HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 50241
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN
AND ZONING AND TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 146.3
ACRES INTO 28 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN
MELROSE DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO. : GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-l 8(B)/ZC 01-07/CT 98-l O/
HDP 98-09/I% 01-01
WHEREAS, Raceway Partners, LLC, “Developer’T’Owner,” has filed a
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel 1: The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter 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 official
plat thereof, excepting therefrom one-half of all minerals in, on or under said
land as reserved by Burton D. Hightower, a widower, in deed recorded May
19,1959, in Book 7669, Page 361 of official records.
Parcel 2: The southwest quarter of the northwest quarter (Lot 2) 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
official plat thereof, excepting therefrom one-half of all minerals in, on or under said land as reserved by Burton D Hightower, a widower, in deed
recorded May 19,1959 in Book 7669, Page 361, of official records.
Parcel 3A: Lot 2, Section 13, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the official plat thereof.
Parcel 3B: An easement for public road and utility purposes over, under,
along and across the following described real property, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, particularly described as follows:
Those portions of Lot 3 in Section 13, Township 12 South, Range 4 West and of Lot 3 in Section 18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, lying within a strip
of land 60 feet wide, 30 feet wide on each side of the center line.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Parcel 4: The southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 18,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base an Meridian, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the
offtcial plat thereof, excepting therefrom one-half of all mineral in, on or
under said land as reserved by Burton D Hightower, a widower, in deed
recorded May 19,1959, in Book 7669, Page 361 of ofiicial records.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of August, 2001 and
on the 3rd day of October 2001, and on the 17th day of October 2001 hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated September 6,2001, and “PII” dated
August 31,2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
PC RESO NO. 5024 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B.
C.
D.
Conditions:
the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of October 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PvlICI-IAEL J. HtiMIL#&R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5024 -3-
City of Carlsbad
RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North side of Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose Drive
and the eastern City boundary.
Project Description: A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office (0)
General Plan Designation and redesignate proposed open space to the Open Space (OS) General
Plan Designation, a zone change to add Open Space zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 146 acre, 25 lot, industrial subdivision
with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City’s
eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design includes a 400 foot wide north-
south wildlife corridor that provides access to an east-west wildlife corridor within the northern
portion of the property. Access to the industrial lots will be provided by construction of the
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista
boundary and the extension of Poinsettia Avenue (Street “B”) from its existing westerly
terminus in the City of Vista to Melrose Drive. No industrial buildings are proposed as part of
the project.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 6,200l
CASE NO: GPA 98-05/ZC Ol-07/LFMP 87-18(B)lCT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINE
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 6,200l
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.ca&bad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 98-051 ZC 0 I-07LFMP 87-l 8(B)/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 0 1-O 1
DATE: May 3,200I
RECIRCULATION DATE: August 3 1,200 1
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Racewav Business Park
2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates/Raceway Pronerties. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150,
Carlsbad. CA 92008, (760) 438- 1465
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 4, 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office
(0) General Plan Designation and redesignate proposed open space to the Open Space (OS) General
Plan Designation, a zone change to add Open Space zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 146 acre, 25 lot, industrial subdivision
with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Aimort Road between the Citv’s eastern
boundary and future Melrose Drive. The proiect design includes a 400 foot wide north-south wildlife
corridor that provides access to an east-west wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the
property. Access to the industrial lots will be provided by construction of the remaining segment of
Melrose Drive between Palomar Aimort Road and the Citv of Vista boundary and the extension of
Poinsettia Avenue (Street “B”) from its existinp westerly terminus in the Citv of Vista to Melrose
Drive. No industrial buildings are proposed as part of the proiect.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing H Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
0
Cl
El
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will nqt be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A .MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures
that-are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
- DE-“-* ’
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be
impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to u.se as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely
on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No
Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less T’han Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards
and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on
the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are
present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have
been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required
(Prior Compliance). (
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/h
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case. the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but
not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer
does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant: (2) a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less
than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of
significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be
given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
4
b)
c>
4
e)
proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-
18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
a> b) c>
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; ?Y4)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
+W Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #4)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15’
W Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; 7%)
4
e)
f)
s>
h) 9
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
q
cl cl
cl 0 cl cl cl cl
cl Cl
Cl cl
cl cl
cl cl
cl Cl
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl El
cl Ix1
cl cl
cl cl
cl cl
cl q
cl El
cl q
NO
Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4
b)
c>
d)
e>
f)
g>
h)
i>
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #2, #2)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l -
5..2-11; #2; #2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #2; #3 )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (# 1: Pgs 5.2- 1
- 5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l -
5..2-11)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l -
5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased. vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #3)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Irnpacl
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
cl
q
q
cl
cl
q
Ix1
0
III
cl
cl cl
q cl
cl cl
IXI cl
cl cl
cl cl
cl cl
lxl cl
El cl
cl ISI
cl cl
cl IXI
cl Ix1
cl Ix1
cl Ia
cl Ix1
q Ix1
cl cl
cl lxl
Cl Ia
cl IXI
cl cl
6 Rev. 03/28/$6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
4
e>
f)
g>
VII.
a>
b)
cl
d)
e)
VIII.
