HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-06; Palomar Forum; Tentative Map (CT) (8)City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
June 18, 2002
John Martin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
William Tippets
California Department of Fish & Game
4949 Viewridge Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: Habitat Loss Permit for Palomar Forum Project
Dear Mr. Martin and Mr. Tippets:
On December 14, 2001, the Carlsbad City Council approved the Palomar Forum
industrial project. The subject property is located in the Northeast Quadrant of the City
of Carlsbad on the north side of Palomar Airport Road west of Business Park Drive.
The future extension of Melrose Avenue to the city of Vista runs through the western
end of the property. The project will take 3.2 acres of unoccupied coastal sage scrub,
3.3 acres of southern mixed chaparral, and 27.3 acres of annual (non-native)
grassland. The impacts were analyzed in the previously certified Mitigated Negative
Declaration for subdivision CT 99-06. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was
previously circulated to your agencies for comments, and a copy is enclosed for
reference. The coastal sage scrub impacts are being mitigated by preservation of an
onsite corridor and revegetation of 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub in the corridor. The
chaparral and annual grassland impacts are being mitigated by payment of cash to be
used for either offsite acquisition or construction of a wildlife crossing under Palomar
Airport Road.
All of the findings required for issuance of the Habitat Loss Permit can be made as
follows:
1. The habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline - The City of
Carlsbad has exhausted its 5% allocation for the loss of coastal sage scrub.
Davis Partners, the owner of the Palomar Forum project in Carlsbad, has made a
request to the County of San Diego for utilization of the County's 5% allocation.
The City of Carlsbad has determined that this project can meet the findings of its
policy for the purchase of 4d land from the county and has submitted a request
to the county on behalf of the project. To meet its policy findings, the county has
requested written confirmation from your office that you have no objections to
this procedure. This has been done once previously for the City of Carlsbad for
the Rancho La Costa Village project. In the previous case it was determined that
this finding can be made for projects that draw from the County's allocation
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
HABITAT LOSS PERMIT FOR PALOMAR FORUM PROJECT
June 18 2002
Paqe_2 ..,.,.
because the finding is made on a regional basis, not by individual jurisdiction.
2. 777e habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat
values -- In the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan, the Palomar Forum
project is shown as a Hardline area because it provides a linkage between
Carrillo Ranch to the south and the Raceway project to the north, both of which
are high value areas. This connection will be assured with issuance of the HLP.
A conservation easement will be placed over the linkage area, and an
endowment will be established to fund perpetual maintenance for wildlife
purposes.
3. The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the sub-regional
NCCP - The City's Draft Habitat Management Plan and the Draft Multiple
Habitat Conservation Plan for Northern San Diego County have anticipated the
Palomar Forum project as designed and approved. Development of the property
consistent with these plans will not preclude regional planning, and provision of
the linkage described in #2 above will aid in implementing the regional plan.
4. The habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable in accordance with Section 4.3 of the NCCP Guidelines - Minimal
wildlife habitat remains on the Palomar Forum site, and the majority of it is not
located where it has long-term conservation potential. Regional planning has
determined that this project can best contribute to conservation of wildlife by
providing the linkage as described in #2 above. All impacts will be fully mitigated
by provision of the required linkage and by payment of cash contribution toward
other regionally significant conservation needs.
5. The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery of the coastal California gnatcatcher in the wild - Since there were no
California gnatcatchers or other listed plant or animal species found on the site,
there will be no direct impacts to listed species. Due to the small area and low
quality of onsite habitat, the loss of coastal sage scrub will not reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher in the wild.
6. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities - The loss of habitat
will only occur with issuance of a grading permit from the City of Carlsbad. The
project has already received all necessary planning and engineering permits
from the City. Issuance of the grading permit is pending approval of the HLP.
As noted above, the project proponent for Palomar Forum has requested permission to
draw from the County's 5% allocation, and the County has tentatively agreed to allow
this. The City of Carlsbad has no objection to use of the County's allocation. Therefore,
we are requesting your concurrence on both the Habitat Loss Permit and use of the
County's allocation. My understanding is that the County will schedule this item for a
Board meeting in the very near future, so your immediate attention to this matter would
be greatly appreciated.
Pursuant to the 4(d) rule for the California gnatcatcher, this Habitat Loss Permit is being
transmitted to your offices for the required 30 day comment period. The comment
period will close on July 19, 2002. Included is a tabulation of all coastal sage scrub
Anne Hysong - State Clearinghouse #s
From: "Stuart Fisk" <sfisk@hofmanplanning.com>
To: <SteveN@helixepi.com>
Date: 7/13/01 1:41 PM
Subject: State Clearinghouse #s
Steve:
Per your previous request, following are State Clearinghouse numbers for the
Palomar Forum and Carlsbad Raceway. The environmental documents were
submitted to the State Clearinghouse today, and per Scott Morgan of the
State Clearinghouse the thirty day review periods begin today. Scott will
be sending a letter confirming this within the next week.
The State Clearinghouse number for the Carsbad Raceway is 2001071072. The
number for the Palomar Forum is 2001071073.
Copies of the documents submitted to the State Clearinghouse have been
mailed to you. If you have any questions or if you need any additional
information please feel free to call me.
Stuart Fisk
Hofman Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court, Ste 150
Carlsbad, CA 92008
tel: (760) 438-1465
fax: (760) 438-2443
CC: "Jon Kurtin" <jkurtin1 @san.rr.com>, "Larry Nelson" <lnelson@davis-partners.com>,
"Anne Hysong" <ahyso@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
11/30/01 FRI 14:21 FAX 949 476 4495 IDI WESTERN REGION 0002
November 29, 2001
Mrs. Ann Hysong
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA
92008
R£: Palomar Forum (GPA 01 -07/ZC 01 -06)
Carlsbad Raceway Business Park (GPA 98-057 ZC 01-07/ LFMP 87-18(B))
Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mrs. Ann Hysong:
IDI is the property owner of 2850 Loker Ave. East in the city of Carlsbad. IDI's property
abuts the west side of the projects stated above. Several months ago, IDI met with Larry
Nelson of the Palomar Forum Associates, L.P,, to discuss grading and landscaping
issues along the shared property lines. After review of their proposed plans, IDI supports
the approval of the projects stated above. If you have any questions, please call me at
(949)833-9998.
Sincer
Jon Kelly /
Development Manager
Industrial Developments International
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 120, Irvine, California 92612 (949) 833-9998 Fax: (949) 476-4495
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
October 23, 2001
Palomar Forum Associates LP
c/o William Allen
990 Highland Drive, Ste. 320
Solana Beach, CA 92075
SUBJECT: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
At the Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2001, your application was considered. The
Commission voted 7-0 to RECOMMENDED APPROVAL/APPROVAL. The decision of the
Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council.
If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4600.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOI
Planning Director
,LER
MJH:AH:mh
Enclosed:Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5031, 5032, 5033, 5034, 5035, 5036
c: Larry Nelson, 1420 Bristol St. N, Newport Beach, CA 92130
Hofman Planning, 5900 Pasteur Court, Ste. 120, Carlsbad, CA 92008
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FORUM
Response to Comments
(Comments dated October 4, 2001)
Circulation
Comment: The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to
identify current traffic levels on Melrose south of Faraday - an area very
important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The intersection analysis also
did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood.
There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets.
Impacts on this neighborhood need to be specifically addressed.
Response: The average daily traffic volumes shown on Figure 3-1 represent
recorded daily trips. Where volumes are 1,000 average daily trips (ADT) or less,
they are not recorded; such is the case for Melrose Drive south of Faraday
Avenue per SANDAG traffic forecast for Year 2000.
Although "cut-through" traffic on local streets is a concern, staff believes that the
proposed project would not introduce a condition that would encourage "cut-
through" traffic. Rather, the proposed project introduces alternative vehicle routes
(i.e, Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue) that are direct and reliable, and would
not be hindered by slower traffic associated with local residential streets. Since
the project distribution demonstrated no relationship with the adjacent Vista
neighborhood, no subsequent analysis of local residential roadways was required
pursuant to the City's analysis criteria.
2. Comment: The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1
failed to update the traffic model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has
resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For example, it fails to include the
proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project
alone is expected to generate 5-1 Ok ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60
ADT. Other Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected either the
baseline conditions or future traffic conditions. The impacts of the additional
traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the old model need to be
added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assessed,
possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key
projects.
Response: As noted in the study, Year 2005 conditions is based on
SANDAG/Carlsbad Year 2005 Regional Traffic Model. The interim model
assumptions reflect those land uses and densities not only consistent with the
city of Carlsbad, but also the surrounding cities of Oceanside, Vista, and San
Marcos. In the specific reference to Home Depot, the Year 2005 and 2020 traffic
model does account for future commercial trips within the Home Depot zone
(approximately 6,400 ADT). The proposed Home Depot development is
forecasted to generate 5,900 ADT, respectively.
Carlsbad - Forum
Response to Comments dated October 4, 2001
Page 2 of 4
3. Comment: There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been
coordinated with the neighboring cities-whose related short term traffic
improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements shown on page
7-19 includes several in the city of Vista. Coordination between the cities on
roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of
assuring that planned improvements will actually take place. Opening of the new
roadways should be conditional upon all of these other referenced improvements
being in place.
Response: The lane geometry shown for intersections within adjacent
jurisdictions are recommendations only, and not mandatory, as the city of
Carlsbad cannot impose mitigation on other jurisdictions, and visa-versa. Thus,
the cities of Carlsbad and Vista are working closely to ensure roadway
improvements within their respective jurisdictions will be coordinated and
completed as necessary. City traffic engineers from both Carlsbad and Vista
have met to discuss the proposed improvements along Melrose Avenue, which
are consistent with the planned improvements to be conditioned of the Home
Depot project, according to City of Vista staff.
In an effort to assure that planned improvements occur with the phasing of
development, the Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan requires annual
monitoring of intersections to identify any deficiencies and determine what
improvements are required within the city of Carlsbad.
4. Comment: The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus
of a lot of regional controversy. Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of
postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high
level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of
pressure to put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition of its
extension-particularly from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MND did
not identify the level of controversy about this roadway extension. The
controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives-such
as a reduced roadway configuration.
Response: (Environmental Response)
5. Comment: The short term future conditions should also have modeled the
roadway network with no El Fuerte or Faraday extension, and just with no El
Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of each of these
projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant
environmental impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways
so they should not be assumed to be a done deal.
Response: By the year 2005 with the project, the intersections of Palomar Airport
Road/El Camino Real (LOS D) and Business Park Drive/Poinsettia Avenue (LOS
E) are forecast to operate at deficient levels of service if alternate routes are not
constructed, as discussed in Section 6.0 of the traffic report. The extension of
Melrose Drive is a key component of maintaining an acceptable level of service
Carlsbad - Forum
Response to Comments dated October 4, 2001
Page 3 of 4
at both of these intersections by relieving some of the congestion along El
Camino Real. Likewise, the extension of Faraday Avenue is a key component to
reducing traffic volumes along Palomar Airport Road.
Without the extension of Faraday Avenue, traffic conditions along Palomar
Airport Road will continue to deteriorate through 2005. The City feels these two
links are key components to the circulation system for the City and region as a
whole, and were therefore included in the 2005 analysis.
Comment: The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday
terminating at El Fuerte, and with no El Fuerte extension.
Response: The buildout network conditions was based on the assumed network
in the SANDAG/Carlsbad Year 2020 Regional Traffic Model. The buildout
network conditions assumed are also consistent the City of Carlsbad Master Plan
of Arterial Highways, and Local Facilities Management Plan. As noted in the
previous response, the value of Faraday Avenue between Melrose Drive and El
Fuerte, and to El Fuerte between Faraday Avenue and Palomar Airport Road is
their connection as an alternative to the Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road
intersection.
7. Comment: Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway
intersection analysis. However, the failure of this city, and the other north county
cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts assessment for the
associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it
just barely is below the threshold levels the require mitigation- all of the impacts
on local freeway interchanges require mitigation and it is poor planning to
pretend they can be ignored.
Response: As acknowledged, the forecasted traffic volumes do not warrant a
freeway interchange analysis.
8. Comment: Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad
Raceway report-although both claim to be based on the same source data and to
include the same improvements.
Response: The Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service (CMP Analysis) tables,
including Table 10-1 of the Forum and Raceway traffic studies, have been
reviewed for consistency. Minor revisions are required, and have been forwarded
to the Commission as an errata to the traffic analysis. The conclusions presented
in the Forum traffic study remain the same even with the revisions of the
referenced tables.
9. Comment: This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian improvements-all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts
Carlsbad - Forum
Response to Comments dated October 4, 2001
Page 4 of 4
of increased use of this area and reduce traffic. Instead of contribution to more
roads these project(s) should be providing funds for transit capital improvements
and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit
improvement plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this
should be integrated with all new projects in this corridor.
Response: There are several transit uses available to the project, as well as
supplemented by improvements conditioned on the proposed project. This
project is conditioned to complete several roadway improvements along the
project frontage, which include on-street bicycle lanes along Melrose Drive,
Faraday Avenue, El Fuerte, and Palomar Airport Road, and bus stops adjacent
to the project site along Palomar Airport Road. Since the traffic study findings
represent the worse case scenario, trip credit for alternative modes of
transportation was not applied.
C:\WINNT\Profiles\ecobb\Desktop\Forum_RTC.doc
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FORUM
Response to Comments
(Comments dated October 1, 2001)
1. Comment: Section VI, Circulation, page 14: Please provide the entire Palomar
Forum Transportation Analysis for review.
Response: A copy of the Palomar Forum Transportation Analysis will be
forwarded to your office.
2. Comment: The transportation analysis should examine all State-owned facilities
(freeway sections, interchanges, and intersections) on Interstate 5 (I-5) and State
Route 78 (SR-78) that are affected by this project.
Response: The selection of study intersections in the traffic study was based on
the San Diego County Congestion Management Plan guidelines, which indicate
that intersections with greater than 50 project-generated peak hour trips and
freeway segments with 150 or more project-generated peak hour trips should be
included for analysis. Based on the findings presented in the traffic study, the
proposed project does not contribute a significant amount of peak hour trips to
State-owned facilities that would warrant additional analysis. Distribution of
project-generated trips is illustrated in Exhibit 4-2 for the future roadway network
and in Exhibit 5-2 for the existing (1998) roadway network.
3. Comment: The transportation analysis should have been done in accordance
with the Department's Guide for Preparation of traffic impact studies, dated
January 2001 (TIS guide). Minimum contents of the traffic impact study are listed
in Appendix "A" of the TIS guide.
Response: The traffic study prepared for the proposed project is consistent with
the San Diego County CMP guidelines and City of Carlsbad adopted traffic study
guidelines. It should also be noted that the proposed project was deemed
complete prior to the adoption of the State's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies."
4. Comment: Analyze all State-owned signalized intersections affected by this
project using the intersecting lane vehicle (ILV) procedure from the Department
of Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21.
Response: Please see response to Comment 2.
5. Comment: The level of service (LOS) for operating State highway facilities is
based upon measures of effectiveness (MOE) (see Appendix "C-2" of the TIS
guide). The Department endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition
between LOS "C" and LOS "D" (see Appendix "C-3" of the TIS guide). IF any
existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the
existing MOE should be maintained.
Response: Comment noted.
Carlsbad - Raceway
Response to Comments dated October 1, 2001
Page 2 of 2
6. Comment: If certain traffic mitigation projects are identified as appropriate, then
the Department supports the concept of "fair share" contributions on the part of
the developer.
Response: Comment noted.
C:\WINNT\Profiles\ecobb\Desktop\Forurn_RTC.doc
MEMORANDUM
date: October is, 2001
to; Ann Hysong
organization:
Barry Jones
Palomar Forum Response to Comments
job number DPLOI
Anne-Provided are responses to comments related to biological
issues from Diane Nygaard, Isabella Kay, and the California
Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Lfjl. Fish and Wildlife Service /California. Department of Fteh and
Gams
1. The City has agreed to spend the mitigation funds for the
construction of a 60-inch wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport
Road. Remaining funds will be used for additional acquisition of
open space. The applicant will construct a wildlife
undercrossing at Poinsettia Lane.
2. The applicant has agreed to burrowing owl surveys and a
relocation effort should the species be observed on site.
Preserve Catevara
1. The project has been designed to be consistent with the City of
Carlsbad HMP. The HMP has been developed to allow for
preservation of key biological resources within the context of
anticipated growth and City infrastructure needs. The project as
proposed provides for a key wildlife corridor within the HMP,
and fully mitigates impacts to biological resources.
8100 La Mesa Blvd. Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax (619) 462-0552
zeo/szcra •AN3 619
jlanninu. inc.
MEMORANDUM
2. A conceptual mitigation plan has been prepared for wetland and
upland habitat restoration requirements. This plan provides
specific success criteria which will need to be met to insure the
success of the mitigation program.
3. BMPs required for the project are a standard mitigation measure
for potential water quality issues. Additionally, the project will
require 401 certification or waiver from the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board prior to initiating construction.
