HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-04; City Council; 16447; Palomar Forum.
\b CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# [6$-/47 TITLE:
MTG. 1 a+-fil PALOMAR FORUM - GPA Ol-07/ZC 01-06
DEPT. PLN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD.
ii!zte@ CITY ATTY. ’
CITY MO&
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. MS -b ( \ APPROVING ZC 01-06,
ADOPT Resolution No. &XI \- 362 ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progkam based upon the findings contained therein and
APPROVING the General Plan Amendment, GPA 01-07 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 10
industrial lots and 2 open space lots, and recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The General Plan Amendment would
redesignate the proposed open space to the OS designation. 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 project is subject to the Zone 18 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment
approved as part of the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park which updates the plan to reflect
developed and proposed land uses and incorporates 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), 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, 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 resources, water quality, traffic, and hazardous materials.
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
tiithin Zone 18.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. k447
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance No. h s- b /I
2. City Council Resolution No. ml-35a-
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5031, 5032, 5033, 5034, 5035 and 5036
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 17, 2001
6. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 17, 2001.
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. 2001-63 'L
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 01-06, 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: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO.: ZC 01-06
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 01-06” 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. 5033 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 day of DECEMBER 2001, and thereafter.
Ill
Ill
Ill
l/f
Ill
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 AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of 7 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEfw
-2-
PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE ZC: 01-06
draft Ix) final 0
L SITE
Project Name: Palomar Forum
Legal Description(s):
1 Related Case File No(s):
GPA 01-071CT 99-061HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that
portion of Section 18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the official
plat thereof.
Zone Change
Property: 1 From:
A. 221-OlO-17/ 1
To:
I P-M I P-M. O-S
Approvals
Council Aooroval Date:
Ordiance No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
Attach additional oaoes if necessarv
SITE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
P-M
P-M, OS
PALOMAR FORUM
ZC 01-06
/ M
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. 7001-352
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 A
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM PI TO OS 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: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO.: GPA Ol-07/ZC 01-06
follows:
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
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 and General Plan Amendment GPA 01-07 to
redesignate a portion of the property from PI to OS and Zone Change 01-06 to rezone the open
space to the O-S zone classification. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5031, 5032 and 5033 recommending to the City Council that they be approved;
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 and General 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
and General Plan Amendment;
follows:
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
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
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5031 and 5032 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are adopted as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5031 on file
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference .
4. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for a General Plan
Amendment GPA 01-07, as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5032, is hereby
accepted, approved in concept and shall be formally approved in connection with General Plan
Amendment GPA 01-05.
5. That Condition No. 42 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5034 for
CT 99-06 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
NOES: None
ATTEST:
,.
LO&Al NE?vl?Ul&OD, @b Clerk
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assxtant City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
in
EXHIEHT 3
SITE
PALOMAR FORUM
GPA 01=07/ZC 0146
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. 5031
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO GRADE AND SUBDIVIDE 70.6
ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN
MELROSE DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARR DRIVE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO.: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/
PIP 01-03
WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the plat thereof.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of August, 2001, on
the 3rd day of October 2001, and on 17th day of October 2001 hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B)
Findiws:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Recirculated
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:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Palomar Forum
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 503 I -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
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:
99
CARLSBdD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H%ZMtiER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5031 -3-
City of Carlsbad
RECIRCULATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: North of Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive and the
eastern City boundary.
Project Description: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10
lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located
north of Palomar Airport Road between the City’s eastern boundary and
future Melrose Drive. The project design provides for a north-south
wildlife corridor that provides access to a wildlife corridor within the
northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
the City of Vista boundary will be constructed as part qf the project. No
industrial buildings are proposed.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4622.
DATED: September 6,200l
CASE NO: GPA 01-07/ZC Ol-06KT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
CASE NAME: Palomar Forum
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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 0 I-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 99-06iHDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
DATE: May 3,200l
RECIRCULATION DATE: August 3 1,200 1
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Palomar Forum Business Park
2. APPLICANT: Hofman Planning Associates/Davis Partners
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150. Carlsbad,
CA 92008, (760) 438-1465
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 9,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
redesignate open space, and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned
Industrial Permit for an 70.6 acre, 10 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property
located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City’s eastern boundary and future Melrose
Drive. The project design provides for a north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to a
wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the adjacent Carlsbad Raceway property. The
remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista
boundary will be constructed as part of the project. No industrial buildings are proposed.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
q Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources H Aesthetics
q Water q Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
0
cl
IXI
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
gc3/4/
Date
Date
2 Rev. 03128196 w
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by
the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved
EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No
Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be
explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and
policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but fl 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
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if
there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not
limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does
not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement
of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier
EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4)
through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a
potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a
potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form
under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to
discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 17 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
a>
b)
cl
d)
e)
proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#l :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
proposal:
Would the
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1.15; #3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5. l-
1 - 5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#I :Pgs 5.1- 1 - 5.1- 15;
#3) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;
#3) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Potentially Potentially Less No
Significant Significant Than Impact
Impact Unless Signifi
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
cl cl Ix1 cl
cl El Ix] q
0 cl El El
cl cl cl El
cl 0 cl IXI
Cl
Cl
0
El cl
q
q
0
q
B
q
17
q
cl El
txl q
q IXI
cl q El
q cl IXI
cl IXI Cl
cl Cl El
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
5 Rev. 03/28/96 18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
c>
4
4
f)
!a
h)
i>
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l -
5..2-11)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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-l -
5..2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l -
5..2-11)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs
5.3-l - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
c>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
Cl
q
q
IXI
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
lzl
IXI
q
q
q
q
cl
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
[xl
q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
q
Ix1
q
la
El
IXI
q Ix]
q Ix]
q Ix1
cl q q
0 q IXI
q q El
q q IXI
El q q
q q Lxl
q cl lxl
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g>
VII.
a>
b)
cl
4
e)
VIII.
a>
b)
c>
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-
24; #+I)
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) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24; #4)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #4)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -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-l - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5;)
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
P
q
q
q
q
q
Potentially Less No
Significant Than Impact
Unless Signifi
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
cl q q
q
q
q IXI
q (XI.
q q
IXI
q
Cl
Ix]
IXI
q
q
q
lzl
q
IXI
El
q q
q El
q El
q q
q q
q IXI
q El
q Ix1
q q
q El
q q
7 Rev. 03/28/96 20
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Ix]
Less No
Than Impact
Signifi
cant
Impact cl q q Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5; #5)
Increase tire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-
5)
4
4 cl cl cl Ix1
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
0
q
cl
cl
cl [XI
0 Ix1
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 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
0 . Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 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-I - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-
7) Storm water drainage? (#l :Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-
3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-
1 - 5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.1 l-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.1 l-5)
cl
B q BEi B cl cl B El
a> b) c> d)
4
XII.
4
b)
cl
4
4
0
d
XIII.
a>
b)
cl
cl q q El
q
cl El
cl
0 q
Cl
Cl Cl ixI
B q 1 cl
q
0 q
IXI cl
B B
Cl IXI q
cl cl cl
cl
q
El
[x1
cl
Rev. 03/28/96 21 8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIV.
4
b)
cl
4
4
xv.
a>
b)
XVI.
a>
b)
c>
XVII.
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
proposal:
Would the
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l
- 5.8-10;)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#I :Pgs 5.8- 1 -
5.8-10; #6)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 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?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially Less
Significant Significant Than
Impact Unless Signiti
Mitigation cant
Incorporated Impact
El El IXI
cl cl IXI
Cl cl cl
cl cl q
q cl Cl
Cl 0 cl
cl cl cl
cl
El
q
No
Impact
ixl El cl
IXI III 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
9 Rev. 03/28/96 Jd
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
4 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. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Palomar Forum property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City’s northeast
quadrant. The property is surrounded by the Carlsbad Raceway vacant industrial land, open
space, and existing industrial development in the City of Vista to the north, a small commercial
development in the City of Vista to the east, Palomar Airport Road and Ranch0 Carrillo
residential development to the south, and the existing Carlsbad Oaks East industrial park to the
west. The future Melrose Drive alignment bisects the property at the western end
The property is characterized by gentle hillside terrain which descends northward from the
highest areas along Palomar Airport Road down to the Carlsbad Raceway property. The central
portion of the property contains several small naturally vegetated ravines. Natural slope
gradients most commonly approach 1O:l and transition to as steep as 4: 1 above these ravines.
The majority of the site is disturbed by past agricultural use, however, Diegan coastal sage scrub,
non-native grassland, and southern mixed chaparral also occupy the site. Site drainage sheet
flows northward over the slopes and into a north draining canyon. A SDG&E powerline
easement bisects the eastern end of the property.
LAND USE
The project is consistent with the Planned Industrial (PI) Land Use designation for the property
and the industrial subdivision is consistent with the PM zoning ordinance regulating industrial
subdivisions. The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the
portion of the property proposed to be preserved as open space to the Open Space (OS)
designation. The project is included in Carlsbad’s draft Habitat Management Plan and identified
as a part of Linkage Area D. It is also identified as a proposed hardline area that consists of a
minimum 400’ wide north-south corridor at the eastern end of the property. The project is
consistent with the HMP in that a 400’ wide north-south corridor is proposed to be preserved
along the eastern boundary. The project is surrounded to the west, north, and east by industrial
and commercial land uses similar to the project and therefore compatible. The project is
separated from the Ranch0 Carillo residential development to the south by Palomar Airport
Road. Given the considerable separation from residential land uses and the Fire Department
mitigation requirement to restrict hazardous materials within 1000’ of residential land uses (see
IX. Hazards discussion below), the Palomar Forum Business Park is compatible with residential
land uses in the vicinity.
The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area
and therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
The project is located within the eastern portion of the airport flight activity zone. The project,
which consists of industrial lots to be developed in the future with industrial buildings that are
consistent with the P-M zone standards, is consistent with the CLUP.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project will require the construction of the last segment of Melrose Drive between its
existing northerly terminus in the City of Vista and Palomar Airport Road and Faraday Avenue
between its existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City’s easterly boundary.
This extension of a prime arterial roadways is part of the City’s circulation arterial roadway
system necessary to support existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and to
alleviate regional traffic congestion. Given that existing development surrounds the Carlsbad
Raceway property, construction of these roadways cannot be considered to be directly or
11 Rev. 03/28/96 24
indirectly growth inducing.
III. GEOLOGY
Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by Vinje & Middleton, Inc., the development
of the property as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the
recommendations for remedial grading and site development are followed. A brief summary of
findings of the investigation indicate that “the site is underlain by a succession of sedimentary
bedrock units whose engineering properties range from very competent to poor. Unstable
existing landslide conditions are not in evidence at the property, however, marginally stable earth
materials are present which will impact the stability of the planned cut slopes along the south
perimeter below Palomar Airport Road. Conventional cut-fill grading methods may be utilized
to achieve design grades; however, selective grading consistent with the engineering properties
of site earth materials is recommended in order to achieve safe and stable slopes and building
pads.
IV. WATER
The project, upon ultimate development, will consist of industrial lots with a large coverage of
building and parking. Storm water runoff from each lot will be picked up in a subsurface storm
drain pipe and will flow underground into the public storm drain under the streets. The public
storm drain outlets into a detention basin which drains into a tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek.
The mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. As the
lots are developed, the site will absorb less water than in the undeveloped condition. The project
includes work to constrict the inlet to the existing storm drain culvert under Melrose Drive in the
City of Vista. This will create a detention basin to the east of Melrose Drive and reduce the peak
flow in the Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre-development conditions. Due to the
reduced peak flows, the project will have no impact on erosion downstream.
