2001; and Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin ("Addendum to the
Biological Resources Report for the Carlsbad Raceway Project"), dated May 11, 2001; and
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong from Helix Environmental Planning dated August 28, 2001.
6. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update - Carlsbad Raceway Property", prepared by
MV Environmental, Inc. dated May 8, 1998.
7. "Results of Archaeological Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-10,552, CA-SDI-10,550,
and a portion of CA-SDI-9045 for the Melrose Drive Extension Project", prepared by
RECON dated October 11, 1999 and"Draft Archaeological Testiong of Four Sites at the
Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-9041, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and Sdi-9045, Carlsbad,
California" prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989.
26 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. a. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for
the following roadways:
• Melrose Drive as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista
boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional right turn lanes
are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
• Poinsettia Ave. ("B" Street) as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to
Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia/Melrose
intersection to accommodate turn lanes.
• Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to:
additional right-of-way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal
modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
1. b. Prior to recordation of a final map, Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a
Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of
Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
2. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the provisions
of the "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention" summary
NPDES study prepared for the project by O'Day Consultants dated June 6, 2001.
3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site.
Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor.
Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix.
Create 1.84 acres of wetland habitat.
Plant as container stock 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly in upland
restoration areas.
Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction and relocate if necessary.
Use native plants and avoid invasive exotic species in landscaped areas adjacent to
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas.
Provide a 12' high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
Obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game prior to final map
approval.
Submit a wetland and coastal sage scrub restoration program, including a mitigation
monitoring program for approval by the City and the wildlife agencies prior to
commencement of construction activities.
Prior to final map approval:
• provide an engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing
under Palomar Airport Road;
27 Rev. 03/28/96
• either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing on Street "B" or pay $100,000
to mitigate the effect of the Street "B" crossing of the wildlife corridor if an
acceptable wildlife crossing is not constructed;
• pay $225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland ($3,949/acre)
and chaparral ($7,897/acre).
• If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the engineering and feasibility
study shall not be required, and the mitigation funds shall be used for acquisition of
acreage in the designated core area as described in the City's HMP.
• If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval, the City in consultation with
the wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds
including but not limited to one or more of the following:
a. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b. construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the
City.
4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures will
be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for
each lot.
• Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless project incorporates
architectural treatment consisting of architectural elements or parapets that are of
sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment.
• Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural elements
that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings;
• Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
• Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from
Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
5. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances:
• No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or
use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at
quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire
code.
• Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code §25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
• Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined
in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in
the California Health and Safety Code §25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence
analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations §2750.2 through §2750.3. If the OCA shows the release
could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the
material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance
to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to
utilize the material in that quantity.
28 Rev. 03/28/96
Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous
material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, wind
speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release
(e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be
overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a
release. Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and chemical
release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for
the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most
sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
6. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the
applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical
Review Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE)
29 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date
DOUGLAS DIENER
5000 NIGHTHAWK WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P O BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
DIANE NYGAARD
PRESERVE CALAVERA
5020 NIGHTHAWK WAY
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92104-3623
ISABELLE KAY
UCSD NATURAL RESERVE
SYSTEM
9500 GILMAN DRIVE
LA JOLLA CA 92093-0116
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
DAVID N LAWHEAD
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE
SAN DIEGO. CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
JON MARTIN
U S FISH AND WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVENUE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044^acramento, CA 95812 - (916) 445-0613
Project Title: Palomar Forum
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hvsong
FILE COPY
See NOTE Below:
SCH#
Street Address:
COUNTY
1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: (760)602-4622 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008 County: SAN DIEGO
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: Carlsbad
Cross Streets: _Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 70.6
Assessor's Parcel No. 221-012-10 & 17 Section: 13 & 18 Twp. 125 Range: 4W Base:_
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA:n
n
NOP
Early Cons
Mitigated
Neg Dec
Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent
EIR (Prior SCH No.)
Other:
NEPA:NOI
EA
Draft EIS
FONSI
OTHER:
| |
Joint Document
Final Document
Other: _
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
[~| General Plan Update Q
^ General Plan Amendment | |
| | General Plan Element [~]
[[] Community Plan [~|
Specific Plan
Master Plan
Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
I I Annexation
( [ Redevelopment
PI Coastal Permit
[XI Other: Zone Change to Open
Space/Hillside Development
Permit
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
n
n
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational:
Recreational:
Units
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres 70.6
Employees
Employees
Employees nnnnnnnWater Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Water:
Other:
Tvpe MGD
Tvpe
Mineral
Tvpe Watts
Tvpe
Tvpe
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
^ Aesthetic/Visual
| | Agricultural Land
^) Air Quality
IXI Archaeological/Historical
| | Coastal Zone
1X1 Drainage/Absorption
| | Economic/Jobs
Fiscal
PI Flood Plain/Flooding
I | Forest Land/Fire Hazard
| | Geological/Seismic
| | Minerals
| | Noise
| | Population/Hsg. Balance
^ Public Services/Facilities
I I Recreation/Parks
| | Schools/Universities
| | Septic Systems
PI Sewer Capacity
| | Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
fj Solid Waste
1X1 Toxic/Hazardous
^ Traffic/Circulation
^ Vegetation
Water Quality
H2O Supply/Ground H2O
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Vacamt/Planned Industrial (P-M)/Planned Industrial (PI)
Project Description:
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and
Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road
between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to
a wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The remaining segment of Melrose Drive between
Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of
Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
NOTICE OF COMPLETION.
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044,'Sacramento, CA 95812 - (916) 445-0613
Project Title: Palomar Forum - CT 99-06
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hvsong
See NOTE Below:
SCH#
Street Address: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: (760") 602-4622 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008
COUNTY
County: SAN DIEGO
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community:
Cross Streets: Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 70.6
Carlsbad
Assessor's Parcel No. 221-012-10 & 17 Section: 13 & 18 Twp. 125 Range: 4W Base:.
