HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 50311
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. 5031
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 GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 70.6
ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN
MELROSE DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARR DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM CASE NO.: GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/
PIP 01-03
WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”. described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the plat thereof.
(“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, on
the 3rd day of October 2001, and on 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.
1
2
3
4
5
0
I
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Plamrin8
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Recirculated
Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated September 6:
2001, and “PIP dated August 31, 2001, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Conditions:
1.
. .
. . .
.
. .
. .
* .
. .
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
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.
Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Palomar Forum
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC EESO NO. 503 1 -2-
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:
I AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heinemsn, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
QQ
CARLSBb PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%ZMIkkBR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 503 1 -3-
.+-
. . .
City of
RECIRCULATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and the
eastern City boundary.
Project Description: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City’s eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially signitkant 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 Ol-07/ZC Ol-06KT 99-06/HDP 99-03iPIP 01-03
CASE NAME: Palomar Forum
PUBLISH DATE: September 6,200l
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (780) 802-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l w.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
. . .1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO: GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 99-06iHDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
DATE: May 3,200l
RECIRCULATION DATE: August 3 1,200l
1.
2.
3.
CASE NAME: Palomar Forum Business Park
APPLICANT: Hofman Plannine Associates/Davis Partners
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court. Suite 150. Carlsbad,
CA 92008. (7601438-1465
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI’ITED: February 9.1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned
Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property
located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City’s eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a
wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista
boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporates’ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning
0 Population and Housing
q Geological Problems
q Water
q Air Quality
q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
q Hazards IsI Cultural Resources
0 Noise 0 Recreation
[7 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128196
-4
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
!xl
0
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 not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I 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.
Planner Signature
g,3/4/
Date
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
,- . . .,
ENVIRONMBNTAL IMPACTS
-?
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
. Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and @) 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.
3 Rev. 03128196
.
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
. An EIR & 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. 03/28/96
.,
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
4
b)
cl
d)
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 kom
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
a)
b)
c)
proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
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)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the urowsal
result in or expose people to potential’impacts involving:
Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #3)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-
1 - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#3) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or till?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#3) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
a) b) c)
4
d
cl
g)
h) 0
Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact Impact Unless Signifi
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
0 q IEI
0
0
0
0
El
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
5 Rev. 03/28/96
.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a)
b)
c)
g)
h)
9
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff) (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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 5.2-1 -
5..2-11)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.,2-l 1)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
5..2-11) 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)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Potentially Potentially Less Significant Significant Than
Impact Unless Signiti
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
0 0 !z
q 0 0
0 lxi Cl
0 ISI 0
El 0 0
0 0 Cl
Cl
Cl
cl
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
[XI
El
0
No
Impact
0 El
0 !xl
0 !xl
0 0
Cl El
0 El
cl 0
0 [XI
6 Rev.. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
d
0
g)
VII.
a)
b)
c)
4
d
VIII.
a)
b)
c)
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; #M)
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 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #4)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #4)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal? Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 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)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the uroposal involve:
a)
b)
c)
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-S;)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-S)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -5.10.1-S)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Less
Significant Than
Unless Signiti
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact q cl
q q
q q
q q
[XI q
q
Cl
IXI
[XI
q
q
q
txl
q
lxl
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
El
[XI
(XI
[XI
q
[51
!xl
q
q
q !a
q [XI
cl [XI
q q
q IXI
q q
I Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-S; #5)
e) Increase fue 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 urouosal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
govemment services in any of the following
areas:
a) b)
g
4
XII.
a)
b)
c)
4
d
cl
9)
XIII.
a)
b)
c)
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?
0 Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
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-S
& 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) 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-S)
Potentially Potentially Less No Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signiti
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact q IXI q u
q q q IXI
q
q
q
q
q !xi
q !xl
q
B
q
q
q
[XI q n
!a q u
q Elm
8 Rev. 03128196
r-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
4
b)
4
4
e)
xv. 4
b)
XVI.
a)
4
c)
XVII.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. proposal:
Would the
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l
- 5.8-10;)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l -
5.8-10; #6)
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-l - 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?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Signiticant
Impact
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Less
Than No Impact
Unless Signifi
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
q [XI
q [XI
q q
q q
q q
q q
q q
lxl
[XI
q q
q q
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analysed in an earlier EIR or negative
9 Rev. 03128196
_-
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.
cl 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. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Palomsr Forum property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City’s northeast
quadrant. The property is surrounded by the Carlsbad Raceway vacant industrial land, open
space, and existing industrial development in the City of Vista to the north, a small commercial
development in the City of Vista to the east, Palomar Airport Road and Ranch0 Carrillo
residential development to the south, and the existing Carlsbad Oaks East industrial park to the
west. The future Melrose Drive alignment bisects the property at the western end
The property is characterized by gentle hillside terrain which descends northward t?om the
highest areas along Palomar Airport Road down to the Carlsbad Raceway property. The central
portion of the property contains several small naturally vegetated ravines. Natural slope
gradients most commonly approach 10: 1 and transition to as steep as 4: 1 above these ravines.