4
b)
c>
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l -
5.4-24; #5)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l -
5.4-24; #5)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #5;)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(#l,:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #5)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l -
5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Cl
q
.cl
0
cl
q
cl
cl
Cl
. cl
q
q
cl
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Cl
El
Cl
0
cl
0
IXI
Cl
Cl
IXI
El
cl
0
Cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
Cl
IXI
0
0
0
q
cl
0
cl
Cl
Cl
No
impact
El
0
Ix1
I23
0
lx
Cl
Ix1
lxl
0
Cl
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-
5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l
- 5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-15)’
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ()
Other governmental services? (#i:Pgs 5.12.1- 1 -
5.12.8-7)
a> b) c> 4
4
XII.
4
b)
c>
A)
4
f)
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-
5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Communications systems? ()
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -
5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste’disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-
3)
8
Potentially Potentially Less Than Ko
Significant Significant Significant Impxr
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incornorated cl El q cl
Cl
cl
0
q
cl
0
cl 0 Cl Cl
cl
Ix1
q
El
0
0
cl
0 cl Cl Cl
Cl
Cl cl
cl Ix]
cl 0
Ifa cl
El 0
cl El
cl lzl
Cl 0 0 El
0 Ix1 0 Ix1
cl cl lzl 0
Cl cl Cl Ix) Cl Cl XII IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
8)
XIII.
a>
b)
cl
XIV.
a>
b)
4
d)
e>
xv.
a>
b)
XVI.
a)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
proposal:
Would the
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
1 - 5.8-10)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l
- 5.8-10)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
9 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
cl
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
cl
Cl
0
Cl
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
0
Cl
0
0
Cl
IXI
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
IXI
Ix1
0
Ix1
Ix1
Cl
q
Cl
0
Ix1
0
I\;0
Impxt
El
cl
cl
El
Cl
q
IXI
lxl
El
El
Cl
cl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b)
c>
XVII.
Does the project have impacts that are 0 individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects Cl which will cause the substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
tx1 cl
ii0
impxt
Cl
Ix] cl Cl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
4 Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Setting
The Carlsbad Raceway property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City’s northeast
quadrant. The property is surrounded by open space and industrial park development to the north.
vacant industrial property and a small commercial development in the City of Vista to the east, a
vacant industrially zoned property and Palomar Airport Road to the south, and the existing Carlsbad
Oaks East industrial park to the west. The property is characterized by gentle slope terrain which
descends northward into a prominent east/west canyon on the northern half of the property in which a
drainage spans most of the length of the property. Tributaries to the main drainage occur in two
smaller canyons on the southern half of the site which drain towards the north. Three other
tributaries to the main drainage enter from the north side of the property. The drainage on site is an
unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek which drains into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Two larger
hills occur on the northern edge of the site and on the southwest comer of the site, and elevations
range from approximately 3 10 feet to 495 feet above sea level.
A drag strip stretches about two thirds of the property from the northeast comer to the south central
area. Much of the site is heavily disturbed in that a drag strip was created in the canyon bottom in
the northeast area of the site where water has been diverted to flow alongside it in a previously
upland area. Also, numerous dirt roads created from off-road motorcycle activity occur in all areas
of the site. The southwestern portion of the site has also been used for agriculture, and a SDG&E
powerline easement bisects the eastern half of the property. The north-central portion of the site,
which is abutted by dedicated open space in the City of Vista, is the least disturbed portion of the
property. The northern and eastern portions of the Raceway property comprise a hardline area in the
City’s draft*HMP, which identifies it as a part of a linkage (Linkage Area D) that connects core areas
to the north and south of the property.
I. LAND USE
The Carlsbad Raceway property is currently designated by the General Plan for Planned
Industrial/Office (PI/O) land use and zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The project includes a General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the property’s dual PI/O General Plan designation to
PI and Open Space (OS) thereby eliminating the 0 designation. The General Plan Amendment
would retain only the PI designation on the portion of the property proposed to be developed with
industrial lots, and the 43.36 acres of the property proposed to be dedicated as permanent open space
would be redesignated to OS. Justification for elimination of the 0 designation, which allows office
and related commercial use, is that it is unnecessary since professional offices that are incidental to
the industrial uses and not retail in nature, are permitted by P-M zoning under the PI land use
designation. Limited retail commercial uses that provide services to occupants of the industrial zones
are also permitted by conditional use permit. To ensure zoning consistency with the proposed
General Plan land use designations, the portion of the property redesignated as OS would be rezoned
to the O-S zone.
The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and
therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The
project is located within the eastern portion of the airport flight activity zone. The project, which
consists of industrial lots to be developed in the future with industrial buildings that are consistent
with the P-M zone standards, is consistent with the CLUP.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will require the construction of the last segment of Melrose Drive between its existing
11 Rev. 03/28/96
northerly terminus in the City of Vista and Palomar Airport Road and Faraday Avenue bemeen its
existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City’s easterly boundary. These
extensions of prime and secondary arterial roadways are part of the City’s circulation arterial
roadway system necessary to support existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and
to alleviate regional traffic congestion. Given that existing development surrounds the Carlsbad
Raceway property, construction of these roadways cannot be considered to be directly or indirectly
growth inducing.
III. GEOLOGY
Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by Vinje & Middleton, Inc., the development of
the Carlsbad Raceway property as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the
recommendations for remedial grading and site development are followed. A brief summary of
findings of the investigation indicate that:
Hard bedrock units are present in the north central areas of the property where only
minor grading is proposed.
Topsoils, alluvium and existing fill soils at the project site are not suitable in their
present conditions for support of structures or new graded fills and will need to be
removed.
Groundwater conditions at the project are not expected to be significant, although
some dewatering may be necessary in connection with alluvial removals in the
northwest portion of the property.