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA:
D
NOP
Early Cons
Mitigated
Neg Dec
Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent
EIR (Prior SCH No.)
Other:
NEPA: [J NOI
D EA
Q Draft E1S
n FONSI
OTHER: [J Joint Document
| | Final Document
n Other:
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
Q General Plan Update
^| General Plan Amendment
Ql General Plan Element
| [ Community Plan
I I Specific Plan
|~| Master Plan
I | Planned Unit Development
I""! Site Plan
I| Rezone
I | Prezone
| | Use Permit
^ Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
| | Annexation
| | Redevelopment
| | Coastal Permit
^ Other: Zone Change to Open
Space/Hillside Development
Permit
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
D
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational:
Recreational:
Units
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres 70.6
Employees
Employees
Employees
n
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Water:
Other:
Type MGD
Tvpe
Mineral
Tvpe Watts
Tvpe
Tvpe
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
^] Aesthetic/Visual Q
| | Agricultural Land | |
£3 Air Quality Q]
^ Archaeological/Historical | |
|~| Coastal Zone f~l
£<] Drainage/Absorption | |
| | Economic/Jobs ^
Fiscal
Flood Plain/Flooding
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Geological/Seismic
Minerals
Noise
Population/Hsg. Balance
Public Services/Facilities
Recreation/Parks
| | Schools/Universities
I | Septic Systems
| | Sewer Capacity
| | Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
fj Solid Waste
IXI Toxic/Hazardous
^ Traffic/Circulation
EX^ Vegetation
D
Water Quality
H2O Supply/Ground H20
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Vacamt/Planned Industrial (P-M)/Planned Industrial (PI)
Project Description:
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and
Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road
between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to
a wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The remaining segment of Melrose Drive between
Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of
Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR
DATE:
TO:
RE:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
July 18, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Palomar Forum
SCH#: 2001071073
Steve Nissen
BIRECTOR
This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document
for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is:
Review Start Date: July 13, 2001
Review End Date: August 13, 2001
We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments:
Air Resources Board, Major Industrial Projects
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans, District 11
Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics
Department of Conservation
Department of Fish and Game, Region 5
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Native American Heritage Commission
Office of Historic Preservation
Public Utilities Commission
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9
Resources Agency
State Lands Commission
The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your
attention on the date following the close of the review period.
Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process.
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
NOTICE OF COMPLETION.
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044,~Sacramento, CA 95812 - (916) 445-0613
Project Title: Palomar Forum
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Anne Hvsong
See NOTE Below:
SCH#
Street Address: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE Phone: (760") 602-4622 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008
COUNTY
County: SAN DIEGO
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: San Diego City/Nearest Community:
Cross Streets: Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 70.6
Carlsbad
Assessor's Parcel No. 221-012-10 & 17 Section: 13 & 18 Twp. 125 Range: 4W Base:_
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA: Q NOP
| | Early Cons
IXI Mitigated
Neg Dec
n Draft EIR
Supplement/Subsequent
EIR (Prior SCH No.)
Other:
NEPA: Q] NOI
D EA
[J Draft EIS
PI FONSI
OTHER:
| |
Joint Document
Final Document
Other: _
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
| | General Plan Update
[XI General Plan Amendment
| | General Plan Element
| | Community Plan
Specific Plan Q
Master Plan Q
Planned Unit Development | |
Site Plan |XI
Rezone
Prezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
| | Annexation
| [ Redevelopment
|~| Coastal Permit
^| Other: Zone Change to Open
Space/Hillside Development
Permit
DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
Dn
n
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Educational:
Recreational:
Units
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres 70.6
Employees
Employees
Employees
D
Water Facilities:
Transportation:
Mining:
Power:
Waste Treatment:
Hazardous Water:
Other:
MODType
Type
Mineral
Type Watts_
Type
Type
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
[XI Aesthetic/Visual
| | Agricultural Land
£3 Air Quality
IXI Archaeological/Historical
| | Coastal Zone
IXI Drainage/Absorption
| | Economic/Jobs
PI Fiscal
D
Flood Plain/Flooding
Forest Land/Fire Hazard
Geological/Seismic
Minerals
Noise
Population/Hsg. Balance
Public Services/Facilities
Recreation/Parks
| | Schools/Universities
| | Septic Systems
| | Sewer Capacity
| | Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Q Solid Waste
IXI Toxic/Hazardous
[X] Traffic/Circulation
^| Vegetation
n
Water Quality
H20 Supply/Ground H2O
Wetland/Riparian
Wildlife
Growth Inducing
Land Use
Cumulative Effect
Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
Vacamt/Planned Industrial (P-M)/Planned Industrial (PI)
Project Description:
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and
Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road
between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to
a wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The remaining segment of Melrose Drive between
Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (i.e., from a Notice of
Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. Revised October 1989
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
North of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and the
eastern City boundary.
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located
north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and
future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south
wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the
northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No
industrial buildings are proposed.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
July 15, 2001
GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
Palomar Forum
PUBLISH DATE: July 15, 2001
MICHAEL J/HOL
Planning Director
ILLER
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
DATE: May 3, 2001
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Palomar Forum Business Park
APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates/Davis Partners
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Suite 150. Carlsbad.
CA 92008. (760) 438-1465
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 9. 1999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned
Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property
located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose
Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a
wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista
boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
1X1 Transportation/Circulation I I Public Services
1X1 Biological Resources I I Utilities & Service Systems
I | Energy & Mineral Resources IXI Aesthetics
1X1 Hazards IXI Cultural Resources
I I Noise I I Recreation
I | Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
l~~l I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
l~~l I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1X1 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature / Date
Planning Directors-Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the
circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation
measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,
then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement
of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs5.1-l -5.1.15; #3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-
1-5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs5.1-l -5.1-15; #3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#3)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
a
aa
a
n
a
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a
a
aa
a
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1-5..2-11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs
5.3-1 -5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - .5.3-
12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1-5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24; #4)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs5.4-l-5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #4)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24; #4)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs
5.12.1-1-5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5;)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less No
Than Impact
Signifi
cant
Impact
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D Kl
n n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5; #5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-
5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -
5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-
7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-
3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-
1-5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs5.11-l -5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
13 D
Kl D
D D
No
Impact
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
XV.