The majority of the site is disturbed by past agricultural use, however, Diegan coastal sage scrub,
non-native grassland, and southern mixed chaparral also occupy the site. Site drainage sheet
flows northward over the slopes and into a north draining canyon. A SDG&E powerline
easement bisects the eastern end of the property.
I. LAND USE
The project is consistent with the Planned Industrial (PI) Land Use designation for the property
and the industrial subdivision is consistent with the PM zoning ordinance regulating industrial
subdivisions. The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the
portion of the property proposed to be preserved as open space to the Gpen Space (OS) designation. The project is included in Carlsbad’s draft Habitat Management Plan and identified
as a part of Linkage Area D. It is also identified as a proposed hardline area that consists of a
minimum 400’ wide north-south corridor at the eastern end of the property. The project is
consistent with the HMP in that a 400’ wide north-south corridor is proposed to be preserved
along the eastern boundary. The project is surrounded to the west, north, and east by industrial
and commercial land uses similar to the project and therefore compatible. The project is
separated from the Ranch0 Carillo residential development to the south by Palomar Airport
Road. Given the considerable separation from residential land uses and the Fire Department
mitigation requirement to restrict hazardous materials within 1000’ of residential land uses (see
IX. Hazards discussion below), the Palomar Forum Business Park is compatible with residential
land uses in the vicinity.
The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area
and therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
The project is located within the eastern portion of the airport flight activity zone. The project,
which consists of industrial lots to be developed in the future with industrial buildings that are
consistent with the P-M zone standards, is consistent with the CLUP.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will require the construction of the last segment of Melrose Drive between its
existing northerly terminus in the City of Vista and Palomsr Airport Road and Faraday Avenue
between its existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City’s easterly boundary.
This extension of a prime arterial roadways is part of the City’s circulation arterial roadway
system necessary to support existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and to
alleviate regional traflic congestion. Given that existing development surrounds the Carlsbad
Raceway property, construction of these roadways cannot be considered to be directly or
11 Rev.O3/28/96
._ .-
indirectly growth inducing.
III. GEOLOGY
Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by Vinje & Middleton, Inc., the development
of the property as proposed is feasible t?om a geotechnical viewpoint provided the
recommendations for remedial grading and site development are followed. A brief summary of
findings of the investigation indicate that “the site is underlain by a succession of sedimentary
bedrock units whose engineering properties range from very competent to poor. Unstable
existing landslide conditions are not in evidence at the property, however, marginally stable earth
materials are present which will impact the stability of the planned cut slopes along the south
perimeter below Palomar Airport Road. Conventional cut-till grading methods may be utilized
to achieve design grades; however, selective grading consistent with the engineering properties
of site earth materials is recommended in order to achieve safe and stable slopes and building pads.
Iv. WATER
The project, upon ultimate development, will consist of industrial lots with a large coverage of
building and parking. Storm water runoff from each lot will be picked up in a subsurface storm
drain pipe and will flow underground into the public storm drain under the streets. The public
storm drain outlets into a detention basin which drains into a tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek.
The mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. As the
lots are developed, the site will absorb less water than in the undeveloped condition. The project
includes work to constrict the inlet to the existing storm drain culvert under Melrose Drive in the
City of Vista. This will create a detention basin to the east of Melrose Drive and reduce the peak
flow in the Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre-development conditions. Due to the
reduced peak flows, the project will have no impact on erosion downstream.
The project is creating roads and building pads that are not subject to inundation by storms, and
would not expose people or property to flooding hazards.
The development of the project into industrial lots will create an increase in pollutants
discharged in storm water. These pollutants, detailed in the Summary NPDES Study (“Study”)
entitled “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”, prepared for the
project by O’Day Consultants, include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and
oil and grease. The Study indicates a potential impact totaling 8 pounds of pollutants per acre
per year. Many of these pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in
the “first flush” of rainfall. The Study lists potential structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that will be used, their effectiveness at removing the anticipated pollutants, and some
preliminary sizing calculations. The sample BMPs listed in the study are:
Oxygen Demand
’ Water quality basin
m Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
Sediment
1 Water quality basin
. Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
12 Rev. 03128196
Nutrients
m Grass-lined swales
. Biological water quality basin
Heavy Metals
m Water quality basin
n Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
l Grass-lined swales .
Oil and Grease 1 Water quality basin
. Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
Each lot, upon development, will be required to construct BMPs selected and sized to remove the
type and quantity of the anticipated pollutants from the storm water before it enters the storm
drain system. The Study indicates that the BMPs will be maintained by the industrial park
association, and lists the required maintenance and schedule for the different BMPs. The storm
drain system empties into a detention basin prior to flowing into the Agua Hedionda Creek
tributary. This provides backup water quality treatment.
The project drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is an Impaired Waterbody on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. The beneficial uses of aquatic life, Recreation-l(non-
contact) and Recreation-2(contact), and shellfish harvest arc impaired by sediment, coliform and
coliform, respectively.
During construction, the project will be required to implement extensive erosion control
measures pursuant to City standards. These will be maintained by the developer and inspected
by the City, and will reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant during grading. After
grading is complete, the graded pads will each have a sediment basin onsite, to remove sediment
from storm water runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. The detention basin at the end
of the storm drain system provides redundancy. These mitigation measures will reduce the
impact of sediment to less than significant after grading operations. As the lots are developed,
they will be paved and landscaped, and the potential impact of sediment will be less than
significant.
The major source of coliform in storm water runoff is pet waste. Since this is an industrial
development, there is no impact of coliform.
Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface
water body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the
area to be graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than
significant. Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be
offset by infiltration from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind
Melrose Drive.
V. AIR 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
13 Rev. 03128196
? ,, ‘. ., ,-
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR.
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
The information presented in this section is summarized from the Palomar Forum Transportation Analysis (Urban Systems Associates, Inc March 7,200l)
The project will consist of approximately 45 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected
vehicle generation of 5,226 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 580 vehicle trips in the
AM peak hour (split 520 inbound and 60 outbound) and 625 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour
(split 122 inbound and 503 outbound).
The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to complete the City’s circulation
network in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are:
l Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to existing
improvements west of 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) in Vista to the
existing terminus (Orion) in Carlsbad This extension will add another arterial, parallel to
Palomar Airport Road serving direct access to the City’s industrial corridor and relieving
Rev.O3/28/96
. ‘, ,, ,? C
the pressure off of a Regional Arterial serving the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista and San
Marcos.
l Onsite, Street “A” Street will correct to the adjacent project to the north Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to Melrose Drive
and to Business Park Drive.
a) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of
increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway
connections and improvements to Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and
onsite streets are identified as mitigation for this project.
b) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safety and
also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widening of
Palomar Airport Road and intersection improvements at Melrose Drive will provide a safe
roadway free of lane transitions and bottleneck roadway design.
c) The arterial connection of Melrose Drive, and Faraday Ave. will improve emergency access.
e) The additional roadways of Melrose Drive and Faraday Ave. and the additional capacity of
Palomar Airport Road will facilitate alternate modes of transportation and provide for additional
routes of travel as well as reducing conflict and congestion on roadway.
f) The project as conditioned and designed will support alternative modes of transportation
including but not limited to: Additional bus routes, bus turnouts, bike lanes, car-pooling, ide
sharing, and walking.
Mitigation Plan:
Unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, there is likelihood
that a significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion will occur.
2. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for
the following roadways:
l Palomar Airport Road will be widened along the frontage of this project from the City of
Vista boundary to west of Melrose Drive. In addition, an additional right turn lane will be
provided at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive.
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 Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to:
Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, trafftc signal modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
2. Prior to recordation of 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.
15 Rev.O3/28/96
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
treeway 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
tiling 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 “PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report” prepared by Barry Jones,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. , the Palomar Forum property supports three vegetation
communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland. A
large portion of the property has been previously disced for agricultural purposes and currently
16 Rev. 03128196
---. . ‘, ., /-
exists as disturbed land. Additionally, several drainages containing ACOE jurisdictional non-
vegetated Waters of the U.S. exist on the property within the naturally vegetated small canyons
in the center of the site.. The following table identities the acreages of each vegetation
community:
Sensitive plant species observed on the site include Nuttall’s scrub oak, California adolphia, and
Western dichondra which occur in the southern mixed chaparral habitat on site. None of these
species is an HMP narrow endemic, i.e., required to be preserved.