Expansive soils are present and not recommended at pad or roadway finish grade
levels
Liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not impact the proposed
development
Landslide conditions are not indicated at the site.
Soil collapse will not be a factor
IV. WATER
The project, upon ultimate development,. will consist of industrial lots with a large coverage of
, building and parking. Storm water runoff from each lot will be picked up in a subsurface storm drain
pipe and will flow underground into the public storm drain under the streets. The public storm drain
outlets into one of two detention basins which drain into a tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek. The
mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. As the lots are
developed, the site will absorb less water than in the undeveloped condition. The project includes
work to constrict the inlet to the existing storm drain culvert under Melrose Drive in the City of
Vista. This will create a detention basin to the east of Melrose Drive and reduce the peak flow in the
Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre-development conditions. Due to the reduced peak
flows, the project will have no impact on erosion downstream.
The project drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is an Impaired Waterbody on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list. The beneficial uses of aquatic life, Recreation-l(non-contact) and
Recreation-2(contact), and shellfish harvest are impaired by sediment and coliform respectively.
Beneficial uses are currently impaired due to coliform bacteria. The typical pollutant source for
coliform bacteria is pet waste. An industrial project is not anticipated to have significant impacts due
to the absence of residential uses. The total maximum daily load (TMDL) for colifonn has not been
established for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Regional Water Quality.Control Board is currently
in the process of developing six TMDL’s in the San Diego area. Since the TMDL priority for
12 Rev. 03/28/96
colifonn in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed as low, it will be some time before a TMDL is
established.
During construction, the project will be required to implement extensive erosion control
measures pursuant to City standards. Mitigation measures for the containment of silt on the site
during construction are contained in the City Engineering Standards and will be further specified
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) prepared with the grading and
erosion control plans for the project. The general measures to be employed are listed in the
Preliminary SWPPP prepared for the project. Specifics cannot be shown until the detailed .
construction plans are prepared, however, the preliminary SWPPP for the project identifies the
mitigation measures to prevent sediment from impacting the lagoon.. It lists Best Management
Practices (BMPs) from the Contractor Activities and the Erosion and Sedimentation sections of
the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook. The specific BMPs will be
referenced in the construction SWPPP prior to issuance of a grading permit. These will be
maintained by the developer and inspected by the City, and will reduce the impact of sediment to
less than significant during grading. After grading is complete, slopes will be planted, pads will
be hydroseeded, and temporary desiltation basins will be constructed on each lot to remove
sediment from storm water runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. The detention basin
at the end of the storm drain system provides redundancy. These mitigation measures will
reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant after grading operations. As the lots are
developed, they will be paved and landscaped, and the potential impact of sediment will be less
than significant.
The development of the project into industrial lots will create an increase in pollutants discharged in
storm water. These pollutants, detailed in the Summary NPDES Study (“Study”), entitled “Carlsbad
Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”, prepared for the project by O’Day
Consultants, include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The
Study indicates a potential impact totaling 8 pounds of pollutants per acre per year. Many of these
pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in the “first flush” of rainfall.
The Study lists potential structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used, their
effectiveness at removing the anticipated pollutants, and some preliminary sizing calculations. The
sample BMPs listed in the study are:
Oxygen Demand
. Infiltration/constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
= Wet ponds
. Biofilters
n Etended ponds
. Media filtration
9 Oil/water Sep.
l Multiple systems
Nutrients
. Constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
. Wet ponds
n Biofilters
. Etended ponds
. Media filtration
. Oil/water Sep.
. Multiple systems
13 Rev. 03128196
Heavy Metals
m Infiltration/constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
. Wet ponds
n Biofilters
= Etended ponds
. Media filtration
. Oil/water Sep.
. Multiple systems
Oil and Grease
l Infiltration/constructed wetlands/oil/water Sep. (most effective BMPs)
l Wet ponds
l Bio filters
l Extended ponds
l Media filtration
l Multiple systems
State Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Order 2001-01 Section E requires that best
management practices based on the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) technology based standard
be applied to industrial activity. Prior to development of each lot, a SWPPP will be prepared that
evaluates the building coverage, extent of pavement, and specific business activities proposed,
calculates the anticipated pollutants, and specifies the required. BMPs necessary to mitigate the
impact of development to the MEP standard, i.e., selected and sized to remove the type and quantity
of the anticipated pollutants from the storm water before it enters the storm drain system. Ultimately
the maintenance procedures and frequency will depend on the BMPs installed. The maintenance of
the permanent BMPs will be specified in the SWPPP that will be a condition of the Planned
Industrial Permit required prior to development of each industrial lot. BMPs will be maintained by
the industrial park association. Backup water quality treatment will be provided by two detention
basins into which storm drains will empty prior to stormwater how into the Agua Hedionda Creek
tributary.
Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface water
body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the area to be
graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than significant.
Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be offset by infiltration
from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind Melrose Drive.
V. AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the
build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued
development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant
impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a
“non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of
14 Rev. 03128196
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially
Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This
“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final
Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
(The information presented in this section is summarized from the Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park
Transportation Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated May 3,2001)
The project will consist of approximately 75 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected
vehicle generation of 10,320 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 1,135 vehicle trips in the AM
peak hour (split 1,022 inbound and 114 outbound) and 1,238 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (split
248 inbound and 991 outbound).