The project is creating roads and building pads that are not subject to inundation by storms, and
would not expose people or property to flooding hazards.
The development of the project into industrial lots will create an increase in pollutants
discharged in storm water. These pollutants, detailed in the Summary NPDES Study (“Study”)
entitled “Car&bad 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
9 Water quality basin
. Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
Sediment
. Water quality basin
n Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
12 Rev. 03/28/96 a--
Nutrients
n Grass-lined swales
. Biological water quality basin
Heavy Metals
. Water quality basin
. Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
. Grass-lined swales .
Oil and Grease
. Water quality basin
. Water treatment structure (Vortechs or similar)
Each lot, upon development, will be required to construct BMPs selected and sized to remove the
type and quantity of the anticipated pollutants from the storm water before it enters the storm
drain system. The Study indicates that the BMPs will be maintained by the industrial park
association, and lists the required maintenance and schedule for the different BMPs. The storm
drain system empties into a detention basin prior to flowing into the Agua Hedionda Creek
tributary. This provides backup water quality treatment.
The project drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is an Impaired Waterbody on the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. The beneficial uses of aquatic life, Recreation-l(non-
contact) and Recreation-2(contact), and shellfish harvest are impaired by sediment, colifonn and
coliform, respectively.
During construction, the project will be required to implement extensive erosion control
measures pursuant to City standards. These will be maintained by the developer and inspected
by the City, and will reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant during grading. After
grading is complete, the graded pads will each have a sediment basin onsite, to remove sediment
from storm water runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. The detention basin at the end
of the storm drain system provides redundancy. These mitigation measures will reduce the
impact of sediment to less than significant after grading operations. As the lots are developed,
they will be paved and landscaped, and the potential impact of sediment will be less than
significant.
The major source of coliform in storm water runoff is pet waste. Since this is an industrial
development, there is no impact of coliform.
Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface
water body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the
area to be graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than
significant. Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be
offset by infiltration from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind
Melrose Drive.
V. AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
13 Rev. 03/28/96 &
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. CIRCULATION:
The information presented in this section is summarized from the Palomar Forum Transportation
Analysis (Urban Systems Associates, Inc March 7,200l)
The project will consist of approximately 45 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected
vehicle generation of 5,226 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 580 vehicle trips in the
AM peak hour (split 520 inbound and 60 outbound) and 625 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour
(split 122 inbound and 503 outbound).
The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to complete the City’s circulation
network in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are:
l Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to existing
improvements west of Melrose Drive.
l Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in
the City of Vista.
l Faraday Ave. will be extended from the existing terminus (near Melrose) in Vista to the
existing terminus (Orion) in Carlsbad This extension will add another arterial, parallel to
Palomar Airport Road serving direct access to the City’s industrial corridor and relieving
14 Rev. 03/28/96 47
the pressure off of a Regional Arterial serving the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista and San
Marcos.
l Onsite, Street “A” Street will connect to the adjacent project to the north Carlsbad
Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to Melrose Drive
and to Business Park Drive.
a) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of
increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway
connections and improvements to Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and
onsite streets are identified as mitigation for this project.
b) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safety and
also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widening of
Palomar Airport Road and intersection improvements at Melrose Drive will provide a safe
roadway free of lane transitions and bottleneck roadway design.
c) The arterial connection of Melrose Drive, and Faraday Ave. will improve emergency access.
e) The additional roadways of Melrose Drive and Faraday Ave. and the additional capacity of
Palomar Airport Road will facilitate alternate modes of transportation and provide for additional
routes of travel as well as reducing conflict and congestion on roadway.
f) The project as conditioned and designed will support alternative modes of transportation
including but not limited to: Additional bus routes, bus turnouts, bike lanes, car-pooling, ride
sharing, and walking.
Mitigation Plan:
Unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, there is likelihood
that a significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion will occur.
2.
a
l
0
2.
Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for
the following roadways:
Palomar Airport Road will be widened along the frontage of this project from the City of
Vista boundary to west of Melrose Drive. In addition, an additional right turn lane will be
provided at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive.
Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the
Carlsbad / Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional
right turn lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road.
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.
Prior to recordation of final map, Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a
Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west
of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
15 Rev. 03128196 048
A financing mechanism for the above-mentioned improvements is identified in the Local Facility
Management Plan for Zone 18.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, has been mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there
is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the “PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report” prepared by Barry Jones,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. , the Palomar Forum property supports three vegetation
communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral and non-native grassland. A
large portion of the property has been previously disced for agricultural purposes and currently
16 Rev. 03128196 49
exists as disturbed land. Additionally; several drainages containing ACOE jurisdictional non-
vegetated Waters of the U.S. exist on the property within the naturally vegetated small canyons
in the center of the site.. The following table identifies the acreages of each vegetation
community:
Vegetation Community Acreage Impacts Acres Preserved
Diegan coastal sage scrub 3.2 3.2 0
Southern mixed chaparral 3.3 3.3 0
Non-native grassland 29.0 27.3 1.7
Disturbed Habitat 35.1 35.1 0
TOTAL 70.2 68.9 1.7
ACOE Jurisdictional
Drainages
.08 .08 0
Sensitive Species
Sensitive plant species observed on the site include Nuttall’s scrub oak, California adolphia, and
Western dichondra which occur in the southern mixed chaparral habitat on site. None of these
species is an HMP narrow endemic, i.e., required to be preserved.
A total of twenty-one animal species were observed or detected on site during site surveys,
however, the only sensitive species observed on site was the white tailed kite. Protocol surveys
for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted on March 2, 11, and 19, 2001 and no
gnatcatchers were observed or detected on the Palomar Forum site. There is also a low potential
for burrowing owl to occur on the site.
Wildlife Corridors
The project would potentially constrict wildlife movement across the site. To ensure continued
wildlife movement in accordance with the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the
project proposes a north-south wildlife corridor consisting of the easterly 1.5 acres (700 feet in
width) of the property that will help link open space within the Ranch0 Carrillo project to the
south with additional open space provided within the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
This open space corridor will connect to open space to the north, however, it is bisected by the
alignment of Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial roadway required for the project. A 12’ high
arched wildlife culvert is proposed below Melrose Drive (outside the floodplain) to provide a
connection to open space to the northwest.
As indicated by the above table, direct impacts to native habitats include all of the southern
mixed chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland. Impacts to Diegan coastal
sage scrub, chaparral and non-native grassland and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are
considered significant.
17 Rev. 03/28/96 30
Mitigation
The City has adopted a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) that has been used as a standard of
review for assessing cumulative biological impacts and imposing mitigation requirements. The
following mitigation requirements are consistent with the HMP.
There are three components to the mitigation program: 1) onsite upland habitat restoration; 2)
off-site upland habitat acquisition; and 3) off-site riparian restoration.
Diepan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS)
Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub will be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio. The on-site restoration will
include restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of currently disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub
within the wildlife corridor. Restoration of the corridor will maximize its value for wildlife. A
conceptual restoration plan will be developed prior to issuance of final map. The remaining
upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the acquisition of 1.5 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub at a site acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies, or through restoration of
DCSS habitat within open space on the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
Southerr! Mixed Chaparral/Non-native Grassland
Prior to approval of final map, applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and feasibility study for
a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; and 2) pay the City $133,867.80 to
mitigate impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral. If the HMP is approved prior to final
map approval, the feasibility study shall not be required and the funds shall be used for
acquisition of acreage in the designated core area as described in the City’s HMP. If the HMP is
not approved, the City, in consultation with the wildlife agencies, will determine the most
beneficial use of funds including but not limited to one or more of the following:
4 acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
b) construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
cl other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in the City.
Wetlands
Impacts to .08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated by creation of .08 acre of
riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the Carlsbad Raceway property immediately
to the north and within the proposed HMP wildlife corridor.
Sensitive Species
Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of the
burrowing owl. If the owl is observed on the site, it will be relocated to open space on the site.
The project would require authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game (1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement) and may require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act fi-om the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for stream and wetland impacts. The project
18 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
HAZARDS
Due to the project’s proximity to existing residential development located to the south across
Palomar Airport Road and within 1,000 feet, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the project could
pose a potentially significant risk to residents through exposure resulting from the accidental
release of hazardous substances. Generally, the Fire Marshal has requested that safeguards be
incorporated into the project to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of
hazardous materials that could otherwise be allowed under current fire or building code
regulations as well as applicable state or federal statutes. Of major concern was the storage or
use of hazardous materials that could pose hazards even under non-fire conditions and may not
provide adequate warning or notification of a hazardous condition to either the occupants in the
residential areas and/or the fire department.
Based on research of building and fire codes as well as state and federal statutes, the Fire
Department agreed to mitigation conditions that would significantly reduce the risk of exposure
to hazardous substances:
1. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store,
handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted
fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently
adopted fire code.
2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California
Health and Safety Code -25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk
management plans for determination of risks to the community.
3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as
defined in the most currently adopted tire code which are also regulated substances as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code -25532(g) shall prepare an offsite
consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with
Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations -2750.2 through -2750.3. If the OCA
shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store,
handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material
reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the
facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity.
Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous
material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature,
wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of
19 Rev. 03/28/96 32
release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models
can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the
event of a release. Models can be performed under “worst case” meteorological and
chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is
determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is
the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
The “Pesticide Soil Assessment at Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
California” performed for by MV Environmental, Inc. concluded that based on limited soil
assessment of the property, residual pesticide contamination exists within the upper 2.5 feet of
soil on the property. Detection of DDT, DDE, and DDD pesticide concentrations were found to
range between <5Oug/kg and 50 ug/‘kg (parts per billion). These concentrations do not present a
human health concern when compared to the Federal Government’s Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs) for these compounds. MV Environmental concludes that since all residual
concentrations analyzed are well below the posted Federal PRG concentrations, the shallow
occurrences of organochlorine pesticides do not represent an environmental endangerment to the
groundwater nor humans based on the range of concentrations and depths observed. The soil can
be used in the general grading of the site with the following mitigation:
Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of site development
that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in a manner which protects human
health and the environment. Measures necessary to prevent fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and
any off-site migration of pesticide contaminated soil are effective dust control, such as liberal
amounts of water,to reduce public exposure to these types of contaminants. Any activity
generating dust emissions shall be immediately stopped if excessive off-site migration of dust is
detected by City of Carlsbad Engineering Inspection.
To avoid an increase in the fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes
containing high fuel native vegetation, the project Landscape Plans identify a 30’ wide fire
suppression zone in which the 10’ closest to the top of slope must be landscaped in accordance
with the City’s Landscape Manual provisions for manufactured slopes (Zone A-2).
XI/XII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The
Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development
within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to
comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to
meet the additional demand generated by the project.
