HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-04; City Council; 16446; Carlsbad Raceway Industrial ParkCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# IL,4417 m: DEPT. HD.
MTG. 12-4-01 CARLSBAD RACEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK CITY ATTY. aa
DEPT. PLN GPA 98-05lZC 01-O’IILFMP 8748(B) CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. MS- b 10 , APPROVING ZC 01-07, ADOPT
Resolution No. aoo \ - 35 I ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and APPROVING the Local Facilities Management Plan
Amendment, LFMP 87-18(B), based upon the findings contained therein, and APPROVING the
General Plan Amendment, GPA 98-05 in concept to be combined with the other changes to be
approved as part of General Plan Amendment, GPA 01-05.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At the October 17, 2001 public hearing, the Planning Commission approved (7-O) a tentative map,
hillside development permit, and planned industrial permit for an industrial subdivision with 25
industrial lots and 3 open space lots, and recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management
Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment would eliminate the Office (0) designation from
the existing PI/O land use designation, and redesignate the proposed open space to the OS
designation. The elimination of the 0 designation would ensure consistency with the property’s P-M
zoning which limits commercial/office uses to those serving the occupants of the industrial park. The
Zone Change would rezone the open space to the O-S zone classification to ensure consistency
with the proposed OS General Plan designation. The Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
Amendment updates the plan to reflect developed and proposed land uses and to incorporate
revised sewer, drainage and circulation facilities requirements. Special conditions of the LFMP
amendment include improvements to Palomar Airport Road, the construction of Melrose Drive, a
financial guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue, and conditions for allowing a temporary
sewer connection to the City of Vista Raceway Pump Station and outfall.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Based on an environmental impact assessment in which potentially significant impacts to water
quality, circulation, hazards, biological resources and aesthetics were identified and mitigation
measures were formulated to reduce the identified impacts, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration on July 15, 2001. Comments were received during the 30-day public comment
period from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), the Department of Toxic Substances, Preserve Calavera, the Sierra Club and one
individual. Due to comments received from the USFWS and CDFG regarding biological impacts, the
Planning Director recirculated the Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 6, 2001 with added
biological mitigation. During the second 30-day public comment period, comments were received
from Preserve Calavera, lsabelle Kay, Manager of the Dawson Los Manos Canyon Reserve, the
Department of Toxic Substances, USFWS and CDFG. The letters received from the USFWS and
CDFG indicated their concurrence with the proposed biological mitigation measures. At the Planning
Commission hearing, Planning staff responded to public comments regarding the processing of a mitigated negative declaration instead of an EIR, and the adequacy of the environmental analyses
for biological resources, noise, cultural resources, public services and utilities, air quality, energy -esources, water quality, traffic, and hazardous materials.
‘Ill
‘Ill
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ! b (4 L) b
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required improvements needed to serve this project would be funded by the developer. The
Facility Financing Section of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan amendment lists the
financing techniques being used to guarantee the public facilities needed to serve development
within Zone 18.
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance No. NS-lolO
2. City Council Resolution No. _ a001 -3.51
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5024, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5028, 5029 and 5030
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 17, 2001
6. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 17, 2001.
a
1
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
ORDINANCE NO. Ns-610
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF
THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 01-07,
FROM P-M TO O-S ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN MELROSE DRIVE AND THE
CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO.: zc 01-07
~ The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.050.30 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the map marked Exhibit “ZC 01-07” attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set
forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5027 on file in the Planning Department constitute
the findings and conditions of the City Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
fifteen days after its adoption
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 4th dayof DECEMBER , 2001, and thereafter.
llll
Ill1
llll
llll
lfll
Illi
l/II
‘4
1
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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City 01
Carlsbad on the day of , 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2- a ,
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE zc: 01-07
draft q final 0
Project Name: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park 1 Related Case File No(s):
Legal Description(s): GPA 98-OULFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-1 OlHDP 98-091PIP Parcel 1: The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter . , 01-01
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 bv 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 38: 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.
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
official 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, 199, in
Book 7669, Page 361 of official records. .
Zone Change Approvals
Property: From: To: Council Approval Date:
221-01 l-03 Ordinance No:
221-01 l-04
221-01 l-05
221-010-22 P-M P-M, O-S
Attach additional oases if necessarv
,SITE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
P-M
P-M, OS
@
WONIll
CARLSBAD RACEWAY
BUSINESS PARK
zc 01-07
1
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-351r.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A RECIRCULATED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REDESIGNATE THE
PROPERTY FROM PI/O TO PI AND ZONE 18 LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN MELROSE DRIVE AND
THE CITY’S EASTERN BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 18. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO.: GPA 98-05/ZC 01-07/LFMP 87-l 8(B)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 17, 2001, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment GPA 98-05 to
redesignate the property from PI/O to PI and OS, Zone Change ZC 01-07 to redesignate the
proposed open space to O-S, and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
LFMP 87-18(B) to update the LFMP and incorporate revised facilities requirements. The
Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5024, 5025, and 5026,
recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 4th day of DECEMBER , 2001
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, and
Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
General Plan Amendment, and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment;
1 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as
2 follows:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5024, 5025, and 5026 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are adopted and Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5024 and 5026 as modified to be
consistent with No. 5 below, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference .
4. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for a General Plan Amendment GPA 98-05, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5025, is hereby
accepted, approved in concept and shall be formally approved in connection with General Plan
Amendment GPA 01-05.
5. That Condition No. 46 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5028 for
CT 98-10 is amended to read as follows:
Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first, a financial guarantee for the construction, as specified in the appropriate agency
permissions, of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive
shall be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 4th day of DECEMBER 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
24 t/ ATTEST: I
25
26
27
28
LO%@JNE%?! WOD, fi& Clerk
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Ass%$tant City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHMT 3
,SITE
@
Nocm
CARLSBAD RACEWAY
BUSINESS PARK
GPA 98-05/ZC 01 -Q7/LFMP 87=18(B)
1
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
EXHIBIT 4
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 1
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
CASE NO.: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ZC Ol-07/CT 98-101
HDP 98-09/PIP 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
10
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
official 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 official 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W 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 PESO NO. 5024 -2-
1
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
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 EL4 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:
MICHAEL J.~H&?ZMIL#%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5024 -3- /3
citv of Carlsbad
RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR4TION
Project Address/Location: North side of Palomar Airport Road benveen 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)/CT 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.carlsbad.ca.us @
E!‘a-VIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORhI - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNl-NG DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 98-05i ZC 0 I-07LFMP 87- 18(B)!CT 9% 1 OIHDP 98-09 ;PIP 0 1-O 1
DATE: May 3,ZOOl
RECIRCULATION DATE: August 3 1.200 1
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Racewav Business Park
2. APPLICANT: Hofinan Planning Associates/Racewav Properties. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 438-1465
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 4,1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office
[O) General Plan Designation and redesimate 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 Citv’s eastern
boundarv and future Melrose Drive. The proiect desig;n 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 remaininp segment of
Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the Citv of Vista boundarv and the extension of
Poinsettia Avenue (Street “B”) from its existing westerlv terminus in the City 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.
Ix] Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
q Population and Housing IsI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources [x1 Aesthetics
H Water Ix) Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality c] Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
q
q
IXI
q
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the en\*ironmrnt.
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.
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 ot‘a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that mighr be
impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration. or to rely
on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No
Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards
and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on
the environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative. Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are
present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have
been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required
(Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the
project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
I7
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR I!
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 re\ie\v. In this case. the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” ma\. be checked
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 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: (21 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
proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-
18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
a)
b)
c>
proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#I: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)
a> b) c)
4
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; ##4)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l :Pgs 5.1- 1 - 5. l-l 5)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1.15; #4)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;
#J) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; ##4)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15’
++J) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #4)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15; #4)
e)
g>
h) 9
q
q
q
cl q q
q
q
El
q
q q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
(XI
q
q q q
q
q
q
q
cl q
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
cl
q
q
cl
Potentially.
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Sifnificanr
Impact
El
El
q
q
q
s 0
Impar
q
q
El
Ix1
lxl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
c)
4
4
0
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? (#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..2111)
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- 1 -
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
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
IXI
q
q
q
IXI
PotentialI!. Less Than 1\,~
Significant Significsnr lmpk-1
Unless lmpsct
Mitigation
incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
Lsl cl
q ‘EJ
q q
q Ix1
q El
q IE3
q IXI
q IXI
q lxl
q q
q El
q IXI
q Ix1
cl’ cl
6 Rev. 03/28&6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
c>
4
e)
f)
g>
VII.
4
b)
c)
d)
4
VIII.
4
b)
cl
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- 1 -
5.4124; #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)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
sl
q
q
q
q
q
q
. q
q
q
q
q
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
Ix1
q
Cl
q
q
IXI
q
q
Less Thrln
Significanr
lmpacr
q
q
q
cl
El
q
q
q
q
q
Cl
q ‘cl Ix1
q -El IXI
q q ISI
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
c>
4
e>
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)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I -
5.10.1-5)
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-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ()
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1- 1 -
5.12.8-7)
4 b) c> 4
4
XII.
4
b)
c)
d)
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-l - 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-g)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-
3)
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q q q q
q
q
1
q
cl q
Potentially.
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
lsI
lsl
q
Ix1
q
cl
q
Less Than
Significsnt
Impact
q
q
cl
q
IXI
lxl
q
q
q q
q
q q
q
q cl
Ix1
q q
Rev. 03/28/96
TiCI
Impxr
D
q
IXI
q
q
cl
IXI
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g>
XIII.
a>
b)
c>
XIV.
a>
b)
c>
4
e>
xv.’
a)
b)
XVI.
a>
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
PotentialI!
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
IXI
‘Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
LSI
151
q
Ix1
El
q
q
q
q
Ix1
q
Ii:0
IlllpXI
q
q
Cl
IXI
q
cl
Ix1
IXI
(x1
lx
q
q
Rev. 03/28/96 2 2 s.d
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b)
c>
XVII.
Does the project have impacts that are q
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 q which will cause the substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentiall! Less Than
Significant Signific3nt
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incomorated &I q
\;o
lnqu~t
G
q 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.
c> Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Setting
The Carlsbad Raceway property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City.‘s northeast
quadrant. The property is surrounded by open space and industrial park development to the north.
vacant industrial property and a small commercial development in .the City of Vista to the east, 3
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 propep in which a
drainage spans most of the length of the property. Tributaries to the main drainage occur in hvo
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. A\.enue between its
existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City’s easterly boundap. These
extensions of prime and secondary arterial roadways are part of the Cic‘s circulation snenal
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 indirect]!
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 summaq 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 coliform has not been
established for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently
in the process of developing six TMDL’s in the San Diego area. Since the TMDL priority for
12 Rev. 03/28/96
coliform in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed as low, it will be some time before a T.IlDL 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)
9 Wet ponds
. Biofilters
. Etended ponds
. Media filtration
m Oil/water sep.
m Multiple systems
Nutrients
. Constructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
m Wet ponds
. Biofilters
n Etended ponds
n Media filtration
n Oil/water sep.
m Multiple systems
13 Rev. 03/28/96
Heavy Metals
. Infiltrationiconstructed wetlands (most effective BMP)
n Wet ponds
. 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 flow into the Agua Hedionda Creek
tributary.
Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface water
body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the area to be
graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than significant.
Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be offset by infiltration
from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind Melrose Drive.
V. AIR 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. 03/28/96
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements- prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially
Significant Impact*‘. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01. by City Council Resolution
No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This
“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final
Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
(The information presented in this section is summarized from the Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park
Transportation Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated May 3,2001)
The project will consist of approximately 75 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected
vehicle generation of 10,320 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 1,135 vehicle trips in the AM
peak hour (split 1,022 inbound and 114 outbound) and 1,238 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (split
248 inbound and 99 1 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 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 Drivel Business Park Drive.
A) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased
vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway connections and
improvements to Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave., (Street “B”) connecting a
network of roadways adjacent to Palomar Airport Road are identified as mitigation for this project.
(See mitigation plan below).
15 Rev. 03/28196
B) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safec, and
also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widerung 01
Palomar Airport Road intersection at Melrose Drive will provide a safer roadwa!, 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 necessarydue 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, traMic signal modification
and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
30
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
th.e City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
A financing mechanism for the above-mentioned improvements is identified in the Local Facilip
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
till 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 circulatipn 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
3,
USFWS, the site supports six vegetation-communities: coastal and valley freshlvater marsh. southttm
willow scrub, mule fat scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral. and non-nsri\-r
grassland. In addition, there are disturbed habitat/agriculture and developed areas. !!*ith 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 rac‘ew‘a!
operations. The following table identifies the acreages of each vegetation communiv:
Vegetation Community Acreage
Upland
Diegan
Southern Mixed Chanarral
I
19.2 /.
26.3
I Non-native Grassland I 32.6 /
I RiDarian/Wetiand I
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Other
Aericulture
0.8
3.42
0.18
4.7
Disturbed Habitat 57.8
TOTAL: 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 19,2001,
and no gnatcatchers were observed or detected on the Raceway site, however, one individual
gnatcatcher was heard north of the site in chamise chaparral on one occasion during the first survey.
This bird could not be relocated during the two subsequent surveys.
The most significant resources on site are the wetland habitats and the Diegan coastal sage scrub
along the northern property boundary. Direct impacts that result from the project total 112.01 of the
145 acres and are shown on the following table:
Vegetation
IMPACTS
Acreage Acres Acres
Community
Upland
Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub
Southern Mixed
Chaparral*
Non-native Grassland*
19.2
26.3
32.6
Impacted
9.6
21.6
28.0
Preserved
9.6
4.7
4.6
18 Rev. 03/28/&5
3.2
) -- / /
Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Other
/ !
0.77 .15 .62
3.42 .53 3.05 f 0.18 .13 / .05 /
Agriculture 1 4.7 4.7 0 1 Disturbed Habitat 57.8 47.3 10.53
TOTAL: 145.0 112.01 33.15
*Impacts to southern mixed chaparral total 2 1.6 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 Total Impacts Remaining
1.28 0.24 0.24 1.04
0.51 0.18 0.18 0.33
4.79 0.91 0.91 3.88
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITATS
Jurisdictional Habitat Federal State
(acres) (acres)
L 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
33
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. Additionall!,. impacts K-I
sensitive plant species including California adolphia and summer holy and potential impacts to the
burrowing owl require mitigation.
Mitigation
The City has adopted a Habitat Management Plan (I-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 HMP.
DiePan Coastal Sape Scrub (DCSS)
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 ChanarraVNon-native Grassland/Street “B” wildlife crossing
Prior to approval of final map, the applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and feasibility study for
a potential .wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; 2) either construct an acceptable wildlife
crossing on Street “B” or shall pay the City $100,000 to mitigate the effect of the Street “B” crossing
of the wildlife corridor if an acceptable wildlife crossing is not constructed; and 3) shall pay the City
$225,865.90 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland ($3,949/acre) and chaparral ($7,897/acre).
If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the feasibility study shall not be required, and
the funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the designated core area as described in the
City’s HMP. If the HMP is not approved, the City in consultation with the wildlife agencies, will
determine the most beneficial use of funds including but not limited to one or more of the following:
a) acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b) construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c) other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
Wetlands
A total of approximately .48 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional areas (2: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. 03/28/%
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 remo\ ed
from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. The restoration
total for the project is 1.84 acres.
Sensitive Species
A minimum of 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly will be planted as container stock
within the upland restoration areas.
Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of the burrowing
owl. If the owl is observed on the site, it will be relocated to open space on the site.
The applicant shall use native plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscaped areas adjacent to
and/or near mitigation/open space areas and/or wetlandriparian areas. The applicant shall not plant,
seed, or otherwise introduce invasive exotic plant species to the landscaped areas adjacent andior
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, myopomm, blak
locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch
broom, and Spanish broom.
The project would require authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game (1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement) and may require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for stream and wetland impacts. The project will
also require Incidental Take Authorization (Section 10(a) process) under the Federal Endangered
Species Act.
A mitigation monitoring program will be required as part of the final wetland and coastal sage scrub
restoration program. This restoration program shall be approved by the City and wildlife agencies
prior to commencement of construction activities. The project has been conditioned to require the
developer or his successor in interest to maintain and protect the open space/wildlife corridor until
such time that ownership is transferred to the City or its designee. Simultaneous with the transfer of
ownership, the developer would be responsible for the transfer of funding or other acceptable
financial mechanism to provide for the management and conservation of the open space in
perpetuity.
To summarize, the proposed mitigation plan consists of the following:
Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site.
Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor.
Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix.
Create 1.84 acres of wetland habitat.
Plant as container stock 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly in upland restoration
areas.
Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction and relocate if necessary.
Use native plants and avoid invasive exotic species in landscaped areas adjacent to
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas.
Provide a 12’ high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
Obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and California Department of Fish and Game prior to final map approval.
21 Rev. 03/28/96
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 S 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 (53.949:acre) and
chaparral (.$7,897/acre).
l If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the engineering and feasibilit\p stud>
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.
l If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval, the City in consultation with the
wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds including but not
limited to one or more of the following:
a. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b. construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
VIII. HAZARDS
Due to the project’s proximity to existing residential development located to the south across
Palomar Airport Road and within 1,000 feet, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the project could
pose a potentially significant risk to residents through exposure resulting from the accidental release
of hazardous substances. Generally, the Fire Marshal has requested that safeguards be incorporated
into the project to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of hazardous materials that
could otherwise be allowed under current fire or building code regulations as well as applicable state
or federal statutes. Of major concern was the storage or use of hazardous materials that could pose
hazards even under non-fire conditions and may not provide adequate warning or notification of a
hazardous condition to either the occupants in the residential areas and/or the fire department.
Based on research of building and fire codes as well as state and federal statutes, the Fire Department
agreed to mitigation conditions that would significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous
substances:
1. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or
use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at
quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire
code.
2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code -25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined
in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in
the California Health and Safety Code -25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence
analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations -2750.2 through -2750.3. If the OCA shows the release
22 Rev. 03/28/96
could impact the residential. community, the facility will not store. handle or use the
material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance
to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to
utilize the material in that quantity.
Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material
can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature. IFind 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 needed. It was noted, however, that the
due to the past application of oil for dust control on the unpaved entry road a thin layer,
approximately l/8 inch - % 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
-gF adjacent property draining agriculture residue onto Raceway property; 4) 55 gallon drums labeled /_ Race Gas located in drag strip pit area; and 5) potential agricultural chemical residue in on-site
stream sediments resulting from up-stream greenhouse activity north and east of the site (Mount
Olive Floral and Marflor Farms). The results of the 1997 assessment revealed no concentrations of
hydrocarbons or agricultural chemical residue exceeding regulatory action levels or high enough to
be an environmental concern to occupants/tenants of the proposed development. The subsequent
1998 site assessment update included further soil sampling at the Raceway property that focused on
the petroleum hydrocarbons either stored on-site, disposed on-site, or accidentally spilled or leaked
into surficial soils of the property. The tests revealed only small concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons with the exception of the paved/oiled entry road where a very thin layer of TRPH
(6,200 mg/kg concentration) contamination at a depth of approximately 4 inches. MVE concludes
23 Rev. 03/28/96 37
that the only exposure concern this contaminant presents to human receptors if left on-site 15 b!
ingestions and that an option to disposal would be a number of non-sensitive fill areas on rhc
property where this soil can be used in grading since a large percentage of the propev \vil be pa,ed
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 mith these hem,!.
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).
lx. 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 IJTILITIES
The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The
Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development
within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to
comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to meet
the additional demand generated by the project.
The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service area.
The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer system.
But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation
District (VSD) to the Raceway sewer lift station. The Zone Plan provides for temporary sewer in the
City of Vista’s Buena Interceptor subject to a flow transfer agreement between the City of Carlsbad
and the City of Vista. This provision is made because the property is part of the Raceway Sewer Lift
Station Assessment District in the City of Vista.
XIII. AESTHETICS
While the project will result in alteration of the existing landform due to the necessity of grading
large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced
24 Rev. 03/28/96
38
below and partially screened by the Palomar Forum industrial development proposed on the propen!-
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 adjacenr 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-904 l ,-9042, -9043, and -
9045, Car&bad California” performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two archaeological
reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the proposed Melrose
alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two additional sites not
previously surveyed, SDi-10,550 and SDi-10,552. The 1989. RECON report concluded that no
significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-9041,9042, and 9043. The report recommended that
since an important source of information could remain in the area of SDi-9043 and SDi-9045
monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and documentation would be necessary.
The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad
Raceway property is an important site that should be fenced during the Carlsbad Raceway grading
and construction activities for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no
further work is necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property
has been buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also
indicated that no artifacts were recovered from SDi-10,550 and that the artifacts from SDi-10,552
revealed that it was a small stone flaking station offering no substantive contribution to our current
understanding of the prehistoric pattern for this area. No further work is recommended for these two
sites. The report concludes that the three sites investigated are not significant cultural resources;
therefore, impacts from the proposed development are not significant.