The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to completethe City’s circulation network
in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are:
l Poinsettia Ave will be extended from its existing terminus west of Business Park Drive to
Melrose Drive.
l Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in the
City of Vista.
l Faraday Ave. will be extended from the existing terminus near Melrose Drive in Vista to the
existing terminus near Orion Circle in Carlsbad. This extension will add another arterial
parallel to Palomar Airport Road that provides direct access to the City’s industrial corridor
and reduces traffic on Palomar Airport Road, a regional arterial- serving the City’s of
Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos.
l Onsite, Street “A” will connect to Palomar Forum, providing another link and secondary
access to Palomar Airport Road and to Melrose Drive/ Business Park Drive.
A) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased
vehicle tips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway connections and
improvements to Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave., (Street “B”) connecting a
network of roadways adjacent to Palomar Airport Road are identified as mitigation for this project.
(See mitigation plan below).
15 Rev. 03/28/96
B) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safety and
also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widening of
Palomar Airport Road intersection at Melrose Drive will provide a safer roadway free of lane
transitions and bottleneck roadway design.
C) The industrial lots will receive access from Street B, an east-west street that will connect to
Business Park Drive in the City of Vista to the east and Melrose Drive to the west. To avoid Street
B from bisecting a north-south wildlife corridor, it was suggested that Street B be designed so that it
culdesacs on each side of the corridor. A culdesac design would require that industrial lots located
on the east side of the corridor receive access via Business Park Drive in the City of Vista. It is the
responsibility of the City of Carlsbad Fire Department in cooperation with surrounding mutual aid
cities to respond if evacuation and emergency response is necessary .due to a chemical spill, fire or
other incident. The Carlsbad Fire Department has a five minute response standard for all Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) incidents throughout the City. Without the connection of Street B through
the project, the Fire Department response to the eastern lots could be delayed; therefore, this five
minute EMS standard would be exceeded. Response to the project by mutual aid units from
surrounding cities could also be delayed. As designed, the project is proposing that Street B provide
the through connection required to satisfy the Fire Department emergency response threshold. The
arterial connection of Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave. (Business Park Dr. to
Melrose Drive) will improve emergency access to the adjacent development in the City’s of
Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos.
E) The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road)
will provide for additional routes of travel, reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate
modes of transportation. Information provided by NCTD regarding future service scenarios to the
proposed business park indicate likely locations required for bus stops. These future locations are
shown on the tentative map to ensure their availability thereby facilitating future bus service to the
site.
F) The project as conditioned and designed will support alternative modes of transportation including
but not limited to: Additional bus routes, bus turnouts, bike lanes, car pooling, ride sharing, and
walking.
Mitigation Plan:
Unless’the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, there is a likelihood that
significant impacts resulting from increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion will occur.
Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for the
following roadways:
l Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad
/ Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional Right turn
lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
l Poinsettia Ave. (“B” Street) shall be constructed as an Industrial Collector from Business
Park Drive to Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia /
Melrose intersection to accommodate turn lanes.
l Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to:
Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal modification
and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
16 Rev. 03128196
Prior to recordation of a final map:
l Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from
the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in
the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
A financing mechanism for the above-mentioned improvements is identified in the Local Facility
Management Plan for Zone 18.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased
traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12
full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major
intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a
number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance
standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto
City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable
and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the
General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations”
applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of
that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing
of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine
whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more
than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes
have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only
potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real,
has been mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available
information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was
certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the “Carlsbad Raceway Project Draft Biological Technical Report” prepared by Barry
Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. and mitigation proposed in a July 1, 1998 letter to the
17 Rev. 03/28/96
USFWS, the site supports six vegetation communities: coastal and valley freshwater marsh. southem
willow scrub, mule fat scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and non-native
grassland. In addition, there are disturbed habitat/agriculture and developed areas. With the
exception of the habitats located in the north-central portion of the site, all habitats have been at least
partially disturbed and in most cases heavily disturbed for a number of years by ongoing racena?
operations. The following table identifies the acreages of each vegetation community:
Vegetation Community Acreage
Upland
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 19.2
Southern Mixed Chaparral 26.3
Mule Fat Scrub
Other
Agriculture
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL:
0.18
4.7
57.8
145.0
Sensitive plant species observed on the site include summer holly and California adolphia. These
species occurred in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitats onsite. The
summer -holly is an HMP target species. Approximately 50 percent of the California adolphia
(approximately 50 individuals) and all of the summer holly (less than 10 individuals) will be lost as a
result of the project.
Sensitive animal species observed onsite include Cooper’s hawk, Loggerhead shrike, White tailed
kite, and California homed lark. Some foraging habitat for raptors, loggerhead shrike breeding and
foraging habitat, and foraging habitat for the homed lark will be lost as a result of the project. Of the
four species observed, only the Cooper’s hawk is a HMP target species, There is also a low potential
for burrowing owl to occur on the site.
Protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted on March 2, 11, and 19,200 1,
and no gnatcatchers were observed or detected on the Raceway site, however, one individual
gnatcatcher was heard north of the site in chamise chaparral on one occasion during the first survey.
This bird could not be relocated during the two subsequent surveys.