The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service
area. The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer
system. But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation
District (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
20 Rev. 03/28/96 33
large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced
below Palomar Airport Road along the eastern half of the property. As identified by photo
simulations prepared for the industrial project, the project will be visible from Palomar Airport
Road, a scenic corridor circulation arterial roadway and Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial
roadway. Fifty foot landscape setbacks in which large specimen trees are required adjacent to
these roadways will partially screen the development, and compliance with the approved
landscape plans will ensure that parking lots and manufactured slopes are screened. Potentially
significant visual impacts could result from future industrial development that is visible from
Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive due to poor architectural design and/or visible rooftop
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 architectural
elements or parapets that are of sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical roof
equipment; 2) prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural
elements that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; 3) prohibit loading bays
that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive; and 4) require enhanced
architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or
Melrose Drive. These mitigation measures will be reviewed for compliance prior to approval of
the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The existence of archaeological resources has been documented on the property by two
archaeological reports, “Results of the Archaeological Significance Assessment” performed by
RECON for the Melrose Drive extension project dated October 11, 1999, and the “Draft
Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the Wimpey Gentry Property: SDi-9041,-9042, -9043,
and -9045, Carlsbad California” performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two
archaeological reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the
proposed Melrose alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two
additional sites not previously surveyed, SDi-10,550 and SDi-10,552. The 1989 RECON report
concluded that no significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-9041; 9042, and 9043. The
report recommended that since an important source of information could remain in the area of
SDi-9043 and SDi-9045 monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and
documentation would be necessary. The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining
portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad Raceway property is an important site that should be
fenced during the (Carlsbad Raceway grading and construction activities), i.e. Melrose Drive
extension, for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no further work is
necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property has been
buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also
indicated that no artifacts were recovered from 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.
21 Rev. 03/28/96 ’ 3f
EARJLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
1. “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”, prepared by
O’Day & Associates, dated June 6,200l.
2. “Palomar Forum Transportation Analysis”, prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
dated May 22,200l.
3. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Industrial Development-Byron White
Property” dated June 24, 1998, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.
4. “PAR 62 Property Biological Technical Report” prepared by Helix Environmental
Planning, Inc., dated January 15, 1999; “Palomar Forum Biological Mitigation”, prepared
by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated April 16, 1999; Letters from Barry Jones,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to: Julie Vanderwier, USFWS dated July 1, 1998;
Letter (“Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the Carlsbad Raceway”), dated
April 19,200l; Letter to Ms Hysong dated August 28,200l
5. “Pesticide Soil Assessment at Byron White Property, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad,
California”, prepared by MV Environmental, Inc. dated July 28, 1998.
6. “Results of Archaeological Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-10,552, CA-SDI-10,550,
and a portion of CA-SDI-9045 for the Melrose Drive Extension Project”, prepared by
RECON dated October 11, 1999 and”Draft Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the
Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-9041, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and SDi-9045, Carlsbad,
California” prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for
the following roadways:
l Palomar Airport Road will be widened ti-om the City of Vista boundary west to existing
improvements west of Melrose Drive.
l Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in
the City of Vista.
l Onsite, Street “A” Street will connect to the adjacent project to the north, Carlsbad
Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to Melrose Drive
and to Business Park Drive.
2. Prior to recordation of final map, Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a
Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west
of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way.
3. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the
provisions of the “Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention”
22 Rev. 03/28/96 35
summary NPDES study prepared for the project by O’Day Consultants dated June 6,
2001.
4. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following:
l The on-site restoration will include restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of
currently disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub within the wildlife corridor.
Restoration of the corridor will maximize its value for wildlife. A conceptual
restoration plan will be developed prior to issuance of final map.
l The remaining upland mitigation requirement of 1.5 acres will be met by the
acquisition of 1.5 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub at a site acceptable to the
City and wildlife agencies, or through restoration of DCSS habitat within open
space on the Carlsbad Raceway project to the north.
l Prior to approval of final map, applicant shall: 1) provide an engineering and
feasibility study for a potential wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road; and
2) pay $133,867.80 to mitigate impacts to non-native grassland and chaparral. If
the HMP is approved prior to final map approval, the feasibility study shall not be
required and the funds shall be used for acquisition of acreage in the designated
core area as described in the City’s I-IMP. 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:
ii:
C.
acquisition of acreage in designated County Core area;
construction of wildlife crossing under Palomar Airport Road;
other programs as determined by City to enhance habitat preservation in
the City.
l Impacts to .08 acre of unvegetated waters of the U.S. will be mitigated by
creation of .08 acre of riparian habitat or freshwater marsh vegetation on the
Carlsbad Raceway property immediately to the north and within the proposed
HMP wildlife corridor.
l Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence
of the burrowing owl. If the owl is observed on the site, it will be relocated to
open space on the site.
l Provide a 12’ high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose Drive.
l Obtain all necessary permits fi-om 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.
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.
23 Rev. 03/28/96 36
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of site
development that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in a manner
which protects human health and the environment. Measures necessary to prevent
fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and any off-site migration of pesticide contaminated soil
24 Rev. 03/28/96 37
are effective dust control, such as liberal amounts of water,to reduce public exposure to
these types of contaminants. Any activity generating dust emissions shall be immediately
stopped if excessive off-site migration of dust is detected by City of Carlsbad
Engineering Inspection.
25 Rev. 03/28/96 38
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH-MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature ,
Rev. 03128196 39
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 5
.
I
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 3 of 5
. . .
4
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 4 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 5 of 5
ADDENDUM TO PALOMAR FORUM MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Mitigation measure No. 1 on Page 21 (List of Mitigating Measures) is revised as follows:
1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and
bond for the following roadways:
l Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to
existing improvements west of Melrose Drive.
l Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing
terminus in the City of Vista.
l Onsite, Street “A” Street will connect to the adjacent project to the north,
Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park, providing another link and secondary access to
Melrose Drive and to Business Park Drive.
2. Prior to recordation of final map, Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as
a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of
Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at
Orion Way.
Renumbering of the List of Mitigation Measures on Pages 22 and 23 fi-om Nos. 6 and 7 to
5 and 6 as follows:
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
45-
$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, and quantity released,
material properties and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are
considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will
show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be
performed under “worst case” meteorological and chemical release
conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined
for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the
most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety.
6. Grading, trenching, drilling, or other construction activities for the purposes of
site development that may disturb pesticide impacted soil should be conducted in
a manner which protects human health and the environment. Measures necessary
to prevent fugitive dust, vapors, erosion, and any off-site migration of pesticide
contaminated soil are effective dust control, such as liberal amounts of water to
reduce public exposure to these types of contaminants. Any activity generating
dust emissions shall be immediately stopped if excessive off-site migration of
dust is detected by City of Carlsbad Engineering Inspection.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5032
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: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO: GPA 01-07
8
II WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
9
10
11
12
13
14
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the plat thereof.
15
16
(“the Property”); and
17
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
18
19
20
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 01-07” dated August 15,2001, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department and attached hereto, PALOMAR FORUM - GPA 01-07, as provided in
Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 2 1.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
21 and
22 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 23
24 hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
25
26 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
27 II
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
I
28 relating to the General Plan Amendment.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Car&bad, as follows:
A)
B)
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of PALOMAR FORUM - GPA 01-07, 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 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 15,200l including, but
not limited to the following:
The redesignation to Open Space of property proposed to be dedicated as an open
space easement is consistent with the Open Space Element in that the open space is a
identified as a wildlife habitat corridor (Linkage Area D) in the City’s draft HMP.
Conditions:
1.
. . .
0..
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum ZC 01-06, CT
99-06, HDP 99-03, PIP 01-03, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions 5031,5033,5034,5035, and 5036, for those other approvals.
PC RESO NO. 5032 -2-
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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:
JEFF&& SEGALI&hairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
. .
\\
MICHAEL J. HOtiMILl%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5032 ’ -3- 49
25
26
27
28
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA: 01-07
draft [XI final cl
Project Name: Palomar Forum 1 Related Case File No(s):
Property/Legal Description(s): ZC 01-061CT QQ-06/HDP QQ-O3/PIP 01-03
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South,
Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that
portion of Section 18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the official
plat thereof.
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property From: To:
A. A. 221-OlO-17/
221-012-10 PI ’ PI, OS
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
Attach additional pages if necessary
SITE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PI
PI, OS
@
NoKIm
PALOMAR FORUM
GPA 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5033
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: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO: ZC 01-06
WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 ‘South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the plat thereof.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
Exhibit “ZC 01-06” dated August 15, 2001, on file in the Planning Department and attached
hereto, PALOMAR FORUM - ZC 01-06 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:
5-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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of PALOMAR FORUM - ZC 01-06, based on
the following findings:
Findinps:
1.
2.
3.
That the proposed Zone Change from P-M to O-S for land dedicated as an open space easement within Lots 11 and 12 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Open
Space element of the General Plan, in that General Plan Open Space is rezoned to
Open Space.
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 Open Space (O-S) Zone is consistent with the General Plan Open
Space (OS) General Plan designation.
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.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum GPA 01-07,
CT 99-06, HDP 99-03, and PIP 01-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions 5031, 5032, 5034, 5035, and 5036 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
PC RESO NO. 5033 -2- 53
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
Comrnission 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:
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5033 -3- 5-q
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. 5034
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 99-06 TO SUBDIVIDE 70.6
ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN MELROSE DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARR DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO. : CT 99-06
WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the plat thereof.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “CC? dated August 15, 2001, on file in the Planning
Department, PALOMAR FORUM - CT 99-06, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES PALOMAR FORUM - CT 99-06, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses since surrounding
properties to the north and west are designated for and 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 measures are imposed on the
project to prohibit the future use and storage of hazardous materials except as
permitted by the Carlsbad Fire Department. . .
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.
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.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
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.
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
PC RESO NO. 5034 -2- 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
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 level.
9. The City Council/ 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.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
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.
Circulation - The project will construct Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport
Road to its existing terminus in the City of Vista, provide roadway
improvements to Palomar Airport Road including median, signalization,
additional turn lanes and curb and gutter, and financially guarantee the
construction of Faraday Avenue extension between Orion Way and Melrose
Drive.
Noise - Temporary construction activities would be 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 1.7 acres of open space
consistent with the City’s HMP and redesignates and rezones the open space
easement to General Plan Open Space (O-S). The project also dedicates .7
acre of open space as a mini-park at the intersection of Melrose Drive and
Palomar Airport Road that includes 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.
PC RESO NO. 5034 -3- d /
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
10.
11.
12.
13.
G. 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;
1. The project has been conditioned to provide proof fi-om the San Marcos
Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for
school facilities.
2. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44,
and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
3. 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.
4. Special conditions for drainage, sewer, water and circulation facilities
as specified in the Zone 18 LFMP amendment (LFMP 87-18(B)).
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
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, and the City’s interior noise standards for
office and industrial uses will be implemented for future development.
This project incorporates all findings of Planning Commission Resolutions 5031,
5032,5033,5035, and 5036.
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
PC PESO NO. 5034 -4- 58
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
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 Palomar Forum
Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
PC RESO NO. 5034 -5- 59
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
10.
11.
12.
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 nonresidential building.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum GPA 01-07,
ZC 01-06, HDP 99-03, PIP 01-03, and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions 5031,5032,5033,5035, and 5036 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 vvritten 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
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
PC RESO NO. 5034 -6- bo
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 Director and the City Attorney which accomplish at a minimum the
following:
A. continued ownership of open space lot 11 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 Palomar Forum industrial project (Lots 1 - 10) shall be limited to a total of
809,714 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
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.
B.
C.
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.
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.
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.
PC RESO NO. 5034 -7- 41
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
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Special Assessments Levied by 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
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 file 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 Carlsbad Raceway Business Park 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 5031 dated August 15,200l.
Open Space Maintenance Responsibilities: The Association open space
maintenance responsibilities for Open Space Lot 11, 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 ResponsibilitvVOblipation: Simultaneous
with the transfer of ownership of open space Lots 11 to the City or its
designee, the Association shall provide funding or other acceptable financial
mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. (The
PC RESO NO. 5034 -8- 62
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
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
cost of management is currently estimated to be approximately $85.00 per
acre per year).