XVI. RECREATIONAL
The Carlsbad Raceway has operated under conditional use permit since 1963. The conditional use
permit for the motocross and drag racing activities expires in February, 2002. The property has been
designated for industrial land use for many years and within the past five years, the property has been
surrounded by industrial, residential, and commercial development. Although the Carlsbad
Raceway offers an existing recreational opportunity, its viability as a compatible conditional use in
an urbanized area has weakened. The proposed development, which is consistent with the General
Plan land use designation and is a permitted use, is the intended land use.
25 Rev. 03/28/96 39
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 Cit>.-wide trail
segment that bisects the property from Melrose Drive to the adjacent property to the ivest. The F’
wide trail will connect to another City-wide trail segment proposed through the canyon to the west.
The mini-park is intended to be utilized by employees of the surrounding industrial park as an
outdoor eating area.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the Cig of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760)
602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Renort 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, 2001; and Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin (“Addendum to the
Biological Resources Report for the Carlsbad Raceway Project”), dated May 11, 2001; and
Letter to Ms. Anne Hysong from Helix Environmental Planning dated August 28,200l.
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”Draft Archaeological Testiong of Four Sites at the
Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-9041, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and Sdi-9045, Carlsbad,
California” prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989.
Rev. 03/28/96 26
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 6,200l.
3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site.
Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor.
Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix.
Create 1.84 acres of wetland habitat.
Plant as container stock 100 California adolphia and 20 summer holly in upland
restoration areas.
Conduct burrowing owl surveys prior to construction and relocate if necessary.
Use native plants and avoid invasive exotic species in landscaped areas adjacent to
mitigation/open space areas and/or wetland/riparian areas.
Provide a 12’ high arched wildlife movement under-crossing ‘at Melrose Drive.
Obtain all necessary permits from the U.S. Army Carp 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 pptential wildlife crossing
under Palomar Airport Road;
27 Rev. 03/28/96
m either construct an acceptable wildlife crossing on Street “B” or pa\’ S 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 (S3.949,acre)
and chaparral (S7,897/acre).
. If the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the engineering and feasibilin.
study shall not be required, and the mitigation funds shall be used for acquisition of
acreage in the designated core area as described in the City’s HMP.
. If the HMP is not approved prior to final map approval, the City in consultation with
the wildlife agencies, will determine the most beneficial use of mitigation funds
including but not limited to one or more of the following:
a. acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b.construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
c. other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the
City.
4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures will
be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for
each lot.
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.
28 Rev. 03/28/96
Note: Computer models may. be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous
material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature. uind
speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released. material properties and type of release
(e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. hlodels can be
. overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the e\.ent yf‘ 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 MITIGATIOK MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVXEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES .YiP
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
r / ,c. ! I F3 i’ Qlbf
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 4 of 5
-
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 5 of 5
ADDENDUM TO CARLSBAD RACXWAY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigation Measure No. 1 on Pane 27 Gst 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 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 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 Panes 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.
1
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. 5025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP 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
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 offtcial 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.
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
official plat thereof, excepting therefrom one-half of all mineral in, on or
1
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
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.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibits “GPA 98-05” dated August 15,2001, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department and attached hereto, CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR -
GPA 98-05, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of August, 2001, 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;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS
PARR - GPA 98-05 based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project including the proposed General Plan
amendment to redesignate the property from PI/O to PI and OS, as conditioned
herein, is in conformance with the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the City’s
General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated August 15, 2001
I including, but not limited to the following:
0 The elimination of the 0 designation from the existing PI/O General Plan
designation is consistent with the existing land use designation in that the
Office “0” designation is unnecessary since professional offices that are
incidental to the industrial uses and not retail in nature, are permitted by P-
’ PC BESO NO. 5025 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
l The redesignation to Open Space of property proposed to be dedicated as an
open space easement within Lots 26, 27, and 28 is consistent with the Open
Space Element in that the open space is identified as a wildlife habitat
corridor (Linkage Area D) in the City’s draft HMP.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum LFMP 87-
18(B), ZC 01-07, CT 98-10, HDP 98-09, PIP 01-01, and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 5024, 5026, 5027, 5029, and 5030 for
those other approvals.
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:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
I PC RESO NO. 5025 -3-
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA: 98-05
draft j-J final 0
I Project Name: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park
Legal Description(s):
I Related Case File No(s):
ZC Ol-O’IILFMP 8748(B)/CT 98-IOlHDP 98.
09/PIP 01-01 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, exceotino 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 38: 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.
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 official 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 19,199, in Book 7669, Page
361 of official records. .
G.P. Map Designation Change Approvals
Property 1 From: 1 To: Council Approval Date:
A. 221-011-03 1 I Resolution No:
221-01 I-04
221-01 I-05 221-01 o-22 PI/O PI, OS
Attach additional pages if necessary
*SITE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PI/O
PI, OS
CARLSBAD RACEWAY
BUSINESS PARK
GPA 98-05
57
1
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
I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ZONE 18 TO
UPDATE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR AND PALOMAR FORUM ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN MELROSE DRIVE AND
BUSINESS PARR DRIVE.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
CASE NO. : LFMP 87-18(B)
WHEREAS, Raceway Partners, LLC has tiled a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Facilities
Management Plan Amendment for Zone 18 dated August 15, 2001, on file in the Planning
Department) and incorporated by this reference (collectively referred to as the “Local Facilities
Management Plan Amendments”), as provided in Section 2 1.90.125 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of August 2001, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of an amendment for Local Facilities
Management Plan - Zone 18, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
1
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
Findiws:
1. That the Local Facilities Management Plan amendment for Zone 18 is consistent with
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the
Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that special conditions for parks, drainage
facilities, circulation, schools, sewer collection system, and water collection system, to
ensure that public facilities meet demand in the zone are included. This ensures
implementation of and consistency with the General Plan and protects the public health,
safety and welfare by ensuring that public facilities and improvements will be installed to
serve new development prior to or concurrently with need.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted for an amendment to Local Facilities Management Plan - Zone 18 as
contained in the Plan titled Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 18, dated August 15,
2001, on file in the Planning Department, and incorporated herein by reference. The
amended Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan, dated August 15, 2001, shall
replace in its entirety, the Zone 18 LFMP dated November 5,1996.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, 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:
JEFFMN. SEGAI&%hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&&MILKER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5026 -2-
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. 5027
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE 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: zc 01-07 .
II 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.
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 official 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 official records.
1
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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibits “ZCA 01-07” dated August 15, 2001, on file in the Planning Department,
CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - ZC 01-07 as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of August, 2001, 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;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS
PARR - ZC 01-07 based on the following findings:
Find&s:
1. That the proposed Zone Change from P-M to O-S for land dedicated as an open space
easement within Lots 26, 27, and 28 is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Open Space element of the General Plan, in that the General Plan designates the land
as Open Space.
2. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use
Element, in that the Zone Change will rezone property redesignated as General Plan
Open Space to be zoned O-S.
3. That the Zone Change is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general
welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that it ensures the
protection of sensitive resources that will create a connection between core habitat
preserve areas through preservation of a portion of Linkage Area D consistent with
the City’s draft HMP.
PC PESO NO. 5027 * -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
19
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 98-05,
LFMP 87-18(B), CT 98-10, HDP 98-09, and PIP 01-01 and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 5024, 5025, 5026, 5028, 5029, and
5030 for those other approvals.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5027 -3-
1
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, 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:
CARLSBAD PLANNING tiOMMISSION
1 ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HtiZMILk?ER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5027 -4-
1
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. 5028
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 98-10 TO 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.: CT 98-10
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.
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 official 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 official records.
1
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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibits “A” - “CC” dated August 15, 2001, on file in the Planning
Department, CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - CT 98-10, as provided by
Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
/ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of August, 2001, 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, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - CT 98-10, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the design and improvements for the map are in compliance with all applicable city
policies and standards, and necessary public facilities and services needed to serve
the development will be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings proposed
within the project.
2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding finure land uses since
surrounding properties to the north, south, and west are designated for and/or
developed with Planned Industrial land uses, and property to the east consists of
existing commercial development in the City of Vista. The project is also compatible with residentially designated and developed property to the south in that
the uses are separated by Palomar Airport Road, and environmental mitigation
PC RESO NO. 5028 -2-
1
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
measures are imposed on the project to prohibit the use and storage of hazardous
materials except as permitted by the Carlsbad Fire Department.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate non-residential development at the
intensity proposed, in that the project meets all of the requirements of the P-M zone
without the need for a variance from development standards and all required public
facilities and services will be provided.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that all existing easements of record within the project are consistent with the
proposal or shall be relocated as necessary concurrent with the recordation of the
final map.
5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that the area is dominated
by westerly wind patterns which allows the use of natural heating and cooling
opportunities and the subdivision design consists of large industrial lots that will be
developed with ample building separation to enable proper air circulation.
7. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has
been designed in accordance with the best Management Practices for water quality
protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards. In addition,
the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standard to prevent any discharge violations.
8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that mitigation required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for
the project dated July 15, 2001 will reduce potentially significant environmental
impacts to circulation, hazards, air quality, and biological resources to below
significant levels.
9. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated August 15,2001, including, but not limited to the following:
A. Land Use - The site is designated for Planned Industrial land use and the
proposed industrial lots are consistent with the Planned Industrial General
Plan designation. The redesignation of the wildlife habitat corridor open
space easement to Open Space is consistent with the General Plan to
redesignate and preserve natural resource areas.
, PC RESO NO. 5028 -3-
1
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
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Circulation - The project will construct: Melrose Drive along its frontage
including median, signalization, additional turn lanes and curb and gutter;
Street “B” (Poinsettia Avenue) from its existing terminus west of Business
Park Drive to Melrose Drive; and financially guarantee the construction of
Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose Drive.
Noise - Temporary construction activities are required to comply with the
City’s noise standards.
Housing - The project is conditioned to pay a non-residential affordable
housing impact linkage fee if adopted by City Council.
Open Space and Conservation - The project preserves 43.36 acres of open
space consistent with the City’s HMP, redesignates and rezones the open
space easement to General Plan Open Space (O-S), and dedicates and
constructs a Citywide Trail segment.
Public Safety - Mitigation measures are required to avoid exposure to
contaminated soils and to significantly reduce risk of exposure to hazardous
substances stored within the subdivision. All required streets, sidewalks,
street lights, and fire hydrants will be constructed in accordance with City
standards. Compliance with the P-M zoning regulations at the time the
proposed lots are developed will ensure consistency with the McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) provisions for development within
the flight activity zone.
10. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically;
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the San Marcos Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
C. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
D. Special conditions for drainage, sewer, water and circulation facilities as
specified in the Zone 18 LFMP amendment (LFMP 87-18(B)).
11. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994. The project is compatible with the
PC RESO NO. 5028 -4-
1
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
12.
13.
14.
projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix
of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that the proposed
industrial lots will be developed in the future in accordance with the P-M zone
standards for use and building height.
This project incorporates all findings of Planning Commission Resolutions 5024,
5025,5026,5027,5029 and 5030.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the ,exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to approval of
final map or issuance of grading permit, whichever occurs first.
1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this tentative tract map.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
5. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RBSO NO. 5028 -5-
1
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
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions or resulting from
the location of the project within the flight activity zone of McClellan Palomar
Airport. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and
continues even if the City’s approval is not validated.
The Developer shall submit to Engineering Department a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Tentative Map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision
making body.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving /resolution(s) in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the San Marcos Unified School District that this project has satisfied its
obligation to provide school facilities.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits including but not limited to the
following:
a) Park in lieu fees in the amount of $.40 per square foot of nonresidential building.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 98-05,
LFMP 87-18(B), ZC 01-07, HDP 98-09, PIP 01-01, and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 5024, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5029, and
5030 for those other approvals.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect
shall be placed on the Final Map.
Housinp (Non-Residential)
13. The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
PC PESO NO. 5028 -6-
1
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
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have
to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution
and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or
resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the
linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits,
except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an
existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map,
parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD,
whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this
project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
become null and void.
Landscape
14. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape
and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan
and the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all
landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
16. Prior to approval of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall execute a document or documents to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director and the City Attorney which accomplish at a minimum the
following:
A. continued ownership of open space lots 26,27, and 28 by the Developer or its
successor in interest
B. while in continued private ownership, active maintenance to protect and
preserve the quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable
prevention of trespass); and
C. transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility at some future date to
the City or its designee simultaneously with transfer of funding or other
acceptable financial mechanism to provide for management and conservation
in perpetuity. (The cost of management is currently estimated to be
approximately $85.00 per acre per year).
17. The Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park (Lots 1 - 25) shall be limited to a total of
1,411,286 square feet of building area in accordance with the Zone 18 Local Facilities
Management Plan buildout projections.
18. The Developer shall establish an owner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
PC RESO NO. 5028 -7-
1
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
A. General Enforcement bv the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
B. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to
the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have
the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be
transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record.
C. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section
the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary
maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give
written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project,
setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required
and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty
(30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to
carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be
entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to
reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein.
D. Special Assessments Levied bv the Citv. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
’ PC RESO NO. 5028 -8-
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
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The Association and individual lot or
unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth by the
approved landscape plan on fde at the City ‘of Carlsbad Planning
Department. Maintenance responsibility for the “mini-park” located west of
Melrose Drive which shall serve employees of the Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park and Palomar Forum industrial development shall be shared
with the Palomar Forum industrial development to the south based on the
percentage of industrial pad area in each development.
The development of each lot within the subdivision shall comply with
environmental mitigation measures set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution 5024 dated October 17,200l.
Open Space Maintenance Responsibilities: The Association open space maintenance responsibilities for Open Space Lots 26,27, and 28, shall consist
of active maintenance to protect and preserve the quality of the habitat
(including but not limited to reasonable prevention of trespass) as required
by USFWS and CDFG until some future date at which time ownership will
be transferred to the City or its designee for perpetual maintenance.
Open Space Maintenance Financial ResuonsibiliWObli~ation: Simultaneous
with the transfer of ownership of open space Lots 26,27, and 28 to the City
or its designee, the HOA shall provide funding or other acceptable financial
mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. (The
cost of management is currently estimated to be approximately $85.00 per
acre per year).
Total BuildinP Sauare FootaPe Monitoring Oblipation: The total square
footage permitted within the Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park shall be
limited to 1,411,286 square feet of building area. Prior to building permit
submittal for any structure on any lot within the subdivision (Lots 1 - 25),
the HOA shall review the plans and ensure that a tabulation of total square
feet to date is provided. The tabulation of total square feet shall be shown on
the building plan set; otherwise, building plans will be rejected by the City.
The Association shall ensure that every lot within the Carlsbad Raceway
Business Park is guaranteed a share of the total building area.
19. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the
Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall
include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities
shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the
project.
PC RESO NO. 5028 -9-
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
;
2
;
2
;
;
;
2
;
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall: 1) consult with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impacts of the Project; and, 2) obtain
any permits required by the USWFS.
Prior to the issuance of the final map, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of
Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a tentative tract map, hillside development permit, and
planned industrial permit by Resolutions No. 5028, 5029, and 5030 on the real
property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of
Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment
to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by
the Developer or successor in interest.
The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative,
suitable to the Planning Director, in the sales office at all times. All sales maps that are
distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future
and existing schools, parks and streets.
Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form
#l on file in the Planning Department).
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for Lots 26, 27,
and 28 in their entirety which are (in slopes, wetlands, coastal sage scrub or other
constrained land plus all other lands set aside as part of the Citywide Open Space System)
to prohibit any encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls,
decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping, as shown on Exhibits “A” _ 66 CC” dated August 15,200l.
Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 26, 27 and 28,
including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways
and landscaping, other than that approved as part of (the grading plan, improvement
plans, biological revegetation program, landscape plan, etc.) as shown on Exhibit “A” -
“CC”, is specifically prohibited, except upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire
Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written approval of the Planning
Director, and, based upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arbor&/botanist indicating the need to remove specified trees
and/or plants because of disease or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling
units. For areas containing native vegetation the report required to accompany the
request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
PC RESO NO. 5028 -lO-
1
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
27. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of
dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the tentative
mal, within Lot 25. If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement, the
trail shall be constructed as a public trail and will be the maintenance and liability
responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication
of the trail easement, the trail shall still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a
private trail and shall be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the Owners
Association).
Signaye
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit a sign program in
compliance with Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance),
for all future signage on Lots 1 - 25 of the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park
tentative tract map including Trail signage in accordance with the signage
provisions of the City’s Open Space Conservation and Resource Management Plan.
The sign program shall be subject to Planning Director approval.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City’s street name
policy subject to the Planning Director’s approval prior to final map approval.
Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required
passive and active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and
recreational facilities.
The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
Engineering Conditions:
General
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision must be met prior to approval of a final
map.
33. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
34. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs or/and other
recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all
the private improvements: storm water quality treatment facilities, landscaping,
streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute
the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties
PC RESO NO. 5028 -ll-
1
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
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
within the subdivision.
There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of the final map, the Boundary
Adjustment along the south side of this project shall be approved and recorded. The
appropriate recording information shall be placed on the final map.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of the final map, the Boundary
Adjustment along the south side of lot 25 shall be approved and recorded. The
appropriate recording information shall be placed on the final map. The adjusted
piece shall become part of an open space lot (Lot 12) as shown on CT 99-06.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors at all street intersections and
proposed driveways in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the
following statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs).
“No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above
the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified
as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design
Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition.”
Fees/APreements
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation, the City’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall pay a proportionate share for
improvements made by others to Palomar Airport Road as determined by the City
Engineer.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area
PC RESO NO. 5028 -12-
1
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
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
46. Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of any development permit, a
financial guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue extension between
Orion Way and Melrose Drive shall be approved by the Carlsbad City Council.
47. Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of any development permit, the
developer/owner shall guarantee the provision of sewer service in conformance with
the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Sewerage. The llnancial guarantee may be in
the form of an assessment district or other means as approved by the City Council.
The developer mag enter into a temporary out-of-basin agreement with the City of
Vista to utilize Vista’s Raceway Sewer Pump Station and Vista’s portion of the
outfall. This temporary agreement is only to be used until a permanent solution is
available and must also be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the sewer
master plan facility is available, the developer shall convert the temporary tie to the
pump station and use the said facility as provided in the City of Carlsbad Master
Plan of Sewerage.
48. Prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first for Lot 25 (APN 221-022-05) of the tentative map, the developer/owner
shall obtain a letter from the VSD indicating that there is available capacity and
facilities to accommodate temporary flows. If this lot cannot sewer into the VSD
Raceway Basin on a temporary basis, said lot shall be clearly labeled as “Non-
Buildable” until such time as sewer service is available by the appropriate agency.
Grading
49. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. (the developer must submit
and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with city codes and standards prior
to issuance of a building permit for the project.).
50. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur
outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a
recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement from the
owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must
either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading
will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial
conformance from both the City Engineer and Planning Director.
51. The rough-graded pads created by this project will require additional grading prior
to construction of buildings and private improvements on the individual lots. A
subsequent grading permit will be required for final development of lots. A
construction revision to the rough grading plan will not be permitted to fulfil1 this
requirement,
52. The storm drain improvements, animal crossings and NPDES / deslltation basins
PC PESO NO. 5028 -13-
1
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
shown on the tentative map shall be constructed and maintained until accepted by
the appropriate authority. Annual maintenance and reporting will be required and
shall be the responsibility of the developer and property owners until relieved in
writing by authority or public agency.
Dedications/Improvements
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
Any land dedicated or offered for dedication to any entity shall reserve access and
maintenance rights to operate and maintain basins, sewer, water, and drainage
facilities within the proposed easements or open space.
Developer shall cause Owner to execute a covenant of easement for private drainage as
shown on the tentative map. The obligation to execute and record the covenant of
easement shall be shown and recording information called out on the final map.
Developer shall provide City Engineer with proof of recordation prior to issuance of
building permit.
Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City
and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the
tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate
recorded document. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost. Streets that are already public are not required to be
rededicated.
Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or
install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent
with any grading or building permit.
Right of entry or access easements shall be granted to the City for each lot and for
each NPDES facility to allow for periodic inspection.
Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map for all
lots abutting Melrose Drive except lot 25. The location of access to lot 25 shall be as
shown on the Tentative Map.
Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map to
interior streets except for specific locations shown as driveways on the tentative
map.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along, adjacent to, and within the subdivision boundary. The major
transmission power lines are exempt from this condition.
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map, and the following improvements:
A. Melrose Drive shall be improved to full width based on a Prime Arterial
right-of-way width of 126 feet from Palomar Airport Road to the northern
PC RESO NO. 5028 -14-
1
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
B.
C.
D.
E.
City Boundary. Additional construction and transition may be required at
the existing terminus within the City of Vista. In addition, modifications shall
be made at the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road to
provide one southbound right turn lane, two southbound left turn lanes,
three southbound through lanes, two eastbound left turn lanes, one
westbound right turn lane, and one additional westbound through lane for a
total of three. An additional turn lane is also required on northbound
Melrose Drive south of Palomar Airport Road. The developer/owner may be
eligible for partial reimbursement from adjacent property owners. A
reimbursement agreement must be approved by the City prior to the final
map recordation or beginning of construction.
The extension and full width improvements to Poinsettia Ave. from Business
Park Drive in Vista to Melrose Drive are required.