The most significant resources on site are the wetland habitats and the Diegan coastal sage scrub
along the northern property boundary. Direct impacts that result from the project total 112.01 of the
145 acres and are shown on the following table:
Vegetation
Community
IMPACTS
Acreage Acres Acres
Impacted Preserved
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Southern Mixed Chaparral*
Non-native Grassland*
19.2 9.6 9.6
26.3 21.6 * 4.7
32.6 28.0 4.6
18 Rev. 03/28/$6
Riparian/Wetland
Freshwater Marsh I
0.77 .15 .62 /
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Other
Agriculture
Disturbed Habitat
TOTAL:
3.42 .53 3.05
0.18 .13 .05
4.7 4.7 0
57.8 47.3 10.53
145.0 112.01 33.15
*Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 21.6 acres. Approximately 4.7 acres will be preserved
and credited as mitigation for chaparral, resulting in a mitigation requirement of 16.9 acres. Impacts
to non-native grassland total 28 acres. Approximately 4.6 acres of non-native grassland is being
preserved; therefore, the mitigation requirement is 23.4 acres.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
Jurisdiction
ACOE Wetland
ACOE non-
vegetated waters
of the U.S.
CDFG
jurisdictional
areas
Existing Project Impacts
1.28 0.24
0.51 0.18
4.79 0.91
Total Impacts Remaining
0.24 1.04
0.18 0.33
0.91 3.88
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS
Jurisdictional Habitat Federal State
(acres) (acres)
Freshwater Marsh 0.07 0.07
Southern Willow Scrub 0.17 0.53
Mule Fat Scrub 0 0.13
Streambed 0.18 0.18
( TOTALS 0.42 0.91
Wildlife Corridors
In accordance with the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the project proposes a north-
south wildlife corridor that will help link open space within the Ranch0 Carrillo project to the south
to a wildlife corridor provided along the northern portion of the site. The resulting project design
provides for a minimum corridor width of 400 feet along the eastern portion of the site and a larger
block of open space along the northern property boundary that connects to open space to the north in
the City of Vista and to open space to the west in the City of Carlsbad. Melrose Drive crosses the
wildlife corridor at the northwestern comer of the property. A 12’ high arched wildlife culvert is
proposed below Melrose Drive (outside the floodplain) to provide a connection to open space to the
northwest. Street “B”, which provides access to the industrial lots between Melrose Drive and
Business Park Drive will bisect the north-south wildlife corridor at the eastern end of the property
and mitigation for the Street “B” crossing is described below.
19 Rev. 03128196
The impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS), non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral.
southern willow scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, mulefat scrub, and the Street “B”
wildlife corridor crossing are considered significant without mitigation. Additionally, impacts to
sensitive plant species including California adolphia and summer holy and potential impacts to the
burrowing owl require mitigation.
Mitipation
The City has adopted a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) that has been used as a standard of review
for assessing cumulative biological impacts and imposing mitigation requirements. The following
mitigation requirements are consistent with the HMP.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSSJ
The mitigation ratio for the DCSS, which is considered occupied, is 2: 1, and the proposed mitigation
consists of 1) the onsite preservation of 9.6 acres of DCSS; 2) restoration of approximately 8.5 acres
of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated; and 3) approximately 9 acres of areas currently
disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. An excess of approximately 8
acres is being proposed that will be credited towards mitigation to impacts to southern mixed
chaparral and non-native grassland. The amount credited will be based on verififed costs (costs
verified by the City of Carlsbad) of the 8 acres of DCSS restoration.
Southern Mixed ChauarraVNon-native Grassland/Street “B” wildlife crossing
Prior to approval of final map, the applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and feasibility study for
a potential .wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; 2) either construct an acceptable wildlife
crossing on Street “B” or shall pay the City $100,000 to mitigate the effect of the Street “B” crossing
of the wildlife corridor if an acceptable wildlife crossing is not constructed; and 3) shall pay the City
$225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland ($3,949/acre) and chaparral ($7,897/acre).
If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the feasibility study shall not be required, and
the funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the designated core area as described in the
City’s HMP. If the HMP is not approved, the City in consultation with the wildlife agencies, will
determine the most beneficial use of funds including but not limited to one or more of the following:
a) acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b) construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c) other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
Wetlands
A total of approximately .48 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S.
Army Cot-p of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2:l mitigation ratio). Southern willow scrub
will be planted over at least .34 acre and .14 acre of freshwater marsh will be planted along the
margins of the restoration area. Streambed impacts totaling .18 acre (Corps and CDFG
jurisdictional) will be mitigated through relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel
that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15 foot wide channel (approximately .38 acre)
running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the project.
Exotic weeds will be removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of
the channel. An additional .98 acre of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the
additional .49 acre of impacts (2: 1 mitigation ratio) to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by
CDFG but not jurisdictional by the Corps. The .18 acre of streambed. Impacts will be mitigated
through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of
20 Rev. 03128196
the drag strip into a 15 foot wide channel (approximately .38 acre) running through the proposed
wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the project. Exotic weeds will be removed
from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. The restoration
total for the project is 1.84 acres.
Sensitive Snecies
A minimum of 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly will be planted as container stock
within the upland restoration areas.
Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of the burrowing
owl. If the owl is observed on the site, it will be relocated to open space on the site.
The applicant shall use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscaped areas adjacent to
and/or near mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas. The applicant shall not plant,
seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas adjacent and/or
near the mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland riparian areas. Exotic species not to be used
include those species listed on Lists A and B of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list of
“Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in. California as of October, 1999.” This list
includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas grass, fountaingrass, ice plant, myoporum, blak
locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch
broom, and Spanish broom.