A total of twenty-one animal species were observed or detected on site during site surveys,
however, the only sensitive species observed on site was the white tailed kite. Protocol surveys
for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted on March 2, 11, and 19, 2001 and no
gnatcatchers were observed or detected on the Palomar Forum site. There is also a low potential
for burrowing owl to occur on the site.
Wildlife Corridors
The project would potentially constrict wildlife movement across the site. To ensure continued
wildlife movement in accordance with the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan Q-IMP), the
project proposes a north-south wildlife corridor consisting of the easterly 1.5 acres (700 feet in
width) of the property that will help link open space within the Ranch0 Carrillo project to the
south with additional open space provided within the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
This open space corridor will connect to open space to the north, however, it is bisected by the
alignment of Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial roadway required for the project. A 12’ high
arched wildlife culvert is proposed below Mehose Drive (outside the floodplain) to provide a
connection to open space to the northwest.
As indicated by the above table, direct impacts to native habitats include all of the southern
mixed chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland.~ Impacts to Diegan coastal
sage scrub, chaparral and non-native grassland and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are considered significant.
17 Rev. 03128196
Mitieation
The City has adopted a Habitat Management Plan @IMP) 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 IIMP.
There are three components to the mitigation program: 1) onsite upland habitat restoration; 2) off-site upland habitat acquisition; and 3) off-site riparian restoration.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS)
Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub will be mitigated at a 1:l ratio. The on-site restoration will
include restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of currently disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub
within the wildlife corridor. Restoration of the corridor will maximize its value for wildlife. A
conceptual restoration plan will be developed prior to issuance of final map. The remaining
upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the acquisition of 1.5 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub at a site acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies, or through restoration of
DCSS habitat within open space on the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
Southern Mixed ChanarraliNon-native Grassland
Prior to approval of final map, applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and feasibility study for
a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road, and 2) pay the City $133,867.80 to
mitigate impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral. 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:
4 acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b) construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road,
cl other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
Wetlands
Impacts to .08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated by creation of .08 acre of
riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the Carlsbad Raceway property immediately
to the north and within the proposed HMP wildlife corridor.
Sensitive Soecies
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 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
18 Rev. 03128196
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.
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 tire 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-tire 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 tire 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 deEned in the most currently adopted
fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently
adopted fire code.
2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code -25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as
defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code -25532(g) shall prepare an offsite
consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations -2750.2 through -2750.3. If the OCA
shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store,
handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material
reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the
facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous
material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature,
wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of
19 Rev.O3/28/96
P
release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the
event of a release. Models can be performed under “worst case” meteorological and
chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is
determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is
the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
The “‘Pesticide Soil Assessment at Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
California” performed for by MV Environmental, Inc. concluded that based on limited soil
assessment of the property, residual pesticide contamination exists within the upper 2.5 feet of
soil on the property. Detection of DDT, DDE, and DDD pesticide concentrations were found to
range between <5Oug/kg and 50 @kg (parts per billion). These concentrations do not present a
human health concern when compared to the Federal Government’s Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs) for these compounds. MV Environmental concludes that since all resideual
concentrations analyzed are well below the posted Federal PRG concentrations, the shallow
occurrences of organochlorine pesticides do not represent an environmental endangerment to the
groundwater nor humans based on the range of concentrations and depths observed. The soil can
be used in the general grading of the site with the following mitigation:
Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of site development
that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in a manner which protects human
health and the environment. Measures necessary to prevent fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and
any off-site migration of pesticide contaminated soil are effective dust control, such as liberal
amounts of water,to reduce public exposure to these types of contaminants. Any activity
generating dust emissions shall be immediately stopped if excessive off-site migration of dust is
detected by City of Carlsbad Engineering Inspection.
To avoid an increase in the fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes
containing high fuel native vegetation, the project Landscape Plans identify a 30’ wide fire
suppression zone in which the 10’ closest to the top of slope must be landscaped in accordance
with the City’s Landscape Manual provisions for manufactured slopes (Zone A-2).
XI/XII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The
Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development
within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to
comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to
meet the additional demand generated by the project.