I. Total Building Square Footape Monitorinp ObliPation: The total square
footage permitted within the Palomar Forum industrial project shall be
limited to 809,714 square feet of building area. Prior to building permit
submittal for any structure on any lot within the subdivision (Lots 1 - lo),
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 Palomar Forum
industrial project is guaranteed a share of the total building area.
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.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall: 1) consult with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service OJSFWS) 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(n) tentative tract map, hillside development permit, and
planned industrial permit by Resolution(s) No. 5034, 5035, and 5036 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
PC RFSO NO. 5034 -9- 63
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
25.
26.
27.
28.
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 11 and 12
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, except as shown on Exhibits “A” _ 66 CC” dated August 15,200l.
Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) 11, 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 Exhibits “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 arboristlbotanist 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.
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
u within Lot 12. 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).
Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit a sign program for signage
in compliance with Chapter 21.41 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Sign
Ordinance), for all future signage on Lots 1 - 12 of the Palomar Forum 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.
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.
29. 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.
30. 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
PC RESO NO. 5034 -lO- w
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
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
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
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 north 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 north side of this project (Lot 12) shall be approved and
recorded. The appropriate recording information shall be placed on the final map.
The adjusted piece shall become part of open space lot 12.
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&R’s).
“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
36.
37.
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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall pay a proportionate share for
PC RESO NO. 5034 -ll- Is’
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
41.
42.
43.
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
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.
Prior to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever
occurs first, a financial guarantee for the construction of Faraday Avenue extension
between Orion Way and Melrose Drive shall be approved by the Carlsbad City
Council.
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 financial guarantee may be in
the form of an assessment district or other means as approved by the City Council.
The developer may 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.
Grading
44.
45.
46.
47.
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.)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intent for the start of
work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
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.
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
PC RESO NO. 5034 -12- kd
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
requirement.
48. The storm drain improvements, animal crossings and NPDEWdesiltation basins
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
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
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 Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive.
Developer shall cause Owner to waive direct access rights on the final map to
interior streets except for 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 fi-om 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:
PC RESO NO. 5034 -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
A.
8.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Palomar Airport Road shall be improved along the project frontage to
complete half street (Prime Arterial) width of 63 feet. Offsite improvements
to the east are required to provide a continuous travel lane configuration.
Modifications shall be made at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and
Paseo Valindo to provide one southbound left turn lane, one southbound
through/right turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane, and one westbound
right turn lane.
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
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.
Streets ‘A’ and ‘B’ offsite shall be dedicated to a width of 72 feet and
improved to provide a 30-foot paved width at ultimate line and grade.
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 public water main in Street ‘B’ shall be constructed to Melrose Drive
to provide a looped system. Offsite water main to be built at ultimate line
and grade.
Offsite public storm drains shall be constructed to City of Carlsbad
standards at ultimate line and grade.
Offsite sewer facilities to connect to the Raceway Sewer Lift Station and to
the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor(SAHI). 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
PC RESO NO. 5034 -14- tba
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
or such other time as provided in said agreement.
58. 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.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
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.
Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
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
operation of BMPs.
59. 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.
PC RESO NO. 5034 -IS- 49
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
Final Map Notes
60.
61.
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 determines that sewer and water facilities are available.
C. Geotechnical Caution:
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:
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
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.
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.
PC ES0 NO. 5034 -16- 70
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
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
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.
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.
The tentative map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date this tentative map
approval becomes final.
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 unsuccessml,
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.
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 tile 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. 5034 -17- 7/
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, California, held on the 17th day of October, 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: I
MICHAEL J. H&kZMIL&R
Planning Director
PC RBSO NO. 5034 -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. 5035
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 PARR
DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO.: HDP 99-03
WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the plat thereof.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - ‘cCC” dated August 15, 2001, on file in the
Planning Department, PALOMAR FORUM - HDP 99-03, 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:
/ 73
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) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. ’
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES PALOMAR FORUM - HDP 99-03, 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 2.1 acres of slopes greater than 40% exist on the property, 1.8 acres
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 (10,520 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 accommodate a circulation-
element roadway.
7. That the proposed modification to allow grading volumes that exceed the acceptable
range 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.
PC RESO NO. 5035 -2- 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
Conditions:
1. Approval of HDP 98-09 is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Addendum
GPA 01-07, ZC 01-06, CT 99-06 and PIP 00-03. HDP 99-03 is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5031, 5032, 5033, 5034,
and 5036.
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. 5035 -3- 7 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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
i 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:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5035 -4- 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5036
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PERMIT, PIP 0 l-03, TO SUBDIVIDE
70.6 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
BETWEEN MELROSE DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARR DRIVE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 18.
CASE NAME PALOMAR FORUM
CASE NO.: PIP 01-03
WHEREAS, Davis Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section
18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsb,ad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the plat thereof.
(“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, PALOMAR FORUM - PIP 01-03, as provided by Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; 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, 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
i Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
I rl7
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
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES PALOMAR FORUM - PIP 01-03, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
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
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 01-07,
ZC 01-06, CT 99-06, and HDP 99-03, and is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions 5031, 5032, 5033, 5034, and 5035 for those other
approvals.
2. Development of industrial buildings on each industrial lot created by CT 99-06 shall
require a separate Planned Industrial Permit that shall be subject to all conditions
of CT 99-06 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions 5031 and 5034.
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.”
/ PC RESO NO. 5036 -2- 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
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:
JEFl%E N. SEGALL, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&&MIl%R Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5036 -3-
EXHIBIT 5 -_ -- --- The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
P.C. AGENDA OF: October 17,200l
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: GPA Ol-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.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 503 1, 5032, and
5033 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, GPA 01-07, and ZC 01-07 and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 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.
II. INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with a request for Planning Commission approval a tentative tract map, hillside
development permit, and planned industrial permit required to subdivide and grade the 70.6 acre
property into 10 industrial lots and 2 open space lots, the applicant is requesting a
recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to redesignate the
proposed project open space from Planned Industrial (PI) to the Open Space (OS) and rezone
from Planned Industrial (P-M) to the Open Space (O-S) zone. 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,
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20), Hillside Development Regulations and Planned Industrial
Permit zcning 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 70.6 acre property into 10 industrial lots and 2
open space lots. This action necessitates two legislative actions: a General Plan amendment and
a zone change. The property is currently designated by the General Plan for Planned Industrial
(PI) land use and zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The proposed General Plan Amendment
redesignates the 1.7 acres of the property proposed to be dedicated as permanent open space
within a wildlife habitat corridor to from Planned Industrial (PI) to Open Space (OS). To ensure
zoning consistency with the proposed General Plan land use designations, the portion of the
GPA Ol -07/ZC 0 l -06/CT 9Y -06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
property redesignated as OS would be rezoned to the O-S zone.
The property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City’s northeast quadrant. The
property is surrounded by Carlsbad Raceway to the north, vacant industrial property and a small
commercial development in the City of Vista to the east, Palomar Airport Road and residential development to the south, and the existing Carlsbad Oaks East industrial park to the west. The
property is characterized by gentle hillside terrain which descends northward from the highest
areas along Palomar Airport Road down to the Carlsbad Raceway property. The central portion
of the property contains several small naturally vegetated ravines. Natural slope gradients most
commonly approach 10% and transition to as steep as 25% above these ravines. The majority of
the site is disturbed by past agricultural use, however, Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native
grassland, and southern mixed chaparral also occupy the site. Site drainage sheet flows
northward over the slopes and into a north draining canyon. A SDG&E powerline easement
bisects the eastern end of the property.
The proposed industrial lots range in size from 2.1 acre to 7.7 acres. Future development of the
industrial lots will require Planning Director approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. The
project includes a 50-foot (minimum) landscape buffer along Mehose Drive and 35-foot
landscape setbacks along the projects internal streets. The 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 (see Sheet 9). The habitat corridor continues through the Carlsbad Raceway
property to the north. and connects to an east-west habitat corridor that extends along the
northern portion of the property. In conjunction with the proposed industrial project to the north,
additional open space consisting of a common passive park area with a waterfall and creek
feature, outdoor eating amenities, and an 8’ wide segment of the Citywide trail system, will be
preserved 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 require frontage improvements to Palomar Airport Road and to
construct Melrose 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 receive primary access
from the intersection of Paseo Valindo and Palomar Airport Road. The industrial lots will
receive access from internal cul-de-sac streets (“B” and “C”) that run parallel to Palomar Airport
Road and intersect Paseo Valindo. Secondary access to the project is provided via the off-site
extension of Poinsettia Avenue which will run parallel to Palomar Airport Road between
Melrose Drive and Business Park Drive in the proposed Carlsbad Raceway Business Park project
to the north.
The subdivision and grading design is dictated by the long, narrow configuration of the property
and the proposed access. Grading quantities for the project exceed the Hillside Ordinance
“acceptable” range due to the grade alteration for the short segment of Melrose Drive, which
requires large quantities of cut and fill to achieve the required grades at the existing points of
connection. 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 along the southern boundary adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and fill along the
northern boundary to create lots that are accessible from both sides of Streets “B” and “C”.
GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06KT 9Y-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
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 (CLUE’).
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 2 1 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.34);
2. Open Space (OS) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.33);
3. Hillside Development (Municipal Code Chapter 2 1.95)
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 (PI) land use
and zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The project includes a General Plan Amendment to
redesignate the proposed project open space PI 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. 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 0 l -07/ZC Ol -06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 0 l-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
GP ELEMENT
Land Use - PI, OS
Circulation
COMPLIANCE
Planned Industrial business park subdivision that is:
l designed and landscaped within perimeter setbacks and
manufactured slopes and properly tictioning internal roads
and adequately spaced driveways
l 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 Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista
boundary west to existing improvements west of Melrose
Drive.
Open Space
Noise
Parks
Public Safety
l Melrose Drive will be constnicted from Palomar Airport Road
to the existing terminus in the City of Vista.
l Financial guarantee of Faraday Ave. to extend the broadway
from the existing terminus near Melrose Drive in Vista to the
existing‘terminus near Orion Way in Carlsbad.
l Onsite, Street “A” Street will connect to off-site Poinsettia
Avenue, which will be constructed to provide another network
link and secondary access to Melrose Drive.
The project will result in the preservation of a 1.7 acre habitat corridor
as open space consistent with the City’s draft HMP and rezone the open
space to the Open Space (O-S) zone. provide a citywide trail segment,
and provide a .7 acre mini park.
Standards for ‘noise generation and interior noise standards for future
development will be required in compliance with the City’s Noise
standard and P-M zone performance standards.
Payment of park-in-lieu fee
l Mitigation measures are required to significantly reduce the
risk of exposure to hazardous substances during construction
and from future industrial development
l Streets, sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants will be
constructed per City standards
83
GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 9%06/HDP 9903/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
Pane 5
Bl. Planned Industrial Zone
In accordance with the Planned Industrial (P-M) ordinance regulations, a Planned Industrial
Permit (PIP) is required for all industrial subdivisions. The majority of standards apply to the
actual development of the industrial lots. Subsequent approval of a PIP will be required for each
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 ORDIN)
STANDARD I REOUIRED
Prime Arterial Setback
Local Street Setback
Interior Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Minimum Lot Area
Outdoor Eating Area
50 Feet Entirely Landscaped
35 Feet Average
10 Feet
20 Feet
1 Acre
Mini-Park in lieu of outdoor
eating area within 1,000 feet
Internal Street System Safe, efficient, functional
WE
PROVIDED
50 Feet Entirely Landscaped
35 Feet Average
10 Feet
20 Feet
2.1 - 7.7 Acres
Mini Park satisfies outdoor
eating requirement for Lots 1,
2. 10
Two points of access to ensure
accessibility; Paseo Valindo
(Street “A’) connection
between Palomar Airport
Road and Poinsettia Avenue to
ensure timely emergency
resnonse.