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
c)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1
-5.8-10;)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -
5.8-10; #6)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(#l:Pgs 5.8-1-5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
FINDINGS OFMANDATORY
SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n n
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
Rev. 03/28/96
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Palomar Forum property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City's northeast
quadrant. The property is surrounded by the Carlsbad Raceway vacant industrial land, open
space, and existing industrial development in the City of Vista to the north, a small commercial
development in the City of Vista to the east, Palomar Airport Road and Rancho Carrillo
residential development to the south, and the existing Carlsbad Oaks East industrial park to the
west. The future Melrose Drive alignment bisects the property at the western end
The property is characterized by gentle hillside terrain which descends northward from the
highest areas along Palomar Airport Road down to the Carlsbad Raceway property. The central
portion of the property contains several small naturally vegetated ravines. Natural slope
gradients most commonly approach 10:1 and transition to as steep as 4:1 above these ravines.
The majority of the site is disturbed by past agricultural use, however, Diegan coastal sage scrub,
non-native grassland, and southern mixed chaparral also occupy the site. Site drainage sheet
flows northward over the slopes and into a north draining canyon. A SDG&E powerline
easement bisects the eastern end of the property.
I. LAND USE
The project is consistent with the Planned Industrial (PI) Land Use designation for the property
and the industrial subdivision is consistent with the PM zoning ordinance regulating industrial
subdivisions. The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the
portion of the property proposed to be preserved as open space to the Open Space (OS)
designation. The project is included in Carlsbad's draft Habitat Management Plan and identified
as a part of Linkage Area D. It is also identified as a proposed hardline area that consists of a
minimum 400' wide north-south corridor at the eastern end of the property. The project is
consistent with the HMP in that a 400' wide north-south corridor is proposed to be preserved
along the eastern boundary. The project is surrounded to the west, north, and east by industrial
and commercial land uses similar to the project and therefore compatible. The project is
separated from the Rancho Carillo residential development to the south by Palomar Airport
Road. Given the considerable separation from residential land uses and the Fire Department
mitigation requirement to restrict hazardous materials within 1000' of residential land uses (see
IX. Hazards discussion below), the Palomar Forum Business Park is compatible with residential
land uses in the vicinity.
The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area
and therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
The project is located within the eastern portion of the airport flight activity zone. The project,
which consists of industrial lots to be developed in the future with industrial buildings that are
consistent with the P-M zone standards, is consistent with the CLUP.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will require the construction of the last segment of Melrose Drive between its
existing northerly terminus in the City of Vista and Palomar Airport Road and Faraday Avenue
between its existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City's easterly boundary.
This extension of a prime arterial roadways is part of the City's circulation arterial roadway
system necessary to support existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and to
alleviate regional traffic congestion. Given that existing development surrounds the Carlsbad
Raceway property, construction of these roadways cannot be considered to be directly or
11 Rev. 03/28/96
indirectly growth inducing.
III. GEOLOGY
Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by Vinje & Middleton, Inc., the development
of the property as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the
recommendations for remedial grading and site development are followed. A brief summary of
findings of the investigation indicate that "the site is underlain by a succession of sedimentary
bedrock units whose engineering properties range from very competent to poor. Unstable
existing landslide conditions are not in evidence at the property, however, marginally stable earth
materials are present which will impact the stability of the planned cut slopes along the south
perimeter below Palomar Airport Road. Conventional cut-fill grading methods may be utilized
to achieve design grades; however, selective grading consistent with the engineering properties
of site earth materials is recommended in order to achieve safe and stable slopes and building
pads.
IV, WATER
The project, upon ultimate development, will consist of industrial lots with a large coverage of
building and parking. Storm water runoff from each lot will be picked up in a subsurface storm
drain pipe and will flow underground into the public storm drain under the streets. The public
storm drain outlets into a detention basin which drains into a tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek.
The mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. As the
lots are developed, the site will absorb less water than in the undeveloped condition. The project
includes work to constrict the inlet to the existing storm drain culvert under Melrose Drive in the
City of Vista. This will create a detention basin to the east of Melrose Drive and reduce the peak
flow in the Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre-development conditions. Due to the
reduced peak flows, the project will have no impact on erosion downstream.
The project is creating roads and building pads that are not subject to inundation by storms, and
would not expose people or property to flooding hazards.
The development of the project into industrial lots will create an increase in pollutants
discharged in storm water. These pollutants, detailed in the Summary NPDES Study ("Study")
entitled "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention", prepared for the
project by O'Day Consultants, include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and
oil and grease. The Study indicates a potential impact totaling 8 pounds of pollutants per acre
per year. Many of these pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in
the "first flush" of rainfall. The Study lists potential structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that will be used, their effectiveness at removing the anticipated pollutants, and some
preliminary sizing calculations. The sample BMPs listed in the study are:
Oxygen Demand
• Water quality basin
• Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
Sediment
• Water quality basin
• Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Nutrients
• Grass-lined swales
• Biological water quality basin
Heavy Metals
• Water quality basin
• Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
• Grass-lined swales
•
Oil and Grease
• Water quality basin
• Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
Each lot, upon development, will be required to construct BMPs selected and sized to remove the
type and quantity of the anticipated pollutants from the storm water before it enters the storm
drain system. The Study indicates that the BMPs will be maintained by the industrial park
association, and lists the required maintenance and schedule for the different BMPs. The storm
drain system empties into a detention basin prior to flowing into the Agua Hedionda Creek
tributary. This provides backup water quality treatment.
The project drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is an Impaired Waterbody on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. The beneficial uses of aquatic life, Recreation-1 (non-
contact) and Recreation-2(contact), and shellfish harvest are impaired by sediment, coliform and
coliform, respectively.