4. See response #3 above.
5. The applicant has agreed to provide a wildlife undercroasing of
Palomar Airport Road. This fully mitigates for potential impacts
to wildlife movement.
6. All surveys required for a project of this scope have been
completed. Additional surveys are not warranted.
7. The project is providing for wildlife movement through the
construction of wildlife undercrossings at Melrose and
Poinsettia, and for restoration of wildlife movement under
Palomar Airport Road, East-west movement is retained within
open space on site and no additional mitigation is required.
8. The proposed undercrossing design is consistent with those
being used throughout San Diego County. The purpose is for
movement of wildlife, not humans. No additional mitigation is
recommended.
9. There may be some short-term impacts to wildlife movement
within the corridor. These impacts are not considered significant
however, because these will not permanently impact wildlife
movement. Additionally, the construction of the undercrossing
at Palomar Airport Koad will enhance wildlife movement over
the long-term.
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
e-mail: barryj@,helixepLcom
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax (619) 462-0552
•AN3 XI13H 619
message (cont):
MEMORANDUM
10. The project is consistent with the HMP, which would be a
completed component of the MHCP. The conceptual mitigation
plan provides specific mitigation requirements and will be
reviewed by the City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game.
I'l. See response #10 above. Additionally, the corridor on site is
proposed to be restored has coastal sage scrub and will provide
the habitat necessary far gnatcatcher movement.
12. See response #10 above,
13. The applicant worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and California Department of Fish and Game in reducing
impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent feasible. The
drainage being impacted is a non-vegetated channel. Mitigation
will be in the form of higher quality riparian habitat within
contiguous open space.
14. Biological monitoring will be required during initial habitat
clearing and grading adjacent to project open space,
15. Cumulative Impacts to biological resources are addressed
through onsite preserve design, enhancement of wildlife
movement in the region through the construction of the Palomar
Airport Road wildlife undercrossing, and funding of mitigation
consistent with the HMP.
16. Project mitigation will be done concurrently with project impacts.
17. The applicant is allowed to pursue an incidental take permit
under Section 7 or Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
Da,w^on-Los Monos Canyon Reserve
1. The HMP developed by the City considered all of these factors in
developing a preserve design fof this portion of the City, This
project is consistent with that design,
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
e-mtiil: banyj@helixepi,com
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax (619) 462-0552
•AN3 XITSH 619
enviionmentsl planning, inc.
MEMORANDUM
ITteSSa96 (COnt)l 2. Impacts to these species were adequately mitigation by the
project. Additional significant impacts to sensitive resources are
not anticipated because surveys conducted would have
identified any high priority sensitive species, and lower priority
species would not occur in significant numbers to warrant
additional mitigation.
3. The impacts to the habitats identified were considered significant
but mitigated by the project mitigation measures,
4. The project proposes to construct a wildlife undercrossing at
Palomar Airport Road. The open space configuration is
consistent with the HMP which fully mitigates impacts to
wildlife movement.
5. The mitigation proposed occurs in areas that have appropriate
hydrology, or with minor recontouring, will have appropriate
hydrology.
6. The restoration will need to meet success criteria outlined in the
mitigation plan. Restoration of the slopes will provide
contiguous natural habitat through the corridor/open space on
the project. All fire protection will occur within developed areas,
7. Only individual oaks arc being impacted. These impacts are
being mitigated by including oaks within the planting plan for
the site.
8. The fee developed for the HMP is not intended to purchase an
acre of land with $3,949 or $7,897. Rather, this fee will be used to
acquire enough habitat to meet overall open space obligations to
meet multi-species requirements within the region.
9. Mitigation plans do not require council consideration. City staff
a? well as state and federal resource agency review will be
provided.
10. See response #1 and 4 above.
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
e-mail: barryj@helixepi.com
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax (619) 462-0552
•AN3 XI13H 619
nCg deC pulomar forwn
RECEIVED
CCT o r. ;rci
October4,2001 nrv r\r- /s* *,. ^
AnnHysong CITY Or CARLSBAD
SeniorPlanner PLANNING DEPT
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum MND
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned *\
about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native
plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area.
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent
survey that they want open space • not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts,
»
1 «
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted
on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of
CEQA. -
Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat' roads that will potentially be much more
damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is :
speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMFs. We don't know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project
10/4/01 10:46 PM
6T9 sz:60
ncg doc pnlorow forum
3. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all
indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identiry the level of controversy about this roadway
extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
4. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or
Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte, It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal.
5. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuene extension.
6. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
7. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad Raceway report- although both claim to
be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
8. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-
all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern califomians love our outdoors-
and we don't have a lot of it left. The MND needs to specifically address how the project will restrict
public access to assure protection of the sensitive habitat.
1. The related Carlsbad Raceway project designates 1.7 acres of open space on the eastern end which is
intended to be a corridor link to the northwest of the project and to the south side of Palomar Airport
Rd. This is not a viable corridor for mammal movement across a major roadway. The bobcat and
coyote, while not threatened or endangered, are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Corridor planning
needs to address the barriers to their movement, and not just the birds.
3 of 6 . IOM/OI 10:46 PM
O. HIM Z«0 m 6T9
,neg dec palomar forum
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and tir—
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted during a six week period from May 28th
through July 9th, with no visits in other seasons. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small
mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian
utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo
southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just
east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled
for any sensitive fish species. *•
i tmr3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have
identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area, Loss of the bobcat population in this area wirt
adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The
biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened
species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to
control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to
assure that a viable predator population remains. /-
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor *") ^jj
that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the^creek,
into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose ii
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the addition of a/
dirt floor and some native plant cover. Adequate drainage also needs to be addressed
5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation
is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction.
6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how~\
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site . Q
specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding I
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND. J
7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in this project area- and 100% of all of^A
them will be destroyed by this project. This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent \
with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS \ h
must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and \
movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location
of off-site areas is not specified.^—-"*
Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for \
success, identify runding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet 1
success criteria, ^
8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined |
infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of I
jurisdictional waters of the U,S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to 1 (?
eliminate this impact ^
—-\
9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with (*/
10/4/01 10:46 PM
zsso
ucg dec paJomar forum
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors
may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats
has been ignored and must be included in the MND.
11. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction,"^
Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed The
mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or \ L
mitigation for sensitive species in the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed J
portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat. ^X
3'
-,
' i
.
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to
take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a coraprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and
construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required.
3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose.
Cultural Resources
We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site
under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss
of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to
review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
native american tribes, Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
5 of 6 10/4/OJ 10:48 PM
xnan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife O
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760)431-9440
FAX (760) 431-9624
CA Dept. of Fish & Game
South Coast Regional Office
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
FAX (858) 467-4299
In Reply, Refer to: FWS-SDG-2127.2
October 10, 2001
Ms,. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Comments on the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palomar
Forum Business Park Project, City of Carlsbad, California (SCH 2001071073)
Dear Ms. Hysong:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Recirculated Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the Palomar Forum Business Park project. The Wildlife
Agencies provided comments on the previous version of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration in an earlier letter dated August 15, 2001 (reference FWS-SDG-2127.1). The
following comments are based upon the current version of the document and an October 3,
2001, meeting with the City of Carlsbad and project consultants :
1. The Wildlife Agencies concur with the proposed mitigation for impacts to non-native
grassland and chaparral. The fee of $133,867.80 should be applied toward the
construction of the proposed wildlife undercrossing of Palomar Airport Road. This will
be a mitigation project jointly funded by this project and the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park project. Please refer to our comment letter on the Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park MND, dated October 10, 2001, for a more detailed discussion of the
requirements for this wildlife undercrossing. Since the Palomar Airport Road
undercrossing would be located in part on this project site, please discuss whether this
project will have the lead in constructing the undercrossing.
2. Burrowing owl surveys and relocation, if necessary, should be conducted according to
the Department's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Ms. Hysong (FWS-SDG-2127.2)
The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the proposed Palomar Forum Business Park. If you have any
questions, please contact Meredith Osborne of the Department at (858) 636-3163 or John
Martin of the Service at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Nancy Gilbert
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TW William E. Tippets
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
California Department of Fish and Game
cc: Department
C.F. Raysbrook
RECEIVED
OCT 0 5 2001
A „ October4,2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum MND
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned
about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native
plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area.
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent
survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to corriments submitted
on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of
CEQA.
Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more
damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is
speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project
Iof6 10/4/01 10:46 PM
neg dec palomar forum
development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad.
The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization :
Water
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address
the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further
degrade the lagoon.
2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the
lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the
cumulative impacts of projects in this area.
3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the
lagoon and further impair this waterway. The proposed design for detention basins within the creek is
not acceptable to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This issue should have been addressed
prior to issuance of the MND.
Circulation
Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance
planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for
this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased
congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is
needed to adequately address these impacts.
1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on
Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The
intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista
neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on
this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed.
2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic
model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For
example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This
project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other
Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic
conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the
old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed,
possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects,
2. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring
cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements
shown on page 7-19 includes several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway
projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements
will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other
referenced improvements being in place.
2 of 6 10/4/01 10:46 PM
neg dec palomar fonnn
3. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all
indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway
extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
4. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or
Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal,
5. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuerte extension.
6. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
7. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad Raceway report- although both claim to
be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
8. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-
all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern californians love our outdoors-
and we don't have a lot of it left. The MND needs to specifically address how the project will restrict
public access to assure protection of the sensitive habitat.
1. The related Carlsbad Raceway project designates 1.7 acres of open space on the eastern end which is
intended to be a corridor link to the northwest of the project and to the south side of Palomar Airport
Rd. This is not a viable corridor for mammal movement across a major roadway. The bobcat and
coyote, while not threatened or endangered, are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Corridor planning
needs to address the barriers to their movement, and not just the birds.
3 of 6 10/4/01 10:46 PM
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted during a six week period from May 28th
through July 9th, with no visits in other seasons. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small
mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian
utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo
southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just
east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled
for any sensitive fish species.
3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have
identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area. Loss of the bobcat population in this area with
adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The
biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened
species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals mat are essential to
control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to
assure that a viable predator population remains.
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor
that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek,
into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the addition of a
dirt floor and some native plant cover. Adequate drainage also needs to be addressed.
5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation
is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction.
6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site
specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND.
7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in this project area- and 100% of all of
them will be destroyed by this project. This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent
with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS
must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and
movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location
of off-site areas is not specified.
Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for
success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet
success criteria.
8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined
infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to
eliminate this impact.
9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with
4 of 6 10/4/01 10:46 PM
neg dec pslomar fomm
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors
may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats
has been ignored and must be included in the MND.
11. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction,
Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed. The
mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or
mitigation for sensitive species in the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed
portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat.
12. Carlsbad has used all of their authorized take of DCSS under the provisions of rule 4(d). The city is
therefor not authorized to issue any further take permits, nor is any other agency allowed to authorize
take permits until approval of Carlsbad's HMP,
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to
take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and
construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required.
3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose.
Cultural Resources
We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site
under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss
of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to
review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
5 of 6 10/4/01 10:48 PM
nee, dec palomar forum
3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of
California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American
Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains.
Recreational
l.This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and
east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west. Employees of the other industrial parks in this area
commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the
work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial
park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for
such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors.
2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be
provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise
this project proposal so that we all end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a
blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard on behalf of
Preserve Calavera
6 of 6 10/4/01 10:52 PM
Cfct 08 01 03:23p p.2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO UCSD
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM
9500 OILMAN DRIVE
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0116
TELEPHONE: (858) 534-2077
FAX (858) 534-7108 or 822-0696
e-mail: ikav@ucsii.edu
October 5, 2001
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559
Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department
Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park
joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 98-
05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT98-10/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01)
Dear Commissioners:
The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos
Canyon Reserve ("Reserve"), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary
of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high
quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core,
high quality habitat in the North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan
(MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and willow
woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the reserve has
lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of habitat inland, and
habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including golden eagle, mule deer, and mountain
lion. We are, however, fortunate to still have several species at the highest trophic levels,
including coyote, bobcat, fox. and many species of raptors. This is almost certainly because of
the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to individuals of these species, through
connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The
City of Carlsbad has recognized the importance of such connections, and called them out in the
core and linkage concept of the HMP.
The two properties under consideration by the Commission for development approval contribute
significantly to one of these connections: Linkage Area D connects the Reserve to extensive
areas of natural open space through the Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial project, and
Oct 08 01 03:29p ^^ P-3
thus to major core open space to the south, northeast, and east. Within the City of Vista to the
north of the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these
connections.
The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum jeopardize the
realization of a functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of
Carlsbad and the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The
remainder of this letter details the specifics of our concerns regarding this plan.
1. Need for a full Environmental Analysis
The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a full environmental analysis; a mitigated
negative declaration is clearly inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the
applicant - to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption
that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is
the environmentally preferred alternative. This has not been determined, since an environmental
analysis of alternatives has not been carried out.
Furthermore, it is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major
impacts on the remaining open space in the area, with the resulting consequences, including
habitat loss, stormwater runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of
views, etc.
However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been analyzed. We suggest
that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact,
through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two
projects were superficially (and inconsistently) combined for impact analysis, there is not enough
effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation
as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the
minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects
comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of, the HMP and MHCP should be presented.
When this is done, to say that the project "conforms with.." these plans will not be sufficient; a
case needs to be made to support this contention, with precise and specific information, and
clear-cut examples.
In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the
interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form
(EIA) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case, it is certainly out of date. In any case, the following
environmental factors will be subject to potentially significant impacts under the proposed
projects; they should therefore have been checked (in addition to those that were) as "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated", or "Potentially Significant Impact", in the extended
Environmental Impact Assessment form (pages 5-10), whether or not the impacts are mitigated:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
d) Agricultural resources: agricultural land will be converted to industrial;
C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 2 of 7
Oct 08 01 03:30p ^^ P-4
—>
e) Disruption of the community: the introduction of more traffic and industrial area will
exacerbate the division of south Carlsbad from north Carlsbad.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
f) significant changes in topography will accompany these projects;
g) land subsidence is likely unless alluvial material is removed as mitigation.
IV. WATER.
There WILL be:
a) changes in absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff;
b) exposure of people and property to flooding, both upstream and downstream;
d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon;
h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.)
IV. AIR QUALITY.
The projects as designed will likely:
b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants;
c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature locally due to hardscaping;
d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes.
In addition, there is no clear evidence that any measures other than circular reasoning have been
undertaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just
because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city's update
of the General Plan does not mean that any such measures have been incorporated. They are
certainly not explicitly called out. Furthermore, the MEIR is no longer adequate as it is older
than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time.
VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.
The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects:
b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed
on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
The proposal would result in impacts to:
b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including Quercus
dumosa, Quercus agrifolia, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Adolphia californica, Ferocactus
viridescens, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper's hawk,
Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing owl); this does not mean that other sensitive and
target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their
status on the sites (e.g. particular herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral,
mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed;
The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation
measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as "Potentially Significant Impact":
d) Wetland habitat: riparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak
woodland; and
C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of 7
Cict 08 01 03:30p ^t P-5
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is severely
compromised by the plan as proposed.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
a) Adopted energy conservation plans, such as those incorporated into the county-wide
REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated
communities, and fewer roads.
b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in
wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low
buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites.
The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of
Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG's
recommendations for "Smart Growth" are being incorporated. See, for example, their website
describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities:
http://www.sandag.org/whats_new/work_program/work_program_l 05 .html# 105.14
IX. HAZARDS.
c) The development of the industrial parks will almost certainly lead to the importation of
materials that pose a hazard to human and environmental health. These problems should be
examined during this stage of the development process, since to wait until individual parcels are
developed would be illegally piecemealing the project.
The introduction of industrial processes, vehicle traffic, and thousands of individuals into an area
of habitat that is highly flammable, and the resulting increased likelihood for fire is not
discussed.
XL PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Fire protection: the reduced level of service that might be available if the lesser
environmentally damaging projects are built are discussed in the document; the "potentially
significant impact" column should have been checked.
d) The need for indefinite maintenance of the infrastructures supporting these industrial parks,
including roads, sewer, storm drains, street lighting, etc. could have a significant impact on the
ability of the city's departments to provide adequate service to their residents in the long-term.
This item should have been checked as having at least a "Potentially significant impact."
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Sewer systems are identified as being impacted, albeit at a level deemed below significant. It is
not clear why water treatment and distribution facilities (c) and stormwater drainage (e) are not
impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that
the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects.
XII. AESTHETICS.
The project will most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed
(impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics; and creating light and glare) and should thus be
recognized at that level.