GPA 0 l -07/ZC 0 1-06KT 9%06/HDP 99-03/PIP 0 l-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
Equipment Screening Architecturally integrated For future buildings:
l 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 from
adjacent scenic corridor and
circulation arterial
roadways.
l Prohibit installation of roof
screens other than building
parapets that are integrated
into the architectural design
of buildings;
Architecture Architecturally integrated
Prohibit loading bays that are
visible from Palomar Airport
Road or Melrose Drive.
Require enhanced WAi-
tectural treatment of all future
building elevations that are
visible from Palomar Airport
Road or Melrose Drive.
B2. Open Space Zone
A habitat corridor within the proposed subdivision (Lot 11) 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 O-S zone to designate high priority resource areas as open space 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 because the property contains slopes of 15 percent
and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15 feet. Hillside regulations are intended to
ensure that hillside landfonns are developed in a sensitive manner and that the majority of visible
manufactured slopes are undulated and do not exceed 40’ in height. 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 10,860 cubic yards/acre
GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06KT 9906/HDP 9903/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
Pane 7
. exceeds the acceptable range, i.e., it exceeds 10,000 cubic yards/acre. The project includes
slopes that exceed 40’ in height along the off-site extension of Mehose Drive. Section 21.95.130
of the Hillside Development Ordinance excludes circulation arterial roads from hillside
development standards. 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 DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - SECTION 21.95.120
STANDARD PROPOSED PLAN COMPLIANCE
Undevelopable Slopes: 2.1 acres of slopes greater than 40% Yes
Natural Slopes of Over 40% exist on the property; however, 1.8
Gradient with elevation acres are previously graded and the
differential > 15’, a minimum remaining slopes with an elevation
area of 10,000 square feet and differential of fifteen feet or more
comprising a prominent comprise less than ten thousand square
landform feature. . feet and do not comprise a prominent
landform feature.
Grading Volumes > 10,000 cu 10,860 cu yds/acre including
yds/acre allowed if the project Circulation Element Roadway (Melrose
qualities as an exclusion or Drive). See the discussion below.
modification per Sections
21.95.130 and 21.95.140*
Maximum Manufactured 40’ Maximum manufactured slope
Slope Height: 40 feet* height except as required for the off-
site extension of Meh-ose Drive
Yes
Yes
Contour Grading: Contour grading is proposed where Yes
Required for manufactured applicable adjacent to and visible from
slopes greater than 20’ in Melrose 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 NA
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 Yes
slopes consistent with the in accordance with the City’s
City’s Landscape Manual Landscape Manual. _ _. _ c Exclusions are permitted for grading volumes, slope heights and graded areas which 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.
Modifications are permitted for projects that will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area than would a strict adherence to the Hillside Ordinance development and design
regulations.
GPA 0 l -07/ZC 01-06KT 9Y-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
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. The area
proposed for development, which is relatively flat at the western end beyond the Melrose Drive
alignment, descends from south to north from Palomar Airport road approximately 90 feet near
the center of the property and 30 to 50 feet near the eastern end. North-south access roads
(Streets “B” and “C”) will provide access to large industrial lots. The elevations of industrial
lots that are accessible from Streets “B” and “C” are set by these road elevations. The grading
scheme necessary to create large flat industrial pads requires cut to lower the lots on the south
side of Streets “B” and “C” to the road elevation and comparable till to raise pads on the north
side of Streets “B” and “C”. 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 10 industrial lots and 2 open space lots
ranging in size from 2.1 to 7.7 acres. The project grading to create building pads, private
driveways and the connection of Melrose Drive to Palomar Airport Road will consist of 668,000
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 Meh-ose 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. Eleven temporary NPDES
and desilt basins will be constructed at various locations throughout the project.
The project will receive primary access from the signalized intersection of Paseo Valindo and
Palomar Airport Road. The industrial lots will front on internal cul-de-sac streets (“B” and “C”)
that run parallel to Palomar Airport Road and intersect Paseo Valindo. Secondary access to the
project is provided via an off-site access road (Street “B”) that will connect to Melrose Drive.
The project is 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, construct
frontage improvements to Palomar Airport Road. install public interior Streets “A”, “B”, and “C”
improvements for 72 foot width right-of-way including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights,
and fire hydrants, and off-site Street “B”, dedicated to a width of 71 feet and improved to
provide a 30 foot paved width for secondary access. 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 Palomar Airport Road and 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.
87
GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 99-06BIDP 9903/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAk FORUM
October 17,200l
D. Growth Management
The project is subject to the Zone 18 LFMP special conditions including 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 sunnnarized below:
Qpen Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
2.4 Acres
Not Applicable
350 EDU
116.800 GPD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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 the proposed open space easement is
redesignated and rezoned as open space. 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 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
GPA 0 l -07/ZC 0 l -06/CT 9%06/HDP 9903/PIP 0 l-03 - PALOMAK FORUM
October 17,200l
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
required to reduce those impacts include compliance with the project’s summary NPDES. study,
construction of Melrose Drive, improvements to Palomar Airport Road, financial guarantee for
the construction of Faraday Avenue, restrictions on grading operations to avoid exposure to
pesticide impacted soils and the future industrial use of hazardous materials, preservation and
revegetation of an HMP wildlife habitat corridor, creation of riparian habitat, acquisition of
coastal sage scrub habitat, and design restrictions to avoid visual impacts to scenic corridors
resulting from future rooftop mechanical equipment, loading bays, and poorly designed
architecture.
During the 30 day public comment period, responses were received from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Preserve
Calavera, the Sierra Club, 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 cumulative loss of non-
native grassland and southern mixed chaparral, 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 recirculated the mitigated negative declaration with added mitigation
measures to reduce the identified impacts. These additional mitigation measures include: 1) the
payment of 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) a requirement for a burrowing owl survey prior to construction; and 4) 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 and Isabelle Kay, Manager of the Dawson Los
Monos Canyon Reserve. 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.
GPA Ol-07/ZC Ol-06/CT 9Y-06HDP 9903/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM
October 17,200l
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5031 (Mitigated Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5032 (GPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5033 (ZC)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5034 (CT)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5035 (HDP)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5036 (PIP)
7. Location Map
8. Disclosure Form
9. Background Data Sheet
10. Local Facilities Impact Form
11. Reduced Exhibits
12. Public comment letters from Preserve Calavera and Isabelle Kay
13. Full Size Exhibits “A” - “CC”, dated August 15,200l
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your 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 county, city and county, city
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 owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (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 ovvning 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 page may be attached if
necessary.) William K. Davis
PerSOn~rt .T Th i prn;l y-tnpr Carp/Part Davis Partners, LLC
Title President Title cnlef vperdtmg urrlder
Address 1430 Bri stnl St. N. Address 1420 Bristol Street N. y
Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92 130
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any 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 partnershiu. 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
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person i+i.lliam K. Davis Carp/Part Palomar Forum Associates. LP.
Title Partner Title
Addresd420 Bristol St. N. Suite 100 Address 1420 Bristol Street N.
Newport Beqzhi.1, CA 92660 Newport Beach. CA 92 I30
9’
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 b
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer & director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust N/A Non Profit/Trust N/A
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
0 Yes cl No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
07 II o\ ! I 4. t&--- ?/II 16,
Signature of odnerfdate Signature of app$cant/date
Larry E. Nelson
Print or type name of owner
Larry E. Nelson
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSJRE STATEMENT 5/98 9a Page 2 of 2
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NAME: GPA 01-07, ZC 01-06, CT 99-06, HDP 99-03, PIP 01-03
APPLICANT: Palomar Forum Associates, LP,
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 12 lot industrial subdivision located north of Palomar Airport
Road between future Melrose Drive and Business Park Drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section 18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Dieno, State of California,
according to the plat thereof.
APN: 221-010-17 and 221-012-10 Acres: 70.6 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 12
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: PI
Density Allowed: Not Applicable Density Proposed: Not Applicable
Existing Zone: P-M Proposed Zone: P-M and O-S
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
South
East
West
Zoning
P-M
P-M
P-C
CITY OF VISTA
P-M
General Plan
PI
PI/O
CITY OF VISTA
PI
Current Land Use
VACANT
CARLSBAD
RACEWAY
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
CARLSBAD OARS
EAST BUSINESS
PARK
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Unified Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CARLSBAD
Equivalent-Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 350
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued Julv 15, 2001
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
cl Other,
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
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 01-07, ZC 01-06, CT 99-06, HDP 99-03, PIP 01-03
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 18 GENERAL PLAN: PI
ZONING: P-M,
DEVELOPER’S NAME: PALOMAR FORUM ASSOCIATES, LP
ADDRESS: HOFMAN PLANNING, CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
PHONE NO.: (760) 438-1465 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 221-010-17 and 221-012-10
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 70.6 ACRES
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: UNKNOWN
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 277 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 235
Identify Drainage Basin = B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 5,226
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 5
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 2.2
Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
350
B
116,800
r
L
ttty qp3 9 -
~
1 fit ty !“!I * tc
1 ttty 81.82 8
::;.I ; B
.. .:
I t ia : % I r! 5 . I -
! i
! ’ 11’1 $I
FIIh ‘r+.
g++i -,\ _
i I I
+4 IrttTYP: j+ p gq+z I I I ti 71 I PI 1’ ! 1 ; s : / .: ; /ii1 i i ,!i[ji#,IIP. .:i !elrwP $ 3 : 1 iri rm 1 iilrfiit! I t
$1 3 grt [ ,,l,,g I$. g 8.8 ;;j; i. : j j ’ ::... : /:i/jj :; 18 :fi ::; ..j: F:: : 3 [ ;; :I :;I: ::i [irl,i i i ;i ij pip i / 1: Ifllh lieI i?
4x
II nl % III ; :: 8 Y -734 -! * .
r
j I
L
r
9 ‘ON WHS 33S
i
--
9 ‘OM U3HS 33s I ‘O/V LVHS 33s
t ‘OM f33HS 33s
r 1
I
i t iI iI
I I I i
Z!!!f
4 IflCl’ ! ‘ii ! I
9 ‘OM 433s 33.. 5 ‘ON 133HS 33s
6 ‘ON f33HS US
9 ‘ON U3HS 33s 1 ‘ON l33HS 335
I
f
il il
if Ii !i
/ i -. ‘. . : c c ,.
...I ” / -h $
\
._?.’ --. ‘.-’ \
~_ ‘: k
r
L
wd’ -I --\ I.
7+t- ii I -
i i ta
-- -
1 % I
!
I i :I :I :I ‘1 x fr I I I
r
L
r
jo” \
\
c ‘p?‘, “\ :I 1; ‘\\ ‘\
r @ ‘:\ \ \( \ ‘I !I @‘&\\ \ II lb j\ ICY a; “\
,r ’ y, “\
I?@ ‘, :’ P-l -‘p$f~,, “\
\
,I h I k I 9,A “1
--/LcY-y ; @#i’\, ;I ‘P \ \ ’ b. 7 =-I
5
p .* ’ :I i: p \ \ ,I---L L#@ +A1 1 .LF
! j , 1 j
I ! . .
%
1 $ L
I B c 5
r 1
)07
Ott 08 01 03:.2sp P-2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO UCSD
-.. - --~.-.