During construction, the project will be required to implement extensive erosion control
measures pursuant to City standards. These will be maintained by the developer and inspected
by the City, and will reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant during grading. After
grading is complete, the graded pads will each have a sediment basin onsite, to remove sediment
from storm water runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. The detention basin at the end
of the storm drain system provides redundancy. These mitigation measures will reduce the
impact of sediment to less than significant after grading operations. As the lots are developed,
they will be paved and landscaped, and the potential impact of sediment will be less than
significant.
The major source of coliform in storm water runoff is pet waste. Since this is an industrial
development, there is no impact of coliform.
Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface
water body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the
area to be graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than
significant. Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be
offset by infiltration from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind
Melrose Drive.
V. AIR QUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
13 Rev. 03/28/96
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for
air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR.
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
The information presented in this section is summarized from the Palomar Forum Transportation
Analysis (Urban Systems Associates, Inc March 7, 2001)
The project will consist of approximately 45 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected
vehicle generation of 5,226 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 580 vehicle trips in the
AM peak hour (split 520 inbound and 60 outbound) and 625 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour
(split 122 inbound and 503 outbound).
The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to complete the City's circulation
network in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are:
• Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to existing
improvements west of Melrose Drive.
• Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in
the City of Vista.
• Faraday Ave. will be extended from the existing terminus (near Melrose) in Vista to the
existing terminus (Orion) in Carlsbad This extension will add another arterial, parallel to
Palomar Airport Road serving direct access to the City's industrial corridor and relieving
14 Rev. 03/28/96
the pressure off of a Regional Arterial serving the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista and San
Marcos.
• Onsite, Street "A" Street will connect to the adjacent project to the north Carlsbad
Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to Melrose Drive
and to Business Park Drive.
A) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of
increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway
connections and improvements to Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and
onsite streets are identified as mitigation for this project.
B) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safety
and also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widening
of Palomar Airport Road and intersection improvements at Melrose Drive will provide a safe
roadway free of lane transitions and bottleneck roadway design.
C) The arterial connection of Melrose Drive, and Faraday Ave. will improve emergency access.
E) The additional roadways of Melrose Drive and Faraday Ave. and the additional capacity of
Palomar Airport Road will facilitate alternate modes of transportation and provide for additional
routes of travel as well as reducing conflict and congestion on roadway.
F) The project as conditioned and designed will support alternative modes of transportation
including but not limited to: Additional bus routes, bus turnouts, bike lanes, car-pooling, ride
sharing, and walking.
Mitigation Plan:
Unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, there is likelihood
that significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion will occur.
• Palomar Airport Road will be widened along the frontage of this project from the City of
Vista boundary to west of Melrose Drive. In addition, an additional right turn lane will be
provided at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive.
• Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the
Carlsbad / Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional
right turn lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
• Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed
from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing
terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
• Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to:
Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal
modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
A financing mechanism for the above-mentioned improvements is identified in the Local Facility
Management Plan for Zone 18.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the "PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report" prepared by Barry Jones,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. and mitigation proposed in a April 26, 1999 follow-up letter,
the Palomar Forum property 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. Additionally,
several drainages containing ACOE jurisdictional non-vegetated Waters of the U.S. exist on the
property within the naturally vegetated small canyons in the center of the site.. The following
table identifies the acreages of each vegetation community:
16 Rev. 03/28/96
Vegetation Community
Diegan coastal sage scrub
Southern mixed chaparral
Non-native grassland
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL
ACOE Jurisdictional Drainages
Acreage
3.2
3.3
0.4
55.4
62.3*
.08
Impacts
3.2
3.3
0.4
* approximate net acreage excluding acreage for Palomar Airport Road
Sensitive plant species observed on the site include Nuttall's scrub oak, California adophia, and
Western dochondra which occur in the southern mixed chaparral habitat on site. None of these
species is an HMP narrow endemic, i.e., required to be preserved .
A total of twenty-one animal species were observed or detected on site during site surveys,
however, the only sensitive species observed on site was the white tailed kite. Protocol surveys
for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted on March 2, 11, and 19, 2001 and no
gnatcatchers ere observed or detected on the Palomar Forum site.
As indicated by the above table, direct impacts to native habitats include all of the southern
mixed chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland. Impacts to Diegan coastal
sage scrub and Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are considered significant.
Mitigation
There are three components to the mitigation program: 1) onsite upland habitat restoration; 2)
off-site upland habitat acquisition; and 3) off-site riparian restoration. Impacts to Diegan coastal
sage scrub will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The on-site restoration will include restoration of
approximately 1.7 acres of currently disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub within the wildlife
corridor. Restoration of the corridor will maximize its value for wildlife. A conceptual
restoration plan will be developed prior to issuance of final map.
The remaining upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the acquisition of 1.5
acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub or other habitat acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies.
Impacts to .08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated by creation of .08 acre of
riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the Carlsbad Raceway property immediately
to the north and within the proposed HMP wildlife corridor.
The project would potentially constrict wildlife movement across the site. To ensure continued
wildlife movement in accordance with the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the
project proposes a north-south wildlife corridor consisting of the easterly 1.5 acres (700 feet in
width) of the property that will help link open space within the Rancho Carrillo project to the
south with additional open space provided within the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
This open space corridor will connect to open space to the north, however, it is bisected by the
alignment of Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial roadway required for the project. A 12' high
arched wildlife under-crossing where Melrose Drive bisects the corridor and located towards the
17 Rev. 03/28/96
^^ •^^
top of the slope of the roadway outside the floodplain is proposed to provide connection to the
open space to the north.
VIII. HAZARDS
Due to the project's proximity to existing residential development located to the south across
Palomar Airport Road and within 1,000 feet, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the project could
pose a potentially significant risk to residents through exposure resulting from the accidental
release of hazardous substances. Generally, the Fire Marshal has requested that safeguards be
incorporated into the project to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of
hazardous materials that could otherwise be allowed under current fire or building code
regulations as well as applicable state or federal statutes. Of major concern was the storage or
use of hazardous materials that could pose hazards even under non-fire conditions and may not
provide adequate warning or notification of a hazardous condition to either the occupants in the
residential areas and/or the fire department.