XV. RECREATION.
Contrary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checklist, there WILL
most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational
facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of the employees of the business
parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need
C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 4 of 7
Oct 08 01 03:31p ^^ P-6
for recreational facilities in competitive business areas, as employees need to exercise or relax
before, during, and after work. In addition, trails and paths that are offered as amenities by the
business park will be used to access the open space, thus requiring the development of a larger
trail system. Finally, if bicycles are to be encouraged as a form of transportation in the area, the
necessary facilities should likely be a recreational resource as well.
a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance to view
wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc.)
will surely be negatively impacted by these projects.
2. Mitigation for habitat impacts
a) Wetlands
The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is topologically
unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation see Figure 3.
Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix, 1998.) In addition, the 0.08
acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum project are not included in existing
plans.
b) Coastal Sage Scrub
Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured (2:1)
slopes. It is not clear that this will result in functional wildlife habitat, or that this is an adequate
acreage for restoration, at 1:1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore, there appears to be no
plan for fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the
development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area.
c) Oaks
There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Quercus agrifolia and Quercus
dumosa) on either of the projects, in spite of the fact that oak woodland is to be conserved under
the HMP.
d) Overlooked species and occurrences
It is not clear whether the ten Comarostaphylos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on
the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and other species were overlooked.
Examples:
1. Comarostaphylos was observed on the north-facing slope at the east end of the dragstrip, but
was not shown on the map.
2. Large clusters of Quercus dumosa to the west of the Comarostaphylos were not recorded on
the map.
3. Quercus agrifolia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked.
4. An area of Baccharis scrub in the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a bare,
disturbed area.
5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for
impacts to sensitive species and habitats.
C' bad Racew ay comment 10/05/01 Page 5 of 7
Oct 08 01 03:32p
e) Inadequate mitigation
In addition, the remaining mitigation proposed for impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Non-
native grassland, and the transection of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia appear inadequate, for
the following reasons:
1. $100,000 is not sufficient to construct a major bridge such as would be required.
2. NO land in the vicinity of Carlsbad can be purchased for S3,949 per acre, so this is
inadequate mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland; additionally, the targeted acquisitions
need to be identified as part of the mitigation proposal.
3. Similarly, land cannot be purchased for $7,897 per acre, as proposed for mitigation for
chaparral, so this is also inadequate mitigation. Any such purchase alternative needs to identify
the acquisition parcels prior to project approval.
In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be
made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that
culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public
review.
3. Wildlife corridors
The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects make up the
northern portion of linkage area D. as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D-
6) "The northern section of this linkage includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway
that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a moderately effective
corridor for birds and mammals." However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow
(less than 400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completely transected by roads in two places.
Most noticeable is the obstacle created by placing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest
corner of the Raceway site. The wildlife undercrossing proposed appears to be a culvert that is
180 feet long, 12 feet high, and 5-20 feet wide. A bridge would provide a far superior solution to
the problem, and should be studied as a real alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible to
visualize either of these with the plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.)
The Poinsettia {aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering
it another "sink" for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative
impact on the population at large.
There are numerous studies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages and corridors, and
the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successful. Please
contact my office if you do not already have copies of these references for the Planning
Commission before the hearing.
4. Circulation
"The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of
increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated." (p. 15, EIA). The
mitigation proposed is to complete all the planned roads in the area. It has not yet been decided
C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 6 of 7
Oct 08 01 03:33p
whether these projects (Faraday, El Fuerte, etc.) should be constructed. Therefore there appears
to be a very real need for a thorough alternatives analysis, in the form of an Environmental
Impact Report.
This section of the document also presents unsubstantiated conclusions that fly in the face of
current evidence to the contrary, i.e. that building more roads eases congestion and encourages
alternative forms of transportation: "The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday)
and capacity (Palomar Airport Road) will ... reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate
modes of transportation."
Finally, the justification for using the 1994 MEIR to allow the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" to stand is that "... no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the MEIR was certified..." and that".. .there is no new available
information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was
certified." In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects
in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the
past 5 years on San Diego's freeways, these statements should be re-examined.
5. Hydrology
The proposal to use the wildlife corridor/riparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill-
conceived. This very same concept has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad
Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to
mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located
completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and
certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildlife passage.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or
as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the
difference.
Sincerely,
IsabeTleKay £7
Manager, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve
cc: USFWS
CDFG
Preserve Calavera
C'bad Racewav comment 10/05/01 Page lofl
Set 08 01 03:29p ^ P-1
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO UCSD
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO pMKif'-iSWlSIl SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
Natural Reserve System Phone: (858) 534-2077
9500 Oilman Dr. Fax: (858) 822-0696
La Jolla, CA 92093-0116 ikay@ucsd.ecu
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
TO: Ann Hysons:
Affiliation: City of Carlsbad, Planning Dept.
Fax: (760) 602-8559 Phone:
Date: JO.8.01 Number of pages (including this one): 8
From: Isabelle Kay
Affiliation: UCSD Natural Reserve System
Fax: (858) 822-0696 Phone: (858)-534-2077
Comments:
Ann,
Since 30 days from the date of the release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects seems to have been last
Saturday, I am assuming that it is okay to send this comment letter in to you
today. Please call to let me know you've received it, and if you have any
questions, or if you cannot accept it.
Regards,
Isabelle
r>*
CONSULT AAl T S
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ATTN: Anne Hysong
DATE: 08/29/01 JOB NO.: 98-1012
PROJECT: Carlsbad Raceway
RE: Prints
T.M.:
DWG:
TRANSMITTED VIA:
FAX
PHONE NO.:
760-602-2772
FAX NO.:
760-602-8562
ENCLOSED, please find the following:
1 copy cost estimate for wildlife undercrossing at Poinsettia Avenue
REMARKS: Please call if you should have any questions or comments. Thank you.
By: Tim Carroll
Project Manager
Cc: Jon Kurtin, Kurtin Properties w/enc.
5900 Pasteur Court Civil Engineering
Suite 100 Planning
Carlsbad, California 92008-7317 Processing
(760)931-7700 Surveying
Fax: (760)931-8680 E-mail: oday@odayconsultants.com
*** ***************************^^****************************** * J-**************
*' ••• 0' i^P Consultants, Inc. ^P *
* 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 100 *
* Carlsbad, CA 92008 *
* (Tel) 760-931-7700 (Fax) 760-931-8680 *
* *
PRELIMINARY
**** OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTUCTION COSTS ****
Job: WILDLF Date: 30 August 191
Poinsettia Ave. Wildlife Undercrossing By: TC
NOTE: 'c' after Item Dollar Amount Indicates Contingency Item.
Quantity Unit Cost Item Total
*** ROADWAY/STREET IMPROVEMENTS ***
Miscellaneous:
12'x 24'Multi Plate Arch Culvert... 110 LF 320.00 35,200.00 c
Assembly 110 LF 95.00 10,450.00 c
Concrete Footing 110 LF 115.00 12,650.00 c
Backfill 110 LF 50.00 5,500.00 c
Headwall 2 EA 12,000.00 24,000.00 c
Miscellaneous Subtotal: 87,800.00
ROADWAY/STREET IMPROVEMENTS Subtotal: 87,800.00
Contingencies: 13,170.00
ROADWAY/STREET IMPROVEMENTS Total: 100,970.00
*** MAJOR CATEGORY TOTALS (Does Not Include Contingency Costs)
ROADWAY/STREET IMPROVEMENTS: 87,800.00
TOTAL COST WITHOUT CONTINGENCIES: 87,800.00
*** SUMMARY (Including Contingency Costs) :
TOTAL OF COSTS SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY: 87,800.00
CONTINGENCIES @ 15%: 13,170.00
TOTAL OF COSTS NOT SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY: 0.00
TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST: 100,970.00
Page 1 of 2
Opinion of Probable Constuction Costs - WILDLF
NOTE:
THESE ESTIMATES ARE BASED UPON PRELIMINARY PLANS WHICH HAVE NOT RECEIVED
FINAL APPROVAL. UNIT COSTS, IN SOME CASES, HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY OTHERS.
THE ENGINEER MAKES NO REPRESENTATION CONCERNING THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES.
COST FIGURES ARE ESTIMATES ONLY AND THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR FLUCTUATIONS IN COST FACTORS OR CHANGES DUE TO FINAL DESIGN. THESE
ESTIMATES ARE FOR PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ONLY.
THIS PROJECT MAY REQUIRE REMEDIAL GRADING OPERATIONS AND THE QUANTITIES
REQUIRED FOR REMEDIAL GRADING ARE UNCERTAIN UNTIL FURTHER SOILS TESTS
ARE MADE ( FREQUENTLY DURING CONSTRUCTION. ) CONSULT THE PROJECT SOILS
ENGINEER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
Page 2 of 2
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6452
fax (619) 462-0552
phone (619) 462-1515
August 28, 2001
Ms. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum Project.
Dear Ms. Hysong:
On behalf of Davis Partners, LLC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department),
and the City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final mitigation measures necessary to
fully mitigate the Palomar Forum project. Additionally, I have spoken directly with
David Lawhead of the Department on two occasions over the past two days. The
purpose of these discussions has been to address concerns raised by the Department
regarding impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland habitats, as
well one sensitive animal species. The following summarizes the applicant's
additional mitigation measures agreed to in concept by David Lawhead that are
proposed to fully mitigate project impacts.
Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design
Impacts and acres preserved on site are summarized in Table 1. There has been some
disagreement regarding the amount of non-native grassland present on the site. The
applicant has agreed to include areas mapped as non-native grassland in the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for the City of Carlsbad as non-native grassland for
purposes of mitigation calculations.
Table 1
IMPACTS
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Southern Mixed
Chaparral
Non-native Grassland
Disturbed
TOTAL
Total
On-Site
3.2
3.3
29.0
35.1
70.2
Acres
Impacted
3.2
3.3
27.3
35.1
68.9
Acres
Preserved
0
0
1.7
0+
1.7
+Approximately 0.7 acre of disturbed area will be preserved following disturbance, for a total
preservation of 2.4 acres
Based on a 1:1 mitigation ratio for DCSS, the mitigation requirement is 3.3 acres of
DCSS. The 1.7 acres of open space within the onsite corridor will be restored to
DCSS, leaving a shortfall of 1.5 acre. This will be mitigated through off site
environmental planning, inc
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong
August 28,2001
Page 2
acquisition at a site acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies, or through
restoration of DCSS habitat within open space on the Carlsbad Raceway project to
the north.
Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 3.3 acres. The mitigation ratio is 1:1. The
HMP recommends a fee of $7,897 per acre of chaparral impacted. The resulting fee is
$26,060.10.
Impacts to non-native grassland total 27.3 acres. The HMP for the City of Carlsbad
recommends a fee of $3,949 per acre of non-native grassland impacted. The resulting
fee is $107,807.70.
The combined fee requirement is $133,867.80.
Wetland Mitigation
A total of approximately 0.08 acre of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdictional and CDFG jurisdictional unvegetated waters of the U.S./streambed
will be impacted. This will be mitigated through restoration of riparian habitat on
the Carlsbad Raceway project at a 1:1 mitigation ratio as shown on the attached
figure.
Sensitive Species Mitigation
Although the potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) to occur on
site is considered low, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the
presence or absence of this species. If the owl is observed on site, it will be relocated
to open space elsewhere on the project site, or on the Carlsbad Raceway site to the
north.
Combined, these measures will fully mitigate all impacts to sensitive resources on
the site.
Sincerely,
Barry L. Tones
Senior Consulting Biologist
Attachment: Wetland Mitigation Locations
cc: Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Michael Holzmiler, City of Carlsbad
David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game
John Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Larry Nelson, Davis Partners, LLC
Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt & McGuire
Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning
LEGEND
DCSS
SWS
MFS
FWM
SMC
NNG
AC
D1S
-D
Diegan coastal sage scrub Cd
Southern willow scrub Ac
Mule fat scrub Qa
Freshwater marsh Sc
Southern mixed chapparal Age
Non-native grassland Pe
Agriculture Ce
Disturbed habitat/developed.
Indicates disturbed habitat
Summer Holly (Comarostaphylos diversifolia)
California adolphia (Adolphia California)
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Ashy-spike moss (Selaginella cinerascens)
Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia)
Dot-seed Plantain (Plantago erecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant)
Owl's Clover (Castilleja exserta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly host plant)
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated
Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded
Potential Wetland Restoration Areas
Streambed Restoration Area
0 100 L'DO "too
HELIX Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas
CARLSBAD RACEWAY figure I
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
PROJECT:
DELIVERED BY:
ATTENTION:
August 22, 2001
Palomar Forum
Hofman Planning Associates
Michael Holzmiller cc. Anne Hysong
Message:
Michael,
Enclosed are letters regarding habitat mitigation related to the Palomar Forum project. Larry
Nelson and I would like to speak to you briefly regarding these mitigation measures. Please give
me a call. Thank you.
FROM:Stan Weiler, AICP
5900 Pasteur Court • Ste 150 Carlsbad CA 92008 760-438-1465 Fax 760-438-2443
L I M i r v i) I, 1 A 1) i i ; T v C u M i- A v Y
August 22, 2001
Ms. Anne Hysong, Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
163 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Re: Helix Itrdtd 8-22-01
Dear Ms. Hysong:
This letter will serve as a preface to Barry Jones' dated 8-22-01. As you are aware we
were given an extremely late change from the State and Federal agencies last week prior
to our hearing. This change came despite several years of their involvement and
previously agreed to biological conditions and mitigation requirements. We still feel this
action was unfounded and has created a considerable hardship on the affected owners.
Although we think it extremely unfair and unjustified, we reluctantly accept Helix's 8-
22-01 mitigation conditions. This acceptance even takes into account not only the
Agencies backtracking, but also the City's new insertion of the proposed HMP mitigation
elements (which heretofore were never discussed as a condition).
As a basis for our acceptance, we want to be assured that the Planning Commission
hearing for this map will take place at the October 3,2001 date without any new issues
arising at the last minute. This last minute delay has cost us several hundred thousand
dollars with all the legal, consultants and time delays.
isoti
Principal
cc:
Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
Donald Rideout
Stan Weiler, Horman Planning
Ron Ball, Esq.
Hugh Hewitt, Esq.
Jon Kurtin
1420 BRISTOL STREET NORTH • SUITE 100 • KEWFOKT BBACM • CA 92660
TEL: 949.7S2.;C66 • FAX: 949.75J.8776
HI00 La Mesa Hind.. Suite n
Lu Mesa. CA 9 7.94/-M 52
fax (f.,191 462-05'V
August 12, 2001
Ms. AnneHysong
Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject' Palomar Forum Project.
Dear Ms Hysong:
On behal? of Davis Partners, I.LC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Game (Department)
and (lie City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final mitigation measures necessary to
fuily mitigate the Poinmar Forum project. Additionally, [ have spoken directly vvith
David Lawhead of the Department on two occasions over the past two days. The
purpose of these discussions has been to address concerns raised by the Department
regarding impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland habitats, as
well one sensitive animal species. The following summarizes the applicant's
additional mitigation measures agreed to in concept by David Lawhead that are
proposed lo fully mitigate project impacts.
Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design
Impacts and acres preserved on site arc summarized in Table 1. There has been some
disagreement regarding the amount of non-native grassland present on (he site The
applicant has agreed to include areas mapped as non-native grassland in the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for the City of Carlsbad as non-native grassland for
purposes of mitigation calculations,
Tab lei
IMPACTS
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Southern Mixed
Chaparral
Non- native Grassland
Disturbed
TOTAL
Total
On-Site
3.2
3.3
29.0
35.1
70.2
Acres
Impacted
3,2
3.3
27.3
35.1
63.9
Acres
Preserved
0
0
1.7
ir
1.7
'Approximately 0.7 acrt of disturbed area will be preserv«d following disturbance, for a total
of 24 acres
Based or, a 1:1 mitigation ratio for DCSS, the mitigation requirement is 3.3 acres of
DCSS. The 2.4 acres of open space within the onsite corridor will be restored to
DCSS, leaving a shortfall of 0.8 acre. This will be mitigated through off site
tOO/cOO'c i.?619
t&
T
Letter to Ms. Anne Mysong Page 2
August 22, 2001
restoration of DC'SS habitat within open space on the Carlsbad Raceway project to
the north.
Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 3,3 acres. The mitigation ratio Is 1:1, The
HMP recommends -A tee of 56,9CO pc.r acre of chaparral impacted. The resulting fee is
$22,770.
Impacts to non-n<ilive grassland total 27.3 acres. The mitigation ratio for non-native
grassland is 0 5:1, resulting in a mitigation requirement of 13 65 acres. The HMP for
the City of Carlsbad recommends a foe of $3,500 per acre of chaparral impacted, The
resulting fee is $47,775.
The combined fee requirement is $70,545. These funds will be used to enhance
additional disturbed and nun-native grassland areas within the corridor on the
Carlsbad Raceway prnicct.
Wetland Mitigation
A tola! of approximately 0.08 acre of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
jurisdict.onal and CDFG jurisdictional unvegetated waters of the L.S /streambed
will be. impacted. This will b* mitigated through rcstcrat:on cf riparian habitat on
the Carlsbad Raceway project at a 1:1 mitigation ratio.