Existing headwall to the 10’ x 7’ RCB under Melrose Drive shall be modified
in accordance with the Rick Engineering Study (Ranch0 Carlsbad Channel
and Basin Project) to provide detention of peak flows.
16” public water main and 8” recycled water main shall be constructed in
Melrose Drive.
Offsite sewer facilities to connect to the Raceway Sewer Lift Station and to
the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor(SAH1). The SAHI is shown as
SAHTlA on figure 4.4 of the Master Plan update Volume V by Carollo
Engineers. This condition may be modified by revision to the City’s Master
Plan of Sewerage.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement
or such other time as provided in said agreement.
62. Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first the developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall prepare and
submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
“California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
PC RESO NO. 5028 -15-
1
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
C.
D.
E.
F.
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
SWPPP will include calculations of anticipated pollutant loading, and sizing
of structural BMPs to remove pollutants prior to storm water entering a
storm drain. Required maintenance of the BMPs and the maintenance
interval will be specified for each BMP.
Each lot in this project will include structural BMPs as required to remove
anticipated pollutants from storm water runoff from each lot to the
maximum extent practical. Catch basin inserts are not sufficient by
themselves to remove all pollutants, but may be included as part of a
comprehensive system for each lot or phase of development.
The property owner’s association will be responsible for maintenance and
operations of BMPs until such time the City may decide to assume
maintenance responsibility.
63. Developer shall incorporate into the grading/improvement plans the design for the project
drainage outfall end treatments for any drainage outlets where a direct access road for
maintenance purposes is not practical. These end treatments shall be designed so as to
prevent vegetation growth from obstructing the pipe outfall. Designs could consist of a
modified outlet headwall consisting of an extended concrete spillway section with
longitudinal curbing and/or radially designed rip-rap, or other means deemed appropriate,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Final Map Notes
64.
65.
Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel.
Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data
A. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above
the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified
as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design
Criteria, Section 8.B.3. The underlying property owner shall maintain this
condition.
B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the appropriate agency determmes that sewer and water facilities are available.
C. Geotechnical Caution:
PC RESO NO. 5028 -16- 74
1
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
The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in
interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad
from any action that may arise through any geological failure, ground
water seepage or land subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur
on, or adjacent to, this subdivision due to its construction, operation or
maintenance.
D. Covenant of easement(s) if any (description and recording information.)
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final
map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
Some improvements shown on the tentative map and/or required by these conditions are
located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or
interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest.
The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property. The
Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessful,
Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the
requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the
City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation.
PC RESO NO. 5028 -17-
1
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor plting,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
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:
I ABSTAIN:
, ATTEST:
Planning Director
1 PC RESO NO. 5028 -18-
1
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. 5029
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 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.: HDP 98-09
WHEREAS, Raceway Partners, LLC., “Developer’T’Owner,” 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 offtcial 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 offtcial 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 offtcial 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.
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 official records.
1
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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “CC” dated August 15,2001, on file in the
Planning Department CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - HDP 98-09, as provided
by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of August, 2001, 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, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - HDP 98-09,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages.
2. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that the proposed development is consistent
with the south to north descending slope of the land, is designed in an
environmentally sensitive manner to preserve wildlife habitats, and incorporates
NPDES measures to avoid erosion.
4. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of
the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in
that although 9.3 acres of slopes greater than 40% exist on the property, 4.8 acres
PC EESO NO. 5029 -2-
1
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
are previously graded and the remaining slopes with an elevation differential of
fifteen feet or more comprise less than ten thousand square feet and do not comprise
a prominent landform feature.
5. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the project has been designed to
relate to the slope of the land, to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources,
and to incorporate contour grading into manufactured slopes which are located in
highly visible public locations along scenic corridors and circulation arterial
roadways.
6. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that although grading volumes above the acceptable range (12,530 cubic yards) are
required, the site requires extensive grading to create large, flat industrial lots that are
accessible from each side of a single access road and to accommodate a circulation-
element roadway and habitat corridor along the northern boundary.
7. That the proposed modification to allow grading volumes that exceed the acceptable
range and slope heights that exceed 40 feet will accommodate; a circulation arterial
roadway and result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a
strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance, in that otherwise developable
areas are preserved within an HMP wildlife habitat corridor that bisects the
property and provides connection to adjacent open space.
Conditions:
1. Approval of HDP 98-09 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA
98-05, LFMP 87-18(B), ZC 01-07, CT 98-10 and PIP 00-01. HDP 98-09 is subject to
all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5024, 5025, 5026,
5027,5028, and 5030.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
PC RESO NO. 5029 -3-
1
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
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
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:
G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5029 -4-
1
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. 5030
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ‘CARLSBAD, cALIFoRNIA, APPROVING
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PERMIT, PIP 01-01, TO SUBDIVIDE
146.3 ACRES INTO 28 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN MELROSE DFUVE AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS
PARK
CASE NO.: PIP 01-01
WHEREAS, Raceway Partners, LLC., C‘Developer”/“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 ofllcial 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.
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 official 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 official records.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“the Property”); and
~ WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Industrial
Permit shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “CC” dated August 15, 2001, on file in the Planning
/ Department CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - PIP 01-01, as provided by
~ Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of August, 2001, on
’ the 3rd day of October 2001, and on the 17th day of October 2001 hold a duly noticed public
hearirig as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on. the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR - PIP 01-01, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. That the site indicated by the Planned Industrial Permit is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading,
landscaping and other features required by Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code, in that the proposed industrial subdivision is consistent with development and
design criteria for lot size and configuration and includes a safe and efficient
internal circulation system.
2. That the improvements indicated on the Planned Industrial Permit are located in such a
manner to be related to existing and proposed streets and highways, in that the additional
roadways (Melrose Drive, Poinsettia Avenue, and Faraday Avenue) and capacity
(Palomar Airport Road) will provide for additional routes of travel, reduce conflict
on roadways, and facilitate alternate modes of transportation.
3. That, the improvements as shown on the Planned Industrial Permit are consistent with the
intent and purpose of this zone and all adopted development, design and performance
standards as set forth Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the
PC PESO NO. 5030 -2-
1
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
industrial subdivision will result in a high quality industrial park that is consistent
with applicable landscaped setbacks, lot size and configuration, compatible with
surrounding land uses and circulation patterns, and provides an internal street
system that is safe and efficient with three points of access from circulation arterial
roadways.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 98-05,
LFMP 87-18(R), ZC 01-07, CT 98-10, and HDP 98-09, and is subject to all conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 5024, 5025, 5026,5027, and 5029 for
those other approvals.
2. Development of industrial buildings on each industrial lot created by CT 98-10 shall
require a separate Planned Industrial Permit that shall be subject to all conditions
of CT 98-10 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 5024 and 5028.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you
protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5030 -3-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Planning Director
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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:
ATTEST:
PC RESO NO. 5030 -4-
‘fhe City of C.arlsbad Planning Department EXHl8lT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 2
Application complete date: March 25, 1999
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 17,200l Project Planner: Anne Hysong
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC Ol-07/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 -
CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK - Request for a recommendation
of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities
Management Plan Amendment, and Zone Change and approval of a tentative tract
map, hillside development permit and planned industrial permit to allow the
subdivision of a 146.3 acre parcel located north of Palomar Airport Road between
future Melrose Drive and the City’s eastern boundary into 25 industrial lots and 3
open space lots on property located in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities
Management Zone 18.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5024, 5025,
5026 and 5027 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 98-05, LFMP 87-18(B),
and ZC 01-07 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5028, 5029, and 5030
APPROVING CT 98-10, HDP 98-09, and PIP 01-01 based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment to
eliminate the Office (0) designation from the PI/O General Plan designation and to add the Open
Space (OS) designation to the proposed project open space, to rezone the proposed open space
from P-M to O-S and to amend the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan. The applicant is
also requesting Planning Commission approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide and grade
the 146.3 acre Carlsbad Raceway property into 25 industrial lots and three open space lots, a
hillside development permit and planned industrial permit required for the project. Subsequent
Planned Industrial Permits for the development of each lot created by the subdivision will be
required prior to construction. As designed and conditioned, the project is in conformance with
the General Plan, as amended, Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20), Hillside Development
Regulations and Planned Industrial Permit zoning ordinances. The project complies with all
applicable City standards, all project issues have been resolved, and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project proposes to subdivide and grade the 146.3 acre Carlsbad Raceway property into 25
9 c
GPA 98-O%FMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07!CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
industrial lots and 3 open space lots. This action necessitates three legislative actions: (1) a
General Plan amendment; (2) a zone change; and (3) a Local Facilities Management Plan
amendment to update the Zone 18 LFMP to include the requirement to participate in the
financing of Faraday Avenue and the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer. The LFMP
amendment will also provide for a temporary sewer connection through the City of Vista
Raceway sewer basin and outfall. The property is currently designated by the General Plan for
Planned Industrial/Office (PI/O) land use and zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The proposed
General Plan Amendment eliminates the 0 designation and redesignates the portion of the
property proposed to be developed with industrial lots to PI and redesignates the 43.36 acres of
the property proposed to be dedicated as permanent open space to Open Space (OS). 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 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.
The Carlsbad Raceway has operated at the site since 1963 under a conditional use permit which
expires in February, 2002. The raceway 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 the
drag strip was created in the canyon bottom in the northeast area of the site where water has been
diverted to flow alongside it in a previously upland area. Also, numerous dirt roads created from
off-road motorcycle activity occur in all areas of the site. 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 proposed industrial lots range in size from 1.1 acre to 8.7 acres. Future development of the
industrial lots will require Planning Director approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. The
project site includes a 50-foot (minimum) landscape buffer along Melrose Drive and 35foot
landscape setbacks along the projects internal streets. The Raceway property is 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. Consistent with the HMP, a proposed 400’
wide north-south habitat corridor that incorporates the existing SDG&E easement bisects the
eastern half of the property and connects to an east-west habitat corridor that extends along the
northern portion of the property (see Sheets 7 and 8). In conjunction with the proposed industrial
“project to the south, a common passive park area consisting of a waterfall and creek feature, an
8’ wide segment of the Citywide trail system, and outdoor eating amenities will be developed
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
along the west side of Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to approximately 600 feet
north of the intersection (see Sheet 3).
The subdivision is conditioned to construct Mehose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and its
existing southerly terminus in the City of Vista as well as internal streets to City standards. The
project will have three points of access. The project will have access from Melrose Drive and
receive access from Poinsettia Avenue (Street “B”), a 52’ wide east/west street that will provide
a connection between Melrose Drive and Business Park Drive. Another access will be provided
to the project by the extension of Paseo Valindo between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia
Avenue. All of the lots will front on Street “B” except one lot (#25), located west of Melrose
Drive, that will receive access from Melrose Drive. Internal project circulation will include
minimum 52’ wide streets (parking on both sides) and minimum 30-foot wide driveways.
The subdivision and grading design is somewhat dictated by the three points of access to the
property. Grading quantities for the project exceed the Hillside Ordinance “acceptable” range
due to grade alteration for the short segment of Melrose Drive, which requires cut and fill to
achieve the required grades at the existing points of connection. Slopes exceeding 40’ in height
are necessary to construct Melrose Drive. Aside from Melrose Drive, achievement of 1 acre
minimum industrial lots with large flat building pads requires considerable alteration of the
previous sloping terrain, i.e., large quantities of cut on the south side of Street “B” and fill on the
north side with manufactured slopes descending into a northern canyon that will be preserved as
open space.
The mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns; i.e., a public storm drain system that outlets into one of two detention basins that will drain into a
tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek. Open space Lot 27 will include permanent NPDES drainage
basins. This construction of Melrose Drive will create a detention basin east of the road and
reduce the peak flow in the Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre-development conditions
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 proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies:
A. Carlsbad General Plan
1. General Plan Amendment
2. General Plan Consistency
B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.34);
2. Open Space (OS) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.33);
3. Hillside Development (Municipal Code Chapter 21.95)
92
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07!CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
October 17,200l
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance)
D. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP)
E. Growth Management Ordinance / Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulation/policies utilizing both text and tables.
Al. General Plan Amendment
The project site is currently designated by the General Plan for Planned Industrial/Office (PI/O)
land use and is zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The proposed 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 Office (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 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. This action is consistent
with the General Plan Open Space element and in accordance with the intent and purpose of the
open space zone to designate as open space high priority resource areas at the time of
development.
A2. General Plan Consistency
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
following table indicates how the project complies with the elements of the General Plan:
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07&T 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
Page 5
GP ELEMENT
Land Use - PI
Circulation
Open Space
Noise
Parks
Public Safety
COMPLIANCE
Planned Industrial business park subdivision that is:
l designed and landscaped within perimeter setbacks and
manufactured slopes and properly functioning internal roads
and adequately spaced driveways 0 compatible with surrounding industrial and open space uses
l creates industrial lots that are large and level enough to
accommodate industrial development including parking,
loading, storage, and operational needs
l conditioned to screen all storage, loading, mechanical
equipment and meet all required performance standards for noise, odor and emissions.
Construct the following roadway and intersection improvements in
accordance with City standards:
l Street “B” (Poinsettia Avenue) 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 Financial guarantee of Faraday Ave. to extend the roadway fi-om the existing terminus near Melrose Drive in Vista to the
existing terminus near Orion Way in Carlsbad.
l Onsite Street “A” will connect to the future industrial
subdivision to the south (Palomar Forum), providing another
network link and secondary access to Palomar Airport Road
and to Melrose Drive/Business Park Drive.
‘he project will result in the preservation of 43.6 acres of open space
onsistent with the City’s HMP, provide a citywide trail segment, and
:zone the open space easement to the Open Space zone.
tandards for noise generation and interior noise standards for future
evelopment will be required in compliance with the City’s Noise tandard and P-M zone performance standards.
Payment of park-in-lieu fee
Mitigation measures are required to significantly reduce the risk of
exposure to hazardous substances during construction and from
future industrial development
Streets, sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants will be
constructed per City standards
Bl. Planned Industrial Zone
In accordance with the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone ordinance regulations, a Planned Industrial
Permit (PIP) is required for all industrial subdivisions. The majority of standards apply to the
actual development of industrial lots. Subsequent approval of a PIP will be required for each
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 0 1-07!CT 98- 1 O/HDP 98-09/PIP 0 1-O 1 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
industrial lot prior to development. The proposed industrial subdivision is subject to standards
for lot size, landscaped setbacks, mini park provisions, and subdivision design criteria.
Compliance with the applicable standards is indicated in the following table.
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ORDINANCE
STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED
Prime Arterial Setback 50 Feet Entirely Landscaped 50 Feet Entirely Landscaped
Local Street Setback 35 Feet Average 35 Feet Average
Interior Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet
Rear Yard Setback
Minimum Lot Area
Outdoor Eating Area
Internal Street System
Equipment Screening
20 Feet 20 Feet
1 Acre 1.4 - 9.7 Acres
Mini-Park in lieu of outdoor Mini Park satisfies outdoor
eating area within 1,000 feet eating requirements for Lots
1,2, 3,24
Safe, efficient, functional Three points of access to
ensure accessibility; street
connections between Melrose
and Business Park Drive to
ensure timely emergency
response
Architecturally integrated For future buildings:
D 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 from
adjacent scenic corridor and
circulation arterial
roadways.
l Prohibit installation of roof
screens other than building
parapets or architectural
elements that are integrated
into the architectural design
of buildings;
Prohibit loading bays that are
visible from Palomar Airport
Road or Melrose Drive.
GPA 98-05LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07&T 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP Or-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
Page 7
Architecture Architecturally integrated Require enhanced archi-
tectural treatment of all
building elevations that are
visible from Palomar Airport
Road or Melrose Drive.
B2. Open Space Zone
A habitat corridor consisting of three lots (26, 27, and 28) within the proposed subdivision will
be dedicated as permanent open space in accordance with the City’s Draft Habitat Management
Plan. The property will be redesignated as General Plan open space and reclassified as an open
space (O-S) zone . This action is consistent with the General Plan Open Space element and in
accordance with the intent and purpose of the open space zone to designate as open space high
priority resource areas at the time of development. The project is conditioned to preclude any
use of the open space beyond the utility easements and permanent drainage basins identified on
the tentative map.
B3. Hillside Development Regulations
A Hillside Development Permit is required for the Carlsbad Raceway property because the
property contains slopes of 15 percent and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15
feet. The project consists of a grading design to create a landform that is consistent, with some
modification, to the City’s Hillside Development Regulations. The project’s grading volume of
12,530 cubic yards/acre exceeds the acceptable range, i.e., it exceeds 10,000 cubic yards/acre.
The project includes slopes that exceed 40’ in height due to Melrose Drive and Street “B”.
Section 21.95.130 of the Hillside Development Ordinance excludes circulation arterial roads from hillside development standards. The majority of manufactured slopes proposed do not
exceed 40’. Hillside regulations are intended to ensure that hillside landforms are developed in a
sensitive manner and that the majority of visible manufactured slopes are undulated and do not
exceed 40’ in height. Although the Hillside Development Ordinance excludes industrial
subdivisions from grading volume limitations and slope height restrictions, justification for
exceeding the acceptable grading volume is still required. The following table indicates
compliance with Hillside Development Regulations:
HILLSIDE DEVI
STANDARD
Undevelopable Slopes:
Natural Slopes of Over 40%
Gradient with elevation
differential > 15’, a minimum
area of 10,000 square feet and
comprising a prominent
landfoxm feature.
I
LOPMENT ORDINANCE - SECTIOP
PROPOSED PLAN
9.3 acres of slopes greater than 40%
exist on the property; however, 4.8
acres are previously graded (non- natural) and the remaining slopes with
an elevation differential of fifteen feet
or more comprise less than ten
thousand square feet and do not
comprise a prominent landform feature.
21.95120
COMPLIANCE
Yes
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
Pane 8
Grading Volumes > 10,000 cu 12,530 cu yds/acre excluding
yds/acre allowed if the project Circulation Element Roadway (Melrose
qualifies as an exclusion or Drive). See the discussion below.
modification per Sections
21.95.130 and 21.95.140*
Maximum Manufactured Maximum manufactured slope height is
Slope Height: 40 feet* 40 - 50 feet at locations (see Exhibit
“B” - “L”) due to Melrose Drive and
the Street “B” access road through the
subdivision.
Yes
Yes
Contour Grading: Contour grading is proposed where
Required for manufactured applicable adjacent to and visible from
slopes greater than 20’ in Meh-ose Drive.
height and 200’ in length and
visible from a Circulation
element road, collector street
or useable public open space
Slope Edge Building setback: NA - Buildings are not proposed at this
0.7 foot horizontal to 1 foot time. Slope edge building setback will
vertical imaginary diagonal be analyzed with future Planned
plane measured from edge of Industrial Permit applications for
slope to structure buildings.
Landscape manufactured All manufactured slopes are landscaped
slopes consistent with the in accordance with the City’s
City’s Landscape Manual Landscape Manual with the exception
of slopes descending into the northern
wildlife’corridor which will be
revegetated with native species as a
biological mitigation condition.
Yes
NA
Yes
* Exclusions are permitted for grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas whichJ are
directly associated with circulation element roadways or collector streets, provided that the
proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other City standards;
and modifications are permitted for projects that will result in significantly more open space or
undisturbed area that would a strict adherence to the Hillside Ordinance development and design
regulations.
Justification for the grading volume above the acceptable range is based on existing sloping
terrain, the industrial subdivision design, and the construction of Melrose Drive and Street “B”.
The area proposed for development descends from south to north from approximately 500 feet to
320 feet at the eastern end of the property, 430 feet to 390 feet in the center of the property, and
from 450 feet to 330 feet at the western end. An east-west access road (Street “B”) between
Melrose Drive and the existing terminus of Poinsettia Avenue in the City of Vista will provide
access to large industrial lots on each side. The grading scheme necessary to create large flat
industrial pads requires cut to lower the lots on the south side of Street “B” to the road elevation
I and comparable fill to raise pads on the north side of Street “B” to the road elevation. Lowering
97
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07&T 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
Page 9 8
pad elevations on the north side of Street “B” to reduce slope heights and grading volumes would
also preclude gravity sewer lines from those lots to Street “B”. These site conditions and
development parameters resulted in greater grading volumes and a minimal number of slopes
exceeding 40’ in height.
C. Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed tentative map complies with all requirements of the City’ Subdivision Ordinance.
All infrastructure improvements including frontage and project related roadways and
construction of drainage and sewer facilities will be installed concurrent with development. The
proposed project would subdivide the project site into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots
ranging in size from 1.4 to 37.7 acres. The project grading to create building pads, private
driveways and the connection of Melrose Drive to Palomar Airport Road will consist of
1,430,OOO cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced onsite. The proposed project includes the
construction of a new sewer line, which will be directed through Melrose Drive to connect to the
South Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer system. A temporary agreement may be provided to
allow this project to sewer into the City of Vista’s Raceway Sewer Lift station and outfall.
Water service is provided by an existing 36” water line on Palomar Airport Road. Twenty-five
temporary NPDES and desilt basins will be constructed at various locations throughout the
project.
Primary access to the site will be provided from Melrose Drive and nearby Business Park Drive.