Based on research of building and fire codes as well as state and federal statutes, the Fire
Department agreed to mitigation conditions that would significantly reduce the risk of exposure
to hazardous substances:
1. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store,
handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted
fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently
adopted fire code.
2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as
defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite
consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with
Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA
shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store,
handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material
reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the
facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous
material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature,
wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of
release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models
can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the
event of a release. Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and
chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is
determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is
the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
The "Pesticide Soil Assessment at Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
California" performed for by MV Environmental, Inc. concluded that based on limited soil
18 Rev. 03/28/96
assessment of the property, residual pesticide contamination exists within the upper 2.5 feet of
soil on the property. Detection of DDT, DDE, and DDD pesticide concentrations were found to
range between <50ug/kg and 50 ug/kg (parts per billion). These concentrations do not present a
human health concern when compared to the Federal Government's Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs) for these compounds. MV Environmental concludes that since all resideual
concentrations analyzed are well below the posted Federal PRG concentrations, the shallow
occurrences of organochlorine pesticides do not represent an environmental endangerment to the
groundwater nor humans based on the range of concentrations and depths observed. The soil can
be used in the general grading of the site with the following mitigation:
Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of site development
that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in a manner which protects human
health and the environment. Measures necessary to prevent fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and
any off-site migration of pesticide contaminated soil are effective dust control, such as liberal
amounts of water,to reduce public exposure to these types of contaminants. Any activity
generating dust emissions shall be immediately stopped if excessive off-site migration of dust is
dectected by City of Carlsbad Engineering Inspection.
To avoid an increase in the fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes
containing high fuel native vegetation, the project Landscape Plans identify a 30' wide fire
suppression zone in which the 10' closest to the top of slope must be landscaped in accordance
with the City's Landscape Manual provisions for manufactured slopes (Zone A-2).
XI/XII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The
Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development
within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to
comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to
meet the additional demand generated by the project.
The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service
area. The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer
system. But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation
District (VSD) to the Raceway sewer lift station. The Zone Plan provides for temporary sewer in
the City of Vista's Buena Interceptor subject to a flow transfer agreement between the City of
Carlsbad and the City of Vista. This provision is made because the property is part of the
Raceway Sewer Lift Station Assessment District in the City of Vista.
XIII. AESTHETICS
While the project will result in alteration of the existing landform due to the necessity of grading
large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced
below Palomar Airport Road along the eastern half of the property. As identified by photo
simulations prepared for the industrial project, the project will be visible from Palomar Airport
Road, a scenic corridor circulation arterial roadway and Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial
roadway. Fifty foot landscape setbacks in which large specimen trees are required adjacent to
these roadways will partially screen the development, and compliance with the approved
landscape plans will ensure that parking lots and manufactured slopes are screened. Potentially
significant visual impacts could result from future industrial development that is visible from
Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive due to poor architectural design and/or visible rooftop
19 Rev. 03/28/96
equipment, and loading bays.
Mitigation necessary to reduce visual impacts from any industrial development that is visible
from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive includes: 1) prohibit placement of mechanical
equipment on roofs unless project incorporates architectural treatment consisting of parapets that
are of sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment; 2) prohibit
installation of roof screens other than building parapets that are integrated into the architectural
design of buildings; 3) prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive; and 4) require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are
visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. These mitigation measures will be
reviewed for compliance prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The existence of archaeological resources has been documented on the property by two
archaeological reports, "Results of the Archaeological Significance Assessment" performed by
RECON for the Melrose Drive extension project dated October 11, 1999, and the "Draft
Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the Wimpey Gentry Property: SDi-9041,-9042, -9043,
and -9045, Carlsbad California" performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two
archaeological reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the
proposed Melrose alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two
additional sites not previously surveyed, SDi-10,5 50 and SDi-10,5 52. The 1989 RECON report
concluded that no significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-9041, 9042, and 9043. The
report recommended that since an important source of information could remain in the area of
SDi-9043 and SDi-9045 monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and
documentation would be necessary. The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining
portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad Raceway property is an important site that should be
fenced during the (Carlsbad Raceway grading and construction activities), i.e. Melrose Drive
extension, for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no further work is
necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property has been
buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also
indicated that no artifacts were recovered from SDi-10,550 and that the artifacts from SDi-
10,552 revealed that it was a small stone flaking station offering no substantive contribution to
our current understanding of the prehistoric pattern for this area. No further work is
recommended for these two sites. The report concludes that the three sites investigated are not
significant cultural resources; therefore, impacts from the proposed development are not
significant.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
1. "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention", prepared by
O"Day & Associates, dated June 6, 2001.
2. "Palomar Forum Transportation Analysis", prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
3. "Preliminary Geo technical Investigation Proposed Industrial Development-Byron White
Property" dated June 24, 1998, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.
4. "PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report" prepared by Helix Environmental
Planning, Inc., dated January 15, 1999; "Palomar Forum Biological Mitigation", prepared
by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated April 16, 1999; Letters from Barry Jones,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to: Julie Vanderwier, USFWS dated July 1, 1998;
Letter to Mr Jon Kurtin ("Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the Carlsbad
Raceway"), dated April 19, 2001;
5. "Pesticide Soil Assessment at Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
California", prepared by MV Environmental, Inc. dated July 28, 1998.
6. "Results of Archaeological Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-10,552, CA-SDI- 10,550,
and a portion of CA-SDI-9045 for the Melrose Drive Extension Project", prepared by
RECON dated October 11, 1999 and"Draft Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the
Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-9041, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and SDi-9045, Carlsbad,
California" prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, issuance of grading permit or building permit,
whichever occurs first:
The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to complete the City's
circulation network in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are:
• Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to existing
improvements west of Melrose Drive.
• Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in
the City of Vista.
• Faraday Ave. will be extended from the existing terminus (near Melrose) in Vista to the
existing terminus (Orion) in Carlsbad This extension will add another arterial, parallel to
Palomar Airport Road serving direct access to the City's industrial corridor and relieving
the pressure off of a Regional Arterial serving the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista and San
Marcos.
• Onsite, Street "A" Street will connect to the adjacent project to the north Carlsbad
Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to Melrose Drive
and to Business Park Drive.
2. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the
provisions of the "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention"
summary NPDES study prepared for the project by O'Day Consultants dated June 6,
2001.
21 Rev. 03/28/96
3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
The on-site restoration will include restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of currently
disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub within the wildlife corridor. Restoration of the
corridor will maximize its value for wildlife. A conceptual restoration plan will be
developed prior to issuance of final map.
The remaining upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the acquisition
of 1.5 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub or other habitat acceptable to the City and
wildlife agencies.
Impacts to .08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated by creation of .08
acre of riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the Carlsbad Raceway property
immediately to the north and within the proposed HMP wildlife corridor.
4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures
will be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit
required for each lot.
• Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless project incorporates
architectural treatment consisting of parapets that are of sufficient height and design
to screen future mechanical roof equipment.
• Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets that are integrated
into the architectural design of buildings;
• Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
• Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible
from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
6. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances:
• No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store,
handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted
fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently
adopted fire code.
• Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
• Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as
defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite
consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with
Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA
shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store,
handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material
reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the
facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
22 Rev. 03/28/96
Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a
hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as
temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties
and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these
models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic
endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be performed under "worst case"
meteorological and chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum
harm potential is determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of
these models is the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
7. Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of site
development that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in a manner
which protects human health and the environment. Measures necessary to prevent
fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and any off-site migration of pesticide contaminated soil
are effective dust control, such as liberal amounts of water,to reduce public exposure to
these types of contaminants. Any activity generating dust emissions shall be immediately
stopped if excessive off-site migration of dust is dectected by City of Carlsbad
Engineering Inspection.
23 Rev. 03/28/96
:48Air"JLL- 11-01 4:Ko. 2605 P. 2/2= 4/4
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING
MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE
PROJECT.
nlul
Dale Signature I
^-T
29 Rev. 03/28/96
SITE
PALOMAR FORUM
GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/
HDP99-03/PIP01-03
Jul. 12. 2001' ' 8: 48AM"*' •nrwvrr; JUl- 11.01 4:No, 2600 P. 2/2=4/4
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING
MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE
PROJECT.
Ailoi
Dale
<i-Te
L.P
Anne Hysong -21 September 2000 meaj^ " ^fc-r— pageTl
-"•- ...-.^-.-^-^ ,, ..I... j^sss?«as««««g .„ '^^^^» • -"- u -^-^-^^ . -^^^^f' . ^_^ - -s..^ _?. ^.y^..j;iiai s&
From: <John_A_Martin@r1 .fws.gov>
To: <dride@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <admin@helixepi.com>, <bhofman@hofmanplanning.com>,
<sfisk@hofmanplanning.com>
Date: 9/21/00 1:51 PM
Subject: 21 September 2000 meeting
21 September 2000: Meeting to discuss the Carlsbad Raceway project,
primarily to get John Martin educated regarding the project, as he'll be
representing USFWS in processing.
Started 1100. Present: John Martin (USFWS), Barry Jones (Helix
Environmental), Stuart Fisk (Hoffman Planning), Bill Hoffman (Hoffman
Planning), and Don Rideout (City of Carlsbad).
Since 1997:
new bio report has been written
spring plant surveys for endangered annuals have been done
vegetation map revised
chaparral on site determined to be southern mixed, not southern maritime,
by Julie Vanderwier, Dave Lawhead, and Barry Jones.
No subsequent gnatcatcher surveys
The Big Issue: Proposed hardline wildlife corridor runs through-the
property, and developers would like to extend Poinsettia Street to cross
the corridor, degrading its function for wildlife.
Perceived "traffic failure" triggers 2-year study of necessity of
Poinsettia extension, results in 2-year delay in progress of Raceway
. property development. Hence no new developments in my file since August
1998. Developer initially didn't want the Poinsettia extension, and was
willing to cul-de-sac both ends of Poinsettia. Has since changed his mind,
feeling that extension of Poinsettia across the wildlife corridor "makes
for a more cohesive development". Bill Hoffman asserts that "you don't
have a failure without that crossing" (in reference to the crossing of the
wildlife corridor by Poinsettia), but that there may be safety issues
(i.e., failure to put Poinsettia across the wildlife corridor may increase
response time of fire department to the two easternmost parcels in the
development). May result in a 2-minute difference in response time (but
this is for the fire department to decide). Anyway, the City Departments
will need to review the traffic analysis, and that will determine the need
for another street across the wildlife corridor. Then USFWS and CDFG may
comment. The City's traffic study will be peer-reviewed.
I agreed to write up a letter concurring with that sent by CDFG on 5 August
1998, stating that Barry Jones' letter of 1 July 1998 accurately reflects
the state of conservation negotiations regarding this project at that time.
We'll visit the site at 0730 on Monday 25 September.
We also discussed the La Costa Village case. Property at the SE corner of
La Costa and Rancho Santa Fe. Cynthia Bell owns the property. She got a
4(d) permit, mitigated accordingly at Manchester Bank, then allowed her
permit to expire. Her CSS acreage went back into the pool of the City's 5%
4(d) allowance, and has since been allocated to other projects. Can't get
her money back from Manchester Bank. To proceed with her development,
she'll have to get a new permit. Options were discussed briefly. She
could get a low-effect HCP. Don suggests a de minimus exemption, mitigated
at a higher level because of eventual viability of burned sage scrub.
Hysong^Page 2 |
Letter to Barry Jones regarding natural lands maintenance funds for Kelly
Corporate Center is in the mailbox.