BERKELLR’ - DAVIS . IRVINE . LOS ANGELES - RlVERSlDE . SAN DIEGO - SAN FKANCISCO SANTA BARBAKA . SANT,\ CRL’7. --.-- .- ____--
NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM TELEPHONE: (858) 533-2077
9500 GILMAK DRIVE FAX (858) 534-7108 or 822-0696
LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 e-mail: ikav(icucPd.cdrr.
October 5,200 1
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14
Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559
Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department
Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park
joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 98-
OS/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-lO/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01)
Dear Commissioners:
The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos
Canyon Reserve (“Reserve”), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary
of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high
quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core,
high quality habitat in the North San Diego .County Multiple Species Conservation Plan
(MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan @-IMP).
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 J-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
Ott 08 01 03:29p P-3
thus to major core open space to the south. northeasL 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 fuI1 Environmental Analysis
The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a full environmental analysis; a mitigated
negative declaration is clearly inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the
applicant -- to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption
that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is
the environmentallv oreferred 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 equalIy wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact,
through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two
projects were superficially (and inconsistently) combined for impact analysis, there is not enough
effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation
as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the
minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects
comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of, the HMP and MHCP should be presented.
When this is done, to say that the project “conforms with..” these plans will not be sufficient; a
case needs to be made to support this contention, with precise and specific information, and
clear-cut examples.
In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the
interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form
(EIA) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case, it is certainly out of date. In any case, the following
environmental factors will be subject to potentiaIly 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 1 O/05/01 Page 2 of 7
Ott 08 01 03:3op P.4
e) Disruption of the community: the introduction of more traffic and industrial area will exacerbate the division of south C&bad 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 properv to flooding, both upstream and downstream;
d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon;
h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.)
IV. AIR QUALITY.
The projects as designed will iikely:
b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants;
c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature locally due to hardscaping;
d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes.
In addition, there is no clear evidence that any measures other than circular reasoning have been undertaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city’s update of the General Plan does not mean that any such measures have been incorporated. They are certainly not explicitly called out. Furthermore, the MEIR is no longer adequate as it is older than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time.
VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.
The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects:
b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
The proposal would result in impacts to:
b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including Quercus dumosu, -Quercus agrfolia, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Adolph californica, Fcrocactus viridescent, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper’s hawk, Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing 0~1); this does not mean that other sensitive and target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their status on the sites (e.g. particular herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed;
The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as “Potentially Significant Impact”:
d) Wetland habitat: tiparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak woodland; and
C’bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of 7
Ott 08 01 03:3op P-5
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is severely compromised by the plan as proposed.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
a) Adopted energy conservation plans, such as those incorporated into the county-wide REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated communities, and fewer roads.
b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites.
The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG’s recommendations for ‘Smart Growth” are being incorporated. See, for example, their website describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities: http://~~~.sandag.org/~vhats_new/workqrogtam/workqrogram_l OS.html# 105.14
IX. HAzARDs.
c) The development of the industrial parks will almost certainly lead to the importation of materials that pose a hazard to human and environmental health. These problems should be examined during this stage of the development process, since to wait until individual parcels are developed would be illegally piecemealing the project.
The introduction of industrial processes, vehicle traffic, and thousands of individuals into an area - of habitat that is highly flammable, and the resulting increased likelihood for fire is not discussed.
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 AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Sewer systems are identified as being impacted, albeit at a level deemed below significant. It is not clear why water treatment and distribution facilities (c) and stonnwater drainage (e) are not impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects.
XII. AESTHETICS.
The project will most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed (impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics; and creating light and glare) and should thus be recognized at that level.
XV. RECREATION.
Contrary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checklist, there WILL most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of the employees of the business parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need
C’bad Raceway comment 1 O/05/01 Page 4 of 7
get 00 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 area the
necessary facilities should likely be a recreational resource as well.
a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance to view wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc.) will surely be negatively impacted by these projects.
2. Mitigation for habitat impacts
a) Wetlands
The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is topologicallq
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 manufactur,ed (3: 1)
slopes. It is not clear that this will result in functional wildlife habitat, or that this is an adequate -
acreage for restoration, at 1: 1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore, there appears to be no
plan for: fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the
development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area.
c) Oaks
There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks: (Quarcus agrzjXa 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 CumarustaphyZos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on
the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and other species were overlooked.
Examples:
1. Comarosraphyius was observed on the north-facing sIope 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 Comarosfaphylos were not recorded on
the map.
3. Quercus agrifolia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked.
4. An area of Baccharis scrub in the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a bare,
disturbed area.
5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for
impacts to sensitive species and habitats.
C’bod Raceway comment lOiOS/Ol Page 5 df 7
Ott 08 .Ol 03:32p P-7
e) Inadequate mitigation
In addition, the remaining mitigation proposed for impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Non-
native grassland, and the transection of the wildlife corridor by Poinsettia appear inadequate, for
the following reasons:
1. $100,000 is not sufficient to construct a major bridge such as would be required.
2. NO land in the vicinity of Carlsbad can be purchased for S3,949 per acre, so this is
inadequate mitigation for impacts to non-native grassland; additionally, the targeted acquisitions
need to be identified as part of the mitigation proposal.
3. Similarly, land cannot be purchased for $7,897 per acre, as proposed for mitigation for
chaparral, so this is also inadequate mitigation. Any such purchase alternative needs to identifj
the acquisition parcels prior to project approval.
In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be
made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that
culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public
review.
3. Wildlife corridors
The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects make up the
northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D-
6) “The northern section of this linkage includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway
that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a 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 two places.
Most noticeable is the obstacle created by placing 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 should be studied as area1 alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible to
visualize either of these with the plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.)
The Poinsettia (aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering
it another “sink” for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative
impact on the population at large.
There are numerous studies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages and corridors, and
the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successll. 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 lo!0510 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 (Palomar Airport Road) will . . . reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate
modes of transportation.”
Finally, the justification for using the 1994 MEIR to allow the “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” to stand is that ‘;.. . no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.. .” and that “- . .there is no new available
information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was
certified.” In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects
in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the
past 5 years on San Diego’s freeways, these statements should be re-examined.
5. Hydrology
The proposal to use the wildlife corridorkparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill- --
conceived. This very same concept.has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad
Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to
mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located
completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and
certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildlife passage.
Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or
as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the
difference.
Sincerely,
Manager. Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve
cc: USFWS
CDFG
Preserve Calavera
C’bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 7 of 7
October 4,200l
y-y- Q 7 I ,--a Lb L. - -.
CITY Of c 4RLS5.4D
pi-&Ny!NG SZPT
Subject: Palomar Forum MND
AM Hysong
Senior Planner City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
G&bad, Ca 92008
Dear Ms. Hysong:
Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned
about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as
the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still
result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native
plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this
area.
This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a
regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for
years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased
traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate
mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately
describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts.
We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not
proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and
critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this
process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report(ElR). 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 tra.f& problems and reduce the
need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more
damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway
and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while
other more damaging projects are put on hold.
The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP’s. We don’t know what will be built, the existing
biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP’s are not specified. This makes it difficult to
evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation.
We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project
1 of6 10/4/01 lo:46 PM
neg bB: palomar 1ot-m
development applications are submitted ta the City of Carlsbad.
The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization :
Water
1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address
the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further degrade the lagoon.
2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the
cumulative impacts of projects in this area.
3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the
lagoon and further impair this waterway. The proposed design for detention basins within the creek is
not acceptable to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This issue should have been addressed
prior to issuance of the MIND.
Circulation
Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance
planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for
this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased
congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is
needed to adequately address these impacts.
1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on
Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The
intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista
neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on
this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed.
2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-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 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other
Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the
old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed, possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects. :..
2. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring
cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements
shown on page 7-19 includes several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway
projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements
will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other
referenced improvements being in place.
2of6 10/4/01 10% PM
MP
negdecpalamarfomm
3. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy.
Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to
put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway
extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a
reduced roadway configuration.
4. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of
each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental
impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a
done deal.
5. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no
El Fuerte extension.
6. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the
failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts
assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There
needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the
threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require
mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored.
7. Table 10-l in this report does not match 10-l in the Carlsbad Raceway report- although both claim to
be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements.
8. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements-
all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic.
Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital
improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement
plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new
projects in this corridor.
Biological Resources
We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to
residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern califomians love our outdoors-
and we don’t have a lot of it left. The MND needs to specifically address how the project will restrict
public access to assure protection of the sensitive habitat.
3 of6
1. The related Carlsbad Raceway project designates 1.7 acres of open space on the eastern end which is
intended to be a corridor link to the northwest of the project and to the south side of Palomar Airport
Rd. This is not a viable corridor for mammal movement across a major roadway. The bobcat and coyote , while not threatened or endangered, are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Corridor planning
needs to address the barriers to their movement, and not just the birds.
10/4/01 IO:46 PM
2. Additional field studies are required to adequately describe the existing biological resources and to
assess project impacts. The biological studies were conducted during a six week period from May 28th
through July 9th, with no visits in other seasons. Trapping surveys need to be conducted for small
mammals and bird surveys need to be conducted on a monthly basis to accurately describe avian
utilization of the habitat. Specific surveys using established protocals are indicated for Arroyo
southwestern toad, California red-legged frog, American peregrine falcon (there is a nesting pair just
east of the site in Vista that forage on the site), and Least bell’s vireo. Streams should also be sampled
for any sensitive fish species.
3. Our wildlife tracking surveys , under the expert supervision of the San Diego Tracking Team, have
identified the presence of a resident bobcat in this area. Loss of the bobcat population in this area with
adjacent residential development will result in a significant decline in the bird population. The
biological studies failed to mention the presence of bobcat and coyote and their impact on threatened
species. Access to a large preserve space is required for the predator mammals that are essential to
control feral cats who prey on the threatened and endangered bird species. Mitigation is required to
assure that a viable predator population remains.
4. The planned extension of Melrose is a major bi-section of the an existing regional wildlife corridor
that extends from the San Marcos bills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek,
into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12’ arch under Melrose is
insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the addition of a
dirt floor and some native plant cover. Adequate drainage also needs to be addressed.
5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation
is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction.
6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MIND needs to assess how
the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding
for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND.
7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in this project area- and 100% of all of
them will be destroyed by this project. This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent
with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS
must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and
movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location
of off-site areas is not specified.
Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for
success, identifjr fimding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet
success criteria.
8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined
infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to
eliminate this impact.
4of6
9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with
M/4/01 IO:46 PM
neg bet palomar tonan
permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors
may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources.
10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats
has been ignored and must be included in the MIND.
Il. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction,
Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed. The
mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or mitigation for sensitive species in the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed
portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat.
12. Carlsbad has used all of their authorized take of DCSS under the provisions of rule 4(d). The city is
therefor not authorized to issue any further take permits, nor is any other agency allowed to authorize
take permits until approval of Carlsbad’s HMP.
Noise
People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations
for this project need to address both.
1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to
DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the
nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected
to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to
take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and
stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensiv&rading/noise impact schedule
needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and construction activity during the breeding season.
2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this
site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from
1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required.
3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose.
Cultural Resources
We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site
under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss
of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to
review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented.
2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical
native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation
management plan.