Access to the site will also be provided from Palomar Airport Road at its existing signalized
intersection with Paseo Valindo by a connection to a future street through the Palomar Forum
project (CT 99-06). The project is also conditioned to construct Melrose Drive from Palomar
Airport Road to its existing terminus in the City of Vista, including curb and gutter, sidewalk,
and street lights.
The project is conditioned to install public interior Street “A” improvements for 72 foot width
right-of-way and public interior Street “B” improvements for 126 foot right-of-way including
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants. The proposed street system is adequate
to handle the project’s pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Emergency access can be accommodated
at ingress and egress points provided from Melrose Drive. The project is also required, as a
condition of the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan to participate in the financing and
the construction of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Way.
D. McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP)
The proposed industrial subdivision is located within the airport influence area and the eastern
flight activity zone. The proposed development is consistent with the Planned Industrial land use
designation that existed at the time the CLUP was adopted; therefore, compliance with the P-M
zoning regulations at the time the proposed lots are developed will ensure consistency with the
CLUP. Specifically, high rise development above the height limitations of the P-M zone and
conditional uses that involve large groups of people are prohibited.
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-l 8(B)/ ZC 01-07/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
Page 10
E. Growth Management
An amendment is proposed to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 18 to
reflect the proposed changes in land use. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Chapter
21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The proposed document is the second amendment to the
Zone 18 LFMP. It is necessary to reflect the approved final maps for Ranch0 Carrillo, the
General Plan Amendment deleting the Office designation for the Carlsbad Raceway property, the
new sewer and drainage facilities and the Citywide traffic study. The proposed zone plan covers
the entire zone and analyzes the requirements for the eleven public facilities included within the
growth management program. For each of the eleven public facilities the plan lists the required
performance standard, provides a facility planning and adequacy analysis, required mitigation,
and financing sources for any required mitigation. Special Conditions of the LFMP amendment
include improvements to Palomar Airport Road, the construction of Melrose Drive, a financial
guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue, and conditions for allowing a temporary
sewer connection to the City of Vista Raceway Pump Station and outfall. The zone will be in
compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special
conditions listed in the zone plan.
The facilities impacts of the project are sumrnarized below:
Open Space
Schools
43.36 Acres
Not Auolicable
Yes
Yes
Sewer Collection System
Water
771 EDU
257.000 GPD
Yes
Yes
T~F. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The General
Plan land use designation would remain the same except that the Office designation is eliminated
and the proposed open space easement is redesignated as open space. These changes have no
impact on the Planned Industrial land uses allowed by the existing PI/O General Plan designation
since office uses are allowed under either designation. The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September,
1994, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to
GPA 98-05LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC 01-07!CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARR
October 17,200l
Page 11
air quality and traffic. MEIR’s 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 except under certain
circumstances. 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. All feasible mitigation
measures identified by the MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated
into the project.
Potentially significant environmental impacts were identified for water quality, circulation, risk
of exposure to hazardous materials, biological resources, and aesthetics. Mitigation measures to
reduce water quality and circulation impacts include compliance with the project’s summary
NPDES study, the construction of Melrose Drive, a financial guarantee for the construction of
Faraday Avenue, and construction of Street “B” between Melrose Drive and Business Park
Drive. Mitigation for biological impacts includes the creation of riparian habitat, acquisition of
coastal sage scrub habitat, and preservation and revegetation of an HMP wildlife habitat corridor.
Although the preferred wildlife habitat corridor mitigation does not include the Street “B”
crossing, a cul-de-sac design on each side would require that the industrial lots located on the
east side of the corridor receive access via Business Park Drive. This cul-de-sac design would
create potentially significant traffic and safety impacts because: 1) the connection of Street “B”
is necessary as mitigation to alleviate traffic congestion on Palomar Airport Road; and 2) the Fire
Department could not provide emergency services to the area within the standard five-minute
response time. Therefore, Street “B” has been designed as a through street to ensure emergency
response within the five minute standard, improve emergency access to adjacent development,
and provide a parallel roadway to reduce traffic on Palomar Airport Road. To reduce impacts to
wildlife resulting from Street “B”, the vertical road alignment is recessed below grade through
the corridor to reduce the impact of the roadway to birds crossing the corridor. Mitigation
measures to avoid the potential for exposure to hazardous materials include restrictions on
grading operations to avoid exposure to pesticide impacted soils and the future industrial use of
hazardous materials. Mitigation measures to avoid visual impacts to scenic corridors resulting
from future rooftop mechanical equipment, loading bays, and poorly designed architecture
include design restrictions prohibiting visible mechanical equipment and loading bays and
requiring enhanced architecture at visible locations.
During the 30 day public comment period, responses were received from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Preserve Calavera, the Sierra Club,
the Department of Toxic Substances, and Dr. Douglas Diener regarding the identification of environmental impacts and the adequacy of proposed mitigation. Based on comments received
from the USFWS and CDFG regarding biological impacts resulting from the Street “B” crossing
of the wildlife corridor, the cumulative loss of non-native grassland and southern mixed
chaparral, an “occupied” classification of coastal sage scrub habitat, direct impacts to two
sensitive plant species, the need for surveys for the burrowing owl, clarification of wetland
impacts, and avoidance of invasive/exotic plant species adjacent to open space areas, the City
GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ ZC Ol-07/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD
RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
October 17,200l
Page 12
recirculated the mitigated negative declaration with added mitigation measures to reduce the
identified impacts. These additional mitigation measures include: 1) the payment of $225,865.90
in mitigation fees for impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral; 2) preparation of an
engineering and feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; 3)
construction of an acceptable wildlife crossing or payment of $100,000 for impacts resulting from the Street “B” crossing of the north-south wildlife corridor; 4) replacement of sensitive
plant species from container stock; 5) a requirement for a burrowing owl survey prior to
construction; and 6) a requirement for the use of native plant species and avoidance of invasive/exotic plant species in project landscaping adjacent to the preserved open space.
During the 30 day public comment period for the recirculated mitigated negative declaration, the
City received letters from Preserve Calavera, the Department of Toxic Substances, and Isabelle
Kay, Manager of the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve regarding. These letters are attached
and responses to the issues addressed in the letters will be provided as part of staffs public
hearing presentation.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director reissued a Mitigated Negative
Declaration on September 6,200l.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5024 (Mitigated Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5025 (GPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5026 (LFMP)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5027 (ZC)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5028 (CT)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5029 (HDP)
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5030 (PIP)
8. Location Map
9. Disclosure Form
10. Background Data Sheet
.
11. Local Facilities Impact Form
12. Reduced Exhibits
13. Public comment letters from Preserve Calavera, Isabelle Kay, and Department of Toxic
Substances
14. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “CC”, dated August 15,200l
AH:cs
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant‘s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionap action on the part of the Cit!, Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. ‘r-our project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual. firm, co-partnership, joint venture. association. social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other counry. city and counv. tit!;
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document: however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property o\vner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICAIL’T (Not the applicant‘s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership. include the
names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation. include the
names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate pase ma\’ be attached if
necessaq.)
Person
Title
Address
Corp1Par-t Racewav Properties. LLC
Title
Address 13672 Caminito Radiante San Diego.
CA 9’130
? -. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of .4LL persons having an>’ ownership
interest in the property involved. Also. provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e.
partnership. tenants in common. non-profit. corporation. etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership. include the names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF Nd INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 109-b OF THE SHARES.
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW’. If a publiclv-
owned corporation. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary..)
Person Carp/Part Racevvav Properties. LLC
Title
.4ddress
Title __.
Address 12672 Caminito Radinnte San Dieco.
c.492130 ,
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA.92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602.-8559 @
3.
4.
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit owanization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of AN\’ person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
orsanization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust N/A Non ProfiL’Trust N/A
Title Title
Address Address
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit! staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
If yes. please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessav.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
SEE ADDENDUM
Signature of owner/date
SEE ADDENDUM
Signature of applicant/date
Print or r>‘pe name of o\vner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or t>pe name of o\vner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN~COlJNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5198 Page 2 of 2
SENT BY: KIJRTIN PROPERTIES;
EVs’EW2081 ie: 35 619280?“‘9 ml7937977; JUL DENTTEcItcCA 6-01 10:05AM; PAGE 2,‘2 PAGE t14
.DISCLOfXlRE STATEMENT ADDENDUM
For Raceway Properties, LLC
Raceway Properties, LLC is owned by the fohving individuals:
Todd Kurtin - 2S% Bruce ElieR- 25% JonKultin- 1624% RichardDentc- 162/3% . .
Frank Sciacca - 16 XS”h
We certify that all rhe above infommion is true and comer to the best of our knowledge.
Signatm of qwnerfappfiosni ’ Dat0 Signahire of owner/applicam Date
Todd Kurtin
Print or.Q-pe name ,af ownerhppktir
Bruce Elieff
Print or type nnme of ownfdapplicant
,&,
DINC Signature of ownff/applic~r Date
v ’ Jon KUR~JI
fblnr or type name of o~nerhpplicant
Richard Dcntt
Fkinr or ‘fypc nrmo of owner/applicant
:F;. -- Frank Sc ik& Print or ty~c name of o~~r/pppkmt
SENT 9Y: KURTIN PROPERTIES;
E7/86/2Eal la: 35 61928f 0587937977;
39 JUL-II-01 10:03AM; . DENlT/SCIACUl
.
DXSCLO$URE STATEMENT ADDENDUM
For Raceway Properties, I&C
I
Raceway Properties, LLC is’owncd by the following individuals: :
Todd Kurtin- 25%
BruceEiieff- 25% . ,
lonkhrtin- 162Q%’ ”
RicbanjRtgntt-16X3% ”
Fraz@ciacca- 162/3% . ,
We certify that all rhe a@vc infomtion is true and comet to the best of our howledge.
w ” aAd, 0
Signature pf qwnedapptiaan~ z)ate
. .
~oddbrtin me Elicff ..
Fkilmr’typt name at owtwapp~it print or type name of owner/q~$i~m
Si
Jon Kurtin Print or rypt name of oymr/app#ant
Signature of own,erlappli&nt .,. , Data
PAGE 2'2
P&t tY4
Signature of ownef/applicam Dato
Richard De@ ’ Print or type aamc of ownerhppIican~
Fm& Sciacca hint OT type name of ow+app\icant
.
07/06/2001 16:08 6192803169 DENTT/SCIACCA PAGE 04
DI$XZLOSURl$ STATEMENT ADDENDUM
Fo.r Racetvay Properties, LLC
Ractwa)i Pro@rties, LLC is owhed by the following individuals: :
Todd Kurtin-‘25%
Bruce Elieff -25%
JonKulth- 16 2/J%.
~chard Dentt - 16 2/3%
Frailk Sciacca,- 16 20%
We certify ihat all fhe above igfotiation is true and correct to the best of our knowledge. ” ‘. ‘.
Signat& of ~wnedapplicmt Date Signature of owner/applicant Date
Todd Kurtiti . Bruce Elieff
Print or type nam;e, of owncr/~pplicani Print of type name of owner/applicant ‘. ‘. . . . . . “,,:. . T/U a
Signa$ire,of owner/applicant Date Date
.
Jon Kurtin
Print or type name of owner/applicant
Richard Dentt
Print or type name of owner/applicant
Date
Frarik Sciacca
Print,or type name of owner/applicant
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 98-OYLFMP 87-18(B)/ZC Ol-07LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10MDP 9%09/PIP 01-01
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park
APPLICANT: Raceway Properties, LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A reauest for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office(O)
General Plan Designation and redesignate nronosed onen mace to the Onen Snace (OS) General Plan Desianation. a
zone change to add Open Space zoning. a Tentative Tract Man. Hillside DeveloDment Permit. and Planned
Industrial Permit for an 146 acre. 25 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 ooen snace lots on property located north of
Palomar Aimort Road between the City’s eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The nroiect 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 pronertv. Access to the industrial lots will be nrovided by construction of the remaining segment of
Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary and the extension of Poinsettia
Avenue from its existing westerly terminus in the City of Vista to Melrose Drive. No industrial buildings are
pronosed as nart of the uroiect.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18. Townshiu 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian Lot 2. Section 13. Townshin 12 South, Range 3 West. San Bernardino
Meridian and the Southwest Ouarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18. Township 12 South, Range 3 West,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian in the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
APN: 221-01 l-03:-04:-05 AND 221-010-022 Acres: 146.3 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 25 Lots
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: PI/O
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: P-M Proposed Zone: P-M, OS
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
south
East
West
Zoning
P-M
Open Space/Industrial
P-M
City of Vista
P-M
General Plan
PI/O
City of Vista
PI
City of Vista
PI
Current Land Use
Carlsbad Raceway
Open Space/Industrial
Vacant +
Commercial
Industrial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 771 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
q Negative Declaration, issued July 15.2001
q Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
q Other
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: GPA 9%05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ZC Ol-07LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-1OHDP
98-09/PIP 01-01
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 18 GENERAL PLAN: PI/O
ZONING: P-M
DEVELOPER’S NAME: RACEWAY PROPERTIES, LLC.
ADDRESS: HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES, 5900 PASTEUR COURT. SUITE 150,
CARLSBAD. CA. 92008
PHONE NO.: (760) 438-1465 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 221-01 l-03;-04;-05
AND 221-010-022
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 146.3AC/25
INDUSTRIAL LOTS
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = Not Applicable
Library: Demand in Square Footage = Not Applicable
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 771
Park: Demand in Acreage = Not Applicable
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 396
Identify Drainage Basin = B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
10.320
5
43.36
Not Applicable
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
771
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD = 257,000
L
z 7 . 25 ‘- ‘ir
3i
1; i
11 !
‘, I c
/
:; jl ;j j/
I I’ I rt
r
::
5
i
. .
:
c
i
i
$ k- i
I
1 -- i ‘2 ! d 8 eg, . 1.4 ‘* l
. g
.
. . - - $a
- ‘P
:-II
‘3
9.
. ’ M
.
& BP
-2 . . 9 8* . I
. -k .
. - . x-
s v I
8’
\
II I III if-
4: I B B
tu; P 9
-:,+ i@ 1
tljll I
II I :
k 3 P III s
III
III 4 III ;
t
-9
A L !
- I- h gb
L
‘. . ----i I--- -- = --\ $j ” \ ~.:_J--$+g~ c--. l~--m:: _________ ‘/ --- \\I7y!ii ,----- ,-=- 2 / -.----: -- -rg, . . TF.- - -
L
E d s r
d
B -0
g e
/
I h/r =I
4
t = rqrj 3 = q:j I (
: .,a-.
r’ wrm \ :
--I- i
-,/-l-g
,
- l/.: ,g$;
‘1 :.;c: r* I _ -I ,-..; -.,, ,..:I
::-M
l---P -, I j $/;I
Ii /
ia t I
v!
I me;, I
Ll
\\$I; I
1 1
E
f 5 zz I
d
B ‘0
6
K I
1
L lu?-
L
7
i ! : / 5 9 I I
. h I
c)
d P
P /a: / “3
, > c
l, , , ::
.n
,/
!
5
‘\
/
4 i
‘.
L P
I I
*w.
is&
1.4 -, rm w
i
/
I$ . I i r’ \
\ ‘\.
-L
\ . I +_ --Lx a. ii .
!$ . cb % 5 8 s
I I I I
I
?Q : . :Q I 7’
TF; 5 6
? . :: ‘,
T
-’
a -1
_.
5
..
-
..
-
..
v :: 5 E z I I I I 1 1
1;
I I \ I I \
I
!
I
I
! I
I
I
! @ 5
I
I
CITY oi= C.rtRLSBAD /%4!L%!IN5 D-:PT
October 4,200l
AM Hysong
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Subject: Carlsbad Raceway MND
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
resuit in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area. -
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
trtic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent
survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Repor@%). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted
on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of
CEQA.
Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentiahy be much more damaging that what is proposed with this project, We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
1 of8 10/4/01 lo:28 PM
SD20 Nighthawk Way - Ocean Hills, CA 92056
www.preservecalavera.org
Raised Cvlsbad Raceway C~rmnans
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is
speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP’s. We don’t know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP’s are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project development applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad.
The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization .
Water
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address
the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further
degrade the lagoon.
2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the
lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the
cumulative impacts of projects in this area.
3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the
lagoon and further impair this waterway. This is a particular concern with the proposed use of the creek
as part of the system of detention basins. The Regional Water Quality Control Board no longer approves
in creek detention basins. A new plan will be required- and should have been developed prior to the
issuance of the MND. The use of a mitigation that is not supported by the permitting agency does not
constitute adequate mitigation.
Circulation
Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance
planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for
this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all. of us. Further work is
needed to adequately address these impacts.
1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-l failed to identity current trafftc levels on Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The
intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on
this neighborhhood need to be specifically addressed.
2 of8
2.. The short term future trafi?c conditions analysis described on page 6-l failed to update the traffic
model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For
example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project alone is expected to generate 5-1Ok ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other
Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future trafic
10/4/01 lo:25 PM
Revised Carlshsd Raceway Commcnu
conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the
old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed,
possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects.
3. There is no indication that t&tic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring
cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements
shown on pages 7-l 9 and 7-20 include several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on
roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of
these other referenced improvements being in place.
4. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all
indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway
extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
5. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or
Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal.
6. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuerte extension.
7. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
8. Table 10-l in this report does not match 10-l in the Palomar Forum report- although both claim to be
based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
9. There are several discrepancies between existing traffic volumes, and proposed mitigations as shown
in this project and the nearby city of Vista Home Depot project. These discrepancies occur along the
prime arterial (S. Melrose Dr) at major intersections. The Home Depot project adds a signal at Oakridge
Way and Melrose Dr, which is not addressed in this project. Coordination of analysis and mitigations along this roadway is essential- and clearly has not taken place at this preliminary planning stage. (See
Attachment A)
3 of8
10. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements- all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
10/4/01 10:2S PM
Kolseu Larlsoaa Kacewq ‘. .ilmuns
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should he integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern califomians love our outdoors-
and we don’t have a lot of it left. Addressing these concerns will result in a better project- one that
preserves our quality of life, and assures adequate preservation of habitat for the native plants and animals.
1. The construction of Poinsettia Road through to connect with Melrose bisects the proposed wildlife corridor. The open space that remains will only function as stepping
stones for bird migration, and not as viable wildlife corridors. Providing a low elevation roadway across a wildlife corridor leads to a lot of roadkill- not to a healthy animal population. This constitutes a
significant adverse impact which was not adequately addressed. The project should be conditional upon
Poinsettia being reconfigured as a cul-de-sac.
Stating that full paved roadways are required as part of the fire management plan is not an acceptable
argument. Thousands of acres of land will be preserved in north county- and paved access roads are not
required every few feet. Air tankers and buckets are used for fire suppression in these areas- and have a
track record of success. The fire management program needs to be revised to reflect current planning to protect sensitive habitat- minimizing the use of roads.
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted over just a few weeks and failed to
address normal seasonal variations. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian utilization of the habitat.
Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo southwestern toad, California
red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell’s vireo. Streams should also be sampled for any sensitive fish species.
The survey for the CCG is of particular concern- a three day sample in March does not constitute a
representative survey for this sensitive species- especially when there are documented sightings on essentially all of the adjacent properties..
We conducted a field observation on August 3 1,200 1 and found numerous examples of sensitive species that had not been identified in the official biological survey reports. (See attached map and notes.) A
pair of Ca Coastal gnatcatchers were observed on site and potentially a thud was heard. (See map locations # 5 and # 6.)
Mitigation for the sensitive species within the proposed area for development has not been addressed in
the MIND. Further mitigation is required. At a minimum this should include mitigation for the small
patch of native grassland.
3. Our wildlife tracking surveys , under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have identified the presence of a resident bobcat in the area of the Melrose connector. Loss of the bobcat
4of8 10/4/01 lo:25 PM
Ke%%ea LarlsOacl KiUWiy LOmnWJUS
population in this area with adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the
bird population. The biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their
impact on threatened species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals
that are essential to control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species.
Mitigation is required to assure that a viable predator population remains.
Furthermore field observation makes it clear that the existing upland dirt roads that parallel the raceway
in the proposed preserved areas along the riprian corridor are a veritable wildlife freeway. Bobcat,
coyote, racoon, bird, lizard, and three snake trails were observed- with high volumes of recent use. The
eastern end of this corridor is cut-off by Business Park Rd. There is connectivity to the core area on the
western end- but the corridor is extremely constrained at the area marked # 12 on the map. This pinch
point could be mitigated by integrating plantings on the slopes for the-Vista industrial sites along this
finger canyon.
The area identified as a wildlife corridor marked # 11 on the map is along the power line easement,
shows signs of prior clearing, and goes across the natural canyon- not a normal movement path for
wildlife. This is a corridor that looks like a corridor on a piece of paper- but does not function as a viable corridor in the real world.
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the existing regional wildlife corridor that
extends from the San Marcos hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek, into
the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12’ arch under Melrose is
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the introduction
of dirt floor and some plant cover. There also needs to be provision for drainage - which is clearly not
adequate in the existing culvert undercrossing.
Furthermore the culvert design neds to specifically address the need for human as well as animal
movement through this area. Employees in the local industrial businesses use this open space for recreation, and it is linked by long established informal trails to the core area to the northwest. Human
access needs to be planned for so it occurs where it will have minimal adverse impact on sensitive plants and the wildlife corridors.