John Martin
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and the
eastern City boundary.
Project Description: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located
north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and
future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south
wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the
northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No
industrial buildings are proposed.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (ElA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
July 15, 2001
GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
Palomar Forum
PUBLISH DATE: July 15, 2001
ICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
North of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and the
eastern City boundary.
A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located
north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and
future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south
wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the
northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No
industrial buildings are proposed.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
July 15, 2001
GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
Palomar Forum
PUBLISH DATE: July 15, 2001
MICHAEL J:HOL
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
DATE: May 3, 2001
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Palomar Forum Business Park
APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates/Davis Partners
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Suite 150. Carlsbad.
CA 92008. (760) 438-1465
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 9. 1999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map. Hillside Development Permit, and Planned
Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre. 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property
located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose
Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a
wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista
boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[XI Land Use and Planning
PI Population and Housing
|~~| Geological Problems
E3 Water
[X] Air Quality
EX] Transportation/Circulation I I Public Services
[X] Biological Resources I I Utilities & Service Systems
[~] Energy & Mineral Resources [x] Aesthetics
IXj Hazards 1X1 Cultural Resources
|~1 Noise I I Recreation
r~| Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
f~1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
E>3 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[~l I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Directors-Signatun Date
Rev. 03/28/96
.CTSENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the
circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation
measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project,
then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement
of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1.15; #3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-
1-5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15;
#3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15; #3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#3)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1-5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D D
D D
D
D
D
DD
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1-5..2-11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground 'waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-1-5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs
5.3-1-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-'
12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1-5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporatedn
n
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n D
n
n
n
n n
n m
n m
n R
n n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24; #4)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #4)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #4)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs
5.12.1-1-5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5;)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporatedn
n
n
n
n n
n
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
No
Impact
n
n
n
n n
n m
n n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5; #5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-
5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -
5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-
7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-
3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-
1-5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n.
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
n
D
n
nnnnn
n
n
n
H
n
El
m
n
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impactn
n
n
n
nnnnn
n
DD
IS
nn
n
n
n
n
No
Impact
n
m
®
i/\i
Fy7!
IS
[Sy7|
t/\l
IN/IL^vJ
m
tjsj
PS/!
n
1
rc/iI^AJ
D
D
m
Rev. 03/28/96
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Palomar Forum
2. APPLICANT: Palomar Melrose LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: "° Highland Drive,
Suite 320, Solana Beach, CA 92075 (619)755-0945
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Tentative Map and Hillside Development
Permit to subdivide the 62 acre parcel into tweleve industrial
lots and one open space lot.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
[ | Land Use and Planning (~~| Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services
| | Population and Housing [x] Biological Resources [~~| Utilities & Service Systems
fx] Geological Problems [~] Energy & Mineral Resources |~) Aesthetics
| \ Water \ \ Hazards [~] Cultural Resources
[~~| Air Quality Q Noise Q Recreation
\~X\ Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED EXPLANATION TO RESPONSES
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
LX]
fxl
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
i — i
i — i
D
D
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( . )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?c)
d)
e)
f)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? (
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
fxl
n
n
n
n
nn
n
[xjn
n
n
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
n n
n d
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
n
nn
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
n
nn
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
n
n
n
n
fxl
LxJ
[x]
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
D n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
03
n
n
n
n
n
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
No
Impact
D
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Ql
[x
E
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Dn n
D
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( . )
D
n
nnn n [xj
fxl
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? ( )
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
®
D
D
D
LI
D
D
D
D
D
No
impact
LU
[x]
B
H
S
LD
LI
LI
LI
n
S
E
m
Ds
E
OD
E
m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but . cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
D D
D
D D
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact'"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
9 Rev. 03/28/96
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^)
10 Rev. 03/28/96
PART I EIA
for
PALOMAR FORUM
EXPLANATION TO RESPONSES
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) No Impact. The proposed project conforms with the PI General Plan and P-M
Zoning designation of the site.
b) No Impact. The proposed Tentative Map and Hillside Development Permit will
not conflict with any known applicable environmental plan or policy.
c) No Impact. The proposed industrial lots will be compatible with existing land
uses in the area. The project site is bordered by other existing and proposed light
industrial uses. The residential units of Rancho Carrillo to the south are separated
from the site by Palomar Airport Road.
d) No Impact. Although the site has been previously disturbed for agricultural
purposes, the site is not currently being used for any agricultural uses.
e) No Impact. The site is currently vacant and the proposed project will not disrupt
or divide the physical arrangement of any established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not exceed any population projection.
b) No Impact. It is anticipated that the site will be eventually be developed with
industrial uses consistent with General Plan. This project will not substantially
induce growth in the area.
c) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and will not displace any
residents.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
a) No Impact. Significant faults are not indicated crossing the site and therefore the
site is not subject to fault rupture. See the Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Byron White Property, for more information.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Although the site may be subject to ground
shaking during a major seismic event, there are no active faults in the immediate
vicinity of the project site and therefore exposure to ground shaking is not
considered a significant impact. See the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,
Byron White Property for more information.
c) No Impact. Page 6 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Byron White
Property, states, 'Liquefaction or related ground rupture failures are not
anticipated.'
d) No Impact. The proposed project will not result in or significantly expose people
to potential impacts involving seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards since the site is
located over 4.5 miles from the coast and is not located near any volcanoes.
e) No Impact. The proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving landslides or mudflows. See Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Byron White Property for more information.
f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As shown in the
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Byron White Property some slope
stabilization is recommended at the developed site.
g) No Impact. The proposed project will not result in or expose people to
subsidence of the land. See Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Byron White
Property for more information.
h) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation, Byron White Property provides recommendations for
the burial of expansive clay soils.
i) No Impact. No unique geologic or physical features are known to exist at the
project site.