Sensitive Species Mitigation
Althougn the potential for burrowing owl (Athene cumcularia hy(>uj>;it'ft} to occur on
site is considered low, prc-consiruction surveys shall be conducted to determine the
presence or absence of this species. If the owl is observed on site, it will be relocated
to cpen space elsewhere on the project site, or on the Carlsbad Raceway sile to the
north.
Combined, these measures will fully mitigate all impacts to sensitive resources on
(ho site.
Sincerely,
f. -T Barry L Jones
Senior Consulting Biologist
Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Michac-l Holzniiier, City of Carlsbad
David Lawhead, California Dept. of Hsh and Came
John Martin, U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
Larry Nelson, Davis Partners, LLC
eco/eoo-<3 £.930?
S100 La Mew Mud., Suite 750
La Mesa, CA 91941-6412
fax (f>19)
phone (619)
August 22, 2001
Ms. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
CarJsbad, California 92008
Subject: Carlsbad Raceway Project.
Dear Ms. Hysong:
On behalf of Raceway Properties, IXC, we have been working with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), California Department of Fish and Came (Department),
and the City of Carlsbad (City) regarding the final mitigation measures necessary to
fully mitigate the Carlsbad Raceway project, Additionally, I have spoken directly
with David I.awhead of the Department on two occasions over the past two days.
The purpose of these discussions has been to address concerns raised by the
Department regarding impacts to southern mixed chaparral and non-native
grassland habitats, as well as several sensitive plant and animal species. The
following summarizes the applicant's additional mitigation measures agreed to in
concept by David Lawhead that are proposedfto fully mitigate project impacts.
Upland Mitigation/Open Space Design
Impacts and acres preserved on site are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
IMPACTS
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Southern Mixed
Chaparral
Southern Willow Scrub
Freshwater Marsh
Mule/at Scrub
Non-native Grassland
Agricultural
Disturbed
TOTAL
Total
On-Site
19.2
26.3
3.42
0.77
0.18
32.6
4.7
57.83
145.0
Acres
Impacted
9.6
21.6
0.37
0.15
0.13
28.0
4.7
47.3
111.85
Acres
Preserved
9.6
4,7
3.05
0.62
0.05
4.6
0
10.53
33.15
In addition to on site preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS),
approximately 8-5 acres of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated to DCSS and
approximately nine acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and
900/7GO't3 0880#•AN3 Y.IT3H 2990 619 89:€T
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong
August 22,2001
Page 2
seeded with a DCSS seed mix. Based on a 2:1 mitigation ratio, an excess of 8.5 acres
of mitigation is being proposed that will be credited towards mitigation of impacts to
southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland.
Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 21.6 acres. Approximately 4.7 acres will be
preserved and credited as mitigation for chaparral, resulting in a mitigation
requirement of 16.9 acres. The Habitat Management Flan (HMP) for the City of
Carlsbad recommends a fee of $6,900 per acre of chaparral impacted. The resulting
fee is $116,610.
Impacts to non-native grassland total 28.0 acres. The mitigation ratio for non-native
grassland is 0.5:1, resulting in a mitigation requirement of '14.0 acres. Approximately
4.6 acres of non-native grassland is being conserved, therefore the mitigation
requirement is 9.6 acres. The HMP for the City of Carlsbad recommends a fee of
$3,500 per acre of non-native grassland impacted. The resulting fee is $33,600.
The combined fee requirement is 5150,210. The excess mitigation for DCSS of 8.5
acres of restoration will be credited towards the $150,210 fee requirement. The
amount credited will be based on verified costs (costs verified by the City of
Carlsbad) of the 8.5 acres of DCSS restoration. Remaining funds will be used to
enhance additional disturbed and non-native grassland areas within the corridor.
Wetland Mitigation
A total of approximately 0,48-acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for
impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Hngineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:1 mitigation
ratio). Southern willow scrub will be planted over at least 0.34 acre, and 0.14 acre of
freshwater marsh will be planted along the margins of the restoration area.
Streambed impacts totaling 0.18 acre (Corps and Department jurisdictional) will be
mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that
currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15-foot wide channel (approximately
0.38 acre) running through (he proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the
northern boundary of the proposed project. Exotic weeds will be removed from the
channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. No other
restoration is proposed in the channel. An additional 0,48-acre of southern willow
scrub will be planted to mitigate the additional 0.24 acre of impacts (2:1 mitigation
ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by the Department but not
jurisdictional by the Corps. The restoration mitigation total for the project is 0.96
acre. If the 0.25-acrc of Department jurisdictional impacts associated with Melrose
Drive were included in this project's impacts, an additional 0.5-acre of southern
willow scrub would be created to mitigate these impacts.
oseo*•AN3 619
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong
August 22,2001
Page 3
Table 2POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTION AL AREASON THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROPERTY
Jurisdiction
ACOE wetland
ACOE non-
vegetated
Waters of the
U.S.
CDFG
Jurisdictional
areas
Existing1
"1.28
0.51
4.79
Meirose
Drive
Impacts1
...
0.252
Carlsbad
Raceway
Property
Project
Impacts1
0.24
0.18
0.66
Total
Impacts1
0.24
0.18
0.91
Remaining1
1.04
0.33
3.88
1 All figures are in acres
2 Impacted area consisted of State only jurisdictions! southern willow scrub
Table 3
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY PROJECT
TO JURISDICnONAL 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) J
0.07
0.28
0.13
0.18
0.66
1 State Jurisdictional Areas include Federal Jurisdictional Areas
Sensitive Species Mitigation
Impacts to 50 California adolphia (Atiolpliia cnlifomicn) individuals and 10 summer
holly (Comarostahylis tiiversifolia ssp. divcmfolia) will be mitigated by including these
species in the restoration efforts on the site. A minimum of 100 California adoiphia
and 20 summer holly will be planted as container stock within the upland restoration
areas.
Although the potential for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularin hypugacii) to occur on
site is considered low, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the
presence or absence of this species. If the owl is observed on site, it will be relocated
to open space elsewhere on the project site.
0880?*•AN3 xnau 619
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong
) August 22, 2001
Page 4
Combined, these measures will fully mitigate all impacts to sensitive resources on
the site.
Sincerely,
L. Jones
Senior Consulting Biologist
cc: Don Hideout, City of Carlsbad
Michael Holzmiler, Cily of Carlsbad
David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game
John Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jon Kurtin/ Raceway Properties, I.LC
Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt & McGuire
SOO/900'd 0880*•AN3 2S90 612
FAX TRANSMITTAL
date:
to:
organization:
fax number
from:
subject
page 1 of:
job number
message:
August 22,2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
(760)602-4622
Barry Jones
Carlsbad Raceway
KPM01
Anne-Provided is the letter summarizing the additional mitigation
measures for the Carlsbad Raceway project. Please call me on my cell
phone (619-742-2068) if you have any questions.
Barry
Cc: Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Michael Holzmiler, City of Carlsbad
David Lawhead, California Dept. of Fish and Game
. John Martin, US. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jon Kurtin, Kurtin Property Management
Stan Weiter, Ho/man Planning
5/00 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6452
e-mail: barrvi@helixeni-c.oia
phone: (619) 462-1515
fax (619) 462-0552
900/IOO'a 08801 •AN3 XIT3H 612
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
August 15,2001In 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 15, 1999) 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. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for the
conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources, including rare,
threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA), and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program.
The 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 benmttii) 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 et
seq. and/or under CEQA, the final MND should fully identify the potential impacts to the
stream and riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and
reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement. An SAA notification package may be
obtained by writing to The California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services
Division, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 or by calling (858) 636-3160. In
addition, the applicant may be required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well.
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 Service at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
fancy Gilbert
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
<r William E. Tippets
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
California Department of Fish and Game
CLOT,
San Diego and Imperial Counties
3820 Ray Street
San Diego, CA 92104-3623
Office (619) 299-1743
Conservation (619) 299-1741
Fax (619) 299-1742
Voice Mail (619) 299-1744
EBBS (619) 299-4018
August 9, 2001
Ann Hysong
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum MND
Dear Ms Hysong:
The Sierra Club has a long history of opposition to roadway extensions through sensitive habitat. We
believe the Melrose connector should move forward in order to reduce the need for extending Faraday and
El Fuerte streets, nearby roadways that would seriously degrade the largest remaining contiguous native
habitat in coastal North County.
However, we have serious problems with the MND as currently proposed. We believe the severity of the
problems with the MND, and the local controversy about the roadway extension portion of this project
justifies a complete EIR. However, if you fully address the issues raised in comment letters to the MND
this will essentially serve the same purpose. Failure to fully address these issues would violate the
provisions of CEQA.
We also request that the Sierra Club be included in review and comment on the draft Mitigation Monitoring
Plan prior to its submittal for formal approval. The current plan is not acceptable and will require extensive
revisions once the responses to comments are incorporated. Specific concerns about the MND have been
identified in comment letters from Preserve Calavera, Dr. Doug Diener, and the Dawson-Los Monos
Reserve, among others. We concur with those comments and include them by reference in this letter.
It is also our understanding that the comment period for the MND closes on August 13,2001 and that the
matter is scheduled for action by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2001. This does not imply a
good faith effort to review and respond to comments. We would further ask that this be pulled from the
August 15th agenda and be rescheduled at such time as comments have received adequate review, and all
commenters have been properly notified of the schedule for action on this project. Failure to do so would
be a clear indication of inadequate response to comments and would also be a CEQA violation.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerel'
Deb Schmidt
Conservation Coordinator
North Coastal Group Sierra Club
cc: Janet Anderson- SD Chapter Conservation Coordinator
Diane Nygaard - Preserve Calavera
Dr. Douglas Diener
Isabelle Kay- Reserve Manager Dawson-Los Monos Reserve
Printed on 50% recycled paper
J
^^
file:///Untitted
August 7,2001
Ann Hysong
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
SubjectPalomar Forum MND
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned
about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native
plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area.
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent
survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted
on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of
CEQA.
Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more
damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is
speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project
development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad.
The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization:
5020 PJighthawk Way - Ocean Hilts, CA 92056
www.ijreseirvecalavera.org
1 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
file:///Untitled
Water
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address
the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further
degrade the lagoon.
2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the
lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the
cumulative impacts of projects in this area.
3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the
lagoon and further impair this waterway.
Circulation
Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance
planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for
this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased
congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is
needed to adequately address these impacts.
1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on
Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The
intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista
neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on
this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed.
2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic
model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For
example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This
project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other
Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic
conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the
old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed,
possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects.
2. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring
cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements
shown on page 7-19 includes several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway
projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements
will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other
referenced improvements being in place.
3. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all
indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway
2 of 6 8/7/011:08 PM
file:///Untitled
W W
extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
4. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or
Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal.
5. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuerte extension.
6. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
7. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad Raceway report- although both claim to
be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
8. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-
all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern califoraians love our outdoors-
and we don't have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that
preserves our quality of life, andmore of the native plants and animals.
P ^to-i-V^W, if fw^'
1. The related GadsbadJ&aeeway project designates 1.7 acres of open space on the eastern end which is
intended to be a corridor link to the northwest of the project and to the south side of Palomar Airport
Rd. This is not a viable corridor for mammal movement across a major roadway. The bobcat and
coyote, while not threatened or endangered, are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Corridor planning
needs to address the barriers to their movement, and not just the birds.
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted during a six week period from May 28th
through July 9th, with no visits in other seasons. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small
mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian
utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo
southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just
east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled
3 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
file:///Untitled
for any sensitive fish species.
3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have
identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area. Loss of the bobcat population in this area with
adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The
biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened
species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to
control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to
assure that a viable predator population remains.
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor
that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek,
into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor. . This 5' wide
constricted concrete space does not allow for necessary light and plant cover that would allow this to
function for adequate wildlife movement. A divided roadway with natural light, dirt floor, and native
plant cover is required.
5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation
is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction.
6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site
specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND.
7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in this project area- and 100% of all of
them will be destroyed by this project. This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent
with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS
must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and
movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location
of off-site areas is not specified.
Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for
success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet
success criteria.
8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined
infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to
eliminate this impact.
9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors
may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats
has been ignored and must be included in the MND.
4 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
file:///Untitled
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to
take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and
construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required.
3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose,
Cultural Resources
We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site
under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss
of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to
review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of
California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American
Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains.
Recreational
1 .This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and
east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west Employees of the other industrial parks in this area
commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the
work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial
park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for
such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors.
2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be
provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise
this project proposal so that we all end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a
blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space.
5 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
file:///Untit!ed
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard on behalf of
Preserve Calavera
6 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ATTN: Anne Hysong
DATE: 08/06/01 JOB NO.: 98-1012
PROJECT: Carlsbad Raceway
RE: Prints
T.M.:
DWG:
TRANSMITTED VIA:
HAND
PHONE NO.:
760-602-2772
FAX NO.:
760-602-8562
ENCLOSED, please find the following:
2 copies water quality concept plan for Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum
REMARKS: Please call if you should have any questions or comments. Thank you.
By: Tim Carroll
Project Manager
Cc: Jon Kurtin, Kurtin Properties
Larry Nelson, Davis Partners
5900 Pasteur Court Civil Engineering
Suite 100 Planning
Carlsbad, California 92008-7317 Processing
(760)931-7700 Surveying
Fax: (760)931-8680 E-mail: oday@odayconsultants.com
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
August 7, 2001
Mr. Stan Weiler
Hofman Planning
5900 Pasteur Court
Suite 150
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7317
SUBJECT:PALOMAR FORUM
Dear Stan:
Pursuant to the recently adopted Assembly Bill 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of
1990, it has been determined that your project is subject to filing fees of
$1,275.00 levied by the State Department of Fish and Game. This fee is payable
to the County on approval of your project. Please submit a check for the above
amount (payable to the City of Carlsbad) to the City of Carlsbad, Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Please note the
application will not be scheduled for a hearing until the fee has been received by
the Planning Department.
If you have any questions, please contact Anne Hysong at (760) 602-4622.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONX3,
Associate Planner
AH:cs
c: Palomar Forum Associates, L.P., 1420 Bristol Street N., Newport Beach, CA
92130
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
NOTE
ADDITIONAL FEES. STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
Cities and Counties throughout California has been notified of legislation (AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990) which became effective on January 1, 1991.
This law requires the State of California Department of Fish and Game to levy a fee
to all project applicants (public and private) subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife
trust resources.
Projects which are categorically exempt from CEQA and which have no adverse
impact on fish and wildlife or projects which are denied, are not subject to the fee.
All other projects are subject to the following fees:
Projects with Negative Declarations $1,275.
Projects with EIRs $875.
Due to State Law constraints the City of Carlsbad will collect the fee where
applicable and pass it to the County of San Diego.
After submission, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department will make an
Environmental Assessment of your application. After this initial assessment the
Planning Department will notify you if the fee is required.
State Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento CA 94244-2090
(916) 445-3531
file:///Untrtlcd
August?, 2001
Ann Hysong
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
SubjectPalomar Forum MND
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned
about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native
plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area.
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent
survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted
on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of
CEQA.
Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more
damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is
speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project
development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad.
The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization:
5020 Nighthawk Way - Ocean Hills, CA 92056
www.preservecalavera.orgIof6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
nic:,vYl_'mrtl«
Water
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address
the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further
degrade the lagoon.
2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the
lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the
cumulative impacts of projects in this area.
3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the
lagoon and further impair this waterway.
Circulation
Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance
planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for
this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased
congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is
needed to adequately address these impacts.
1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on
Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The
intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista
neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on
this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed.
2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic
model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For
example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This
project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other
Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic
conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the
old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed,
possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects.
2. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring
cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements
shown on page 7-19 includes several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway
projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements
will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other
referenced improvements being in place.
3. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all
indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway
2 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
extension. This controversy srould have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
4. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or
Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal.
5. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuerte extension.
6. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
7. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad Raceway report- although both claim to
be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
8. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-
all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern californians love our outdoors-
and we don't have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that
preserves our quality of life, and more of the native plants and animals.
I -' (r '. ' ' ' -- " *• ''*" "
1. The related GaiisbadRaeeway project designates 1.7 acres of open space on the eastern end which is
intended to be a corridor link to the northwest of the project and to the south side of Palomar Airport
Rd. This is not a viable corridor for mammal movement across a major roadway. The bobcat and
coyote, while not threatened or endangered, are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Corridor planning
needs to address the barriers to their movement, and not just the birds.
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted during a six week period from May 28th
through July 9th, with no visits in other seasons. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small
mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian
utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo
southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just
east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled
3 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
tile:' Unntled
for any sensitive fish speci
3. Our wildlife tracking surveys , under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have
identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area. Loss of the bobcat population in this area with
adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The
biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened
species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to
control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to
assure that a viable predator population remains.