5. There is no provision for protection of the existing wildlife corridor during construction. Specific
mitigation is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this
construction.
6. Approximately 77.2% of the parcel will be developed. While this is consistent with Carl&ad’s draft HMP, it is not consistent with the standards of the draft regional MHCP. Wildlife corridors require a
minimum 1,000 feet width with a pinch point of no less than 500’ for a maximum length of 400’. Furthermore sensitive waterways require a minimum buffer of 100’ from each bank. Neither of these
criteria have been met.
The MND must provide for full compliance with the standards included in the MHCP.
5 of8
7. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifjring site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MNTI.
10/4/01 lo:25 PM
Revsal Carlsbad lhxwv Comments
8. There are six distinct sensitive vegetative communities that will be impacted by this project. The
proposed mitigation in most cases is replanted manufactured fill slopes. Such habitat offers little value
for native wildlife, and is a poor substitute for what currently exists. Direct impacts from grading
include 9.6 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub@CSS) and 2 1.6 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral,
plus additional impacts to Freshwater Marsh, Southern Willow Scrub, and Mule Fat Scrub, non-native
grassland, and a small patch of native grassland.
The mitigation acreages fail to accurately account for the large amount of land within the proposed
preserved area that is not currently supporting habitat- the extensive network of roads and trails- in some places 20’ wide, and other areas degraded by the racecourse use. If these areas are to be included within
the mitigation acreage then’the mitigation plan needs to fully address the amount and location of this
restoration or this acreage needs to be deducted.
9. The proposed mitigation does not take into account the reduced value of the remaining habitat.
Reducing the area of habitat significantly reduces the value of the habitat The proposed mitigation for
DCSS at 2: 1 correctly assumes this is occupied habitat, but not all areas were mapped and accounted for
and the chapparral is functioning as CCG habitat which was not factored in..
10. The mitigation plan needs to specifjl site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for success, identifjr funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet success
criteria. The map titled Wetland and Upland Mitigation Areas does not address all of the mitigation
issues. For example, there are invasive plants (pampas grass) in the area marked 13 on the map. The
mitigation plan needs to address the need to remove invasives and do some restoration work in the areas
proposed for preservation.
11. The area proposed for grading is poorly planned and does not take advantage of already disturbed
areas but instead proposes to grade sensitive undisturbed habitat. Alternatives should include more
sensitive site planning that place a higher regard on protection of the little that remains of undisturbed
sensitive habitat. This should include the areas marked 1,2,3, and 4 on the map.
12. Wetlands impacts are specifically protected under the MHCP. The MND fails to ident@ any effort to avoid wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an
adverse impact. Southern Willow Scrub has a poor success ratio for replanting. The mitigation ratio
should therefor be increased to at least 3: 1 with adequate monitoring to ensure success.
13. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
14. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of
critical habitats has been ignored and must be included in the MND.
ls=. -a 15. The payment of fees to the city of Carlsbad for non-native grassland mitigation and for a potential
wildlife corridor under Palomar Airport Rd requires some assurances that the proposed work will be
done, in a timely manner, with adequate public input.
We are very pleased that the need for a Palomar Airport Rd wildlife undercrossing has been
acknowledged. This is an important issue for regional wildlife movement between core habitat- and this
location is a priority area of concern. However, paying fees toward a wildlife crossing is not the same as
6of8 10/4/01 10:25 PM
Ke.nsed Carlsbad KaCeWly C-tS
building a wildlife crossing. Carl&ad does not have a good track record of using funds allocated for
mitigation to actually complete the mitigation as planned. We are concerned that the same thing that
happened with Mt Calavera could happen here- the city accepts funds, puts them in the bank. does no
mitigation work for years, and then only does part of the work that was planned.
There needs to be a control system in place to assure that funds are spent in a way that really benefits wildlife movement- and habitat replacement. No grading permits should be issued until a detailed plan
is in place Penalties and sanctions should be inclcuded in the plan so that if the city fails to complete
the work as planned there will be funds provided for another agency to direct the work.
16. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction. Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed. The
mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or mitigation for sensitive species on the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed
portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat.
17. Carlsbad has used all of their authorized take of DCSS under the provisions of rule 4(d). The city
is therefor not authorized to issue take permits, nor is any other agency allowed to authorize further take permits until approval of Carlsbad’s HMP.
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carl&ad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and
construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
I-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required.
3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose.
Cultural Resources
1. We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss of this site.
We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 BECON report to review alternatives
to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
7of8 10/4/01 lo:25 PM
Kewsed Larlslml Kacewa! . . % .flmeIl~
8of8 10/4/01 1025 PM
native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
3. If during construction there is discovery of human remains in the project area (Pursuant to Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 or the Public Resources Code of the State of
California), construction would need to coordinate with the San Diego County and the Native American
Heritage Commission to address the disposition of the human remains.
Recreational
1 .This area is connected by informal trails through to core areas up La Mirada Canyon to the north and
east, and to the Calavera preserve on the west. Employees of the other industrial parks in this area
commonly use this space for hiking, biking, and picnicing before and after work and throughout the
work day. These projects need to be designed to provide for separate outdoor areas for the industrial
park users that help serve as buffers to the native habitat. There also needs to be planned access for
such recreational use, while still protecting sensitive habitat and wildlife corridors.
2. A link of the regional trail network is planned through this area. Connecting trails will need to be
provided to assure that “unplanned” ones don’t develop on their own.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to revise
this project proposal so that we all end up with a project that is a benefit to this area- and not just a
blight of more empty industrial. pads, a degraded lagoon and less native open space.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard on behalf of
Preserve Calavera
Att: Map
I
1' corethrogyne sP. 2 cordylanthus sP. 3 >Adolphia californica - Ca. spinebush
Additional native piants tha= wer, 8 East end, graded slope faclns ! .Drive: Malosma lacrlna ,laurel-sT (lemonadeberry); Quercus dumosa '
4 >Quercus delmosa 5 Pair of CCG landed on Adenostema fasciculatum 9 S-facing Slope of NE corner: A(
6 Heard CCG integrifolia, Malosma laurina, Sa. Artemisia californica (coastal sac Lonicera sp. (honeysuckle);
lo- At East end of raceway, N-fat: diversifolia (Summer holly) - rare (have photo)
LEGEND
DCSS
sws
MFS
FWM
SMC
NNG
AG
DIS
I -D
Diegan coastal sage scrub
Southern willow scrub
Mule fat scrub
Freshwater marsh
Southern mixed chapparal
Non-native grassland
Agriculture
Disturbed habitat/developed
Indicates disturbed habitat
Cd
AC
Qa
SC
4F Pe
Ce
_. . .
7’ Summer Holly (Cor)raroslq
California adolphia (Adolph
Coast Live Oak (Quercus q
Ashy-spike moss (Selagineh
Del Mar manzanita (Arctos~
Dot-seed Plantain (Pluntugc
Owl’s Clover (CustifZeju exs
HELIX’ Wetland and Upland I
CARLSBAD RAl
/3/
oberved but not shown on old map:- rth, adjacent to Business Park
ac) : Rhus integrafolia
11 "Wildlife Corridor" across canyon
12 Pinch point
lphia californica, Rhus 13 Invasive plants- pampas grass
ia mellifera (black sage),
1, Nassella lepida (bunchgrass),
j slope: Comarostaphylos shrub; several large specimens 8
1 I *
10s diversifolia) -7
california) 7
blia) 7 . inerascens)
hylos glandulosa SSP. crasslyolia)
-ecta) (potential quino checkerspot butterfly
3) (potential quino checkerspot buttetffy host plant)
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts to be Revegetated
Area to Have Soil Broken Up and Seeded
Potential Wetland Restoration Areas
Streambed Restoration Area
3 N
itigation Areas
WAY
A
figure? *
?u2
Llct ut) 01 i)s:iiYp P-2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAX DIEGO UCSD
BERKELE? - DAVIS . IRVINE * LOS ANGELES - RIVERSiDE . SAN DIEGO . SAT% FRANCISCO
NATURALRESERVESYSTEM 9500 GILMAh' DRIVE LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 91093-0116
__~ _....
SANTA BARBAIM * s.wr.\ CRL? _-
TELEPHOh'E: (858) 533-2077 FAX (S58) 574-7108 or 8X-069b
r-mail. ikav8ucsd.cdu
October 5,200l
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 I4
Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559
Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department
Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park
joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 9%
OS/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 9% 1 O/HDP98-09/PIP 0 l-01)
Dear Commissioners:
The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos
Canyon Reserve (“Reserve”), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary
of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high
quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core,
high quality habitat in the North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan
(MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and willow
woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the reserve has
lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of habitat inland, and
habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including golden eagle, mule deer, and mountain
lion. We are. however, fortunate to still have several species at the highest trophic levels,
including coyote, bobcat, fox, and many species of raptors. This is almost certainly because of
the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to individuals of these species, through
connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The
City of Carlsbad has recognized the importance of such connections, and called them out in the
core and linkage concept of the I-IMP.
The two properties under consideration by the Commission for development approval contribute
significantly to one of these connections: Linkage Area D connects the Reserve to extensive
areas of natural open space through the Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial project, and
uct lltd 01 0Y:EYp P-3
thus to major core open space to the south, northeast, and east. Within the City of Vista to the
north of the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these
connections.
The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum jeopardize the
realization of a functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of
Carlsbad and the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The
remainder of this letter details the specifics of our concerns regarding this plan.
1. Need for a full Environmental Analysis
The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a full environmental analysis; a mitigated
negative declaration is clearIy inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the
applicant -- to the grading Iimits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption
that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is
the environmentallv nreferred alternative. This has not been determined, since an environmental
analysis of alternatives has not been carried out.
Furthermore, it is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major
impacts on the remaining open space in the area, with the resulting consequences, including
habitat loss: stormwater runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of -
views, etc.
However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been analyzed. We suggest
that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact.
through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two
projects were superficially (and inconsistentIy) combined for impact analysis. there is not enough
effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation
as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the
minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects
comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of. the HMP and MHCP should be presented.
When this is done, to say that the project “conforms with..” these plans will not be sufficient; a
case needs to be made to support this contention: with precise and specific information, and
clear-cut examples.
In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the
interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form
(EIA) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case. it is certainly out of date. In any case. the following
environmental factors will be subject to potentially significant impacts under the proposed
projects; they should therefore have been checked (in addition to those that were) as “Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated”, or “Potentially Significant Impact”. in the extended
Environmental Impact Assessment form (pages 5 lo), whether or not the impacts are mitigated:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
d) Agricultural resources: agricultural land will be converted to industrial;
C’bad Raceway comment 1O/OS/Ol Page 1 of 7
Ott 08 01 03:3op P-4
e) Disruption of the communiq: the introduction of more traffic and indusrrial area will exacerbate the division of south Carlsbad from north Carlsbad.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
f) significant changes in topography will accompany these projects;
g) land subsidence is likely unless alluvial material is removed as mitigation.
IV. WATER.
There WILL be:
a) changes in absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff;
b) exposure of people and property to flooding, both upstream and downstream;
-3
d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon;
h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.)
IV. AIR QUALITY.
The projects as designed will likely:
b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants;
c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature locally due to hardscaping;
d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes.
In addition, there is no clear evidence that any measures other than circular reasoning have been undeitaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city’s update of the General Plan does not mean that any such measures have been incorporated. They are certainly not explicitly called out. Furthermore, the ?vIElR is no longer adequate as it is older than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time.
VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.
The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects:
b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
The proposal would result in impacts to:
b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including _Ouercus dumosu, Quercus agrifolia, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Adolphia californica, Ferocactus viridescent, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper’s hawk: Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing owl); this does not mean that other sensitive and target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their status on the sites (e.g. particuiar herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral. mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed;
The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as “Potentially Significant Impact”:
d) Wetland habitat: riparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak woodland; and
C’bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of7
Ott 08 01 03:3Op P-5
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is se\,crel! compromised by the plan as proposed.
VIII. ENERGY AND MIXERAL RESOURCES.
a) Adopted energy conservation plans. such as those incorporated into the county-wide REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated communities, and fewer roads.
b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites.
The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG‘s recommendations for “Smart Growth” are being incorporated. See. for example. their website describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities: http:li~~~v.sandag.org/whats_nevr~/workgrogram/workqrogram_l 05.html#lO5.14
IX. HAZARDS.
c) The development of the industrial parks will almost certainly lead to the importation of materials that pose a hazard to human and environmental health. These problems should be examined during this stage of the development process, since to wait until individual parcels are developed would be illegally piecemealing the project.
The introduction of industrial processes, vehicle traffic, and thousands of individuals into an area - of habitat that is highly flbmmable, and the resulting increased likelihood for fire is not discussed.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Fire protection: the reduced level of service that might be available if the lesser environmentally damaging projects are built are discussed in the document; the “potentially significant impact” column should have been checked.
d) The need for indefinite maintenance of the infrastructures supporting these industrial parks, including roads, sewer, storm drains, street lighting, etc. could have a significant impact on the ability of the city’s departments to provide adequate service to their residents in the long-term. This Item should have been checked as having at least a “Potentially significant impact.”
XII. UTILITIES .4ND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Sewer systems are identified as being impacted, albeit at a level deemed below significant. It is not clear why water treatment and distribution facilities (c) and stormwater drainage (e) are not impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects.
XII. AESTHETICS.
The project wi1I most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed (impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics; and creating light and glare) and should thus be recognized at that level.
XV. RECREATION.
Conaary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checklist, there WILL most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of the employees of the business parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need
C’bad Raceway comment I O/05/01 Page 4 of 7
Ott 08 01 03:31p p-6
for recreational facilities in competitive business areas. as employees need to exercise or relas before, during, and after work. In addition, trails and paths that are offered as amenities by the business park will be used to access the open space, thus requiring the development of a larger trail system. Finally, if bicycles are to be encouraged as a form of transportation in the arena. the necessary facilities should hkely be a recreational resource as well.
a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance to view wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc.) will surely be negatively impacted by these projects.
2. Mitigation for habitat impacts
a) Wetlands
The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is ropologically
unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation see Figure 3.
Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix, 1998.) In addition the 0.08
acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum project are not included in existing
plans.
b) Coastal Sage Scrub
Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured (2:l)
slopes. It is not clear that this will result in factional wildlife habitat. or that this is an adequate -
acreage for restoration at 1: 1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore: there appears to be no
plan for fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the
development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area.
c) Oaks
There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Que~~us agrifulia and Quercus
dumosa) on either of the projects, in spite of the fact that oak woodland is to be conserved under
the HMP.
d) Overlooked species and occurrences
It is not clear whether the ten ComarostaphyEos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on
the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and other species were overlooked.
Examples:
1. Comarosflrphylos was observed on the north-facing slope at the east end of the dragstrip, but
was not shown on the map.
2. Large clusters of Quercus dumosa to the west of the Comarosraphylos were not recorded on
the map.
3. Querdus agrifbiia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked.
4. An area of Baccharis scrub in the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a bare,
disturbed area.
5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for
impacts to sensitive species and habitats.
C’bad Raceway comment I O.iO.VOl Page 5 of 7
act 08 01 03:32p P-7
e) inadequate mitigation
In addition, the remaining mitigation proposed for impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Yon-
native grassland, and the transection of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia appear inadequate. for
the following reasons:
1. $100.000 is not sufficient to construct a major bridge such as would be required.
2. NO land in rhe vicinity of Carlsbad can be purchased for S3,949 per acre, so this is
inadequate mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland; additionally, the targeted acquisitions
need to be identified as part of the mitigation proposal.
3. Sirnilarly~ land cannot be purchased for $7,897 per acre, as proposed for mitigation for
chaparral, so this is also inadequate mitigation. Any such purchase alternative needs to identi@
the acquisition parcels prior to project approval.
In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be
made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that
culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public
review.
3. Wildlife corridors
The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and PaIomar Forum projects make up the
northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D-
6) “The northern section of this linkage includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway
that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a moderatelv effective
corridor for birds and mammals.” However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow
(less than 400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completeIy transected by roads in Iwo places.
Most noticeable is the obstacle created by pIacing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest
comer of the Raceway site. The wildlife undercrossing proposed appears to be a culvert that is
180 feet long, 12 feet high, and 5-20 feet wide. A bridge would provide a far superior solution to
the problem, and shouId be studied as a-real alternative. (N.B. It is aImost impossible to
visualize either of these with the plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.)
The Poinsettia (aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering
it another “sink” for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative
impact on the population at large.
There are numerous studies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages and corridors, and
the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successf’LI. Please
contact my office if you do not already have copies of these references for the Planning
Commission before the hearing.
4. Circulation
“The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of
increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated.” (p. 15, EIA). The
mitigation proposed is to complete all the planned roads in the area. It has not yet been decided
C’bad Raceway comment 1 O!OYO I Page 6 of 7
Ott 08 01 03:33p
whether these projects (Faraday, El Fuerte, etc.) should be constructed. Therefore there appears
to be a very real need for a thorough alternatives analysis, in the form of an Environmental
Impact Report.
This section of the document also presents unsubstantiated conclusions that fly in the face of
current evidence to the contrary, i.e. that building more roads eases congestion and encourages
alternative forms of transportation: “The additional roadways (‘Melrose. Poinsettia, and Faraday)
and capacity (PaIomar Airport Road) will . . . reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate
modes of transportation.”
Finally. the justification for using the 1994 MEIR to allow the “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” to stand is that ‘;.. . no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.. .” and that ‘*-. .there is no new available
information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MElR was
certified.” In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects
in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the
past 5 years on San Diego’s freeways, these statements should be re-examined.
5. Hydrology
The proposal to use the wildlife corridorkiparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill- -.
conceived. This very same concept has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad
Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to
mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located
completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and
certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildIife passage.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or
as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the
difference.
Sincerely, ?5!iici*=
Manager. Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve
cc: USFWS
CDFG
Preserve Calavera
C’bad Raceway c&nment 10/05/01 Page7of7
cct 08 01 03:2Sp P- 1
UNIVERSITY OF CALJFORNIA. SAN DIEGO UCSD
BERKELEY . DAVIS . IKVINE * LOS ANGELES . RIVERSIDE . SAN DlEGO * SW FRANCISCO ~...__
Natural Reserve System 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA 92093-0116
Phone: (856) 534-3077 Fax: (8581 8X-0696 ikay@ucsd.ecu
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
~0: Aim Hvsong
Affiliation: Citv of Ccc&bad, Planning Dept.
Fax: (760) 602-8559 Phone:
Date: 10.8.01- Number of pages (including this one): 8
From: Isabelle Kav
Affiliation: UCSD Natural Reserve System
Fax: (858) 822-0696 Phone: f8SB.k534-2077
Comments:
AM,
Since 30 duys from the date of the release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects seems to have been iast
Saturday, I am assuming that it is okay to send this comment letter in to you
today. Please call to let me know you’ve received it, and ifvou have any
questions, or ifvou cannot accept it.
?-SF -- Regards, Isabelle
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
September 20, 2001
Ms. Anne Hysong
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630 .?*tm. : . ..: ‘1 *J .\ Gray Daws t”.‘
4
-.J_ 7: Governor & Q,
C- p&\ c SEP 2001 :\ .
::. mmc~ “.’
-*- mff
t r: .” w ,,-
.,\ _ . . i. .G- .I
.<-<I :., : ,. I ~ +-..:.:; I’
-L-T-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK -
CT 98-l 0 - (sch # 2001071072)
Dear Ms. Hysong:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative
Declaration (ND) for the above-mentioned Project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC’s comments are as follows:
V
2)
3)
4)
5)
The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses have
resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the site.
The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether
conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment.
The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
Since a significant hazard to the public may be associated with future uses of the
site, potential uses and storage of hazardous materials should be addressed in
the ND. A hazardous materials storage permit may be required from an
appropriate regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to regulate hazardous
substances handling, storage, treatment and/or disposal. Contact the Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to evaluate the permit requirements.
Since a significant hazardous impact is expected, the potential exists for the
inadvertent release of hazardous materials from the future uses and storage of
hazardous material. It should be addressed in detail in the ND.
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov.
@ Printed on hwvcled Paper
Ms. Anne Hysong
September 20,200l
Page 2
‘3)
7)
8)
9)
The ND indicates that some areas within the proposed property may be affected
by contamination from previous and current uses of former heavy equipment
storage, ASTs, agriculture chemical residue, %-gallon drums, Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH), and Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB). Any hazardous .
wastes/materials encountered during construction should be remediated in
accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to initiating any
construction activities, an environmental assessment should be conducted to
determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at the site. If so,
further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the
contamination. Also, it is necessary to estimate the potential threat to public
health and/or the environment posed by the site. It may be necessary to
determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or
potential threats to public health or the environment. Because of a non-
immediate threat, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with
state regulations and policies rather than excavation of soil prior to any
assessments.
‘The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If
the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated,
proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free
of contamination.