The project would require authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game (1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement) and may require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for stream and wetland impacts. The project will
also require Incidental Take Authorization (Section 10(a) process) under the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
A mitigation monitoring program will be required as part of the final wetland and coastal sage scrub
restoration program. This restoration program shall be approved by the City’ and wildlife agencies
prior to commencement of construction activities. The project has been conditioned to require the
developer or his successor in interest to maintain and protect the open space/wildlife corridor until
such time that ownership is transferred to the City or its designee. Simultaneous with the transfer of
ownership, the developer would be responsible for the transfer of funding or other acceptable
financial mechanism to provide for the management and conservation of the open space in
perpetuity.
To summarize, the proposed mitigation plan consists of the following:
a
a
Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site.
Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor.
Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix.
Create 1.84 acres of wetland habitat.
Plant as container stock 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly in upland restoration
areas.
Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction and relocate if necessary.
Use native plants and avoid invasive exotic species in landscaped areas adjacent to
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetlandriparian areas.
Provide a 12’ high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
Obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and California Department of Fish and Game prior to final map approval.
21 Rev. 0312819’6
l Submit a wetland and coastal -sage scrub restoration program, including a ‘mitigation
monitoring program for approval by the City and the wildlife agencies prior to
commencement of construction activities.
l Prior to final map approval:
o provide an engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under
Palomar Airport Road;
o either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing on Street “B” or pay $100,000 to
mitigate the effect of the Street “B” crossing of the wildlife corridor if an acceptable
wildlife crossing is not constructed;
o pay $225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland ($3,949/acre) and
chaparral ($7,897/acre). 0 If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the engineering and feasibility study
shall not be required, and the mitigation funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the
designated core area as described in the City’s HMP.
0 If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval, the City in consultation with the
wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds including but not
limited to one or more of the following:
a. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b. construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
VIII. HAZARDS
Due to the project’s proximity to existing residential development located to the south across
Palomar Airport Road and within 1,000 feet, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the project could
pose a potentially significant risk to residents through exposure resulting from the accidental release
of hazardous substances. Generally, the Fire Marshal has requested that safeguards be incorporated
into the project to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of hazardous materials that
could otherwise be allowed under current fire or building code regulations as well as applicable state
or federal statutes. Of major concern was the storage or use of hazardous materials that could pose
hazards even under non-fire conditions and may not provide adequate warning or notification of a
hazardous condition to either the occupants in the residential areas and/or the fire department.
Based on research of building and fire codes as well as state and federal statutes, the Fire Department
agreed to mitigation conditions that would significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous
substances:
1. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or
use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at
quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire
code.
2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code 25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined
in the most currently adopted tire code which are also regulated substances as defined in
the California Health and Safety Code -25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence
analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations 2750.2 through -2750.3. If the OCA shows the release
22 Rev. 03128196
could impact the residential. community, the facility will not store, handle or use the
material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance
to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to
utilize the material in that quantity.
Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material
can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, wind speed.
atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a
pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be overlayed
onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release.
Models can be performed under “worst case” meteorological and chemical release
conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for the
specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most sophisticated
method available to ensure community safety.
The Carlsbad Raceway property has been used as a raceway since approximately 196 1. In that time,
various parts of the property have been subject to direct or indirect storage/use of hazardous
substances (petroleum hydrocarbons). To ensure that no potentially significant health hazard exists
on the site, a site assessment was performed, “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update” for
the Carlsbad Raceway Property dated May 8, 1998, prepared by MVE Environmental, Inc., that
included findings of three previous Phase I and/or II site assessments performed on the Raceway
property since 1990. Based on findings of the first 1990 Phase I site assessment performed by GEI,
a Phase II site assessment was performed in 1991. Surveys consisted of four test trenches from
which soils were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons (TRPH), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and the installation of one groundwater
monitoring well from which water was analyzed for the above in addition to orgnochlorine pesticides
and organophosphorus pesticides. The conclusion was that based on the general hydrogeologic
characteristics of the site and surrounding areas and the detected levels of concentration were not
significant and no additional assessment of the site would be nee.ded. It was noted, however, that the
due to the past application of oil for dust control on the unpaved entry road a thin layer,
approximately l/8 inch - l/4 inch thick and located below 2 - 4 inches of soil cover, was detected.
GE1 concluded that the thin oil layer is fairly immobile and therefore probably does not represent a
significant threat to contaminate the underlying groundwater. They further stated that the
contamination does not present a threat to human health or the environment under current conditions,
during development or foreseeable post development conditions. The most recent analysis prior to
the 1998 analysis was conducted in 1997. In 1997, based on a review of the previous site assessment
findings and conclusions, MVE performed additional soil sampling in areas deemed to present
potential liability for the future development of the property. That analysis revealed five areas on
the site not previously assessed where contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons would most likely
occur. The five areas of concern included: 1) former heavy equipment storage along east end of
south property line; 2) 10,000 gallon AST located on the south property line; 3) potential for south
adjacent property draining agriculture residue onto Raceway property; 4) 55 gallon drums labeled
Race Gas located in drag strip pit area; and 5) potential agricultural chemical residue in on-site
stream sediments resulting from up-stream greenhouse activity north and east of the site (Mount
Olive Floral and Marflor Farms). The results of the 1997 assessment revealed no concentrations of
hydrocarbons or agricultural chemical residue exceeding regulatory action levels or high enough to
be an environmental concern to occupants/tenants of the proposed development. The subsequent
1998 site assessment update included further soil sampling at the Raceway property that focused on
the petroleum hydrocarbons either stored on-site, disposed on-site, or accidentally spilled or leaked
into surficial soils of the property. The tests revealed only small concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons with the exception of the paved/oiled entry road where a very thin layer of TRPH
(6,200 mg/kg concentration) contamination at a depth of approximately 4 inches. MVE concludes
23 Rev. 03128196
that the only exposure concern this contaminant presents to human receptors if left on-site is b!
ingestions and that an option to disposal would be a number of non-sensitive fill areas on the
property where this soil can be used in grading since a large percentage of the property wil be paved
with asphalt parking lots and roadways. MVE recommends that the soil be used in one of these fill
areas to eliminate the human concern. No environmental concerns are associated with these heav!,
hydrocarbons due to the strong soil bond and restricted ability to migrate.
Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the
applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical Review
Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project.
To avoid an increase in the fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes
containing high fuel native vegetation, the project Landscape Plans identify a 30’ wide fire
suppression zone in which the 10’ closest to the top of slope must be landscaped in accordance with
the City’s Landscape Manual provisions for manufactured slopes (Zone A-2).
Ix. NOISE
The project consists of an industrial subdivision; therefore, an increase in existing noise levels
occurring from temporary grading and construction activity will result. Noise generated from
construction activities is regulated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to avoid noise impacts to
sensitive receptors. Noise levels resulting from future industrial development on each lot will be
regulated through discretionary approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. The Planned Industrial (P-
M) zone (Chapter 2 1.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) performance standard for noise generation
prohibits the generation of noise exceeding 65 dBA as measured at the property line. The property is
in proximity to two circulation arterial roadways resulting in exterior noise levels on lots adjacent to
the roadways that exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 55 dBA Leq. for general office use and
65 dBA Leq. for industrial use. In accordance with the General Plan Noise element, required
mitigation consists of a Noise Report that is required in conjunction with future discretionary
applicatons for Planned Industrial Permits (PIP). The noise report must specify the acoustical design
features required to achieve the interior noise standard.
XI/XII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND ‘UTILITIES
The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The
Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development
within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to
comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to meet
the additional demand generated by the project.
The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service area.
The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer system.
But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation
District (VSD) to the Raceway sewer lift station. The Zone Plan provides for temporary sewer in the
City of Vista’s Buena Interceptor subject to a flow transfer agreement between the City of Carlsbad
and the City of Vista. This provision is made because the property is part of the Raceway Sewer Lift
Station Assessment District in the City of Vista.
XIII. AESTHETICS
While the project will result in alteration of the existing landform due to the necessity of grading
large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced
24 Rev. 03128196
below and partially screened by the Palomar Forum industrial development proposed on the propert!
to the south. As identified by photo simulations prepared for the Palomar Forum industrial project to
the south of the Carlsbad Raceway property, the project will be partially visible from Palomar
Airport Road, a scenic corridor circulation arterial roadway and Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial
roadway. Fifty foot landscape setbacks in which large specimen trees are required adjacent to these
roadways will partially screen the development, and compliance with the approved landscape plans
will ensure that parking lots and manufactured slopes are screened. Potentially significant visual
impacts could result from future industrial development that is visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive due to poor architectural design and/or visible rooftop equipment, and loading bays.
Mitigation necessary to reduce visual impacts from any industrial development that is visible from
Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive includes: 1) prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on
roofs unless project incorporates architectural treatment consisting of parapets that are of sufficient
height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment; 2) prohibit installation of roof screens
other than building parapets that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; 3) prohibit
loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive; and 4) require enhanced
architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive. These mitigation measures will be reviewed for compliance prior to approval of the
Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot.
XIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The existence of archaeological resources has been documented on the property by two
archaeological reports, “Results of the Archaeological Significance Assessment” performed by
RECON for the Melrose Drive extension project dated October 11, 1999, and the “Draft
Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the Wimpey Gentry Property: SDi-9041,-9042, -9043, and -
9045, Carlsbad California” performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two archaeological
reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the proposed Melrose
alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two additional sites not
previously surveyed, SDi-10,550 and SDi-10,552. The 1989 RECON report concluded that no
significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-904 1,9042, and 9043. The report recommended that
since an important source of information could remain in the area of SDi-9043 and SDi-9045
monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and documentation would be necessary.
The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad
Raceway property is an important site that should be fenced during the Carlsbad Raceway grading
and construction activities for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no
further work is necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property
has been buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also
indicated that no artifacts were recovered from SDi-10,550 and that the artifacts from SDi-10,552
revealed that it was a small stone flaking station offering no substantive contribution to our current
understanding of the prehistoric pattern for this area. No further work is recommended for these two
sites. The report concludes that the three sites investigated are not significant cultural resources;
therefore, impacts from the proposed development are not significant.
XVI. RECREATIONAL
The Carlsbad Raceway has operated under conditional use permit since 1963. The conditional use
permit for the motocross and drag racing activities expires in February, 2002. The property has been
designated for industrial land use for many years and within the past five years, the property has been
surrounded by industrial, residential, and commercial development. Although the Carlsbad
Raceway offers an existing recreational opportunity, its viability as a compatible conditional use in
an urbanized area has weakened. The proposed development, which is consistent with the General
Plan land use designation and is a permitted use, is the intended land use.
25 Rev. 03128196
The project includes a portion of a 1.7 acre landscaped mini-park located between Melrose Drive and
the western property line that will include picnic tables, a water feature, and a City-wide trail
segment that bisects the property from Melrose Drive to the adjacent property to the west. The 8’
wide trail will connect to another City-wide trail segment proposed through the canyon to the w’est.