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor
that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek,
into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor. . This 5' wide
constricted concrete space does not allow for necessary light and plant cover that would allow this to
function for adequate wildlife movement. A divided roadway with natural light, dirt floor, and native
plant cover is required.
5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation
is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction.
6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site
specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND.
7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in this project area- and 100% of all of
them will be destroyed by this project. This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent
with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS
must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and
movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location
of off-site areas is not specified.
Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for
success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet
success criteria.
8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined
infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to
eliminate this impact.
9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors
may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats
has been ignored and must be included in the MND.
4 of 6 &7/011:08PM
me: Umitiw
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to
take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and
construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required.
3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose.
Cultural Resources
We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site
under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss
of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to
review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of
California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American
Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains.
Recreational
1 .This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and
east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west. Employees of the other industrial parks in this area
commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the
work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial
park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for
such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors.
2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be
provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise
this project proposal so that we all end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a
blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space.
5 of 6 8/7/01 1:08 PM
file:///Untitled
Sincerely, /n
Diane Nygaard on behalf of
Preserve Calavera
8/7/01 1:08 PM
Anne Hysong - Palomar Forum MND Page 1
From: "D. Schmidt" «jschmidt@csusm.edu>
To: <ahyso@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 8/9/01 7:34AM
Subject: Palomar Forum MND
August 9, 2001
Ann Hysong
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum MND
Dear Ms Hysong:
The Sierra Club has a long history of opposition to roadway extensions
through sensitive habitat. We believe the Melrose connector should move
forward in order to reduce the need for extending Faraday and El Fuerte
streets, nearby roadways that would seriously degrade the largest remaining
contiguous native habitat in coastal North County.
However, we have serious problems with the MND as currently proposed. We
believe the severity of the problems with the MND, and the local
controversy about the roadway extension portion of this project justifies a
complete EIR. However, if you fully address the issues raised in comment
letters to the MND this will essentially serve the same purpose. Failure
to fully address these issues would violate the provisions of CEQA.
We also request that the Sierra Club be included in review and comment on
the draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan prior to its submittal for formal
approval. The current plan is not acceptable and will require extensive
revisions once the responses to comments are incorporated. Specific
concerns about the MND have been identified in comment letters from
Preserve Calavera, Dr. Doug Diener, and the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve, among
others. We concur with those comments and include them by reference in
this letter.
It is also our understanding that the comment period for the MND closes on
August 13, 2001 and that the matter is scheduled for action by the Planning
Commission on August 15, 2001. This does not imply a good faith effort to
review and respond to comments. We would further ask that this be pulled
from the August 15th agenda and be rescheduled at such time as comments
have received adequate review, and all commenters have been properly
notified of the schedule for action on this project. Failure to do so
would be a clear indication of inadequate response to comments and would
also be a CEQA violation.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Deb Schmidt
j Anne Hysong - Palomar Forum MND Page 2
Conservation Coordinator
North Coastal Group Sierra Club
cc: Janet Anderson- SD Chapter Conservation Coordinator
Diane Nygaard - Preserve Calavera
Dr. Douglas Diener
Isabelle Kay- Reserve Manager Dawson-Los Monos Reserve
Deb Schmidt
Mail & Copy Center
(760) 750-4545
dschmidt@csusm.edu
Administrative Services: Building Excellence in Resource Manangement &
Customer Service
me:."/unnuec
Manner
rlsbad
1635 Farlday
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Subject:Carlsbad Raceway MND
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned
about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native
plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area.
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent
survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted
on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of
CEQA.
Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more
damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is
speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project
development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad.
The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization:
Water
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address
the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further
5020 Nighthawk Way - Ocean Hills, CA 92056
lof6 www.preserveca.avera.org 8/7/01 1:21 PM
file:-"Entitled
degrade the lagoon.
2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the
lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the
cumulative impacts of projects in this area.
3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the
lagoon and further impair this waterway.
Circulation
Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance
planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for
this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a resiiential neighborhood, increased
congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is
needed to adequately address these impacts.
1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on
Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The
intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista
neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on
this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed.
2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic
model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For
example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This
project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other
Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic
conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the
old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed,
possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects.
3. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring
cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements
shown on pages 7-19 and 7-20 include several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on
roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned
improvments will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of
these other referenced improvments being in place.
4. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all
indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway
extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
5. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or
2 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM
file:/ •/Untulcd
Faraday extension, and just wnh no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal.
6. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuerte extension.
7. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
8. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Palomar Forum report- although both claim to be
based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
9. There are several discrepancies between existing traffic volumes, and proposed mitigations as shown
in this project and the nearby city of Vista Home Depot project. These discrepancies occur along the
prime arterial (S. Melrose Dr) at major intersections. The Home Depot project adds a signal at Oakridge
Way and Melrose Dr, which is not addressed in this project. Coordination of analysis and mitigations
along this roadway is essential- and clearly has not taken place at this preliminary planning stage. (See
Attachment A)
10. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-
all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open spcae in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern califonuans love our outdoors-
and we don't have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that
preserves our quality of life, and more of the native plants and animals.
1. The construction of Poinsettia Road through to connect with Melrose bisects the proposed wildlife
corridor. The open space that remains will only function as stepping
stones for bird migration, and not as viable wildlife corridors. Providing a low elevation roadway across
a wildlife corridor leads to a lot of roadkill- not to a healthy animal population. This constitutes a
significant adverse impact which was not adequately addressed. The project should be conditional upon
Pinsettia being reconfigured as a cul-de-sac.
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted over just a few weeks and failed to
3 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM
file:/'VL:mittcd
address normal seasonal varnmons. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small mammals and bird
surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian utilization of the habitat.
Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo southwestern toad, California
red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just east of the site in Vista that
forage on the site), and Least bell's vireo. Streams should also be sampled for any sensitive fish species.
The survey for the CCG is of particular concern- a three day sample in March does not constitute a
represntative survey for this sensitive species- especially when there are documented sightings on
essentially all of the adjacent properties..
3. Our wildlife tracking surveys, under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have
identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area. Loss of the bobcat population in this area with
adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The
biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened
species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to
control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to
assure that a viable predator population remains.
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor
that extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek,
into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor. . This 5' wide
constricted concrete space does not allow for necessary light and plant cover that would allow this to
function for adequate wildlife movement. A divided roadway with natural light, dirt floor, and native
plant cover is required.
5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation
is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction.
6. Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. While this is consistent with Carlsbad's draft
HMP, it is not consistent with the standards of the draft regional MHCP. Wildlife corridors require a
minimum 1,000 feet width with a pinch point of no less than 500' for a maximum length of 400'.
Furthermore sensitive waterways require a minimum buffer of 100' from each bank. Neither of these
criteria have been met.
The MND must provide for full compliance with the standards included in the MHCP.
7. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site
specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND.
8. There are six distinct sensitive vegetative communities that will be impacted by this project. The
proposed mitigation in most cases is replanted manufactured fill slopes. Such habitat offers little value
for native wildlife, and is a poor substitute for what currently exists. Direct impacts from grading
include 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub(DCSS) and 21.6 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral,
plus additional impacts to Freshwater Marsh, Southern Willow Scrub, and Mule Fat Scrub.
4 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM
file:/"Umitled
The proposed mitigation detract take into account the reduced value of the remaining habitat.
Reducing the area of habitat significantly reduces the value of the habitat. Mitigation ratios should
therefor be at least 2:1 and greater for occupied Gnatcatcher areas. One to one replacement with
manufactured fill slopes is not equivalent and does not compensate for the reduced area of habitat after
development.
Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for
success, identify funding mechanizims, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet
success criteria.
The replacement of 9 acres of DCSS with replanted manufactured slsopes (9 acres) is a poor substitute
for native habitat and should be valued accordingly.
9. The areas proposed for grading is poorly planned and does not take advantaged of already disturbed
areas but instead proposes to grade sensitive undisturbed habitat. Alternatives should include more
sensitive site planning that place a higher regard on protection of the little that remains of undisturbed
sensitive habitat.
10. Wetlands impacts are specifically protected under the MHCP. The MND fails to identify any effort
to avoid wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an
adverse impact. Southern Willow Scrub has a poor success ratio for replanting. The mitigation ratio
should therefor be increased to at least 3:1 with adequate monitoring to ensure success.
11. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors
may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
12. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats
has been ignored and must be included in the MND.
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to
take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and
construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required
5 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM
file: Lnutled
3. Noise testing needs to be rone from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose.
Cultural Resources (p. 25)
1. We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site under the
Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss of this site.
We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to review alternatives
to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of
California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American
Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains.
Recreational
1 .This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and
east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west. Employees of the other industrial parks in this area
commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the
work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial
park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for
such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors.
2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be
provided to assure that "unplanned" ones don't develop on their own.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise
this project proposal so that we all end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a
blight of more empty industrial pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard on behalf of
Preserve Calavera
6 of 6 8/7/01 1:21 PM
Mitigation Summaries:
Home Depot Traffic Impact Analysis Mitigation (Year 2005 and 2015), for the City or Vista, April
2001, Page 48:
Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore
> Restripe the eastbound Ihrough-riglit shared lane to separate through and right-turn lanes; and,
V Modify the signal phasing to provide overlap right-turn phasing for northbound, eastbound, and
westbound traffic. This would require prohibitions of U-turns at the westbound, eastbound, and
southbound approaches.
Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive
> Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-lane, and one right-turn
lane; and
> Convert the shared through-right-turn lane to a right-turn lane at the westbound approach.
Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road
> Add a second right-turn lane at the southbound approach and at the westbound approach.
Home Depot Traffic Impact Analysis ADT, Page 50 (Year 2015)
S. Melrose Drive
North of Sycamore 45,560
Sycamore Ave and Oak Ridge Way 63,900
Oak Ridge Way and Park Center Drive 61,000
Park Center Drive and Palomar Airport Rd 53,490
Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Mitigation, Page 9-11
These mitigation are listed as responsibility of the City of Vista
Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore
Add Westbound and Southbound Dual Left Turn Lanes
Intersection of S. Melrose Drive/Park Center Drive (Faraday Avenue)
Add Southbound and Eastbound RTO Lane
Palotnar Airport Road/Business Park Drive
Add Westbound Through, RTO Lane
Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park ADT (2020), Page 9-3
S. Melrose Drive
Shadowridge Drive to Sycamore 45.000
Sycamore to Palomar Airport Rd 51,000
Mitigation Comments
It appears that the City of Vista and the City of Carlsbad have different views about mitigation necessary
and projected volumes. The discrepancies occur along a prime arterial (S. Melrose Drive) at major
intersections. Cooperative development of the roadway will be necessary to ensure that future congestion
and poor air quality are avoided. The Home Depot analysis also includes installation of a traffic signal at S.
Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way, Page 35. The Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park analysis does not
consider the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Oak Ridge Way in the analysis. Significant Impacts to the
roadway network may occur if the true ADT projections and mitigation are not settled now.
Similar comments can be made with regards to the Transportation Analysis for the Palomar Forum project.
The ADT's for 2020 are on Page 9-3. The mitigation is listed on Page 9-11.
Please check the mitigation list here against the negative mitigated declaration. They do not always match.
- -ntion: Anne Hysong, Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
August 5,2001
Dear Ms. Hysong,
I enclose comments related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the North side of
Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose Drive and the eastern City boundary dated
July 15,2001, Case Name: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park.
The development of the few remaining large parcels in North County containing native
habitat is of prime concern to me. The city of Carlsbad is at a crossroads in terms of its
vision for the future. The city vision can be "business as usual" with the piece meal
bartering of another parcel of open space for a new street and business pads, another
victory for the developer and another loss for the residents. The proposed business park
development will add to the already unbearable traffic congestion and contribute
significantly to further deterioration of the air and water quality in the region. A better
vision of Carlsbad should be one that understands the importance of preserving open
space and native habitats. The proposed project does contain portions of disturbed habitat
and portions of the property could be developed without further impacts to surrounding
open space areas, natural habitats, and biological resources. Unfortunately, the proposed
project will cause significant loss of native habitat, provide wildlife corridors that offer
little value for wildlife because of their design, size, and proposed corridors will be
impacted by the surrounding development to such an extent that their value for wildlife
will be minimal. The proposed mitigation is inadequate and the ratios for mitigation of
designated impacts are ridiculously low. It is a clear failure of city government when the
mayor believes the only way to achieve proclaimed city improvements is to allow
developers wholesale destruction of open space and native habitat for another crowded
and congested street and the addition of more business building pads to be developed at a
future date. The protection of open space will benefit the community long after the last
land parcel in Carlsbad has been developed and the glitter of another new business park
has faded
Specific Concerns and Issues
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Aqua Hedionda Creek and
Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The
negative declaration needs to address the potential for increased sedimentation from
construction and grading activities to further impair the lagoon for sedimentation.
Additionally, a study needs to be conducted to determine the TMDL of bacteria that
would be added to the lagoon from the property and the mitigated negative
declaration must address the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria
from reaching the lagoon and further impair this waterway.
Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. Because of the existing native
habitats (6 distinct vegetative communities) and proximity of this parcel to adjacent
open space, the development for this parcel should be permitted for less than half of
the total acreage. The mitigated negative declaration needs to include site specific
areas for mitigation, define criteria for determining mitigation success, and discuss
alternatives for long-term funding for monitoring mitigation sites, and for
implementing corrective measures if mitigations fail to achieve success criteria.
Because the North County coastal area has limited opportunities to contribute
significant amounts of native habitat to the regional habitat conservation goals of the
wildlife agencies, this project needs to consider how changes in the proposed
development plan could enhance the regional managed habitat area.
Proposed wildlife corridors offer little real value for wildlife, as they are narrow strips
surrounded by development. Manufactured slopes replanted along wildlife corridors
are a poor substitute for native habitat and offer little value for native wildlife.
Mitigation for the loss of habitat linkage and wildlife corridors that would be
significantly impacted by the proposed development need to be defined and a
monitoring plan developed and funded.
The proposed project is speculative development as there are no buildings being
planned and thus, the pronouncement of a negative declaration seems speculative as
the impacts can only be addressed in a vague manner and not as a specific assessment
of project impacts associated with business park development. Since the plan is
vague, it is essentially a plan to destroy sensitive habitat and remove the property for
possible inclusion into HMP. Thus, the negative declaration must assume the worst
case scenario for the development of each building pad in terms of maximum possible
building size, number of people working on site, number of vehicle days, and impacts
to air pollution. The catch all phrase of saying that everything will be developed using
Best Management Practices is not specific or adequate for a negative declaration of
impacts.
The proposed areas to be graded for business pads is poorly planned and does not
take advantage of already disturbed areas and instead proposes to grade sensitive
undisturbed habitats. This suggests poor site planning and a disregard for the native
habitats..
Direct impacts from grading 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 21.6 acres of
Southern Mixed Chaparral represents a significant loss of this type of habitat. Diegan
Coastal Sage Scrub and impacts to Freshwater marsh habitat, Southern Willow scrub,
and Mule Fat Scrub are some of the most sensitive and limited habitats in the area.
Any loss of these habitats needs to be mitigated. Typical mitigation measures for this
type of habitat would be replacement in kind of about 3 to 5 to 1, i.e., for every acre
of habitat graded it would need to be replaced with 3 to 5 acres of undisturbed or
equivalent habitat. In addition, since the value of the habitat is significantly degraded
by reducing the area (reduces the habitat value) and the loss of this habitat for
inclusion into the MHCP and HMP, additional mitigation acreage should be set aside.
There should be no net loss of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (19.2 acres). Mitigation
measures need to include site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for
determining mitigation success, and identify funding sources for monitoring
mitigation sites and for implementing corrective measures if mitigations fail to
achieve success criteria. The mitigation and replacement of Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub with replanted manufactured slopes (9 acres) is a poor substitute for native
habitat and should be valued accordingly.
8. The loss of 0.37acres Southern Willow Scrub is a significant impact to wetlands and
mitigation should be greater than the proposed 2:1 ratio for area to be replanted.
Based upon past successes this ratio should be 3 to 5:1 ratio. Mitigation would be
required and monitoring would be needed to ensure mitigation success.
9. Additional field surveys are needed to adequately describe the existing biological
resources and for assessing project impacts. Surveys need to consider not only
resident species but also seasonal utilization of the habitats or migration patterns of
biota along the wildlife corridors. Vegetation surveys need to be conducted seasonally
to identify small annual species. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small
mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately
describe avian utilization of the habitats. Sensitive and threatened species surveys
need to be conducted including surveys for Arroyo southwestern toad, California red-
legged frog, American Peregrine falcon (nesting pair just east of site in Vista that
forage on the site), California gnatcatchers, and Least Bell's vireo. The streams
should be sampled to determine if any sensitive fish species may exist in the drainage.
Of specific concern is surveys for California gnatcatchers (3 days in March hardly
constitute a representative survey for this endangered species
10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitats and the further fragmentation of
critical habitats appear to be ignored and need to be included in the negative
declaration
Thank you for the inclusion and consideration of my comments.