5 of6 10/4/01 lo:48 PM 119
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.
l.Tbis;~isconnectedby~~~ls~~tocore~~pLaMiradaCanyontothenorthand 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 pi&zing 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 buf%rs 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 ofthe 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 Cabvera
6of6
Planning Commission Minutes October 17,200l DRAFT E-T 6
1. GPA 01-07/X 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 98-051LFMP 87-18(BVZC Ol-071CT 98-IOlHDP 98-091PIP 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 U.S. 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 project’s 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 project’s 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 Department’s 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 applicants 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,
/a4
Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2001 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 clarity 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 FuerteIFaraday
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
la8
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 IO-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 Page 21
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
MOTION
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
/33
November 29,ZOOl
Mrs. Ann Hysong
City of Carlsbad
Planning Deparbnent
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA
92008
RE: Palomar Forum (GPA 01-07/X 01-06) Car&bad Raceway Business Park (GPA 98-051 ZC 01-071 LFMP 87-l 8(B))
Cartsbad, CA
Dear Mrs. Ann Hysong:
IDI is the property owner of 2850 Lokcr Ave. East in the city of Carlsbad. IDI’s property
abuts the west side of the projects stated above. Several months ago, IDI met with Larry
Nelson of the Palomar Forum Associates, L.P.. to discuss grading and landscaping
issues along the shared property lines. After review of their proposed plans, IDI supports
the approval of the projects stated above. If you have any questions, please call me at
(949)833-9998.
Jon Kelly u
Development Manager
Industrial Developments International
18lOlVonKananAvenue,Suitei20,Irvinc,Cdifomia 92612(949)833.9998Fax:(949)478-4495
600 Eucalyptus Avenue
P.0. Box 1988, Vista. CA 92085 1988
744 1 l (800) 6 19-VISTA
AGENDA ITEM #
December 3,200l
City Council City of Carlsbad
‘t200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92006
G Mayor
City Council city Manager
City Attorney
City 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 wilt 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 , .
&VW
w
Patrick Saunders<
President Vista Economic Development Association
‘To enhance eCOfWfniC growth of the Vista cofnmunlv by attfadng and retaining major buslneses.’
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 Proof of Publication of
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Public Kearinq: Palomar Forum
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 San Marcos , California
this
of
26th
NnvemhPr, 713111
I \ “Signature
\
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
11/21/01 WED 12:42 FAX 760 761 0908 NORTH COUNTY TIMES SM MOO1
8
I cl
-Lyi.t-$ CT ,
9 x- 5
3-s 2
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 and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change 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 and
more particularly described as:
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range
4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of
Section 18, Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San
Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to the plat thereof.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after 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 and Addendum, General 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 Ol-07/ZC 01-06
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24,200l
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
PALOMAR FORUM
GPA 0%07/ZC WI-06
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 of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Addendum, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change 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 IO industrial lots and 2 open space lots on property
located in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 18 and more particularly
described as:
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section 18,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the plat thereof.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [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 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 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 Ol-07/ZC 01-06
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
PUBLISH:
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
b CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
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
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 8, 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
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
m&J l/-J/-o/
Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
BRESSI LENNAR RANCH VENTURE
1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE
SUITE 190
ANAHEIM CA 9280 1
c INDUSTRIAL DEV INTER
18101 VON KARMAN AVE
SUITE 120
IRVINE CA 92612
GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INS CO
1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE
SUITE 190
ANAHEIM CA 92801
MELROSE LLC PALOMAR
990 HIGHLAND DR
SUITE 320
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
RACEWAY PROPERTIES LLC
12672 CAMINITO RADIANTE
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
DENS0 WIRELESS SYSTEMES
3900 VIA OR0 AVE
LONG BEACH CA 908 10
SUN COAST VENTURES
14978 SAND CANYON AVE
SUITE A
IRVINE CA 926 18
SOUTHLAND CORPORTATION
27 11 N HASKELL AVE
SUITE 32326
DALLAS TX 75204
VISTA PALOMAR PARK LLC
PO BOX 9300
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
WT AND VARJA SCHWOPE
539 CHESTERFIELD CIR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
GARY LOWMAN AND MB JANET
307 1 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD AND SILVA JUANITA
3067 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT AND BRANDIE REED
3063 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KATHRYN MUNOZ
3015 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL CRAFT
3011 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS JOLLEY JR AND NANCY
3007 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENISE MCCLENDON
3003 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARTH ROBBINS
60 17 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LORNA LENK
2422 NIAGRA WAY
COSTA MESA CA 92626
ALEX DEE
6009 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIM AND LAURA-KNOWLES
6005 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL WADE AND KRISTINE
AGRICOLA
3004 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY AND CAROL BASSETT
7353 ALMADEN LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND REBECCA PAGE
3000 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERALD AND MADELEIN
NALBANTIAN
30 12 RANCH0 LA PRESA
SUITE A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEVERLY AND BLYTHE STOKES
3008 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFF AND DANIELLE SCHWARTZ
3016 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ERIC AND SHAWNDEE YENCHE BRYAN AND ELIZABETH GRAVES
3020 RANCH0 LA PRESA 3024 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK REEVE
3028 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels Laser 5 560T”
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516@@
. CHAD AND NICHOLE
VANDERLINDEN
3032 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL AND JM BRENDA LIPSEY
3044 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KURT WILLIAMS
3056 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SUZANNE ROMAN0
3062 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL NAPIERALA
3050 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARL ESSERT
3038 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPINA SAVERIO AND JOANNE M
3026 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRIAN AND STEPHANIE RAMSEIER
3014 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
QUENTIN AND PETRIE PROULX
3002 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MATTHEW AND SANDRA BURGER
3017 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels
PETER BREHM
3036 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MIRJANA SUSIC
3048 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRANT BURNS AND ORION BURNS
3060 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAURA MOURADIAN
3058 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WONG W TFUN
3046 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SANDRA CIARMOLI
3034 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PATRICK AND TIEW OCONNELL
3022 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DANIEL AND Ll-NDA SELSTAD
30 10 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SEAN AND CHRISTINE HILLY
3009 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER LONG
302 1 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRUCE ESBIN AND IA RUTH
47 1 VIA MALAGA
ENCINITAS CA 92024
GEORGE AND SANDRA WALKER
3052 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
EUGENE MILLER AND LUZ MEZA
3064 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN SIEMERS
3054 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROSHANDEEN AND SANDRA
R4MNARJNE
3042 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PHILLIP YANTZER AND KELLY
SHANLEY
3030 RANCH0 DEL CANNON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFFREY AND MONIKA BUTCHER
30 18 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAMILY COURTNEY
1861 S VIEW DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CAROLYNN LARSON AND HELEN
GARCIA
3013 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JANINE DEVASSIE AND ANNETTE
MILLER
3025 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Laser 5560m
Smooth Feed SheetP Use template for 5160P
STEVE LAU ANNETTE MILLER
3029 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEREMY AND KELLY SALMON
3033 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
3037 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIANE HALVERSON
3041 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSE GOMEZ AND DANIELLE
EDMUNDS
3045 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FARHAD AND CORNELIA SHADAN
3049 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM AND WEND1 SCHNABEL CHARLENE KENNEDY
3053 RANCH0 LA PRESA 3057 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY AND KATHERINE CRUZ
3061 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY AND JENNIFER CARTER WILLIAM BARER
6033 PASEO HERMOSA 6029 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
KATHRYN MURPHY
6025 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRYAN SOLAND
602 1 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND CARRIE FRIEDMAN
3068 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES AND LESLIE TENGER
3072 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JILL KAYARIAN AND RAN1 SHINA
3080 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL AND LINDA WHITMAN
3076 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN AND GINA CULWELL
3084 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS LONDER
3088 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAMILY AYRES
3066 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOY GREEN -
3070 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CRAIG AND NICOLE FURMAN
3074 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON ANDERSON
3078 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CRAIG FEAREY AND AIMEE JONES
3082 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAURA DAY
3086 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWRENCE GRIFFITH
3090 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOYCE HAYWARD
3094 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE AND BRIDGET SCHOELL
6023 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WES AND SILVIA HEBNER
60 19 PASEO AJROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCOTT AND SARAH MCNEILL
60 15 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels Laser 5560TM
Syooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160c
ROBERT AND PATTIE AND NICOLE
RICHARDS
60 11 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK AND JILL WELLER
6077 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEPHEN JOHNSON AND ANNA
GARCIA
6003 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAMILY TESTER
6000 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SRIDHAR AND VANDANA PRASAD
6004 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND TRACY PACE
6008 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TED AND DAWN NORBY TODD AND SHEREEN WERTS EDDIE AND AT JANE CHOY
60 12 PASEO AIROSO 60 16 PASEO AIROSO 6020 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BENSON
6024 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JO ELLEN BROWN
6032 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN AND KIMBERLY LEWIS
6036 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLOS ENCINAS II
6040 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JASON AND TRACEY STEIN HENRY SHOWAH
3 111 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3107 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEROY ANDERSON AND GWYNNETH
STEGEN DONN KING AND SHARON CAREY ARSO IVANOVICH
3 103 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3099 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3095 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
VICIU ROBINSON
3 09 1 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OBRAD AND DANICA SUCEVIC
3079 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING
600 W BROADWAY
SUITE 1070
SAN DIEGO CA 92 10 1
LEON AND STACY MESCHOULAM
6083 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
. JAMES AND DENESE BOTTRELL M MIKE SUJDOVIC
3087 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3083 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROGER AND DENA OLSEN ANDREA SCHUCK
6249 CITRACADO CIR 2721 ATHENS AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
JEFFREY SANTOS AND MICHELE
CORNETTE DAVID AND KRISTIN VELJOVICH
6087 PASEO CARRETA 6085 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CLAY AND KRISTA MCFADDEN * JOSEPH AND RHONDA MAHON
608 1 PASEO CARRETA 6079 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels Laser 5560*
Smooth Feed SheetP Use template for 5160@’
.
LARRY AND ALISA HEAD MONTY AND AMY MONTGOMERY
6849 MAPLE LEAF DR 6075 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JERALD MULLISON AND TAMARA
RICHARDSON KRISTINE BOWHALL
7523 JEREZ CT 6069 PASEO CARRETA
SUITE 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JERRY HUGHES GERRIT AND AI-NE SMITH
6065 PASEO CARRETA 606 1 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREGORY J IRREVOCABLE SIZEMORE MARK AND MICHELLE PLASCH
6082 PASEO CARRETA 6080 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICOLE EATON
6072 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY AND ERJCA FRALEY
6052 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN AND KJMBERLYN
MAGWOOD
3209 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEONARD TERRJTO JR
3221 RANCH0 REATA
CARJSBAD CA 92009
CHRJSTOPHER AND MELJNDA
DONEUX
32 18 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
. BO YANG AND WE1 PAN
60 19 PASEO ALAMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KEITH BRISCOE
6068 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTINE WHEELER
320 1 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOONHYUP BAEK
32 13 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALY-MISTHOS FAMILY TRUST