IV. WATER
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and amount of surface runoff is not considered significant. The developed
drainage of the project will follow the same general pattern of the natural drainage
of the site into the Agua Hedionda Creek Basin.
b) No Impact. The proposed project will not expose people or property to water
related hazards.
c) No Impact. Discharge into surface water will not be significantly altered and
surface water quality will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
d) No Impact. The project will not significantly affect the amount of surface water
in any water body.
e) No Impact. The project will not significantly affect currents, or the course or
direction of water movements.
f) No Impact. The project will not significantly affect the quantity of ground
waters.
g) No Impact. The project will not alter direction or rate of flow of ground water,
h) No Impact. The project will not significantly impact groundwater quality.
i) No Impact. The proposed project will not cause a substantial reduction in the
amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies.
V. AIR QUALITY
a) No Impact. The eventual development of the site will contribute to an existing
cumulative air quality problem. However, the City of Carlsbad's MEIR shows
that the City has adopted a statement of overriding circumstances for this
cumulative effect. This current application to subdivide the property will not
create a significant impact to air quality.
b) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not result in exposure of sensitive
receptors to pollutants.
c) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not alter air movement, moisture or
temperature, or cause any change in climate.
d) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not create objectionable odors.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project simply proposes to
subdivide the property and will not create any immediate traffic impacts.
However, the eventual industrial development of the site will increase vehicle
trips and vehicle congestion on a cumulative level. A traffic study is currently
being prepared to determine how the project will affect traffic hi the area. The
developer will be required to pay his fair share of circulation improvements.
b) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not crate any hazards to circulation
from design features or incompatible uses.
c) No Impact. The proposed project will provide adequate emergency access to the
site and will not impede any emergency access to any nearby site.
d) No Impact. There are no parking issues associated with the proposed industrial
subdivision.
e) No Impact. The proposed industrial subdivision will not result in hazards or
barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists.
f) No Impact. The proposed industrial subdivision will not conflict with any
policies supporting alternative transportation.
g) No Impact. The proposed industrial subdivision will not result in any rail,
waterborne, or air traffic impacts.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As described
in the PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report, development of the site will
impact some native habitats. As also described in the PAR 62 Property Biological
Technical Report, these impacts will be mitigated both on and offsite to a level of
insignificance. Please see the Impacts and Mitigation sections of the report for
details.
b) No Impact. No locally designated species such as heritage trees are known to be
located on the project site.
c) No Impact. No locally designated natural communities such as oak forests or
coastal habitats exist on the site.
d) No Impact. Although the site does contain an ACOE Jurisdictional Drainage, the
drainage is non-vegetated according to the PAR 62 Property Biological Technical
Report. The vegetation surrounding the drainage is not considered wetland
habitat. See page 5 of the PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report for
details.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Lot 11 of the project is designated
as a 400' wide open space wildlife corridor. According to the site's PAR 62
Property Biological Technical Report, "Impacts to wildlife movement are
considered adverse but not significant".
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will conflict with any adopted energy
conservation plan.
b) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not use any non-renewable resources
in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
c) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region or the
residents of the state.
IX. HAZARDS
a) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not involve a risk of accidental
explosion or release of hazardous substances.
b) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not interfere with any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plan.
c) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not create any health hazard or
potential health hazard.
d) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not expose anyone to existing sources
of potential health hazards.
e) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not increase fire hazards. The grading
of the site will employ applicable fire safety methods.
X. NOISE
a) No Impact. The proposed subdivision may slightly increase noise levels during
grading of the site, however, this is not considered significant since no one lives
near the project site.
b) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not result in exposure of people to
severe noise levels.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-e) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not result in the need for new or
altered government services. The eventual industrial development of the site will
be required adhere to the applicable standards and requirements of the Zone 18
Local Facilities Management Plan.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
a-g) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not significantly impact any of these
utilities or service systems. The eventual development of the site will be required
to pay its fair share of improvements.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a) Less than Significant Impact. Although the project site is located adjacent to
Palomar Airport Road, a listed scenic corridor in the Citywide MEIR, the
approval of this application will not significantly affect the corridor due to
adherence to the standards and guidelines listed in the MEIR. Furthermore, the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan.
b) No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect.
c) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not create light or glare.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. No paleontological resources are not know to exist on the site.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. There is a know archaeological site located in
the north west corner of the site. However, the grading of the will may be
monitored to ensure that any archaeological impacts to the site will be mitigated to
a level of insignificance.
c) No Impact. No historical resources are no known to exist on the site.
d) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not to cause a physical change which
would affect any unique ethnic cultural values because there are no unique
cultural resources on this site.
e) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not restrict any existing religious or
sacred uses within the area.
XV. RECREATION
a) No Impact. The project simply proposes to subdivide an industrial parcel and
will not increase the demand for any recreational facilities.
b) No Impact. The proposed site is currently vacant and will not affect any existing
recreational opportunities.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As shown in the
Biological Technical Report, the majority of the site consists of disturbed habitat
with virtually no habitat value. There is some viable habitat that will be impacted
by development of the site. This impact will be mitigated on and off site. The
open space lot located in the eastern portion of the site will provide a corridor for
the movement of wildlife across the developed site. Historical impacts, including
the archaeological site in the western portion of the property, will be monitored
and mitigated as a part of the grading plan for the project.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The eventual development of the site will
contribute to an existing cumulative air quality problem as virtually any
development project does. The City of Carlsbad's MEIR shows that the City has
adopted a statement of overriding circumstances for this cumulative effect. The
eventual development of the site will also contribute to cumulative traffic impacts.
As the City is aware, a traffic study is currently in process to determine how these
traffic impacts should be mitigated. The current application to subdivide the
property will not create any significant impact to air quality or traffic.
c) No Impact. The proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial adverse
affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Source Documents
Source documents have either been submitted with the applications for this project, or are on file
in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760)
438-1161.
1. "PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report" prepared by Helix Environmental
Planning, Inc., January 15,1999.
2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road,
Carlsbad" prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., June 24,1998.
3. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update", March 1994.
4. "Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan", December 19,1990