Dougla,s-Diener, Ph.D.
fcitv of Carl
Planning Departrtteh;
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PlannM. "-NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected,
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 15, 2001, to
consider a request for a recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, and
Zone Change and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Planned
Industrial Permit to allow the subdivision of a 70.6 acre parcel located north of Palomar Airport
Road between future Melrose Drive and the City's eastern boundary into 10 industrial lots and 2
open space lots on property located in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 8
and more particularly described as:
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, and a!! that portion of Section 18,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the plat thereof.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after August 9, 2001. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Tentative Tract map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit, if
approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge
the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract map, Hillside Development Permit
and Planned Industrial Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
Dl IDI IOLJ-AI IC-M IOT i onn-iJ~\W^^WW I 4., 4UWl/ t
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Donn King
Sharon Carey
3099 Rancho Del Canon
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Donn King
Sharon Carey
3099 Kancbo Del Canon
Carlsbad, CA 92009
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 24, 2001
Palomar Forum Associates LP
C/0 William C Allen
Ste 320
990 Highland Dr
Solana Beach CA 92075
SUBJECT: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -
PALOMAR FORUM
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you
on Friday, July 27, 2001. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the
Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on August
6, 2001 . A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30. If
you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC
meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you
to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission.
Your colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the
Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for
their review, your project could be rescheduled to a later time. If you do not plan
to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s)
here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning
Planner, Anne Hysong at (760) 602-4622.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
this matter, please contact your
GARY E. WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:AH:cs
c: Larry Nelson, 1420 Bristol St. N, Newport Beach CA 92130
Hofman Planning, Ste 120, 5900 Pasteur Ct., Carlsbad CA 92008
•-'File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
•^^F' ^^^
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 16, 2001
Hofman Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 1 50
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 99-06 - PALOMAR FORUM
Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning
Commission on August 15, 2001. However, for this to occur, you must submit
the additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by July 24,
2001, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the
scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the
Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been
submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial.
1. Please submit the following plans:
A) 16 copies of your (tentative map, hillside exhibits, and landscape
plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded
into 81/2' x 11" size.
B) One SVb" x 11" copy of your reduced tentative map, hillside exhibits,
and landscape plans. These copies must be of a quality which is
photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included
on plans.
2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please
submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed
form:
A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all
property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property,
including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San
Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized
assessment rolls.
B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property
owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must
be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any
punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
CT 99-06 - PALOMAR
July 16, 2001
Page 2
apartment or suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite
and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the street address line.
DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide
addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are:
Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt, Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt,
and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows:
UNACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith
123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
UNACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith
123 Magnolia Ave.
Apt. #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ACCEPTABLE
MRS JANE SMITH
APT 3
123 MAGNOLIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
D)
E)
Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all
lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively
numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of
the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director
if the required scale is impractical.
Fee - a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such
fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of
labels. Cash check (payable to the City of Carlsbad) and credit cards
are accepted.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONG,
Associate Planner
AH:cs
Attachment
CT 99-06 - PALOMW FORUM
July 16, 2001
Page 3
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE
LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S
ROLES.
APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER
APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
BY:
DATE:
RECEIVED BY
DATE:
Hofman Planning Letter of Transmittal
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
Date: July 12,2000
Project: Palomar Forum
Delivered by: HPA
Attention: Anne Hysong
Message:
As requested, attached are for resubmittal are ten set of the Tentative Map, Hillside Development
Permit exhibit and Constraints Map for the Palomar Forum (CT 99-06). Also attached are three
copies of the hillside exhibit for the Planning Department as required by Chris DeCerbo.
RECEIVED
JUL 1 ' 2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUNNING DEPT.
From:
5900 Pasteur Court • Ste 150 • Carlsbad • CA • 92008 • 760-438-1465 • Fax 760-438-2443
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 12, 2001
Stuart Fisk
Hofinan Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150
Carlsbad, CA 92009-7317
SUBJECT: CT 99-06 - PALOMAR FORUM
Dear Stuart:
The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of the subject tentative
map. The following issues require revision. Please resubmit revised plans for final plan check
immediately.
Planning:
1. The proposed open space lots must be redesignated to General Plan Open Space and
rezoned to open space to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Please submit
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications to be processed concurrently
with the applications currently on file with the City.
2. Please submit tentative map sheets that are plotted so that each lot can be seen entirely
on one sheet.
3. Please remove the unidentified line through Lot 6 on Sheet 7.
4. As previously mentioned, the lots in Palomar Forum will be conditioned to preclude
roof equipment on buildings proposed for development at a future date under separate
Planned Industrial Permits.
5. Landscape plan check comments were submitted to Hofinan Planning on June 14, 2001
for review and correction by biologist, Barry Jones, and Landscape Architect, Ron
Teshima. The landscape plan should be resubmitted immediately for plan check.
6. The western lot line of Lot 12 should be at the bottom of the slope so that the entire
wildlife corridor is within a single lot.
7. Please change the trail alignment to agree with than shown on the landscape plan.
Engineering:
1. Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner prior to submittal of final plans.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-46OO • FAX (76O) 6O2-8559
CT 99-06 - PALOMAR FORLW W
JULY 12, 2001
PAGE 2 _
2. The NPDES preliminary SWPP needs to be submitted in its final form.
If you have questions regarding the above, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONG
Associate Planner
Chris DeCerbo
Clyde Wickham
Glen Van Peski
File
May 3, 2001
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
760/ 602-8559
Ms. Anne Hysong
Associate Planner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
TESHIMA
DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNING
(858) 693-8824
9903 Businesspark Avenue
Suite C
San Diego, California 92131-1120
FAX: (858)693-1182
PROJECT: CT 99-06 / HDP 99-03 PALOMAR FORUM
Dear Anne:
Per our meeting on Tuesday according to the biological mitigation plan submitted
to the City, the manufactured slope area shown on our sheet L6 shall be re-
vegetated with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (D.C.S.S.) from containers.
The specific non-evasive seed mix per Helix Environmental shall be as follows:
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB SEED Mix
SEED MIXTURE LBS. / ACRE
Lotus scoparius
Baccharis sarothroides
Artemisia californica
Nassella lepida
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Nassella pulr.hra
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
Monkeyf lower
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.
Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.
Ronald S. Teshima, ASIA
Principal
RST:jes
cc: Larry Nelson
Bill Hoffman / Stuart Fisk
File
TESHIMA
DESIGN GROUP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNING
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
MM f 4 2001May 10, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA
Subject: Palomar Forum (CT 99-06) - Resubmittal of Plans
Dear Anne:
Attached is the revised Tentative Map for the Palomar Forum. We believe that all of the
Tentative Map issues listed in your issues letter dated March 8, 2001 have been addressed as
described below:
PLANNING:
1. Grading - This issues has been addressed by raising the height of lot #6 by 6 feet (the slope
heights now range from 24 feet to 32 feet) and lowering lot #2 and #3 to balance the grading.
As you know, we are currently in the process of working with Industrial Developments .X"
International (IDI) to have the slope reduced along the western boundary of the project. The
revised Tentative Map shows the proposed grading as agreed to between Davis Partners and
IDI.
2. Stand Alone Projects - Per our discussion, I talked to Clyde Wickham to confirm that a new
sheet could be added to the Tentative Map to show the project as a stand alone project. Sheet
12 of the Tentative Map addresses this issue by including Melrose Drive, water and sewer,
and an all weather access road. Barry Jones is scheduled to submit the stand-alone biology
mitigation to you on Friday, May 11, 2001.
3. NPDES - O'Day has submitted a revised NPDES plan and added notes and symbols to the
Tentative Map in relation to the NPDES plan. While speaking to Clyde Wickham about
showing the stand alone project on a separate sheet of the Tentative Map, Clyde stated that he
has reviewed the revised NPDES plan and that although it is close to what he wants to see, he
does have a few more comments. We are currently trying to get a meeting set up between
Clyde, Glen Van Pesky and Tim Carroll so that the remaining NPDES issues can be resolved.
HPA will provide you with draft mitigation text once all of the Engineering Department's
issues have been resolved.
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443
4. Gnatcatcher and Thornmint Surveys - Per your request, gnatcatcher and thornmmt surveys
were recently completed and submitted to you.
5. Traffic Report - Per discussions with Clyde Wickham and Susan O'Rourke, Engineering has
confirmed that the traffic report for this project is adequate.
6. Photo Simulation - We are aware that a photo simulation must be provided in order to
address the aesthetics section of the El A. Per previous discussions with you, we had been
waiting to have the photo simulation prepared until we had come to an agreement on the
grading for the site. Since grading issues have been worked out, Davis Partners is currently
seeking proposals for the photo simulation, which we will submit as soon as possible.
7. Redlined Landscape Plan Check Print - The landscape plans are currently being revised to
address the comments on the redlined landscape plan check print. Teshima is scheduled to
have this plan revised and submitted by Monday, May 14, 2001.
ENGINEERING:
1. "Notch Roadway" - This comment is not related to the Palomar Forum. Please see the
resubmittal letter for the Carlsbad Raceway for an explanation of how this issue has been
addressed.
2. Animal Crossing Arch Pipe - This comment is not related to the Palomar Forum. Pleas see.
the resubmittal letter for the Carlsbad Raceway for an explanation of how this issue has been
addressed.
3. Northerly Property Line - Per previous discussions, the subdivision boundary is shown at the
top of slope. A lot line adjustment will be processed concurrent with the Final Map. The lot
line adjustment will be recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map per our telephone
conversation (between you, Tim Carroll Bill Hofman and I) on May 7, 2001.
4. Tentative Map Signatures - As requested, the Tentative Map will be signed by the Owner
prior to public hearing.
5. Sight Distance Lines on Landscape Plan - As requested, sight distance lines have been added
to the landscape plans.
6. Stand Alone Projects - Sheet 12 of the Tentative Map addresses this issue by including
Melrose Drive, water and sewer, and an all weather access road.
7. Slopes at Intersections & Drivev/ays - As requested, slopes have been cut back to provide
sight distance per City standards.
8. Reclaimed Water Lines - As requested, the Tentative Map reflects sufficient reclaimed water
lines to provide irrigation for major slopes.
9. Redlined Check Print - As requested, tht1 redline comments are included with this
resubmittal.
10. NPDES - O'Day has submitted a revised NPDES plan and added notes and symbols to the
Tentative Map in relation to the NPDES plan. Per our discussion, although the revised plan
is close to what you want to see, you do have a few more comments. We are currently trying
to get a meeting set up between with you, Glen Van Pesky and Tim Carroll so that the
remaining NPDES issues can be resolved.
11. Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit - To be addressed by NPDES plan.
We hope that the revisions as described above address your concerns. If you have any questions
or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
cc. Clyde Wickham
Larry Nelson
Bill Hofman
Tim Carroll
03/16/2001 14:24 RBF CDNSULTINB ND.2g4
RBF Consulting SOW Avenida Enemas
Suite 2GO Phon« 760*76.91<W
Sari Marcos, CA 02009 FAX: 7fiO 47G-0190
email: ORoxirkeEngin(*irs<acS.com
Memorandum
To: Clyde Wickham
From: Susw
Date:
Subject: Palomar Forum
CC: Ann Hysong
BobEmri
BillHofinan
Over the last three weeks I have worked with Sam Kab at USA to finalize the
review of the traffic study for the Palomar Forum. A final copy was delivered to our
office on Wednesday, March 14, 2001.
This copy addresses all of the comments that we have made on the document. The
document has been revised to clearly identify the project's impacts and delineates the
improvements that are necessary in the study area.
It is my opinion that the document meets the requirements for a traffic study that
had been outlined for this project and is appropriate for continued processing of the
development.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the traffic study or the review
process, please give me a call.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 8, 2001
Mr. Stuart Fisk
Hofman Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 00-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
Dear Stuart:
Pursuant to our meetings regarding the subject project, this correspondence documents the following
items/issues discussed during our meetings that still require completion/resolution prior to performing
environmental review and/or scheduling the subject project for a public hearing:
1. In our October 31, 2000 correspondence, staff requested that plans be revised to incorporate the
alternative grading design submitted by O'Day. Additionally, staff requested that the applicant
explore a grading design on Lot 12 to eliminate the slopes to enable an enhanced entry statement
into the industrial area. None of the above was shown on your revised plans. Staff was advised
that some effort was made to contact the owners of Carlsbad Oaks Lots 33 and 34; however, no
evidence of this was provided. The property owner's name and address has been provided to
staff at our request so that we can contact the owner with a proposed grading design. While staff
will assist you in this effort, it should be recognized that efforts by City staff to acquire agreement
from the adjacent property owner will lengthen processing time. As a result of my phone
conversation with Bill Hofman, we have agreed to provide a grading design schematic prepared
by Glen Van Peski to present to the adjacent property owner. Bill Hofman will schedule a
meeting to be attended by the applicant, adjacent property owner, and City staff.
2. Because each project must stand alone, please provide separate impact analysis and mitigation
plan for offsite improvements including Melrose Drive, the reclaimed water line, water and
sewer, and an all weather access road.
3. The proposed NPDES analysis and mitigation is inadequate to make a determination that a
potentially significant impact will not result from the project. To enable completion of the water
quality section of the environmental impact assessment for this project, please submit the
following information (please refer to the attached letter from the RWQCB outlining their
requirements for environmental review of the Calavera Hills project and to engineering comments
provided below):
• Impacts: Please prepare and submit a report that addresses the questions posed in the letter
under water quality, beneficial uses, indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts.
• Mitigation: a phased NPDES plan must be submitted that addresses compliance with newly
adopted California RWQCB water quality standards (Order No. 2001-01 SDRWQCB). This
phased plan must include mitigation for each lot during the grading operation, post grading
condition, and developed condition.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559
CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 00-O^R.LOMAR FORUM
MARCH 8, 2001
PAGE 2
4. To enable completion of the biology section of the environmental impact assessment for this
project, I have been advised by Jon Martin at USFWS that completion of the gnatcatcher survey
will be required to assess potential impacts of these species.
5. To enable completion of the circulation section of the environmental impact assessment for this
project, an adequate traffic study is required that determines the mitigation measures necessary
for the project. Confirmation that the traffic reported submitted on March 2, 2001 is adequate,
has not yet been received.
6. The aesthetics section of the environmental impact assessment must address the impact to
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive. The photo simulation previously requested by staff
will assist in addressing that issue. As we agreed at our February 14, 2001 meeting, the hillside
compliant grades on should be used for the simulation.
7. Please review the attached redlined landscape plan check print and revise plans as requested.
Landscape plans should include the Lot 12 enhanced landscape plan treatment including passive
recreational use area, water feature, signage, and trail signage. Please address the request for
dense screening along Palomar Airport Road as requested and incorporate the screening into the
photo simulation.
Engineering:
1. The proposed grading or "notch roadway" should match the gradual terrain from the south. The
proposed 2:1 slope on the south side of Poinsettia Avenue shall be reduced to less that 5:1 and
shall be revegetated as directed by USFWS.
2. The proposed animal crossing arch pipe must remain above 100 year flood elevation with a
minimum of 2' freeboard.
3. Add note to tentative map that the southerly property line will be adjusted to the top of the final
slope. Show the top of the slope as the subdivision boundary. Annotate the existing property line
as to be relocated by lot line adjustment prior to submittal of final map.
4. Tentative Map needs to be signed by the Owner prior to public hearing.
5. The landscape plan should include sight distance lines.
6. Project depends on Carlsbad Raceway Business Park CT 98-10 for sewer, water and storm drain.
Project will be conditioned to construct offsite facilities as necessary to provide service. The
tentative map needs to show alignment and grade of offsite sewer, water, reclaimed water and
storm drain necessary for the Forum to be a stand-alone project.
7. Cut back slopes as required at intersections and driveways to provide sight distance per City
standards.
8. Tentative map needs to reflect enough reclaimed water lines to provide irrigation for major
slopes.
9. These comments have been redlined on a copy of the tentative map where appropriate. The
applicant should return this redlined print with the next submittal.
CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 00-O^ra.LOMAR FORUM
MARCH 8, 2001
PAGE 3
10. We have completed our review of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
study prepared by O'Day Consultants for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park. In our opinion,
the impacts of the proposed development on water quality have not been adequately addressed.
11. The proposed project is within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which is classified as impaired
waters due to the following 303(d) pollutants of concern:
• Coliform bacteria
• Nutrients
• Sediment
The proposed project qualifies under several Priority Development Project Categories listed in
Order 2001-01 ("Permit") of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB). The permit identifies as priorities:
• Commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet.
• All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet (development on slopes of 25% or
greater). .
• All development located directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an environmentally
sensitive area.
• Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more.
• Street, roads, highways and freeways of 5,000 square feet or more.
The structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be designed "...close to pollutant
sources, when feasible, and prior to discharging into receiving waters supporting beneficial
uses." BMPs to treat the "first flush" of runoff are only effective if they are located prior to
discharge into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4). In the case of larger, "end of pipe"
treatments, by the time the first flush arrives at the basin, the basin will be full of "non-first-flush"
flows from closer subareas of the drainage area.
Staff realizes that final design of structural BMPs is premature at tentative map stage. However,
since structural BMPs require either area (sand filters, vegetated filter strips, extended detention
ponds), or some cost and design considerations (Vortechs®, Baykeeper®, Downstream
Defender®), clear notification must be provided on the tentative map. Since there is no EIR for
this project to list mitigation conditions, required mitigation at a conceptual level must be
reflected on the tentative map. Staff is ready to meet with you to review and discuss your
proposed symbols, annotation and notes, to assist you in mitigating the impact of water quality
and avoiding a environmental impact report.
If you have any questions regarding the above issues, please contact me at (760) 602-4622.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSON*
Associate Planner
Attachments
Chris DeCerbo Bob Emri, Professors Capital
Glen Van Peski Clyde Wickham
82/62/2el 12:46 7684382443 HOFMftN PLWNINS i P«E 92
Hofman Planning Memorandum
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
DATE: February 2,2001
TO: Lloyd Hubbs
FROM: Bill Hofman
SUBJECT: Carlsbad Raceway, Palomar Forum and Melrose Drive - Impacts to Coastal
Sage Scrub
At our meeting last week, you indicated the possibility of our projects using excess 4d land that
is available from the City of Vista, The amount of impacts to Coastal Sage caused by our
projects are divided as follows.
Carlsbad Raceway: 9.1 acres
Palomar Forum: 3.2 acres
Melrose Drive: 0.5 acres
TOTAL IMPACTS: 12.8 acres
If you have any questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
cc. Anne Hysong
Don Rideout
5900 Pasteur Court • StelSO • Carlsbad • CA • 92008 • 760-438-1465 - Fax 760-438-2443
PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Date:
To:
Via:
From:
December 1, 2000
Ray Patchett, City Manager
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Palomar Forum
CT 99-06, HDP 99-03
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer - Development Services
Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer
Glen Van Peski, Consultant Project Engineer
cc: Anne Hysong, Project Planner
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer
Dave Mauser, Deputy City Engineer
Skip Hammann, Senior Engineer, Dev. Services
Don Rideout, Growth Management
Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates
Negative Declaration
Tentative Map
Traffic Study
Hillside Development
Sewer
Local Facilities
Management Plans
Schedule
Current
Next Month
Applicant is preparing technical studies in anticipation of a negative declaration of
environmental impact for the project. Applicant must remember that without
an approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the applicant will have to
reach new agreements with the resource agencies. The agencies may
require additional mitigation which could cause redesign of the project.
The applicant was notified by letter dated Oct. 31 that the application is
incomplete due the traffic study being inadequate. Several design concerns
were indicated in the letter, including Hillside Development (see below). Staff is
waiting for the submittal of a revised Tentative Map.
Applicant has indicated that the models for 2005, 2010 and 2020 are complete,
and they are working on 2003. Staff is waiting for submittal of the revised study.
After the traffic report has been completed, staff will comment on proposed
phasing of improvements and building permits. Applicant must realize that if
phasing is approved, building permits will still be subject to Growth
Management, and will not be issued if measurements indicate a failure of
existing facitilies.
The applicant submitted an alternative grading study that appears to address
most of the Hillside Development concerns. Staff requested that the Tentative
Map be revised to reflect the alternative grading design, among other changes.
The applicant has not yet submitted a revised Tentative Map.
Project will need to enter into an inter-agency agreement for sewer service prior
to approval. In addition, applicant will be required to sign a secured agreement
to pay the project fair share of the So. Agua Hedionda sewer trunk line.
Applicant has submitted the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP).
The LFMP is incomplete until the traffic study is approved. LFMP must resolve
the issue of the So. Agua Hedionda sewer trunk line.
Staff is working with the applicant to procure a working schedule for the project.
Applicant's consultants have indicated that revised Tentative Maps should be
submitted shortly.
Tentative Map: Applicant working on revisions, will submit revised map.
Traffic: Applicant working on revisions, should be submitting in Dec.
LFMPs: Staff review can begin upon approval of traffic study.
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
January 23, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum (CT 99-06) - Response to October 31, 2000 Issues Letter
Dear Ms. Hysong:
As discussed in our resubmittal letter dated December 15, 2000, the following addresses the
incomplete items and issues of concern for the Palomar Forum (CT 99-06) as listed in your letter
dated October 31,2000:
ITEMS TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION:
1. You had stated that an adequate traffic report was necessary in order to complete
the application. A revised traffic study was submitted to the City on December
12,2000.
PLANNING ISSUES OF CONCERN:
1. We understand that the Zone 18 LFMP is currently being reviewed by the
Planning and Engineering Departments and we are awaiting review comments.
2. You stated in your letter that it had come to staffs attention that a Planned
Industrial Permit (PIP) would be required along with the subdivision map. Per
our telephone conversation, the PIP for this application will not address floor
plans or elevations. With the development of each lot, a new PIP will be
processed for the review of the floor plans and elevations, however, the PIP for
the tentative map (CT 99-06) will not have to be amended.
We have started to prepare the PIP application and will submit it shortly, along
with a revised tentative map showing the information required for the PIP
application.
3. Please refer to the grading justification letter, which accompanied the resubmitted
plan sets, for an explanation of the proposed grading.
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 ° Fax: (760)438-2443
4. O'Day has explored a grading design that would eliminate the need for a graded
slope on Lot 13, however, doing so would require extensive grading into off-site
property. Professors Capital has had conversations with this property owner,
however, the property owner was not interested in allowing for grading onto their
property.
5. As requested, Lots 11 and 12 have been combined into a single open space lot.
6. Your letter mentioned a map prepared by RECON which identifies archaeological
site CA-SDI-10,550. Per our previous discussions, this site was not addressed by
RECON in the report for the Palomar Forum because the site was already
addressed by a report RECON prepared for the City which addressed Melrose
Drive. If the City does not have this report on file please let me know and I will
obtain another copy from RECON for you.
7. The slope separating Lot 6 from open space Lot 11 has been redesigned to include
a brow ditch at the bottom of the slope to prevent cross lot drainage.
8. The location for trail signage has been identified on the landscape plans, however
we were unable to provide details such as an elevation of the sign, rules for trail
use, guidance on trail safety, etc. because we have not been able to locate City
documents describing the requirements and wording for such signs. This
information (or other note) will be added to the plans when it becomes available
to us.
9. An NPDES analysis was submitted along with the revised plan sets which were
submitted on December 15, 2000. The photo simulation will be prepared once
pad grades and landscaping is agreed upon as suggested in your letter.
ENGINEERING ISSUES OF CONCERN:
1. An NPDES analysis was submitted along with the revised plan sets which were
submitted on December 15, 2000.
2. As requested, the anticipated average daily traffic for the project has been added
to the tentative map cover sheet
3. Distances between driveways are shown on the tentative map.
4. Off-site Parcel B (PM 15413) does not pertain to the Palomar Forum. Please see
our response letter for the Carlsbad Raceway.
5. Street "B" does not pertain to the Palomar Forum. Please see our response letter
for the Carlsbad Raceway.
6. Street "B" does not pertain to the Palomar Forum. Please see our response letter
for the Carlsbad Raceway. ;
7. As shown on the cover sheet, sewer line ownership is shown as "City of Carlsbad"
and water lines are shown as "Carlsbad Municipal Water District" on the tentative
. map.
8. As shown on the tentative map, "Proposed Temporary Desilt Basin W/Riser &
S.D. Outlet" are temporary detention basins which are not intended to be
permanent facilities.
9. The southerly property line of the Palomar Forum is along Palomar Airport Road
and is at the top of slope. However, for the northerly property boundary, along
the boundary with the Carlsbad Raceway, a lot line adjustment will be processed
concurrent with the final maps for these projects.
10. As requested, cut/fill lines have been added to the tentative map.
11. The Palomar Forum proposed only 13 lots on the previous submittal. For a
description of how lots 17-22 of the Carlsbad Raceway are provided sewer
service, please see our response letter for the Carlsbad Raceway.
12. The only slopes needing undulation for this project are along the western project
boundary, west of Melrose Drive. O'Day has undulated this slope and has plotted
10-foot contours on the slope to show the contour grading.
13. As requested, a "mass excavation diagram" showing depths of cut/fill throughout
the project on a color-keyed detailed grid was provided with the plan sets that
were resubmitted on December 15, 2000.
14. The Palomar Forum proposed only 13 lots on the previous submittal. For a
discussion of the sewer line north of lot 14 of the Carlsbad Raceway, please see
our response letter for the Carlsbad Raceway.
15. If it does not create significant issues, the preference is to wait to sign the tentative
map until revisions to the map have been completed (i.e., prior to the Planning
Commission hearing).
16. It has been our understanding that phasing of building permits will not be
required. If necessary, we can discuss this matter after the Engineering
Department has completed their review of the latest traffic study (dated December
11,2000).
17. As requested, a "disposition" column has been added to the easement table on
sheet 2 of the tentative map to indicate which easements will be quitclaimed and
which will remain.
18. We are currently in the process of obtaining letters of permission to grade for
proposed off-site grading and will submit these letters to you as soon as they
become available to us.
19. The Palomar Forum proposed only 13 lots on the previous submittal. For a
description of how lots 17-22 of the Carlsbad Raceway are provided sewer
service, please see our response letter for the Carlsbad Raceway. However, strict
adherence to the Hillside Development Ordinance (as shown on the HDP exhibit)
would require additional "off-street" sewer for the lots along the northerly
boundaries of both the Palomar Forum and the Carlsbad Raceway.
The property line is at the top of slope along the southern boundary of the
Palomar Forum. However, a lot line adjustment will be processed for the
northerly property boundary concurrent with the final maps for these projects.
Please refer to the grading justification letter, which accompanied the resubmitted
plan sets, for an explanation of the proposed grading.
20. Revisions have been made per the comments provided on the copy of the
previously submitted tentative map and HDP exhibit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUES OF CONCERN:
1. It has been noted that use or storage of toxic or acutely hazardous materials will
be restricted whin proposed building pads lie within 1,000 feet of residential land
uses.
Hopefully we understood your concerns and have made significant progress towards addressing
those concerns through these revisions and plan pjustification explanations.
Sincerely.
Stuart Fisk
cc. Clyde Wickham
Bob Emri
Tim Carroll
Bill Hofman
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
December 15.2000
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday A.venue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum (CT 99-06) - Resubmittal of Tentative Map and Landscape Plans
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Enclosed for your review are ten sets of the revisecUentative mar^and landscape plans fojilhe
Palomar Forum. This letter also accompanies a(golor cut/fill exhibit and Preliminary NPDES
Study as requested by Clyde Wickham and the redlined landscape check prints (dated 9/12/00)
from Larry Black's first preliminary plan check.
A letter detailing how the comments from your October 31, 2000 issues letter have been /»-/
addressed will be completed next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need any
additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
c. Bob Emri
Bill Hofman
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
December 14, 2000
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Anne:
This letter is in response to grading issues listed in your letter dated October 31, 2000 for the
Palomar Forum (CT 99-06/HDP 99-03). One of the issues was based on the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance and concerned potential grading of slopes greater than or equal to 40%.
Your letter stated that preservation of slopes of 40% or more which are over 15 feet in height and
10,000 square feet in area appeared to be preferable to the proposed grading. However, Section
21.95.120. B.I. d (Hillside Development and Design Standards) of the Municipal Code provides
exemptions based on the prominence of the land forms, slope elevation differential and
preservation of open space. This section states that natural slopes which have all of the following
characteristics shall be undevelopable:
a. A gradient of greater than forty percent; and
b. An elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet; and
c. A minimum area often thousand square feet; and
d The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
While there are some natural gradients on the property that are greater than 40%, most of these
gradients have an elevation differential of less than fifteen feet and none of the natural slopes
comprise a minimum area often thousand square feet. Furthermore, none of the slopes on the
Palomar Forum property comprise prominent land forms. All of the 40% slopes on this property
are down slope from all public viewing angles, essentially placing the slopes in a hole that is not
generally visible and certainly not prominent. Thus, none of the slopes on this property are
considered undevelopable per Section 21.95.120.B.l.d of the City of Carlsbad's Hillside
Development Regulations.
We hope that this addresses your concerns regarding the proposed grading. If you have any
questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
c. Bob Emri
Bill Hofman
5900 Pasteur Court ° Suite 150 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (760)438-1465 ° Fax: (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
December 15.2000
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum (CT 99-06) - Resubmittal of Tentative Map and Landscape Plans
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Enclosed for your review are ten sets of the revised tentative map and landscape plans for the
Palomar Forum. This letter also accompanies a color cut/fill exhibit and Preliminary NPDES
Study as requested by Clyde Wickham and the redlined landscape check prints (dated 9/12/00)
from Larry Black's first preliminary plan check.
A letter detailing how the comments from your October 31, 2000 issues letter have been
addressed will be completed next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need any
additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
c. Bob Emri
Bill Hofman
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax; (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscoi Anaivsis
December 14, 2000
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Anne:
This letter is in response to grading issues listed in your letter dated October 31, 2000 for the
Palomar Forum (CT 99-06/HDP 99-03). One of the issues was based on the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance and concerned potential grading of slopes greater than or equal to 40%.
Your letter stated that preservation of slopes of 40% or more which are over 15 feet in height and
10,000 square feet in area appeared to be preferable to the proposed grading. However, Section
21.95.120.B.l.d (Hillside Development and Design Standards) of the Municipal Code provides
exemptions based on the prominence of the land forms, slope elevation differential and
preservation of open space. This section states that natural slopes which have all of the following
characteristics shall be undevelopable:
a. A gradient of greater than forty percent; and
b. An elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet; and
c. A minimum area often thousand square feet; and
d The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
While there are some natural gradients on the property that are greater than 40%, most of these
gradients have an elevation differential of less than fifteen feet and none of the natural slopes
comprise a minimum area often thousand square feet. Furthermore, none of the slopes on the
Palomar Forum property comprise prominent land forms. All of the 40% slopes on this property
are down slope from all public viewing angles, essentially placing the slopes in a hole that is not
generally visible and certainly not prominent. Thus, none of the slopes on this property are
considered undevelopable per Section 21.95.120.B.l.d of the City of Carlsbad's Hillside
Development Regulations.
We hope that this addresses your concerns regarding the proposed grading. If you have any
questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
c. Bob Emri
Bill Hofman
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
December 15.2000
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Palomar Forum (CT 99-06) - Resubmittal of Tentative Map and Landscape Plans
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Enclosed for your review are ten sets of the revised tentative map and landscape plans for the
Palomar Forum. This letter also accompanies a color cut/fill exhibit and Preliminary NPDES
Study as requested by Clyde Wickham and the redlined landscape check prints (dated 9/12/00)
from Larry Black's first preliminary plan check.
A letter detailing how the comments from your October 31, 2000 issues letter have been
addressed will be completed next week. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need any
additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
4
Stuart Fisk
c. Bob Emri
Bill Hofman
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
December 14,2000
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Anne:
This letter is in response to grading issues listed in your letter dated October 31, 2000 for the
Palomar Forum (CT 99-06/HDP 99-03). One of the issues was based on the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance and concerned potential grading of slopes greater than or equal to 40%.
Your letter stated that preservation of slopes of 40% or more which are over 15 feet in height and
10,000 square feet in area appeared to be preferable to the proposed grading. However, Section
21.95.120.B.I.d (Hillside Development and Design Standards) of the Municipal Code provides
exemptions based on the prominence of the land forms, slope elevation differential and
preservation of open space. This section states that natural slopes which have all of the following
characteristics shall be undevelopable:
a. A gradient of greater than forty percent; and
b. An elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet; and
c. A minimum area often thousand square feet; and
d The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
While there are some natural gradients on the property that are greater than 40%, most of these
gradients have an elevation differential of less than fifteen feet and none of the natural slopes
comprise a minimum area often thousand square feet. Furthermore, none of the slopes on the
Palomar Forum property comprise prominent land forms. All of the 40% slopes on this property
are down slope from all public viewing angles, essentially placing the slopes in a hole that is not
generally visible and certainly not prominent. Thus, none of the slopes on this property are
considered undevelopable per Section 21.95.120.B.l.d of the City of Carlsbad's Hillside
Development Regulations.
We hope, that this addresses your concerns regarding the proposed grading. If you have any
questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
c. Bob Emri
Bill Hofman
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760)438-1465 • Fax: (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
January 23, 2001
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Grading for the Palomar Forum (CT 99-06/HDP 99-03)
Dear Anne:
This letter is in response to grading issues listed in your letter dated October 31, 2000 for the
Palomar Forum (CT 99-06/HDP 99-03). One of the issues was based on the City's Hillside
Development Ordinance and concerned potential grading of slopes greater than or equal to 40%.