1566 ASCENSION DR.
SAN MATE0 CA 94402
BENJAMIN WANG
6067 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
YUHONG WANG
6086 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARLENE SIDERS
6076 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT AND LINDA MITCHELL
6060 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSE AND ELISA FREGOSO
3205 RANCH0 REGATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES AND KATHERINE LYNCH
32 17 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
G CARROLL AND CATHERINE POPE
3225 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTHONY AND MARIA SCARANO
3222 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND CHRISTINA MANGIN JAMES AND SASHA BIVIN
3214 RANCH0 REATA 32 10 RANCH0 REATA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
BABAK BAGHAI
60 14 PASEO ALAMEDA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEF AND NORIKA MIHLIK
60 1 S PASEO ALAMDEA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels Laser 5560m
Syooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
’ CONTINENAL RANCH INC
2237 FARADAY AVE
SUITE 100
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Address Labels
ACACIA CREDIT FUND 7 LLC
400 E VAN BUREN ST
SUITE 650
PHOENIX AZ 85004
PRESLEY HOMES
15373 INNOVATION DR
SUITE 380
SAN DIEGO CA 92 128
Laser 5560m
City of
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 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
and more particularly described as:
Portions of Sections 13 and 18, Township 12 South, Range 4 West,
San Bernardino Meridian, and all that portion of Section 18,
Township 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the plat thereof.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after August 9, 2001. If you have
any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Tentative Tract map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit, if
approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge
the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract map, Hillside Development Permit
and Planned Industrial Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA Ol-07/ZC 01-06KT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03
CASE NAME: PALOMAR FORUM
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.car1sbad.ca.m a9
SITE
PALOMAR FORUM
G PA 0 I-07lZC 0 I -06/CT 99-061
HDP 99-031PIP 01-03
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
BRESSI LENNAR RANCH VENTURE INDUSTRIAL DEV INTER
18101 VON KARMAN AVE
SUITE 120
IRVINE CA 926 12
GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INS CO
1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE
SUITE 190
ANAHEIM CA 92801
1100 E ORANGETHORPE AVE
SUITE 190
ANAHEIM CA 9280 1
MELROSE LLC PALOMAR
990 HIGHLAND DR
SUITE 320
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
RACEWAY PROPERTIES LLC
12672 CAMINITO RADIANTE
SAN DIEGO CA 92 130
DENS0 WIRELESS SY STEMES
3900 VIA OR0 AVE
LONG BEACH CA 908 10
SUN COAST VENTURES’
14978 SAND CANYON AVE
SUITE A
IRVINE CA 926 18
SOUTHLAND CORPORTATION
2711 N HASKELL AVE
SUITE 32326
DALLAS TX 75204
VISTA PALOMAR PARR LLC
PO BOX 9300
RANCH0 SANTA FE CA 92067
WT AND VARJA SCHWOPE
539 CHESTERFIELD CIR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
‘GARY LOWMAN AND MB JANET
307 1 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RICHARD AND SILVA JUANITA
3067 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT AND BRANDIE REED
3063 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KATHRYN MUNOZ
30 15 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL CRAFT
30 11 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS JOLLEY JR AND NANCY
3007 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DENISE MCCLENDON
3003 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GARTH ROBBINS
6017 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LORNA LENK
2422 NIAGRA WAY
COSTA MESA CA 92626
ALEX DEE
6009 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIM AND LAURA KNOWLES
6005 PASEO HERMOSA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY AND CAROL BASSETT
7353 ALMADEN LN
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND REBECCA PAGE
3000 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL WADE AND KRISTME
AGRICOLA
3004 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GERALD AND MADELEIN
NALBANTIAN
3012 RANCH0 LA PRESA
SUITE A
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEFF AND DANIELLE SCHWARTZ
30 16 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BEVERLY AND BLYTHE STORES
3008 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
‘ERIC AND SHAWNDEE YENCHE
3020 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRYAN AND ELIZABETH GRAVES MARKREEVE
3024 RANCH0 LA PRESA 3028 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address labels laser 5560m
Smooth Feed SheetP Use template for 5160@
CHADANDNICHOLE
VANDERLINDEN
3032RANCHOLAPRESA
CARLSBADCA92009
PETERBREHM 3036RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
MICHAELANDJMBRENDALIPSEY 3044RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
MIRJANASUSIC 3048RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
KURTWILLIAMS 3056RANCHOLAPRESA' CAlUSBADCA92009
GR4NTBURNSANDORJONBURNS 3060RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
SUZANNEROMANO LAURAMOURADIAN 3062RANCHODELCANON 3058RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009 CARLSBADCA92009
MICHAELNAPIERALA WONGWTRAN 3050RANCHODELCANON 3046RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009 CARLSBADCA92009
CARLESSERT sANDRAcIARMoLI 3038RANCHODELCANON 3034RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009 CARLSBADCA92009
SPINASAVERIOANDJOANNEM 3026RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009
PATRJCKANDTIEWOCONNELL 3022RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009
BRIANANDSTEPHANIERAMSEIER DANIELANDLINDASELSTAD 3014RANCHODELCANON 3010RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009 CARLSBADCA92009
QUENTINANDPETRIEPROULX 3002RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009
SEANANDCHRISTINEHILLY 3009RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
MATTHEWANDSANDRABURGER 3017RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
CHRISTOPHERLONG 3021RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
BRUCEESBINANDIARUTH 471VIAMALAGA ENClNITASCA92024
GEORGEANDSANDRAWALKER 3052RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
EUGENEMILLERANDLUZMEZA 3064RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
STEVENSIEMERS 3054RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009
ROSHANDEENANDSANDRA RAMNARJNE 3042RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009
PHILLIPYANTZERANDKELLY SHANLEY 3030RANCHODELCANNON CARLSBADCA92009
JEFFREYANDMONIKABUTCHER 3018RANCHODELCANON CARLSBADCA92009
FAMILYCOURTNEY 1861SVIEWDR CARLSBADCA92008
CAROLYNNLARSONANDHELEN GARCIA 3013RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
JANINEDEVASSIEANDANNETTE MILLER 3025RANCHOLAPRESA CARLSBADCA92009
d ,\ AVERY@ Address Labek Laser 5S60m
Srgooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160P
ANNETTE MILLER
3029 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JEREMY AND KELLY SALMON 3033 RANCH0 LA PRESA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVE LAU 3037 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSE GOMEZ AND DANIELLE EDMUNDS 3045 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DIANE HALVERSON 3041 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
FARHAD AND CORNELIA SHADAN 3049 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM AND WEND1 SCHNABEL 3053 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHARLENE KENNEDY 3057 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY AND KATHERINE CRUZ 3061 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
TIMOTHY AND JENNIFER CARTER 6033 PASEO HERMOSA CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAM BARER 6029 PASEO HERMOSA CARLSBAD CA 92009
KATHRYN MURPHY 6025 PASEO HERMOSA CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRYAN SOLAND 602 1 PASEO HERMOSA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND CARRIE FRIEDMAN 3068 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES AND LESLIE TENGER 3072 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
MICHAEL AND LINDA WHITMAN 3076 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JILL KAYARIAN AND RAN1 SHINA 3080 RANCH0 LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALAN AND GINA CULWELL 3084 RANCH0 LA PRESA CAIUSBAD CA 92009
THOMAS LONDER 3088 RANCH0 LA PRESA CAIUSBAD CA 92009
FAMILY AYRES 3066 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOY GREEN 3070 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
CRAIG FEAREY AND AJMEE JONES 3082 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
CRAIG AND NICOLE FURMAN 3074 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARON ANDERSON 3078 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAURA DAY 3086 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
LAWRENCE GRIFFITH 3090 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
BOYCE HAYWARD 3094 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE AND BRIDGET SCHOELL 6023 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
WES AND SILVIA HEBNER 6019 PASEO AJROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
SCOTT AND SARAH MCNEILL 60 15 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
23 && AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5560”
Smooth Feed SheetsfM Use template for 5160@
ROBERT AND PATTIE AND NICOLE RICHARDS 6011 PASEO AIROSO
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FAMILY TESTER 6000 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
TED AND DAWN NORBY 60 12 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
BENSON 6024 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARK AND JILL WELLER 6077 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEPHEN JOHNSON AND A~%A GARCIA
6003 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
SRIDHAR AND VANDANA PRASAD 6004 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND TRACY PACE 6008 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009 .
TODD AND SHEREEN WERTS EDDIE AND AT JANE CHOY 6016 PASEO AIROSO 6020 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JO ELLEN BROWN 6032 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN AND KIMBERLY LEWIS 6036 PASEO AIROSO CARLSBAD CA 92009
CARLOS ENCINAS II JASON AND TRACEY STEIN HENRY SHOWAH 6040 PASEO AIROSO 3 111 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3 107 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEROY ANDERSON AND GWYNNETH STEGEN DONN KING AND SHARON CAREY ARSO IVANOVICH
3 103 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3099 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3095 RANCH0 DEL CANON
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
VICKI ROBINSON JAMES AND DENESE BOTTRELL M MIKE SUJDOVIC 309 1 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3087 RANCH0 DEL CANON 3083 RANCH0 DEL CANON CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
OBRAD AND DANICA SUCEVIC ROGER AND DENA OLSEN ANDREA SCHUCK 3079 RANCH0 DEL CANON 6249 CITRACADO CIR 272 1 ATHENS AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CARLSBAD FAMILY HOUSING 600 W BROADWAY SUITE 1070 SAN DIEGO CA 92 101
JEFFREY SANTOS AND MICHELE CORNETTE 6087 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND KRISTIN VELJOVICH 6085 PASEO CARRETA CARJSBAD CA 92009
LEON AND STACY MESCHOULAM CLAY AND KRISTA MCFADDEN JOSEPH AND RHONDA MAHON 6083 PASEO CARRETA 608 1 PASEO CARRETA 6079 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address Labels laser 5560m
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
LARRY AND ALISA HEAD
6849 MAPLE LEAF DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
MONTY AND AMY MONTGOMERY 6075 PASEO CARRETA
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JER4LD MULLISON AND TAMARA RICHARDSON KRISTINE BOWHALL 7523 JEREZ CT 6069 PASEO CARRETA SUITE 1 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
JERRY HUGHES GERRJT AND AJNE SMITH 6065 PASEO CARRETA 6061 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GREGORY J IRREVOCABLE SIZEMORE MARK AND MICHELLE PLASCH
6082 PASEO CARRETA 6080 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
NICOLE EATON KEITH BRISCOE 6072 PASEO CARRETA 6068 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
TERRY AND ERICA FRALEY CHRISTINE WHEELER 6052 PASEO CARRETA 320 1 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVEN AND KIMBERLYN MAGWOOD 3209 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOONHYUF BAEK 3213 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEONARD TERRITO JR 322 1 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
G CARROLL AND CATHERINE POPE 3225 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
CHRISTOPHER AND MELINDA DONEUX 32 18 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
DAVID AND CHRISTINA MANGIN 3214 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
BO YANG AND WE1 PAN BABAK BAGHAI 60 19 PASEO ALAMEDA 60 14 PASEO ALAMEDA CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
VALY -MISTHOS FAMILY TRUST 1566 ASCENSION DR. SAN MATE0 CA 94402
BENJAMIN WANG 6067 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009
YUHONG WANG 6086 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHARLENE SIDERS 6076 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT AND LINDA MITCHELL 6060 PASEO CARRETA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSE AND ELISA FREGOSO 3205 RANCH0 REGATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES AND KATHERINE LYNCH 32 17 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
ANTHONY AND MARIA SCARANO 3222 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES AND SASHA BIVIN 32 10 RANCH0 REATA CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSEF AND NORIKA MIHLIK 60 18 PASEO ALAMDEA CARLSBAD CA 92009
Address labels Laser 5560m
Srr;ooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160@
CONTINENAL RANCH INC 2237 FARADAY AVE SUITE 100 CARLSBAD CA 92008
Address Labels
ACACIA CREDIT FUND 7 LLC
400 E VAN BUREN ST SUITE 650 PHOENIX AZ 85004
PRESLEY HOMES
15373 INNOVATION DR SUITE 3 80 SAN DIEGO CA 92 128
A notice has been mailed to all property owners/occupants
listed herein.
’ Date: 7-3 l-01
Signature: -W.&&‘
4
Laser 5560rM