The mini-park is intended to be utilized by employees of the surrounding industrial park as an
outdoor eating area.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents ‘were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760)
602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-O l), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”, prepared by 0”Day
& Associates, dated June 6,200 1.
3. “Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Transportation Analysis”, prepared by Urban Systems
Associates, Inc. dated May 3,200l.
4. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Industrial Development-Carlsbad
Raceway Property” dated August 26, 1997, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.
5. “Carlsbad Raceway Project Draft Biological Technical Report” prepared by Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc., dated May 12, 1998; “Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation
Plan”, prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated June 1, 1998; Letters from
Barry Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to: Julie Vanderwier, USFWS dated July
1, 1998; Letter to Mr Jon Kurtin (“Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the
Carlsbad Raceway”), dated April 19,200l; and Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin (“Addendum to the
Biological Resources Report for the Carlsbad Raceway Project”), dated May 11, 2001; and
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong from Helix Environmental Planning dated August 28,200l.
6. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update - Carlsbad Raceway Property”, prepared by
MV Environmental, Inc. dated May 8, 1998.
7. “Results of Archaeological Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-10,552, CA-SDI-10,550,
and a portion of CA-SDI-9045 for the Melrose Drive Extension Project”, prepared by
RECON dated October 11, 1999 and”Draf-t Archaeological Testiong of Four Sites at the
Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-904 1, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and Sdi-9045, Carlsbad,
California” prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989.
26 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. a. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate. and bond for
the following roadways:
l Melrose Drive as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista
boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional right turn lanes
are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
l Poinsettia Ave. (“B” Street) as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to
Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia/Melrose
intersection to accommodate turn lanes.
l Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to:
additional right-of-way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal
modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
1. b. Prior to recordation of a final map, Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a
Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of
Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
2. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the provisions
of the “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention” summary
NPDES study prepared for the project by O’Day Consultants dated June 6,200 1.
3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
l
l
l
l
l
l
Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site.
Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor.
Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix.
Create 1.84 acres of wetland habitat.
Plant as container stock 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly in upland
restoration areas.
Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction and relocate if necessary.
Use native plants and avoid invasive exotic species in landscaped areas adjacent to
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas.
Provide a 12’ high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
Obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game prior to final map
approval.
Submit a wetland and coastal sage scrub restoration program, including a mitigation
monitoring program for approval by the City and the wildlife agencies prior to
commencement of construction activities.
Prior to final map approval: . provide an engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing
under Palomar Airport Road;
27 Rev. 03128196
. either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing on Street “B” or pai $100.000
to mitigate the effect of the Street “B” crossing of the wildlife corridor if an
acceptable wildlife crossing is not constructed;
. pay $225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland (S3.949iacre)
and chaparral ($7,897/acre).
. If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the engineering and feasibility
study shall not be required, and the mitigation funds shall be used for acquisition of
acreage in the designated core area as described in the City’s HMP.
n If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval, the City in consultation with
the wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds
including but not limited to one or more of the following:
a. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b.constmction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the
City.
4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures will
be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for
each lot.
l Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless project incorporates
architectural treatment consisting of architectural elements or parapets that are of
sufficient height and desigri to screen future mechanical roof equipment.
l Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural elements
that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings;
l Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
l Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from
Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
5. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances:
l No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or
use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at
quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire
code.
l Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code $25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
Management plans for determination of risks to the community.
l Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined
in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in
the California Health and Safety Code $25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence
analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations $2750.2 through $2750.3. If the OCA shows the release
could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the
material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance
to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to
utilize the material in that quantity.
28 Rev. 03128196
Note: Computer models may- be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous
material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature. wind
speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released. material properties and type of release
(e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be
overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a
release. Models can be performed under “worst case” meteorological and chemical
release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for
the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most
sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
6. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the
applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical
Review Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
29 Rev. 03/28/96
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES .4hXl
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature/ !’
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 5
. . 4
B 3 E
f d I 1 ‘i c I I I ; 1
j I c
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 4 of 5
l l
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 5 of 5
l
ADDENDUM TO CARLSBAD RACEWAY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigation Measure No. 1 on Page 27 (List of Mitigating Measures) is revised as follows:
1. a. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond
for the following roadways:
l Melrose Drive as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista
boundary’south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional right turn
lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
l Poinsettia Ave. (“B” Street) as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to
Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the PoinsettiaMelrose
intersection to accommodate turn lanes.
l Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited
to: additional right-of-way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal
modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
1. b. Prior to recordation of final report, Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a
Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west
of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
Renumbering of the List of Mitigating Measures on Pages 27 and 28 for the last three items from
Nos. 2, 6 and 7 to 4, 5, and 6 as follows:
4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures
will be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit
required for each lot.
l Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless project incorporates
architectural treatment consisting of architectural elements or parapets that are of
sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment.
l Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural
elements that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings;
l Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
l Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible
from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
5. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances:
l No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store,
handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted
fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently
adopted fire code.
l Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code $25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
l Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as
defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code $25532(g) shall prepare an offsite
consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with
Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations $2750.2 through $2750.3. If the OCA
shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store,
handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material
reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the
facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a
hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as
temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties
and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these
models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic
endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be performed under “worst case”
meteorological and chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum
harm potential is determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of
these models is the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
6. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property,
the applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department
of Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM)
Technical Review Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project.