Your letter stated that preservation of slopes of 40% or more which are over 15 feet in height and
10,000 square feet in area appeared to be preferable to the proposed grading. However, Section
21.95.120.B.l.d (Hillside Development and Design Standards) of the Municipal Code provides
exemptions based on the prominence of the land forms, slope elevation differential and
preservation of open space. This section states that natural slopes which have all of the following
characteristics shall be undevelopable:
a. A gradient of greater than forty percent; and
b. An elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet; and
c. A minimum area often thousand square feet; and
d. The slope comprises a prominent land form feature.
While there are some natural gradients on the property that are greater than 40%, most of these
gradients have an elevation differential of less than fifteen feet and none of the natural slopes
comprise a minimum area often thousand square feet. Furthermore, none of the slopes on the
Palomar Forum property comprise prominent land forms. All of the 40% slopes on this property
are down slope from all public viewing angles, essentially placing the slopes in a hole that is not
generally visible and certainly not prominent. Thus, none of the slopes on this property are
considered undevelopable per Section 21.95.120.B.l.d of the City of Carlsbad's Hillside
Development Regulations.
Additionally, contrary to City policy the grading as shown on the HDP exhibit would require "off-
street" sewer for the lots along the northern property boundaries of both the Palomar Forum and
5900 Pasteur Court • Suite 150 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (760) 438-1465 .• Fax: (760)438-2443
Carlsbad Raceway projects since the lots in these areas, under this plan, would sit at an elevation
much lower than the streets that front the lots. With the grading as proposed on the tentative map,
all of the lots would be able to sewer to a system within the proposed streets.
We hope that this addresses your concerns regarding the proposed grading. We believe that the
proposed grading is no different than that approved for other industrial projects in the City and that
the Hillside Development Ordinance provides for exemptions for industrial projects because the
City has recognized that industrial developments need large, flat pads. If you have any questions
or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
c. Clyde Wickham
Bob Ernrr
Tim Carroll
Bill Hofman
June 14, 1999
K C i v
A. Hysong
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad ~-i;—
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: CT 99-06/HDP 99-03 Palomar Forum
Dear Mrs. A. Hysong
North County Transit District (NCTD) has reviewed the above referenced project and lias
the following comments.
1 . Currently, NCTD's route 344 provides service to Carlsbad Poinsettia Station,
Legoland, and Palomar College, via Palomar Airport Road. Service is offered
Monday through Friday, hourly, from 5:33 AM to 9:30 PM, and Saturday and
Sundays, hourly, from 5:45 AM to 9:30 PM.
2. An improved bus stop should be provided on westbound side of Palomar Airport
Road, just west of the corner of designated street "A". Improvements should include
a sidewalk, bus shelter, bench, trash receptacle and ADA boarding pad (8'
perpendicular to back of curb by 5' wide). All facilities should meet ADA
regulations and NCTD standards. The shelter may be designed to compliment the
architectural style of the development. NCTD recommends the use of perforated
metal screening instead of glazing for improved durability. The maintenance of this
facility should be the responsibility of the applicant.
3 . Palomar Airport Road should be striped so that the outside travel lane is at a
minimum of 20 feet wide, including a bike lane (12' travel lane & 8' bike lane). This
iane width will allow buses to stop without impeding the flow of traffic and will
eliminate the need for bus turnouts.
NCTD would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project. If you
have any questions, please call me at (760)967-2859.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Daney
Assistant Planner
C O U N T Y TRANSIT D I 5 T R I C '
San Diego
T c ™nn ^_j i ASSOCIATION OF
June 5' 20°° * ^ A ^^J GOVERNMENTS
. TT A • t ™ s- .w 401 B Street, Suite 800Anne Hysong, Associate Planner * ^ San Diego ^ 921oi.423i
1635 Faraday . c^ <ifi^ (619) 595-5300 • Fax (619) 595-5305
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92006-7314
RE: Palomar Forum and Carlsbad Raceway Business Park
Dear Ms. Hysong:
This letter is in response to your letters regarding the compatibility of two proposed industrial
subdivisions to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
As you know the San Diego Association of Governments serves as the region's Airport Land
Use Commission. As such, SANDAG has the responsibility to protect the region's airports from
new incompatible development. SANDAG staff has reviewed the proposed projects.
SANDAG's Airport Land Use Commission rules and regulations allow the staff to make a
determination of compatibility if the proposal is "clearly consistent" with an airport's adopted
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The SANDAG Board of Directors, serving as the Airport Land
Use Commission, has not reviewed the following staff comment.
The two industrial subdivisions are within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence
Area. The eastern flight activity zone impacts portions of both subdivisions. The
community plan designations for the parcels have not changed since the time the CLUP
was adopted.
Because the proposed subdivisions are consistent with the community plan designations
that existed at the time the CLUP was adopted, the proposals are clearly consistent with
the McClellan-Palomar CLUP. However, if the applicants are proposing developments
that require zone changes that are inconsistent with the community plan designations
then SANDAG reserves the right to reevaluate the proposals.
If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 595-5372. Thank you for allowing SANDAG
to participate in the City's development planning process.
Sincerely,
/JACK KOERPER
Special Projects Director
JK/dak
cc: Floyd Best, Airport Manger
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove,
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, North San Diego County Transit Development Board,
U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, S.D. County Water Authority, and Tijuana/Baja California/Mexico.
04/24/2080 13:07 7604382443 HOFMAN PLANNINS PAGE 01
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Rscal Analysis
Date:
Project:
FAX:
No. Pages:
Attention:
April 24, 2000
Carlsbad Raceway (CT 98-1 0)/Palomar Forum (CT 99-06)
602-8562
1
Bill Plummer
Anne Hysong 602-8559
Bob Emri (85877553)945
Tim Carroll 931-8680
If oil poges are not received, please calJ (760) 438-1465.
Message:
Thank you for your e-mail to Anne Hysong regarding the "Raceway Property Sewer Service".
The purpose of this e-mail was to inform Anne that the condition to have an agreement for sewer
service between Vista and Carlsbad can be required to be completed prior to final map approval
rather than prior to tentative map approval.
It was our intention to have this agreement apply to both the Raceway and Palomar Forum
projects. I am sure that this is your intention also, but I noticed that there was no mention of the
Palomar Forum in your e-mail and I want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding anything.
If you disagree that this condition also applies to the Palomar Forum or if you have any questions
or comments please call me at 438-1465.
From:
5900 Pasteur Court • Ste 150 • Carlsbad - CA • 92008 • 760-438-1465 • Fax 760-438-2443
CODE PROF/PAL
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 11, 2000
Mr. Jack Koerper
San Diego Association of Governments
Suite 800
401 "B" Street
San Diego CA 92101
SUBJECT: CT 99-06 - PALOMAR FORUM - COMPLIANCE WITH PALOMAR
AIRPORT C.L.U.P.
The subject project is enclosed for your review. This project consists of a 12 lot
industrial subdivision and is approximately 70.6 acres in size. The project falls
outside the noise contours and within the flight activity zone within the Palomar
Airport influence area. The project is located directly north of Palomar Airport
Road, east of the Carlsbad Oaks East Business Park, and is approximately 7,000
feet east of the Airport.
Your written comments concerning the project's conformance with Palomar
Airport's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, along with other factors that would assure
compatibility with airport operations, are appreciated. It would be helpful if
comments are received by May 11, 2000.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4622.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONG,
Associate Planner
Attachment
c: Floyd Best, Airport Manager, 2198 Palomar Airport Rd., Carlsbad CA 92008
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
July 9, 1999
Hofman Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court Suite 150
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 99-06/HDP 99-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
Thank you for your resubmittal of plans for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. As
you are aware, the project will remain incomplete until a completed traffic analysis has
been submitted for staff review. The Planning Department has completed its review of
your resubmittal for a Tentative Map and Hillside Development Permit, applications no. CT
99-06 and HDP 99-03, for issues and offer the following comments.
Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, if
you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J.HOLZr
Planning Director
LER
MJH:AH:eh
Gary Wayne
Adrienne Landers
Ken Quon, Project Engineer
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-0894
No. CT 99-06/HDP 99-03
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
Please submit a corresponding map with the archaeological survey submitted
for the project. The locations identified appear to be off-site, however,
without a map it is impossible to make that determination.
2. As previously mentioned, Lot 12 is substandard in size. Please combine with
Open Space Lot 11.
3. The proposed industrial lots will be approximately 25 + ' below Palomar
Airport Road. Since the roofs of future industrial buildings will be visible
from the roadway, the project will be conditioned to prohibit roof equipment,
i.e., buildings along Palomar Airport Road with visible roofs must be designed
so that air conditioners and/or other equipment are concealed below the
roof. This condition will be required to be recorded on the final map under
mapping notes.
4. A very heavy landscape screen along Palomar Airport Road and Melrose
Avenue will be necessary to screen loading bays, etc. from view along these
roadways. Please provide a photo simulation of how the proposed
landscaping along the roadway will accomplish this requirement. Please
respond to the attached red lined landscape plan check comments from Larry
Black. The red lined check print must be returned with future submittals to
enable further plan checks.
5. Please refer to the attached letter from NCTD for their requirements for an
improved bus stop on Palomar Airport Road just west of the corner of Street
"A".
6. The adequacy of the proposed environmental mitigation will be determined
during environmental review.
Engineering:
Engineering comments will be forwarded under separate cover.
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
June 7,1999
Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Subject: Resubmittal of Plans for the Palomar Forum (CT 99-06)
Dear Anne:
Per your discussion with Jordan last week, attached is the resubmittal of the plans for the
Palomar Forum (CT 99-06). This resubmittal includes the following items:
•*• Ten (10) sets of the Tentative Map, Landscape Plan and Water Conservation Plan
-> Five (5) copies of the Hillside Development Permit exhibit
•*• One (1) copy of the Constraints Map
If you have any questions or need any additional information please call me at 438-1465.
Sincerely,
Stuart Fisk
5900 Pasteur Court ° Suite 150 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 ° (760)438-1465 ° Fax: (760)438-2443
Hofman Planning Letter of Transmitted
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
Date: April 13,1999
Project: CT 99-06/HDP 99-03 - Palomar Forum
Delivered by: HPA
Attention: Anne Hysong
Message:
Anne,
In response to the incomplete planning item #1 for CT 99-06/HDP 99-03 - Palomar Forum,
enclosed is the archaeological survey. The Biological Mitigation should be ready later this week.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
From: Niko Carrigan (DH)
5900 Pasteur Court • StelSO • Carlsbad • CA • 92008 • 760-438-1465 • Fax 760-438-2443
i-ra •a
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 10, 1999
Hofman Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court Suite 150
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 99-06/HDP 99-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Tentative Map and Hillside Development Permit,
applications no. CT 99-06/HDP 99-03, as to their completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is
information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items
must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be
submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals.
No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be
complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are
submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the
application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will
be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, February 9, 1999, to either resubmit the application or
submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the
materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute
withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a
new application must be submitted.
Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4477, if
you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincere
L J. HOLZM1LLER
Planning Director
MJH:AH:mh
Gary Wayne
Adrienne Landers
Ken Quon, Project Engineer
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
Palomar Melrose, LLC
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-O894
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. CT 99-06/HDP 99-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
Planning:
1. Archaeological survey referenced in EIA Part I.
2. Please provide proposed biological mitigation.
Engineering:
1. Projects with an average daily traffic (ADT) generation rate greater than 500 vehicles
per day or 200 or more peak hour vehicle trips must submit a Circulation Impact
Analysis prepared by a registered traffic engineer or registered civil engineer. (See the
requirements list for further detail).
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. Lot 12 should be eliminated because it is inadequate in size to meet standards and
inaccessible except through Open Space Lot 11. Lot 13 has no point of access.
Please explore designing this parcel as an open space pocket park amenity similar to
the one at the corner of PAR and Camino Vida Roble.
2. The project's proposed access point (Street A) to the Raceway property does not
coincide with the Raceway project's proposed access point. The point(s) of access
should be located based on the assumption that there will not be a connection to
Poinsettia in Vista.
3. The proposed industrial lots will be approximately 25' below Palomar Airport Road.
Since the roofs of future industrial buildings will be visible from the roadway, how will
this project avoid negative visual impacts resulting from roof equipment?
Engineering:
'S1. The proposed Street A (Paseo Valindo) median is a non-standard improvement that is
not allowed.
. Grading discrepancies between Lot 13 and the adjacent Raceway project must be
resolved.
3. Show proposed access to Lot 13. Please note that access from Melrose Drive is not
acceptable.
4. Show proposed access to Lot 12 - Please note that access from Palomar Airport Road
is not acceptable.
. Location of Street A does not coincide with the proposed access point on the Raceway
tentative map.
6. An additional street connection to Poinsettia Avenue may be necessary to satisfy the
City's cul-de-sac policy standard.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
June 25, 1997
Ed Fitzpatrick
Vice President
Dartmouth Development Company, Inc.
1510 Front Street, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
SUBJECT: PRE 97-37 - MELROSE COMMERCE CENTER
APN: 221-010-17 & 221-012-10
A preliminary review of your project was conducted on June 19, 1997. Listed below
are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is
to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project.
The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project.
Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and
processed for a more specific and detailed review.
Planning:
1. The property is zoned Planned Manufacturing (PM) and is located in the Airport
Influence Area. The PM Zone primarily allows light industrial land uses (see PM
Zone permitted land uses). The subdivision and development of the site requires the
followingxdiscretionary approvals from the City:
a. Planned Industrial Permit;
b. Tentative Subdivision Map; and,
c. Hillside Development Permit.
2. Due to topography on the site which quickly slopes down and away from Palomar
Airport Road (PAR) and creates the grading need for large fill slopes, the long
linear shape of the site, and the need to coordinate and plan vehicular circulation
with the adjacent property, the Planning Department recommends that this site be
planned in conjunction with the vacant industrial designated property (Carlsbad
Raceway) to the north.
3. The City is currently in the process of developing a Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) to protect rare and endangered plant and wildlife species within the City.
As part of this planning process the City is working with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service to establish a wildlife corridor in the general vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, as the HMP planning process evolves, there is still a potential that a
wildlife corridor may be required across a portion of this site.
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-O894
SrvirPRE 97-37 - MELROSE COMMERCE CENTER
JUNE 25, 1997
PAGE 2
4. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan's Finance Plan requires that Melrose
Avenue improvements to prime arterial standards from the northern City limit to
Palomar Airport Road be developer funded by Finance Areas U & V, which includes
this site. This facility shall either be constructed or an improvement agreement
provided prior to the recordation of the applicable final map by the first developer
in Zone 18 requiring the need for the specific segment of the roadway.
Engineering:
1. Access and circulation for this project must comply with the City's cul-de-sac
standard for industrial streets, which requires that a cul-de-sac not exceed one-
half mile, the traffic volume at the entrance does not exceed 3,000 Average
Daily Traffic (ADT), and the net buildable lot area served by the street does not
exceed 25 acres.
2. With regard to the proposed roadway intersection with the project site on
Palomar Airport Road:
a. The intersection must line up with the previously approved intersection
that provides owners to the Rancho Carrillo project, south of Palomar
Airport Road.
b. The intersection must line up with design and construction costs shared
by property owners both north and south of Palomar Airport Road.
c. Since the intersection is located on the inside of a curve, the project is to
be designed to maintain the required sight distance at the intersection.
3. In addition to street improvements within the project boundaries, this project
will require construction of the following:
a. The remaining prime arterial street improvements along its frontage on
Palomar Airport Road, including pavement for a third travel lane and
shoulder, curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
b. Full width prime arterial street improvements along its frontage on
Melrose Drive.
Additionally, the project will be required to reimburse to the City a proportionate
cost of the road and median improvements that are already in place on Palomar
Airport Road.
4. In order to maintain prime arterial street standards, access to the project site
from Melrose Drive, such as the proposed right-in/right out access, will not be
allowed.
CmPRE 97-37 - MELROSE COMMERCE CENTER
JUNE 25, 1997
PAGE 3 ; __
5. If this project is submitted for a discretionary application, a study will be
required to address traffic impacts and mitigation measure. Additionally, this
study should analyze and make recommendations for the following:
a. A striping plan at the project's intersection with Palomar Airport Road, as
well as the Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road intersection.
b. The need for additional public right-of-way to accommodate dedicated
turn lanes at the project's intersection with Palomar Airport Road.
6. Future plans should provide a layout of roads and access points at least 500'
beyond the project boundaries.
7. There is a potential for this project to have an obligation to contribute to the
efforts of extending Melrose Drive to join its current terminus at the northerly
boundary of the City.
8. For the design of all streets and intersections, please be aware of the require-
ments for roadway design, which are found in the City Engineering Standards.
While Melrose Drive is designated as a prime arterial, the City will allow vertical
alignment and intersection spacing to be designed to major collector standards.
Please contact Jeff Gibson at (760) 438-1161, extension 4455 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
GARY/E. WAYNE
Assistant Planning Director
Michael J. Holzmiller
Bobbie Hoder
Ken Quon
File Copy
Data Entry