The ND indicates that the contaminated soil at property will be paved with
asphalt parking lots and roadways. Indicate whether this option is approved by a
regulatory agency as a remedial alternative. Otherwise, appropriate
environmental studies should be conducted and the approval should be obtained
from a regulatory agency to implement this alternative. If capping is the preferred
remedial alternative, appropriate institutional controls such as a “deed restriction”
should be placed on the property with the County Recorder’s Office so that any
future soil disturbance could be eliminated. Also, the integrity of the cap should
be maintained. Therefore, an operation and maintenance plan should be
implemented as a condition of approval of this ND.
The ND fails to address the remainder of the Hazards section checklist of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which includes the following
questions:
. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school? . Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of
Ms. Anne Hysong
September 20,200l
Page 3
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
.been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
10) If during construction of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is
suspected, suspend construction in the area and implement appropriate Health
and Safety procedures. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or
groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or
remediation will be conducted and which government agency will provide
appropriate regulatory oversight.
DTSC provides guidance for Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation
and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). Also, DTSC is
administering the $85 million Cleanup Loans and Environmental Assistance to
Neighborhoods (CLEAN), which provides low-interest loans to investigate and clean up
hazardous materials at properties where redevelopment is likely to have a beneficial
impact to a community. The CLEAN program is comprised of two main components:
low interest loans of up to $100,000 to conduct PEAS of underutilized properties, and
loans of up to $2.5 million for the cleanup or removal of hazardous materials also at
underutilized urban properties. These loans are available to developers, businesses,
schools, and local governments.
For additional information on the VCP or CLEAN program, please visit DTSC’s web site
at www.dtsc.ca.gov. If you would like to meet and discuss this matter further, please
contact Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484-5479.
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office
cc: see next page
Ms. Anne Hysong
September 20, 2001
Page 4
cc: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l DRAFT P::!?~‘~ 6
1. GPA 01-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM - Request for a
recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change and approval of
a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Planned Industrial Permit to allow the
subdivision of a 70.6 acre parcel located north of Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose
Drive and the City’s eastern boundary into 10 industrial lots and 2 open space lots on property
located in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
2. GPA 98-05/LFMP 8748tB)IZC Ol-O7/CT 98-IOlHDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 - CARLSBAD RACEWAY
BUSINESS PARK - Request for a recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan
Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Zone Change and approval of a
Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Planned Industrial Permit to allow the
subdivision of a 146.3 acre parcel located north of Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose
Drive and the City’s eastern boundary into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots on property
located in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 18.
Mr. Wayne introduced Items #l and #2 stating that the projects are adjacent to one another and staff
would like to make a presentation on both projects at one time, however, the Commission’s actions would
be separate because they are separate projects. He explained the issues are similar for both projects
and this would be a combined public hearing. He stated the Palomar Forum would follow the Carlsbad
Raceway because the Carlsbad Raceway has a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Amendment
associated with it. The Palomar Forum project is dependent upon the Plan Amendment so action on the
Carlsbad Raceway project would have to precede action on the Palomar Forum project.
He added the presentation would be made by Anne Hysong, Project Planner; Clyde Wickham, Project
Engineer; Dawn Wilson, Traffic Consultant; and Glen Van Pesky, City Engineering Consultant for Water
Quality.
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing.
Ms. Hysong stated that the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project is located north of Palomar Airport
Road between the Carlsbad Oaks East Business Park and the City’s eastern boundary. The 146-acre
property is surrounded by open space and industrial development in the City of Vista to the north; by
Palomar Forum property to the south, and by commercial industrial development to the east and west.
She showed photographs of the area explaining the views from different directions. She stated the
property descends northward into an east/west canyon where a drainage spans most of the length of the
property. The drainage is an unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek. Elevations range from
approximately 310 feet to 495 feet, An SDG&E easement bisects the eastern half of the property.
Ms. Hysong stated the site has been significantly disturbed by agricultural activity and Carlsbad Raceway
since the 1960’s. She identified the six vegetation communities the property supports. She stated the
project consists of the subdivision and grading of 25 industrial lots and the preservation of 3 open space
lots which is identified as a portion of Linkage Area D in the City ‘s Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Ms. Hysong stated the project will extend Melrose Drive to the City of Vista and includes construction of
Street “B”, that will extend from Poinsettia Avenue in Vista to Melrose Drive. The sub-division design
shows primary access via Melrose Drive and Street “B”; lots are located east and west of Street “B”. She
pointed out additional access would be provided from Street “A”, which will be the extension of Paseo
Valindo and extend through the Palomar Forum property. In addition, the project will provide for a
landscaped mini-park west of Melrose Drive and detention basins on each lot in the open space corridor to
detain sediment and pollutants resulting from grading and future development. Redesignating and
rezoning the open space at this time is consistent with the open space element and the open space zone.
She stated that the proposed amendment to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
provides for public facilities required to enable the development of the remainder of the Zone 18 properties
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 10
including the Raceway and Palomar Forum projects. Required facilities include improvements to Palomar
Airport Road, the construction of Melrose Drive, a financial guarantee for Faraday Avenue, construction of
drainage improvements, payment of sewer fees, a temporary out of basin sewer agreement with the City
of Vista, payment of water fees and construction of potable and recycled water facilities. She added the
project is subject to and consistent with the airport land use plan and is excluded from hillside ordinance
regulations regarding grading quantities and slope heights. The project is consistent with the P-M zone
development standards for land subdivision. Lots exceed 1 acre, 50 foot landscape setbacks have been
provided along Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road, a functional circulation system has been
provided, and a mini-park is proposed to satisfy outdoor eating requirements.
She explained that the Environment Impact Assessment conducted by Staff identified potentially
significant environmental impacts for water quality, circulation, biology, visual impacts to scenic corridors,
and exposure to hazardous materials. Mitigation to reduce those impacts was imposed and the Planning
Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 15, 2001. Letters in response to that document
were received from one individual, the Sierra Club, Preserve Calavera Group, the Department of Toxic
Substances, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Based
on comments received from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game, the Planning Director recirculated the mitigated negative declaration with added mitigation
measures to reduce the identified impacts.
Ms. Hysong described the following mitigation measures: Circulation impacts will be mitigated through the
construction of Melrose Drive and Street “B” and a financial guarantee for future Faraday Avenue to the
north and various intersection improvements. Potential water quality impacts are mitigated through
construction of detention facilities and compliance with the projects Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan. Biological mitigation will be provided through the preservation, restoration, and revegetation of
coastal sage scrub habitat, the installation of a 12-foot high animal crossing under Melrose Drive, the
creation of wetland habitat, recreation of stream bed habitat, the replacement of sensitive plant species, a
burrowing owl survey, development of a wetland and coastal sage scrub restoration and monitoring
program. Mitigation for visual impacts includes prohibition of mechanical rooftop equipment unless
architecturally integrated, prohibition of loading bays visible from Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive,
and enhanced architectural treatment. Mitigation to avoid potential accidental release of hazardous
substances includes prohibition of the use of toxic gases, risk management plans for the use of regulated
substances, and offsite consequence analysis for the use of hazardous materials. Site assessments
have been performed indicating no significant health concerns would result from contaminated soils that
are located below the Raceway entry road if those soils would be disposed or used in non-sensitive areas
such as fill slopes. Mitigation was added to require the applicant to solicit peer review by the San Diego
County Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division Technical Review
Board, and to incorporate their recommendations into the grading design.
Ms. Hysong stated during the second public comment period letters were received from the Preserve
Calavera Group, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve, the Department of Toxic Substances, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and the California Department of Fish and Game. This time the State and
Federal wildlife agencies concurred with the proposed biological mitigation. Some of the public responses
included objections to the processing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). In addition, concerns were raised regarding the environmental analysis for noise,
cultural resources, public services and utilities, air quality, energy resources, aesthetics, recreation,
biological resources, water quality, traffic, and hazardous materials.
She stated the response to the comments is for both the Raceway and Palomar Forum projects. The
decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the review of the environmental studies
submitted for the project. Staff performed an Environmental Impact Assessment that identified and
analyzed potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures proposed to mitigate those impacts.
She said they consulted with the wildlife agencies to determine if biological mitigation proposed for the
project was adequate. No substantial evidence was presented that the project will result in a significant
environmental impact. The projects potential for contribution to cumulative traffic, water quality, and
biological impacts has been considered and mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 11
Ms. Hysong commented as follows on potential impacts:
She stated there was a comment about the conversion of agricultural land, however, the property contains
no prime or statewide important agricultural land required to be mitigated. Regarding geology - the project
is conditioned to comply with the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical study and there were
no significant issues raised in that study. The project is consistent with the City’s hillside ordinance
exclusions, therefore the topographical changes that were identified as issues of concern are not
considered significant.
In regard to air quality, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use that was analyzed as part
of the City’s Master EIR. The zoning standards limiting building coverage on each lot and the surrounding
open space will avoid significant changes to air movement resulting from the project. Potential for odors
was also identified. RPM Zone Ordinance regulates that issue and projects are not allowed to exceed
particular standards.
Traffic hazards - one of the letters indicated the roads were unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
Our City standards for roads are designed to ensure safety for all of those.
Biological impacts were addressed in detail and the project is consistent with the HMP, therefore Staff
believes the mitigation is adequate. Specific responses to wildlife agencies and public concerns include
the wildlife corridor through the project that is consistent with the open space configuration provided in the
HMP. The projects are conditioned to require the developers to actively maintain the wildlife corridor until
ownership is transferred to the City or its designee and to secure a funding mechanism to pay for
maintenance of the corridor in perpetuity. Short-term impacts were identified for the wildlife corridor during
construction, however, these impacts are not considered significant because they won’t permanently
impact wildlife movement. Mitigation of impacts to all sensitive habitats is consistent with the requirements
of the HMP, including the payment of habitat mitigation fees and providing wetland restoration with no net
loss of wetland acres. It is proposed to provide for a wildlife undercrossing at Melrose Drive and
Poinsettia Lane and provide funding through the habitat mitigation fees to restore wildlife movement under
Palomar Airport Road through the construction of a wildlife crossing. We will also be providing for water
quality treatment that will ensure the protection of water quality within the creek and wetlands both on site
and downstream in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. We believe that combining these projects’ specific
mitigation measures have resulted in full mitigation for impacts to wetland and upland habitats and also
resulted in preserving existing wildlife movement opportunities and enhanced wildlife movement under
Palomar Airport Road.
A noise issue was raised, however, there was basically no restriction on grading during the breeding
season imposed on the projects by the responsible wildlife agencies presumably because there were no
nesting gnatcatchers identified on site, although they are believed to occupy sometimes. There was a
comment that noise impacts to existing residential development should have been assessed because of
the extension of Melrose Drive, however, we believe any mitigation for that development should have
been considered by the City of Vista when the development went in.
In respect to energy resources, the project is consistent with the General Plan and energy resources are
available to the project.
Hazardous materials - measures were imposed to avoid migration of dust during grading operations and
the future use of hazardous material.
Public services - the Raceway project is consistent with the Fire Departments requirement for a 5-minute
emergency response time for all development. Funds are available to adequately maintain all public
infrastructure approved by the City.
Utilities and Services - there was an agreement to temporarily connect to an existing out of basin sewer
and that would be permitted if the LFMP amendment is adopted, and eventually that sewer would connect
to the City’s south Agua Hedionda system.
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 12
Aesthetics impacts were brought up and those impacts were avoided through project design and
mitigation conditions.
Cultural resources - archaeological surveys performed at the site over a lo-year period revealed that no
significant cultural resources exist on the site. An important site located north of the Raceway project has
been buried beneath Melrose Drive in the City of Vista and no mitigation is necessary.
Recreational opportunities - Zone 18 LFMP sets thresholds for the provision of parks in the northeast
quadrant where these projects are located. The projects will pay a non-residential park-in-lieu fee
required by growth management in accordance with conditions of Zone 18 LFMP to satisfy its obligations
for parks. In addition, the projects include a mini-park and a trail segment that will connect to the city-wide
trail system in the future.
Ms. Hysong turned the presentation over to Glen Van Pesky of GDP Consultants.
Glen Van Pesky, GDP Consultants, 3764 Cavern Place, Carlsbad, California addressed the mitigation of
the water quality issues associated with these projects. He stated water quality was a specific concern
due to the grading proposed and the proximity to the unnamed tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek. He
stated the project was split into three phases of development. The first was when actual grading
operations expected to take place; the second when the rough grading was complete and the pads were
done before actual development of the lots; and the third phase was post development as buildings are
built and occupied.
He stated the property drains to Agua Hedionda Creek and the lagoon, so they looked at pollutants of
concern listed for the lagoon. These include sediment and bacteria. Due to this being an industrial project
they did not concentrate on bacteria being a major impact. Sediment impacts and mitigation are detailed
in a preliminary Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by the applicant’s engineers for the
project. Sediment mitigation breaks down into source controls and treatment controls. There is a two
pronged approach to remove any sediment that makes it into the runoff before entering the creek. As
each individual lot is graded there will be a temporary desilting basin at the storm drain inlet to that lot that
allows the silt to settle out so clean water enters the storm drain system. As a backup measure there are
three permanent basins, so before the storm drains discharge into the creek they each go through another
detention basin which allows the water to pond and further settle out any sediment that made it past the
first individual sediment basins.
Mr. Van Pesky added that on a post development basis there will be additional pollutants that could
potentially enter into the storm drain and ultimately into the lagoon. To mitigate those issues, they
conditioned the project to provide post construction or permanent water quality treatment facilities on each
lot. It could include things such as grass swales or structures to actually separate pollutants out of the
water. A related facility to water quality is the proposed detention created by the Melrose crossing, the
tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek. The storm drain under the crossing is deliberately undersized to create
detention and cut down on the peak runoff flows.
Ms. Hysong added that she was informed by the biologist that the water backup in the detention basin
would not impact the wetland vegetation, and in fact, it would be good for it.
Ms. Hysong introduced Dawn Wilson from RBF Consultants, the City’s third party peer review for traffic
analyses. Ms. Wilson stated that the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects are two of six major
development projects planned to come on line in the City of Carlsbad by the year 2020. The Carlsbad
Raceway and Palomar Forum projects are forecast to generate 15,547 average daily trips with
approximately 2.2 million square feet of industrial development. Carlsbad Raceway accounts for
approximately 10,320 of the trips and Palomar Forum for the remaining 5, 227. She stated that due to the
proximity of all these projects, the City staff undertook significant efforts to update the traffic model. She
described the model and methodology used.
Ms. Wilson stated the City of Carlsbad worked with surrounding communities to gather the most accurate
information available at the time the model was calibrated to determine what their existing land uses were,
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 13
as well as approved and pending projects on the books at the time. She said two future scenarios were
evaluated for traffic impact analysis for Palomar Forum and Carlsbad Raceway for the year 2005 and
2020. She stated that since the project is expected to built out by 2005, all mitigation measures planned
for 2005 are assumed to mitigate any impacts between 2005 and 2020. She added that with project
buildout, it is assumed that Melrose Drive, Faraday Avenue, and Poinsettia Lane are complete. In
addition, for the 2020 network the General Plan roadway network is complete which includes all
designations of roadway in the General Plan.
Ms. Wilson explained that once the traffic model was updated, the project impacts were evaluated in a
two-tier process. The first stage was consistency with SANTEC and CMP guidelines - all intersections
with 50 or more peak hour generated trips must be included in the analysis as well as freeway segments
with 150 or more two-way peak hour trips. She pointed out the extent of their study area on a slide,
stating that the sphere of influence for the project was determined by taking into consideration the project
land uses and surrounding land uses. She stated that the model determines what other projects will
attract trips from both Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum and how far people are willing to drive. The
model assumes that the closer the attractions are to the project site, the more likely people will travel to
them. She said the project trips did not extend out to the l-5 and 78 freeways, therefore, the freeways
were not included in the analysis.
She stated that the City’s Growth Management Plan was one of the tiers of evaluation for the projects.
The Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects are located in Zone 18 of the LFMP, and the
intersections must operate at level D or better. She pointed out the intersections for Carlsbad Raceway
that would be significantly impacted under 2005 conditions, Eleven intersections were significantly
impacted, and 8 of them fell into the City of Carlsbad boundaries. She said the City of Carlsbad met with
the cities of Vista and San Marcos and developed a plan for mitigating these deficiencies. Mitigation
measures have been identified for the intersections located in Carlsbad to return the operating conditions
to acceptable levels. She pointed out the impacts that are the direct responsibility of the project to mitigate.
Ms. Wilson stated that by year 2020 the roadway network is assumed to be built out in the General Plan
designations, which include the extension of Faraday Avenue and College Boulevard. Six intersections
are forecasted to be significantly impacted and two are located in the City of Carlsbad. Based on the CMP
guidelines all roadway segments and intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels with
proposed planned improvements. She said the project will be responsible for both project improvements
located onsite or on the project frontage, as well as project measures for offsite improvements. Raceway
will be responsible for the extension of Poinsettia Avenue from its existing terminus in the City of Vista to
Melrose Drive and the connection of Street “A” to the Palomar Forum project. Project mitigation measures
include improvements at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive as well as the
extension of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in Vista, and the financial guarantee of Faraday
Avenue between Melrose Drive and Orion Way. She added that all of the significant project impacts in the
City of Carlsbad were calculated to comply with acceptable Growth Management Plan standards.
Ms. Wilson stated the analysis methodology applied to the Carlsbad Raceway project was also applicable
to the Palomar Forum project and the sphere of influence was exactly the same. She pointed out the
intersections that were significantly impacted and said the project would be directly responsible for
improvements at Melrose Drive, Palomar Airport Road, and Street “A” at Palomar Airport Road, and will be
responsible for contributing fees toward other improvements within the city. She stated that the Palomar
Forum Industrial Park will also be contributing to frontage improvements along Palomar Airport Road from
the City of Vista to Melrose Drive, improvements to Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Forum access
point, as well as connection with the Carlsbad Raceway project along Street “A”. Project mitigation
measures include improvements at Palomar Airport Road/Melrose intersection, financial contribution for
the Faraday Avenue extension, and the construction of Melrose Drive. She added that all of the
significant impacts for this study within the City of Carlsbad were calculated to comply with acceptable
Growth Management Plan standards.
Ms. Hysong began her presentation on the Palomar Forum project stating that it is located on north side of
Palomar Airport Road between the existing Carlsbad Oaks East Business Park and the city’s eastern
boundary. The 70-acre property is surrounded by the Raceway project to the north and Palomar Airport
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 14
Road to the south and existing commercial and industrial development to the east and west. She showed
photographs of the property from different directions. She stated the central portion of the property
contains small naturally vegetated ravines and a SDG&E easement bisects the eastern portion of the
property. The site has been significantly disturbed by past agricultural activity.
She pointed out the project consists of subdivision and grading of 10 industrial lots and preservation of 2
open space lots. The eastern open space lot is part of the City’s Linkage Area D in the City’s Habitat
Management Plan. She said if the project goes first it will extend Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport
Road to its existing terminus in the City of Vista. The subdivision will receive primary access via Palomar
Airport Road. Lots will front on east/west cul-de-sac streets and Street “A” will eventually intersect with
Street “B” in the Carlsbad Raceway project.
Ms. Hysong stated the detention basins on each lot and the open space corridor are proposed to detain
sediment and pollutants from grading operations and future development. The project will provide a
landscaped mini-park located west of Melrose Drive that includes a segment of the citywide trail system.
The proposed mini-park has a waterfall and creek feature and will function as a passive recreation area for
employees of the industrial segment. The trail will extend through the Carlsbad Raceway property and
connect to another trail segment to the north. She added that both properties are contributing land
towards the mini-park.
She stated the proposed General Plan and Zone change are for the purpose of redesignating and
rezoning the proposed open space to the open space designation which is consistent with General Plan.
The project is subject to and consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan in regard to building height
standards and prohibition of public assembly conditional uses. The project is consistent with applicable P-
M zone development standards for land subdivision.
Ms. Hysong stated that generally, the mitigation described in the Raceway project is also applicable to the
Palomar Forum project. However, the biological mitigation is different in that they are required to restore
1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub onsite and acquire some acreage of coastal sage scrub offsite. It is also
required to put a 12-foot high undercrossing under the Melrose Drive extension for the purpose of wildlife
movement, and create .08 acre of riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation within the Carlsbad
Raceway wildlife corridor. She stated they will be paying fees to mitigate non-native grassland and
southern mixed chaparral. Studies and surveys are required and a wetland and coastal sage scrub brush
restoration and monitoring program will be required. She added that the visual and hazards impact
mitigation is the same as for the Raceway project. She stated there is an errata sheet that requires a
revision to one condition for the Carlsbad Raceway project.
Commissioner Compas asked when the letters from Deb Schmidt and Douglas Diener were received. Ms.
Hysong replied those letters were received as a result of the first public notice for the environmental
document and were not distributed with the first staff report. She said that basically the issues brought up
in the letters were covered in her presentation.
Commissioner Compas asked if the extension of Melrose Drive has to be completed before the buildings
are occupied. Mr. Clyde Wickham responded that the Melrose Drive construction will probably take 18
months, so occupancy might occur on a portion of the site slightly ahead of Melrose, but there is condition
that says Melrose has to be in place before occupancy.
Commissioner Compas asked what the Faraday financial guarantee means and what is the developer’s
percentage of responsibility to complete Faraday. Mr. Wickham replied that the exact percentage has not
yet been determined, but the Bridge and Thoroughfare District had some meetings on it and are talking to
the adjacent developers as a group and will determine the percent of responsibility.