The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service
area. The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer
system. But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation
District @‘SD) 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 landfonn due to the necessity of grading
20 Rev. 03128196
. r-
large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced
below Palomar Airport Road along the eastern half of the property. As identified by photo
simulations prepared for the industrial project, the project will be visible from Palomar Airport
Road, a scenic corridor circulation arterial roadway and Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial
roadway. Fifty foot landscape setbacks in which large specimen trees are required adjacent to
these roadways will partially screen the development, and compliance with the approved
landscape plans will ensure that parking lots and manufactured slopes are screened. Potentially
significant visual impacts could result from future industrial development that is visible t?om
Palomar Airport Road or Mehose 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
t?om Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive includes: 1) 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; 2) prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural
elements that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; 3) prohibit loading bays
that are visible t?om Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive; and 4) require enhanced
architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible t?om Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive. These mitigation measures will be reviewed for compliance prior to approval of
the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The existence of archaeological resources has been documented on the property by two
archaeological reports, “Results of the Archaeological Significance Assessment” performed by
RECON for the Melrose Drive extension project dated October 11, 1999, and the “Draft
Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the Wimpey Gentry Property: SDi-9041,-9042, -9043,
and -9045, Carlsbad California” performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two
archaeological reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the
proposed Melrose alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two
additional sites not previously surveyed, SDi-10,550 and SDi-10,552. The 1989 RECON report
concluded that no significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-9041, 9042, and 9043. The
report recommended that since an important source of information could remain in the area of
SDi-9043 and SDi-9045 monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and
documentation would be necessary. The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining
portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad Raceway property is an important site that should be fenced during the (Carlsbad Raceway grading and construction activities), i.e. Melrose Drive
extension, for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no further work is
necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property has been
buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also indicated that no artifacts were recovered from SD&IO,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 l?om the proposed development are not
significant.
21 Rev. 03128196
? ., ., r
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 Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
22 Rev. 03128196
1. “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”, prepared by
G”Day & Associates, dated June 6,200l.
2. “Palomar Forum Transportation Analysis”, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
dated May 22,200l.
3. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Industrial Development-Byron White
Property” dated June 24, 1998, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.
4. “PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report” prepared by Helix Environmental
Planning, Inc., dated January 15, 1999; “Palomar Forum Biological Mitigation”, prepared
by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated April 16, 1999; Letters from Barry Jones,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to: Julie Vanderwier, USFWS dated July 1, 1998;
Letter (“Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the Carlsbad Raceway”), dated
April 19,200l; Letter to Ms Hysong dated August 28,200l
5. “Pesticide Soil Assessment at Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
California”, prepared by MV Environmental, Inc. dated July 28, 1998.
6. “Results of Archaeological Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-10,552, CA-SDI-10,550,
and a portion of CA-SDI-9045 for the Melrose Drive Extension Project”, prepared by
RECON dated October 11, 1999 and”Drafl Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the
Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-9041, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and SDi-9045, Carlsbad,
California” prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for
the following roadways:
. Palomar Airport Road will be widened t?om the City of Vista boundary west to existing
improvements west of Melrose Drive.
. Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in
the City of Vista.
l Gnsite, Street “A” Street will connect to the adjacent project to the north, Carlsbad
Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to Melrose Drive
and to Business Park Drive.
2. Prior to recordation of 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 &ion Way.
3. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the
provisions of the “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”
summary NPDES study prepared for the project by O’Day Consultants dated June 6,
2001.
4. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
l The on-site restoration will include restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of
currently disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub within the wildlife corridor.
23 Rev. 03/28/96
Restoration of the corridor will~maximize its value for wildlife. A conceptual
restoration plan will be developed prior to issuance of final map.
. The remaining upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the
acquisition of 1.5 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub at a site acceptable to the
City and wildlife agencies, or through restoration of DCSS habitat within open
space on the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
l Prior to approval of final map, applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and
feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; and
2) pay $133,867.80 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral. 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.
b.
C.
acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in
the City.
l Impacts to .08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated by
creation of .08 acre of riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the
Carlsbad Raceway property immediately to the north and within the proposed
HMP wildlife corridor.
l 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.
. Provide a 12’ high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
l 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.
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;
24 Rev. 03128196
l Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
. Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible
t?om 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) m excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as
defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code -25532(g) shall prepare an offsite
consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with
Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations -2750.2 through -2750.3. If the OCA
shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store,
handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material
reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the
facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
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. Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of site
development that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in a manner
which protects human health and the environment. Measures necessary to prevent
fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and any off-site migration of pesticide contaminated soil are effective dust control, such as liberal amounts of water,to reduce public exposure to
these types of contaminants. Any activity generating dust emissions shall be immediately
stopped if excessive off-site migration of dust is detected by City of Carlsbad
Engineering Inspection.
25 Rev.O3/28/96
? ., ‘. . . .-
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
8 Isolo\
Date
k h
Signature ’ /
Rev. 03/28/96
.-
. . . . .
. .., ,-
. . . ,-
. ‘9 . .