Commissioner Compas asked if the project touches the Faraday extension and if not, why is it required to
participate. Mr. Wickham stated that the Faraday extension is required as part of the LFMP review. That
process allows us to look at a larger picture and there are impacts to Palomar and Melrose that cannot be
mitigated without the extension of Faraday. He said ideally we would like Melrose and Faraday to be built
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 15
concurrently, but we realize there could be a longer construction process for Faraday and it will be a lot
easier to build Melrose, so they may lag one another.
Chairperson Segall asked how long the lag could be because Ms. Wilson’s presentation showed the
Faraday connection to be completed in 2020. Mr. Wickham said they intended to correct that slide, it is
supposed to be all the way through from Melrose to El Camino by 2010. He said 2005 might be too
aggressive. The EIR for Faraday is projected to go early next year and they are trying their best to
accelerate the completion of Faraday.
Chairperson Segall mentioned they were told all along that Melrose could not open until Faraday was
complete because that completes a circulation route that was real important to mitigate overcrowding on
Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Wickham replied they are trying to keep them together but Melrose might be in
place before Faraday, it may be 6 months or longer.
Chairperson Segall asked how much longer it could be because he knows it’s an important issue for the
City of Vista as well as Carlsbad. Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that if Faraday isn’t
built quickly or concurrently with Melrose, there is a bigger risk of failure of Palomar Airport Road. The
preferred method is to build them concurrently and have the financing package together. They are
working with the developer, the City of Vista, and trying to get the environmental documents prepared for
the Faraday extension. However, the developer is being conditioned to go ahead and allow him to build
Melrose ahead of Faraday, and if there is a failure he would be unable to issue building permits until
Faraday is built to resolve the failure and conform to the growth management standards.
Chairperson Segall suggested that the failure may not necessarily come from that project, it could come
from the City of Vista. Mr. Hammann stated that’s correct. The traffic studies indicate after the year 2005
and by 2010 if certain lengths of Faraday are not completed those failures would occur.
Commissioner Baker asked if they were talking about extending Faraday all the way to Melrose. Mr.
Hammann replied that’s correct, but the first phase shown in the traffic report prepared for these projects
was the construction of Faraday from Melrose to El Fuerte. Going westerly from Melrose to El Fuerte
would give an access off Faraday looping back up to Palomar Airport Road. We’ve been working with the
developers of the Oaks property to extend Faraday all the way from Orion to Melrose as one project. The
traffic mitigation studies indicated that the link of Faraday from El Fuerte to Melrose would provide enough
relief between the years 2005 to 2010 to mitigate regional traffic from this project. It’s not the preferred
way to do it, but the traffic analysis did allow the development of Faraday to be phased, with the eastern
link completed first.
Commissioner Baker asked if there’s a possibility Faraday won’t be built. Mr. Hammann responded that
there is a chance due to environmental reasons, but they are working with the environmental agencies
and doing the alternative analysis at this time. The EIR should be published early next year and they are
hopeful that it will get approved.
Commissioner Compas asked when El Fuerte would be completed. Mr. Wickham replied that El Fuerte is
within the first phase of the Carlsbad Oaks project and is anticipated for 2005. He added that Poinsettia
Avenue is a parallel link to Palomar Airport Road and will help hold congestion to a minimum.
Commissioner Trigas wanted to clarify that only the eastern link of Faraday will be built and the rest of
Faraday is not yet determined. Mr. Wickham responded that the entire Oaks project is going to be part of
the EIR that will be released early next year and it includes the short link and the El Fuerte/Faraday
connection and the overall connection.
Commissioner Trigas asked if there is an environmental problem down the road, will it be something we
can work with. Mr. Wickham replied there is a real threat that if we open Melrose before Faraday there
will be an attractive relief for the circulation network regionally, and we will overload Palomar and could
have a LFMP failure that will shut down the development of the Raceway and the Forum.
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 16
Commissioner Trigas asked if shutting down the development would be our response. Mr. Wickham said
there are not a lot of alternative networks available. Commissioner Compas asked if it would also shut
down all other projects affected by that intersection.
Mr. Hammann responded that it is Staffs opinion that it’s not a likely possibility that Faraday would not be
extended from the Safety Center to Melrose because of the need for that circulation link, and they feel
they can fully mitigate all the impacts. They are working on the various alternatives and working with
consultants to come up with various mitigation scenarios. He said there’s always a possibility that
something could happen to prevent the completion of Faraday, but it’s one of the most important
circulation elements to complete in the City of Carlsbad so they are pushing very hard at a staff level to try
to get the construction completed.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if Melrose opens and Palomar fails, what would be done other than shutting
down the permits. Mr. Hammann said they could have the financing of Faraday and Melrose guaranteed
and have that road under construction so the solution to that problem would be imminent. If it came to a
point that it could not be mitigated, it’s his understanding they would have to stop issuing building permits
in that area until the issue is resolved.
Chairperson Segall asked if the moratorium would be just for that area or citywide, as they did at El
Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Hammann stated he believed it would be quadrant and
would affect only the southeast/southwest quadrant.
Chairperson Segall asked by opening Melrose and doing the traffic assessment, how much traffic is
generated from these two projects versus traffic coming from the City of Vista or the City of Carlsbad
going into Vista. Ms. Wilson stated she could tell what the 2005 projected volume is for the two projects
but whether it’s Carlsbad versus Vista, aside from these projects they cannot designate which comes from
which by the studies that have been done. She said she can give an idea of how much comes from
Raceway and Forum and how much is being modeled and requested to get back with the answer.
Mr. Hammann added that the numbers will show that traffic generated from these two projects are not
significant in a regional sense. By the year 2005 the regional traffic will be so large that traffic failures will
occur along Palomar Airport Road whether these two projects are built or not.
Ms. Wilson, responding to Chairperson Segall’s earlier question, stated that based on the traffic impact
analysis report prepared for these two studies, in approximately the year 2005, there are about 48,000
ADT planned on Melrose Drive. By 2020, because of other regional improvements, volumes are
forecasted to decrease slightly to between 44,000 and 46,000 ADT. The percentage of the project’s trips
is about 18% of the total volume, which is not of the ADT but the project generated trips which correlates
to the 2,500 or 34% of the total ADT on Melrose for these two projects. The vast majority of traffic on
Melrose would be going past the project.
Commissioner Trigas commented she realized that l-5 and 78 are not considered for impacts, but even
though these projects won’t be impacting l-5 and 78, clearly the traffic will impact l-5 and 78 Mr.
Hammann said owners and employees of these businesses will be generating traffic to those roadways.
However, in analyzing these projects, the impacts are not significant and the traffic will be there whether
these projects are built or not. In general, l-5 and 78 corridors are being handled regionally working with
CALTRANS, SANDAG, and other local agencies. Mr. Wickham added that building 2 million square feet
of industrial space in North County helps because it attracts businesses and workers that are already in
North County to stay here instead of driving to Mira Mesa or San Diego.
Commissioner Trigas asked if any follow-up is done to assumptions made to verify if they were right or
wrong so they could analyze our process for the future. Mr. Wickham replied they do annual reviews for
the LFMP’s. They count key intersections to determine levels of service and how roadway links are
working. They are also trying to keep their traffic models alive.
Chairperson Segall asked if it’s conceivable that the City put a barricade at Melrose after it’s completed
until Faraday is complete to prevent failure on Palomar. Mr. Hammann said that would be a Council level
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 17
decision. The recommendation the staff and engineering department will make to Council is to allow
Palomar Forum and Raceway to build the full width improvements of Melrose and open it up and have the
financing mechanism in place and have the environmental process far enough along so that they are sure
the project can be built, and recommend to Council that as long as growth management is met that the
roadway be opened up. But it would be the Council’s decision.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the wildlife agencies are reasonably satisfied with the solutions to the
underpass on the edge of the property. Ms. Hysong stated they have received letters that indicated they
are now satisfied with the mitigation being proposed and the mitigation they required. They are satisfied
with the Melrose underpass. The developer is required to complete the underpass at Melrose and funding
is not a problem at this point for the Palomar Airport Road underpass.
Commissioner Compas asked to explain the fees the projects are required to pay. Ms. Hysong replied
that the fees will be collected by the City for the purpose of three different things assuming the HMP is not
approved yet. If the HMP is approved, the fees would go to the purchase of the core area, which is part of
the implementation for the HMP. To go to the Palomar Airport Road undercrossing the HMP would have
to be revised to allow for that. Agencies will have to issue permits for these projects and since they also
have to approve the HMP, she believes they would want a minor revision to the HMP to provide for the
undercrossing. If it costs more than anticipated, it would be between the developers and permitting
agencies. The developers prepared preliminary cost estimates and based on those estimates there is a
$50,000 pad between the difference of what they say it would cost and the fees collected.
Commissioner Compas asked if they are reasonably sure the animals would go through the underpass.
Ms. Hysong stated they took three alternatives to the agencies to review for feasibility. They returned
letters indicating they had done studies and determined it was feasible.
Commissioner Dominguez referenced the August 5th letter from Dr. Diener and asked about the accuracy
of his statement that for every acre of habitat graded it would need to be replaced with 3 to 5 acres of
undisturbed or equivalent habitat. He also asked if there is a formalized success criteria used to
determine the accuracy of assumptions regarding traffic projections as well as habitat management.
Mr. Barry Jones of Helix Environmental Planning Inc., 8100 La Mesa Blvd., La Mesa, California, stated he
thought the letter Commissioner Dominguez was referring to was prepared prior to the second set of
meetings with the resource agencies. He said the coastal sage scrub mitigation requirements are
consistent with what is typically expected for any project impacting coastal sage in the region. The
mitigation ratios for wetland habitats are consistent with mitigation ratios you would typically expect for the
quality of the habitat on the site. He said it’s fairly disturbed habitat and believes the mitigation ratios are
consistent with what you would expect in the region.
Regarding success criteria, Mr. Jones replied they have prepared a conceptual restoration plan for the
project that follows a standard format required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It contains very
specific success criteria that are consistent with industry standards.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the underpass would be monitored to ensure the animals are using it. Mr.
Jones stated that both the Melrose and “B” Street underpasses are standard sizes that are used
throughout the county based on studies done by Ogden Environmental and supported by more recent
data collected in other parts of the county. The 60” undercrossing at Palomar was reviewed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. They had it reviewed by
independent biologists and their experts are telling them that it’s adequate. Some of the locations they are
basing it on are some areas in San Diego where they have fairly long undercrossings that are essentially
the same size.
Chairperson Segall asked if there is something to prevent kids from going in and getting trapped. Mr.
Jones replied that the typical design includes some type of fencing that will direct wildlife into the
undercrossing rather than up to Palomar Airport Road. Anything that would preclude a kid from going in
there would also preclude an animal. He said there won’t be water flowing through it or sediment buildup.
The fencing will help discourage using it for a play area; on the project side it’s part of an industrial park
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 18
and goes to a fairly steep slope on the residential side in an area that is identified and supposed to be
maintained as open space.
Commissioner Baker asked what Linkage Area D means in reference to the HMP and where the habitat
areas are located. Mr. Jones pointed out the area on the map and stated the objective is to move wildlife
through the Palomar Forum, across the northern portion of the Raceway project, down into the Oaks
property and then up north.
Commissioner Baker asked if these linkages would be in future plans or just linkages for now. Ms.
Hysong replied that this is part of the overall citywide Habitat Management Plan and the purpose of these
linkages is to connect preserve areas.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if Melrose and Palomar Airport Road are view corridors and would the
design be coming to them for approval. Ms. Hysong responded that Palomar Airport Road is considered a
scenic corridor. The Planned Industrial Ordinance requires Planning Director approval of the individual
planned industrial permits so the Commission would not have to approve.
Mr. Wayne stated that there is a Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone and so far is the only place requiring a
Special Use Permit for development, and in those cases projects would come before the Commission.
The Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone has not been applied to Palomar Airport Road. He said the only
place it has been applied to thus far is El Camino Real.
Commissioner Baker asked what type of requirements are there for landscaping, size of trees, etc. Ms.
Hysong stated the proposed landscaping is in accordance with the landscape manual. She believed the
trees along Palomar Airport Road are 25 inch. She said the developer chose to show in the photo
simulations what the trees would like after they mature and would provide a lot of screening.
Chairperson Segall asked if protection of Native American concerns and burial sites is an issue on this
property. Ms. Hysong stated they did not require mitigation for cultural resources. There were several
archaeological studies performed over a 1 O-year period and no significant artifacts were discovered. They
also performed further evaluations on recommended sites and no archaeological mitigation was required.
Chairperson Segall asked if there are standard operating procedures to require development to stop if you
come across some kind of burial or archaeological sites during the excavation process. Ms. Hysong
stated she believes that is correct, but the project is not conditioned to require that and she’s not aware
that it needs to be.
Mr. Wayne stated that absence of artifacts would likely indicate no burial grounds, but if a burial ground is
encountered that is a different story. A coroner would have to be brought in and if it is determined that it’s
a Native American, you would follow procedure. Ms. Hysong stated that Mr. Wickham advised her that
there is a provision for that in the grading ordinance, so it’s a standard procedure.
Mr. Bill Hofman, of Hofman Planning Associates, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150, Carlsbad, California
stated he represents both property owners of the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum properties. He
complimented the excellent job done by Staff in explaining the process and responding to the comments
that were submitted. He said from the very beginning of the process more than three years ago they
recommended, and their clients agreed, to design a project that was environmentally sensitive and in
conformance with the City’s HMP. They received early input from the City and the resource agencies
regarding the design of the project and the nature of the open space that was to remain on the site. They
submitted hard line boundaries of the open space that were agreed to by the City and resource agencies
and were incorporated into the HMP. He said they planned the rest of the site after the open space
boundaries were established and the project has not changed since that time. The project was designed
to avoid any significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated, therefore, there was no need to
do an Environmental Impact Report. The Mitigated Negative Declaration Report was reviewed and
commented on by all the trustee agencies and was found to be adequate.
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 19
Mr. Hofman described some of the other positive aspects of the project as follows: It will provide a very
high quality employment center close to the Carlsbad work force, giving Carlsbad residents the
opportunity to work in Carlsbad and reduce their dependency on the automobile. The projects will
contribute to the construction of major circulation links including Faraday Avenue and Melrose that are
needed to solve the City’s long-term circulation needs. The projects will implement the General Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance since they comply with all the goals and the policies of the land use element for the
planned industrial use designation. The project does comply with and will implement the City’s Growth
Management Ordinance.
He pointed out that the way growth management works they are conditioned that they cannot record a
final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first, until there is a financial guarantee in
place for both Faraday and Melrose. Faraday is not a project that their project impacts, however, they
realize there will be a failure at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real without Faraday. They
recognize that and are willing participants in either a Bridge and Thoroughfare District or a Community
Facilities District. He added that without these projects Melrose and Faraday will be significantly delayed.
Chairperson Segall asked how widespread the financing mechanism is - does it impact Chang and you
and could it also impact other contiguous properties north and south of Palomar. Mr. Hofman replied that
the district is proposed to cover only the Chang property and their two properties and it might include the
City properties and potentially, the County.
Mr. Pat O’Day, with O’Day Consultants, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 100, Carlsbad, California, stated he
represents Chang as an engineer. He stated they had a tentative map in process for the last several
years. They are partnering with the City of Carlsbad in writing the Environmental Impact Report that’s
being processed now and based on the last meeting they had it should be concluded within the year. He
said there are some negotiations on trying to get their tentative map approved at the same time.
Chairperson Segall opened public testimony at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Chuck Rabel, 821 Crescent Drive, Vista, California stated he attended a workshop with the Vista
Planning Commission on their circulation plan for 2020. He stated he is a Director of the North County
Economic Development organization and they fully support these projects and would like to see them
move forward as soon as possible. He added he is also the Vice President and General Manager of DDH
Enterprise, a manufacturing organization located on Oak Ridge Way.
Mr. Rabel stated he was involved with Vista to try to preserve bus route 332 which is scheduled for
discontinuance. While working with NCTD he learned that people won’t ride buses if you provide parking
or in the case of their business park, buses don’t work because they don’t have sidewalks. He stated that
when this project gets done it will be a great opportunity for bus route 332 to hook up with the Legoland
bus that originates at Palomar College and provide a viable option to a lot of employees in San Marcos
and Escondido.
Mr. Rabel added he is also involved in an organization called Vistans for Responsible Community
Planning and expressed their objection to a proposed Home Depot near his worksite. He stated it does
not fit and asked the Commission if they know anyone in Vista in a position of responsibility to please let
them know everything will work great without Home Depot.
Ms. Deb Schmidt, 1948 Willow Ridge Drive, Vista, California, stated she wanted to answer questions
regarding the undercrossing. She stated the San Diego Tracking Team sent people out there on several
occasions and they tracked the animals and they actually use the one that’s there right now. She said
although it doesn’t support large mammals at this time it does get used by smaller animals and it is a
viable usage for animals. She stated they have also used them in Utah and Idaho for deer and they fence
and funnel the deer to go under the freeway and it does work. She stated the wildlife linkages are hooking
up to the Buena Vista Park in Vista and will also hook up to Carlsbad North Oaks which also links into
Calavera Preserves, so that’s a real viable linkage for the wildlife.
Chairperson Segall closed public testimony at 9:09 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l Page 20
Mr. Hofman thanked the Staff, in particular Anne Hysong and Clyde Wickham, for the outstanding job they
did working with them for the past three years.
Ms. Hysong stated they received letters from NCTD over a year ago and they have proposed bus turnouts
along the road in the Carlsbad Raceway project. They were still in the process and gave them a
conceptual plan and by now Route 344 may be in place. Commissioner Segall stated that Route 344 goes from the train station to Palomar College.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 5024, 5025, 5026, and 5027
recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, (GPA 98-05, LFMP 87-18(B),
and ZC 01-07) and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 5028, 5029, and
5030 approving CT 98-10, HDP 98-09, and PIP 01-01 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein and with the addition of the Errata
Sheet on the revision to condition deleting the last sentence “Improvements
above also require a “notched” section to lower and reduce visual impact thru the
Open Space corridor, lot 27 and 28.”
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Compas said it looks like a very good project and appears to be essential for Carlsbad to
achieve its Growth Management Plan. If Faraday project can be done without too much delay it will help
Carlsbad a great deal and he is in favor.
Commissioner Dominguez thanked the staff for clarifying a lot of questions he had and said it really helps
to have the Staff prepared to answer any and all questions.
Commissioner Heineman stated the project was extremely thoroughly research and prepared and thinks it
is impressive. He said he did not think there was anything the Commission could do at this point
regarding potential traffic problems and favors it as it stands.
Commissioner Baker said the Staff did an excellent job and answered all their questions. She stated she
has some traffic concerns, but not enough to hold up the project. She said she is concerned about
Faraday not going through and creating some problems on Palomar Airport Road and will be keeping a
close eye on what happens in the future.
Commissioner Nielsen said he would vote for the project.
Commission Trigas thanked the Staff for the excellent job they did explaining both the environmental and
roadway concerns of the public and the Commission. She stated she thinks this project is definitely a very
strong asset to the community and a lot of people have been looking forward to it.
Chairperson Segall said he concurred with his colleagues. He added that he thinks this is a catch-22
project where the applicant is being asked to put in a roadway that could then kill their opportunity to
further develop because of possible failures in the future on our circulation element, but not enough to hold
up the project. He said he hopes that as this development and the Chang property continue, we do have
some viable options to open up circulation, and the road will be opened when it’s appropriate to prevent
failures that would directly impact those in the community, so he supports the project.
VOTE:
AYES:
7-o-o
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Page 21
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 5031, 5032, and 5033 recommending
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum GPA 01-07 and ZC 01-06 and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions 5034, 5035, and 5036 approving CT 99-06, HDP 99-03,
and PIP 01-03 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Nielsen said he thinks everyone did a fine job.
VOTE:
AYES:
7-o-o
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman,
Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
Ill I
T& id fh
1 FOR THE 1NFORMA~‘~rJ OF 1
November 29,ZOOl
Mrs. Ann Hysong City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Car&bad, CA
92008
RE: Palomar Forum (GPA Ol-O’I/ZC 01-06)
Carlsbad Raceway Business Park (GPA 98-051 ZC 01-071 LFMP 87-18(B))
Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mrs. Ann Hysong:
IDI is the property owner of 2850 Loker Ave. East in the city of Carlsbad. IDI’s property
abuts the west side of the projects stated above. Several months ago, IDI met with Larry
Nelson of the Palomar Forum Associates, L.P.. to discuss grading and landscaping
issues along the shared property lines. After review of their proposed plans, IDI supports
the approval of the projeots stated above. If you have any questions, please call me at
(949)833-9998.
Sin-2 &?,
Jon Kelly
Development Manager
Industrial Developmrnts Icltrrnational
18101 Von Kanan Avenue. Suite 120, Iwine, California 92612 (949) 833-9998 Fax: (949) 4704%
600 Eucalyptus Avenue
P.O. Box 1988, Vista, CA 920851988
760-726-7441 l (800) 619-VISTA
AGENDAfTEMd5+ 16
December 3,200l
City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ga Mayor city council
Ci:y Manager
C;s:y Atlorrney
CEiy Clerk
Dear Carlsbad City Council:
The Vista Economic Development Association supports approval of the Carlsbad
Raceway Industrial Park and the Palomar Forum projects which are Items 15 and 16 on
your December 4,200l Agenda.
As an association of businesses, close to this project, we would like to express our
support for the Amendment [LFMP87-18(B)] to the Zone 18 Local Facilities
Management Plan. This amendment will complete the remaining one-quarter mile
segment of Melrose Drive, from the Vista City boundary to Palomar Airport Road. The
extension of Melrose Drive from its present terminus in the City of Vista to Palomar
Airport Road would close the final gap in this twelve-mile regional arterial.
We believe that North County commuters, residents and transit riders will benefit from
reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality when the Melrose Drive “missing
link” is completed. Access to Interstate 5 will also be improved by opening another
transportation link for North County commuters and residents. Furthermore, we feel that
this project will have a positive economic impact on the San Diego Region by facilitating
the delivery of goods and services throughout the North County.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. If you have any questions please call
our office at 760-726-7441.
Sincer ,
&
.
/
Patrick Saunders<
President
Vista Economic Development Association
“To enhance economic growth of the Vista community by attracting and retaining major businesses.”
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newapapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
November 24, 2001
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at 1 California
this 76th day
of November, 2001
A Signature
Proof of Publication of
\lnt i PcI nf Pllhl i r I-Taarinn
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
11/21/01 WED 14:50 FAX 700 761 0908 NORTH COUNTY TIMES SM MOO1
--
1124-C'badRaceway-4x4
e MQTiCE OF PUBUC )1EEARI:MQ
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVLN to you, that the City Cc~~n~ll of the City oi Gerlsbad Will
Zone 18 and more particularly described as;
Parcel 1: The southeast quartor of the notlhwest quarter of Section 18, Township 12 South. Range 3 West, San Bernardino Merldlan, In the Clly of Carlsbad. County of San Diego Stale of Callfomla, saxding to the official plat thereof, excepting thereworn one. half of all minerals In, on or under said land as rosctved by Burlon D. Hightower, e widower, in deed nxoroed May 19, 1959, In Book 7869, Page 361 of oRieial records.
Those person6 WiShing Lo spook on this proposal are cordially invited to atlsno the public hearing. Copies of the stall report Will be available on and after November 30. 2001. II you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 802-4622.
If you challenge ths Mltlgated Negative Declaration, Mitlgatlon Monitoring anU Reponlng Program. Genera Plan AmenWent, Local Facllltles Management Plan Amendment and/or Zone Cnange In court, you may be limited lo mlslng o.nlythose!ssuF you or somanna alse raised at the public heanng described In this nuti- or in wrillon correspondence delivered to the Cily of Carlsbad City Clerks Offlce at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FfLE GFA 98-OSILFMF 87.18(3)lZC 01-07
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
CIIY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Legal 7156.5. November 24,200t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, to consider a request for
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment,
and Zone Change to allow the subdivision of a 146.3 acre parcel located north of
Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose Drive and the City’s eastern Boundary,
into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots on property located in the P-M Zone in
Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly 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.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 30,
2001. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4622.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
and/or Zone Change in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-l 8(B)/ZC 01-07
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
CARLSBAD RACEWAY
BUSINESS PARK
GPA 98=05/ZC 01=07/LFMP’ 87-l 8(B)
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY.
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
11106/2001
Use template for 5160@
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
STE 150
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008 .
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
ta ,\ AVERY@ Address labels Laser 5160@
PAUL T TCHANG
3575 KENYON ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-5333
GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANC
SUITE 190
1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE
ANAHEIM CA 92801-1165
3EWSON & VISTA LLC
SUITE 265
4636 E.UNIVERSITY DR
'HOENIX AZ 85034-7499
SMECA PROPERTIES INC 365 OAK RIDGE WAY
ISTA CA 92083-8348
ICHAEL D & JENNIFER KISS
207 RANCH0 COMPANERO
IRLSBAD CA 92009-2200
3HliRD W HELMLY
19 SAND CREST WAY
J MARCOS CA 92069
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL
SUITE 120
18101 VON KARMAN AVE
IRVINE CA 92612-0167
F A H B REALTY CO
2390 OAK.RIDGE WAY
VISTA CA 92083-8345
RIDGE OAK
PO BOX 1732
TEMECULA CA 92593-1732
TEMPO RESEARCH CORP
1221 LILBERTY WAY
VISTA CA 92083-8307
HANS S & JENNY LEDRI
1371 POINSETTIA AVE
VISTA CA 92083-8503
JUDD MARFLOR LLC
2235 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7215
PALOMAR FORUM ASSOCIATES LP
SUITE 100
1420 BRISTOL ST N
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
MARK K & LINDA VIGIL
6131 PASEO MONONA
CARLSBAD CA 920~9-2200
ROBERT & MICHELLE FITZGERALD
6089 PASEO CARRETA
CALRSBAD CA 92009-2250
GREEN RIVER INVESTMENT GROUP L
1365 PARK CENTER DR
VISTA CA 92083-8338
DR BROTHERS REAL ESTATE INVEST
10781 FORBES AVE
GARDEN GROVE CA 92843-4977
PALOMAR FORUM ASSOCIATES Le.--
i;
BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL PROPE
SUITE 160
12780 HIGH BLUFF DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2068
RACEWAY PROPERTIES L L C
12672 CAMINITO RADIANTE
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2874
TODD E & SARA HANSEN
3215 RANCH0 COMPANERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2200
KEYSTONE VISTA LLC
6714 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3418
L&M PROPERTIES LLC
2640 BUSINESS PARK DR
VISTA CA 92083-7842
THOMAS J & ANTONIA HERSANT
6153 PASEO PALER0
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE E OLSKER
2867 RANCH0 DIAMONTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2107
KAISER
SUITE C
4060 MORENA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-5261
THOMAS J C THERESA SPENCER
SUITE C
4060 MORENA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-5261
MESH G & DAXA AMIN
6256 RANCH0 BRAVADO
ZARLSBAD CA 92009-2113
ANTA ANA MOTEL
3 BOX 17899
RVINE CA 92623-7899
:ORGE L & PATRICIA THOMAS
907 ANDERSON ST
RAMOUNT CA 90723-2707
'STONES VENTURES LLC
'0 SCOTT ST
;TA CA 92083-8318
ALD S & FRANCES DIEHL
4 KELLOGG AVE
LSBAD CA 92008-6581
?ES INC
92623-7899
LEONARD & MONICA TEYSSIER
855 MUIRLANDS DR
LA JOLLA CA 92037-6816
SADDLEBACK ASSOCIATES INC
PO BOX 17899
IRVINE CA 92623-7899
RAYMOND A & ANNA OLDS
1270 SAN PABLO DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-4817
EPPERSON
2842 LAKEMONT DR
FALLBROOK CA 92028-9813
PETER & KATHRYN BENESH
PO BOX 2349
SAN MARCOS CA 92079-2349
!iiw526l
ADAMS J E INC
1234 ORANGEWOOD DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92025-7507
SPRINGHAWK CORP
9720 BLACKGOLD RD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
NICOLAS & JOHANNA HARITATOS
9720 BLACKGOLD RD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
CARLSBAD
SUITE 1070
600 W BROADWAY
* SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3355
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC./-
:;wog
hCACIA CREDIT FUND 7 L L C
SUITE 65 ONE ARIZONA CENTER
400 E VAN BUREN ST
PHOENIX AZ 85004
DENS0 WIRELESS SYSTEMS AMERICA
3900 VIA OR0 AVE
LONG BEACH CA 90810-1868
SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
SUITE 32326
2711 N HASKELL AVE
DALLAS TX 75204-2911
VISTA PALOMAR PARK L L C
PO BOX 9300
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067-4300
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC
SUITE 100
2237 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209
CONTINENTAL RESIDENTIAL INC
SUITE 100
2237 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA'92008
ALBERT J & RACHEL CUEVAS
1275 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
.
HOSSEIN V & TONYA VATANKHAH
1277 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BETH HOLMES
1285 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
TODD R & NICOLE SHEIVE
1292 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JULIE M QUINLAN
1288 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GREGORY J ROSA
1284 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ARTHUR L ROSA
2166 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOSEPH & ADRIAN FERRER
2162 ISLAND DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PRESLEY HOMES
SUITE 380
15373 INNOVATION DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92128-3426
MASON E & JESSICA BROOKS
1294 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOHN J & LOLA CROSS
1290 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JON G & LISA TEMPLETON
1286 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ROBERT P & NANCY LOWELL
2168 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BARBARA J LUCAS
2164 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GREGORY & JEAN CHRIONIS
2170 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
.
LAWRENCE E HONQ
2172 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
TIMOTHY C & EVETTE LOVELL
1276 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOHN C & CHERYL HANSON
SUITE 380
15373 INNOVATION DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92128-3426
DAVID B MCGRATH
1278 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a
request for approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment,
and Zone Change to allow the subdivision of a 146.3 acre parcel located north of Palomar
Airport Road between future Melrose Drive and the City’s eastern boundary into 25 industrial
lots and 3 open space lots on property located in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management
Zone 18 and more particularly 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.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have any
questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Local
Facilities Management Plan Amendment and/or Zone Change, if approved, is established by
state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan
Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and/or Zone Change, in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 98-051LFMP 87-l 8(B)/ZC 01-07
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
City Y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 15, 2001, to
consider a request for a recommendation of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities
Management Plan Amendment, and Zone Change and approval of a Tentative Tract Map,
Hillside Development Permit and Planned Industrial Permit to allow the subdivision of a 146.3
acre parcel located north of Palomar Airport Road between future Melrose Drive and the City’s eastern boundary into 25 industrial lots and 3 open space lots on property located in the P-M
Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly 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.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after August 9, 2001. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Local
Facilities Management Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit, if approved, is established by state law
and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the General Plan Amendment, Local
Facilities Management Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(B)/ZC Ol-07/CT 98-lO/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD RACEWAY BUSINESS PARK
PUBLISH: AUGUST 2,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
.-,., , L w. ,; ? .’ c.:,. *
CARLSBAD RACEWAY
BUSINESS PARK
GPA 98-OWZC 01-07ILFMP 87-l 8(B)/
CT 98-1 O/HDP 98=09/PIP 01-01
PAUL T TCHANG 3575 KENYON ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92110-5333
GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANC
SUITE 190
1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE
ANAHEIM CA 92801-1165
HEWSON & VISTA LLC
SUITE 265
4636 E UNIVERSITY DR
PHOENIX AZ 85034-7499
ISMECA PROPERTIES INC
2365 OAK RIDGE WAY
VISTA CA 92083-8348
MICHAEL D & JENNIFER KISS
3207 RANCH0 COMPANERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2200
CHARITABLE R LEDRI
1371 POINSETTIA AVE
VISTA CA 92083-8503
RICHARD W HELMLY
2129 SAND CREST WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL
SUITE 120
18101 VON KARMAN AVE
IRVINE CA 92612-0167
F A H B REALTY CO
2390 OAK RIDGE WAY
VISTA CA 92083-8345
RIDGE OAK
PO BOX 1732
TEMECULA CA 92593-1732
TEMPO RESEARCH CORP
1221 LILBERTY WAY
VISTA CA 92083-8307
HANS S & JENNY LEDRI
1371 POINSETTIA-AVE
VISTA CA 92083-8503
JUDD MARFLOR LLC,
2235 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7215
PALOMAR FORUM ASSOCIATES LF
SUITE 100
1420 BRISTOL ST N
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
A notice has been mailed to
all property owners/occupants listed herein.
Date: -7-31-0 1
Signature:%. u
MARK K & LINDA VIGIL
6131 PASEO MONONA
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2200
ROBERT C MICHELLE FITZGERALD
6089 PASEO CARRETA
CALRSBAD CA 92009-2250
RACEWAY PROPERTIES L L C
KURTIN PROP AND MGMT CO
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2171
GREEN RIVER INVESTMENT GROUP L
1365 PARK CENTER DR
VISTA CA 92083-8338
DR BROTHERS REAL ESTATE INVEST
10781 FORBES AVE
GARDEN GROVE CA 92843-4977
PALOMAR FORUM ASSOCIATES LP
SUITE 100
1420 BRISTOL ST N
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL PROPE
SUITE 160
12780 HIGH BLUFF DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2068
RACEWAY PROPERTIES L L c
12672 CAMINITO RADIANTE
SAN DIEGO CA 92130-2874
TODD E & SARA HANSEN
3215 RANCH0 COMPANERO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2200
KEYSTONE VISTA LLC
6714 BARBERRY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-3418
L&M PROPERTIES LLC
2640 BUSINESS PARK DR
VISTA CA 92083-7842
THOMAS J & ANTONIA HERSANT
6153 PASEO PALER0
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE E OLSKER
2867 RANCH0 DIAMONTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2107
KAISER
SUITE C
4060 MORENA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-5261
THOMAS J & THERESA SPENCER
SUITE C
4060 MORENA BLVD.
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-5261
RAMESH G & DAXA AMIN
6256 RANCH0 BRAVADO
CARLSBAD CA 92009-2113
SANTA ANA MOTEL
PO BOX 17899
IRVINE CA 92623-7899
GEORGE L & PATR-ICIA THOMAS
13907 ANDERSON ST
PARAMOUNT CA 90723-2707
KEYSTONES VENTURES LLC
3170 SCOTT ST
VISTA CA 92083-8318
DONALD S & FRANCES DIEHL
1934 KELLOGG AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-6581
SADDLEBACK ASSOCIATES INC
PO BOX 17899
IRVINE CA 92623-7899
LEONARD & MONICA TEYSSIER
855 MUIRLANDS DR
LA JOLLA CA 92037-6816
SADDLEBACK ASSOCIATES INC
PO BOX 17899
IRVINE CA 92623-7899
RAYMOND A & ANNA OLDS
1270 SAN PABLO DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-4817
EPPERSON
2842 LAKEMONT DR
FALLBROOK CA 92028-9813
KEYSTONE VENTURES LLC
3170 SCOTT ST VISTA CA 92083-8318
PETER & KATHRYN BENESH
PO BOX 2349
SAN MARCOS CA 92079-2349
KAISER
SUITE C
4060 MORENA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92117-5261
ADAMS J E INC
1234 ORANGEWOOD DR
ESCONDIDO CA 92025-7507
SPRINGHAWK CORP
9720 BLACKGOLD RD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
NICOLAS & JOHANNA HARITATOS
9720 BLACKGOLD RD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
SPRINGHAWK CORP
9720 BLACKGOLD RD
LA JOLLA CA 92037
CARLSBAD
SUITE 1070
600 W BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3355
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC
SUITE 100
2237 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209
ACACIA CREDIT FUND 7 L L C
SUITE 65 ONE ARIZONA CENTER
400 E VAN BUREN ST
PHOENIX AZ 85004
DENS0 WIRELESS SYSTEMS AMERICA
3900 VIA OR0 AVE
LONG BEACH CA 90810-1868
SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
SUITE 32326
2711 N .HASKELL AVE
DALLAS TX 75204-2911
VISTA PALOMAR PARK L L C
PO BOX 9300
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067-4300
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC
SUITE 100
2237 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-7209
CONTINENTAL RESIDENTIAL INC SUITE 100
2237 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CONTINENTAL RESIDENTIAL INC
SUITE 100
2237 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD.CA 92008
ALBERT J & RACHEL CUEVAS
1275 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
HOSSEIN V & TONYA VATANKHAH
1277 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BETH HOLMES
1285 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
TODD R & NICOLE SHEIVE
1292 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JULIE M QUINLAN
1288 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GREGORY J ROSA
1284 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ARTHUR L ROSA
2166 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOSEiJH & ADRIAN FERRER
2162 ISLAND DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PRESLEY HOMES
SUITE 380
15373 INNOVATION DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92128-3426
MASON E & JESSICA BROOKS
1294 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JOHN J & LOLA CROSS
1290 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
JON G & LISA TEMPLETON
1286 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ROBERT P & NANCY LOWELL
2168 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BARBARA J LUCAS
2164 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GREGORY & JEAN CHRIONIS
2170 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LAWRENCE E HONQ
2172 ISLAND SHORE WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
TIMOTHY C & EVETTE LOVELL
1276 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAfi MARCOS CA 92069
JOHN C & CHERYL HANSON
SUITE 380
15373 INNOVATION DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92128-3426
DAVID B MCGRATH
1278 EMERALD SEA WAY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
PRESLEY HOMES
SUITE 380
15373 INNOVATION DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92128-3426
Smooth Feed S heetP Use template for 5160@
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS
505 S VULCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE B
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
ANNE HYSONG
11/06/2001
Address Labels
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
STE 150
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN DIEGO UCSD /a-&o /
BERKELEY * DAVIS - IRVINE * LOS ANGELES - RIVERSIDE * SAN DIEGO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTABARBARA - SANTACRUZ
NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM TELEPHONE: (858) 534-2077
9500 GILMAN DRIVE FAX (858) 822-0696
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 E-MAIL: ikay@ucsd.edu
15 August, 2001
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park
Dear Commissioners:
The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los
Monos Canyon Reserve (“Reserve”), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the
eastern boundary of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel,
connected to it by the high quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The
Reserve has been identified as core, high quality habitat in the North San Diego County
Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat
Management Plan (HMP).
The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and
willow woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the
reserve has lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of
habitat inland, and habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including golden eagle,
mule deer, and mountain lion. We are, however, fortunate to still have several species at
the highest trophic levels, including coyote, bobcat, fox, and many raptors. This is
almost certainly because of the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to
individuals of these species, through connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively
tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The City of Carlsbad has recognized the
importance of such connections, and called them out in the core and linkage concept of
the HMP.
The project under consideration by you today contributes significantly to one of these
connections, i.e. Linkage Area D, to the east of Carlsbad Oaks North, and thus to major
core open space to the south, northeast, and east. Within the City of Vista to the north of
the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these
connections.
The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park jeopardize the realization of a
functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of Carlsbad and
the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The
remainder of this letter details the specifics of our concerns regarding this plan, most of
which deal with habitat issues.
1. Inadequate notice
First, in spite of consistent expressions of interest in the wildlife corridor connections to
the east of the Reserve, Carlsbad City staff did not inform our office of this project. We
received the Biology report on August 3, the notice of this public hearing on August 8,
and the staff report to your commission on August 14,200l. This does not constitute
adequate notice.
2. Need for a full Environmental Analysis
The scope and impacts of the project certainly seem to merit a full environmental
analysis, so that a mitigated negative declaration seems inadequate. For instance, one of
the exemptions sought by the applicant -- to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per
acre are - is based on the assumption that the major arterial that they will be building for
the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is the environmentallv nreferred alternative.
This has not been determined, since an environmental analysis of alternatives has not
been carried out.
3. Mitigation for habitat impacts
The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is
topologically unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation - see Figure 3, Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix,
1998.) In addition, the 0.08 acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum
project are not included in existing plans.
No mitigation is proposed for impacts to Southern mixed chaparral (21.6 ac.) or non-
native grassland (28.0 ac.), as recommended by the HMP (Table 11, p. D-95, December
1999). Sensitive species that use the site have been identified to include Cooper’s hawk,
white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and California horned lark. Cooper’s hawk is an
HMP target species. (p. 20, staff report.) Peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, and California
gnatcatcher may also use these areas.
Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured
(2: 1) slopes. It is not clear that this will result in functional wildlife habitat.
Furthermore, there appears to be no plan for fire protection or setbacks from native
vegetation, which should occur only in the development footprint and not in the
designated mitigation area.
There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Quercus agrifolia) on
both parcels.
4. Wildlife corridors
The two parcels make up the northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the
HMP. According to that document (p, D-6) “The northern section of this linkage
includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway that should be evaluated for
potential restoration. This section . . . should be a moderatelv effective corridor for birds
and mammals.“ However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow (less than
400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completely transected by roads in two places. Most
noticeable is the obstacle created by placing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest
corner of the Raceway site. The wildlife undercrossing proposed appears to be a culvert
that is 180 feet long, 12 feet high, and 5-20 feet wide (the details are impossible to obtain
prior to the hearing tonight, and are not detailed sufficiently in the plans.) It is very likely
that a bridge would provide a far superior solution to the problem, and should be studied
as a real alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible to visualize either of these with the
plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.)
5. Hydrology
The proposal to use the wildlife corridor/riparian restoration site as a detention basin
seems ill-conceived. This very concept has been rejected during reviews of the Carlsbad
Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended
to mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be
located completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as
habitat preserve.
6.. Cumulative impacts
It is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major impacts on
the remaining open space in the area, with the consequences that result, including habitat
loss, stormwater runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of
views, etc. However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been
analyzed. We suggest that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of
potential significant impact, through the completion of a thorough Environmental
Analysis. Although these two projects were superficially combined for impact analysis,
there is not enough effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected
development and/or preservation as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua
Hedionda) as a whole could be the most appropriate area of impact consideration for
some analyses. In addition, the degree to which the projects comply with and affect the
preserve creation goals of the HMP and MHCP should be presented.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as
assets or as detriments to the City, and your decisions will make the difference.
Sincerely,
<W%
Manager, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve