The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-10-17; Planning Commission; ; GPA 01-07|ZC 01-06|CT 99-06|HDP 99-03|PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM1 ue City of Carlsbad Planning DepartmSit A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: October 17, 2001 Application complete date: Project Planner: Anne Hysong Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/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. 5031, 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 zoning ordinances. The project complies with all applicable City standards, all project issues have been resolved, and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project proposes to subdivide and grade the 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 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT ^06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOMA^ORUM October 17,2001 Page 2 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 Melrose 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". 'WoGPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOMAKFORUM October 17, 2001 Page.3 The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies: A. Carlsbad General Plan 1. General Plan Amendment 2. General Plan Consistency B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.34); 2. Open Space (OS) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.33); 3. Hillside Development (Municipal Code Chapter 21.95) 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 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT October 17, 2001 Page 4 W(-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM GP ELEMENT COMPLIANCE Land Use - PI, OS Planned Industrial business park subdivision that is: • designed and landscaped within perimeter setbacks and manufactured slopes and properly functioning internal roads and adequately spaced driveways • compatible with surrounding industrial and open space uses • creates industrial lots that are large and level enough to accommodate industrial development including parking, loading, storage, and operational needs • conditioned to screen all storage, loading, mechanical equipment and meet all required performance standards for noise, odor and emissions. Circulation Construct the following roadway and intersection improvements in accordance with City standards: • Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to existing improvements west of Melrose Drive. • Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in the City of Vista. • 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. • 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. Open Space 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. Noise 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. Parks Payment of park-in-lieu fee Public Safety Mitigation measures are required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances during construction and from future industrial development Streets, sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants will be constructed per City standards GPA01-07/ZC01-06/CT October 17, 2001 Page 5 W(-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM 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 ORDINANCE STANDARD Prime Arterial Setback Local Street Setback Interior Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Minimum Lot Area Outdoor Eating Area Internal Street System REQUIRED 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 Safe, efficient, functional 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 response. GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT October 17, 2001 Page 6 W(-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAK FORUMAKF Equipment Screening Architecturally integrated For future buildings: • 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. • Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. Architecture Architecturally integrated Require enhanced archi- 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 landforms 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 GPA01-07/ZC01-06/CT October 17, 2001 Page 7 '-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOMARIFORUM 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 Melrose 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: Natural Slopes of Over 40% Gradient with elevation differential > 15', a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and comprising a prominent landform feature. . 2.1 acres of slopes greater than 40% exist on the property; however, 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. Yes Grading Volumes > 10,000 cu yds/acre allowed if the project qualifies as an exclusion or modification per Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140* 10,860 cu yds/acre including Circulation Element Roadway (Melrose Drive). See the discussion below. Yes Maximum Manufactured Slope Height: 40 feet* 40' Maximum manufactured slope height except as required for the off- site extension of Melrose Drive Yes Contour Grading: Required for manufactured slopes greater than 20' in height and 200' in length and visible from a Circulation element road, collector street or useable public open space Contour grading is proposed where applicable adjacent to and visible from Melrose Drive. Yes Slope Edge Building setback: 0.7 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical imaginary diagonal plane measured from edge of slope to structure NA - Buildings are not proposed at this time. Slope edge building setback will be analyzed with future Planned Industrial Permit applications for buildings. NA Landscape manufactured slopes consistent with the City's Landscape Manual All manufactured slopes are landscaped in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual. Yes * 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. ' 9?06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - P ALOMAR^GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAR FORUM October 17, 2001 PageS 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 fill 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 Melrose Drive to connect to the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer system. A temporary agreement may be provided to allow this project to sewer into the City of Vista's Raceway Sewer Lift station and outfall. Water service is provided by an existing 36" water line on Palomar Airport Road. 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. GPA01-07/ZC01-06/CT October 17, 2001 Page 9 W(99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMAKTORUM:AKF 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 summarized below: Zone 18 LFMP Summary STANDARD City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water IMPACTS Not Applicable Not Applicable 350 EDU Not Applicable 235 CFS 5,226 ADT Station #5 2.4 Acres Not Applicable 350 EDU 11 6,800 GPD COMPLIANCE W/STANDARDS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 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 1 9^06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALOMACTGPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOMAKFORUM October 17, 2001 Page 10 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 (TJSFWS), 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 staff s public hearing presentation. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director reissued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 6, 2001. GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT to/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 - PALC-MA^ORUM October 17, 2001 Page 11 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, 2001 SITE PALOMAR FORUM GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT 99-067 HDP99-03/PIP01-03 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 ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) William K. Davis Person Robert .J ._ T^ierg^T^ne^ Corp/Part Davis Partners, LLC _ Title . ...„. Title _unier Operating Orricer Address 1420 Bristol St. N. Address 1420 Bristol Street N, _ ,_ Suite 100 Newport Beach. C A 92 130 Newport Beach, CA 92660 OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL 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 partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person William K. Davis _ Corp/Part Palomar Forum Associates. LP. Title Partner Title Addressl420 Bristol St. N. Address 1420 Bristol Street N. Suite 100 Newport Beach. CA 92130 Newport Beacho, CA 92660 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 IT}) 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 or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust N/A Non Profit/Trust N/A Title Address Title Address 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? Yes 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. Signature of o>vner/date O1 Ml(o\ Signature of appycant/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\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 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 Diego, 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 Existing Zone: P-M Density Proposed: Not Applicable Proposed Zone; P-M and O-S Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site North South East West P-M P-M P-C CITY OF VISTA P-M PI PI/O CITY OF VISTA PI VACANT CARLSBAD RACEWAY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CARLSBAD OAKS 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 /\ Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued July 15, 2001 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: GPA 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 A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 277 EDU D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 235 Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 5,226 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 5 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 2.2 I. Schools: N/A (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 350 Identify Sub Basin = B (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 116.800 GRADWG ANALYSIS: Ct/K M.OOQ cr 9*000 cr ni: ua.000 cr 00 cr row.- 91.000 cr 3*000 cr OUPEP MtA' gl.3 AC. I AC. a.000 cr oo cr V.OOO IO.SK LEGAL DESCRIPTION: form or jrrwB a <wa VMW a tarn MMF « mtr, &*BMUSMD ItmUK *C Ml Bur FOtlOi IT STOW SS JOHff If SOAKWOTJVSI s*t xmatmoMJXUK n at arr or c««« ownersvieesn snw tr cxfO9U xcamK jo w errxui FIAT vesv. N.P.D.E.S. NOTE: HJUVBOH AKMwr HUM an srsxx ft•jTwtctMZD m at amor of K ar JO A xxiirj. *tx rtaiws cau Maac.rs /nssi ni&srstx AS efsamy nt&c. KEY MAP ' SHEET 1 OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 TENTATIVE MAP FOR PALOMAR FORUM LEGEND: tor MME* t xxutt HKfOSCP !£V> X** t Vi .,. HKPOStf SlfUGIT WWMIf t . p of tnouwr . (2*) 11.'K. VICINITY MAP m 9ULI ©2001 0"Doy ConsuHonts, Inc. GENERAL NOTES: >(SSnSWS flWCQ MX row ATWS O3STHC fOHNC BOSTMC c&f&i m* D f*OPQ5tD OENOUt PIMf C NUVKX * OASSnCtnCW Of LOTS. scuwr roeaeeor snt IW7CT OS WC 7 SflDT ........ * oces nor nauof f*iow> A mi je cwass / toy *c. ICT • M>V for sum rr us* CMTO a-ra-tooc.. cxnsaw iMffD SCHOOL OSTHCT * S« MWCOS (MFKD JCWOt 0OTWT . w*s*ff KMcmu mr&r osnocr ,. crrr cr ctnsate ,. &W-LO IE OWNER/SVBDIVJDEK: maiu ram xS3awys ifwo easn smn noun stnr wffo/reua airtMtt utto-itit(9ft) ar-xet BENCHMARK: fMPOSD BfVUrrOfXT#5* t/*SX 4 SA tt/tn... ACOSSKftT /*-*—*:•* CIVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR: usawmt. stvtuno sntur SUMY MONUHBTT C O N s _U_ L .I VM Tlsr rws ax KKNCD ft KH _i*__Ii__. ICT UCH: T.aC. JOB MB.: »-10B._ L Ir 1 1 n J\ PtlOHAR AIHPORT TTPIC4L 5KT/OH CKADFD SWALf O TOP OF SLOPE nfc f <3* tur f"== V,u t*ot#r*t#sr cr WM; Ifa ft „.^ HSS5H! JT * 1 '' 1 f -\ \ =s= = = ^J 1 «• * »' l£| PALOMtK AIRPORT KOtD £UBLIS HOSUtI OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 a?, fc/rr or CARLSBAD) PUBLIC HOX4U(At un/fts ifff* 5/rarrTO K tVBUC) V STfiKTS 'C' * 'ff' MOSCAlfIULL awvs WJHN SIWTTO B£ PUBLIC} ¥ EASBKNT TABLE (9) m.ja. 0 i attxtcuo mrnf umms ontrr <r Mr «nt orrtrottsno «09T WA M9TJ*7 tc««r « VT-AOBP r «, mr-oman EASEMENT NOTES: t moon fBryEurtm mu- «-wr ova cranr n rmtr omar wu cattit, t nt *o*s sr *t nmc 10 vx tor xmt* tr ypi*f jmr uj mnft Mr HMC ©2001 ODoy ConjiXtonls, he. ^•AC w<CKwr«i>Mr MISTING PASFO VALINDO SFCnpft 'W - PeOTRML if »•d »• »• fmj ai 4S ttctHaor sots namr smrr •*'pveuc HOSMt (ML unjlfS HtlHH STJt££Tro ar fvsuc) TYPICAL SECTIONSnxvit L PALO MAR FORUM snvrr JWRCT *OM*CYT jfJt DEIO«J> f" J4.JI »TI: JgjUMff-tpl 6r^i. taHu. j SHEET J OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 SEE SHEET No. 13 ©2001 ODoy Consultants. Inc. STRQT a LOWWt #nm F«» ITT JWW CF MJ•4W°C»r SOW QV CEKTV9.HC OF£1 CXHNO ACU neon rent AOVTW COUVTT icwntui ccnrnx^- fTOD JCV'^BMSll. c.r. PALOMAR FORUM J S U L T VN T 5 53, SEE SHEET No. 4 \SEE SHEET No S SHEET 5 Or 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 SHEET B OF 15 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 Stt SHEET No. 6 SHEET 7 OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 f PALOMAR FORUM \ \ BENCHMARK: STAttWVJ SJJtEfT SU*tY MMUUCVT ©2001 0"Day Consultonle, Inc. INSULT VNl ©2001 0"Doy Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARK: SWETT SUffifT MOMMCffT QfWOt 7f 77J U.S.L SHEET 8 OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 PALO MAR FORUM SHEET 9 OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 \"A\ ^ -MW ©2001 O'Day ConsultanlB, Inc. BENCHMARK: CGOFKH. JWCM09 SHSTT 5UW HONUttNT LOWTtl* APtVOX. I4CO F&T SOUTH Of fVl&Mupon ROAD ON ctnrmtf orCL &H/NQ I&L nsav nrau «*TTV CCWVTT e*nc« cwmot *ua*- »«oo xe+n Q£«TKK 297.2S MS.L * PALO MAR FORUM .ONSULTVNTS JOiX: 1'- »' joe w.;_jfclH2_ - j S—""•*T ftttt; 'EET W OF 13 SHEETS 390—EUSJ. i war* SV&T a - Jfi C.T.99-06 380— 370— £Z T flWflf » 5TJ&7 a -/'SO 330— 320— W VOSEP SflSTT 0. CKW •- wnsoi nrarr a r PROi 'ILE - MELRO, '£" DRIVE 30 00 80 PLAN - MELROSE DRIVE (CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT) souc - t' - too1 ©2001 0"Doy Consultonls, tnc. tOCHPTOt fWCMV sntETT SLNVfr KV-UCVT nt >w>mc r«v /zrr sww ix AMWHT fQW ON CQfTZO.tf OCi CAlgNO KM. not mm COUNTY tf/fn •*: lit 9C*l£; ©2001 OtlOy Consultants, Inc. PALO MAR FORUM BENCHMARK: tOCMWt JMttOX. 1WP /ZZT SOUTH OF PM.OUU d OUtHP tVXL ob*^ 33 £3T OtWOeD fri H.tL i OBWt" BY: 1^^ Itlil: !'• tOO* "WJtcr ym.^t.ac. JOB NO.;JtlQa_ 1 '< SHKT 12 OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 SETBACK MAP HOSOHf PALOMAR FORUM ©?OOI ODoy Cmsullonts, Inc. LEGEND: terur spvcxur SETBACK NOTES: BENCHMARK: ttMtmtt) fix SCMOF 10 JB fJT XT SUffMOff STJXZT SVHW AtVmX, 14X KZT SOUTH Of fAlOMKPQKJ 1KMO OH COTEAtMT Of£L OUtHO OEM. k HOam COUNTY va-itoo x**7g 297.25 U.S.I. . COMPOL otn COHSULTynTS _ CNCDCft Of WOW— **n p. vftau, .a _ net; SHEET 13 OF 13 SHEETS C.T. 99-06 OFF-SITE GRADING & IMPROVEMENTS FOR "STAND-ALONE" PROJECT 5WE - f- TO' SMfHXD S75C2T JWJXfT MONLffffT LOOUT* AWRCUt f*» tfT iOtflV {VOfFCBT m*D ON CBOIRLNECL CXMNO HEM. anm not MMTV ccwn- tc^cu cnvrmx SECTION 't'-'A' JYPICtL ACCESS ROAD SECTION*o scvt PALOMAR FORUM ©2001 Ottoy Consultonls. he. RECEIVED nr Ann Hysong Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Dear Ms. Hysong: October 4,2001 uCT 0 5 2m CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. Subject: Palomar Forum MND Preserve Calavera is a grass roots group of users and residents of the Calavera area. We are concerned about this project because of its close association with the adjacent core habitat area that we refer to as the Calavera Preserve. Our objective is to assure that all of the projects in the surrounding area still result in a large, viable, diverse interconnected open space - one that serves our need to protect native plants and animals while still providing recreational and quality of life benefits to the residents of this area. This project proposes to destroy native habitat, impact a major regional watershed, and disrupt a regional wildlife corridor today for future potential business expansion that may not be realized for years. This is a high risk trade-off for the residents of this area who will bear the brunt of the increased traffic congestion and loss of open space. The residents of Carlsbad have made it clear in the recent survey that they want open space - not more industrial buildings. These public losses require adequate mitigation. The proposed MND has not accomplished the goals of completely and accurately describing the adverse impacts and then providing sufficient mitigation for these impacts. We are also concerned about mitigation management for this project. The approval process should not proceed without clearly defined plans for mitigation and a management process with standards and critieria that assure plan implementation and success. Correction of these deficiencies could allow this process to proceed without the need to prepare a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Report(EIR). However, this will require a comprehensive review and response to comments submitted on this MND. Failure to address the issues raised during this comment period is a clear violation of CEQA. Completion of the Melrose connector is important to relieve existing traffic problems and reduce the need for more roadway extensions into sensitive habitat- roads that will potentially be much more damaging that what is proposed with this project. We are anxious for the issues around this roadway and the associated projects to be resolved so that an improved Melrose connector can proceed, while other more damaging projects are put on hold. The document is also unclear on the details of mitigation. Since the proposed development is speculative the impacts are being mitigated by BMP's. We don't know what will be built, the existing biological resources are poorly documented, and the BMP's are not specified. This makes it difficult to evaluate the impacts of the project or the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. We assume that further project specific environmental review will be required when individual project Iof6 10/4/01 10:46 PM neg dec palomar forum development applications are submitted to the Gity of Carlsbad. The following are specific comments developed by members of our organization : Water 1. The project will significantly affect the water quality of Agua Hedionda Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, an impaired waterway for bacteria and sedimentation. The MND needs to specifically address the potential for increased sedimentation from construction and grading activities that could further degrade the lagoon. 2. Further study is needed to specifically address the TMDL of bacteria that would be added to the lagoon from this project, from the combined impact of this project and Palomar Forum, and from the cumulative impacts of projects in this area. 3. Mitigation must specify the methods that will be used to prevent silt and bacteria from reaching the lagoon and further impair this waterway. The proposed design for detention basins within the creek is not acceptable to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This issue should have been addressed prior to issuance of the MND. Circulation Traffic congestion is of concern to all of us in north county- and it is an area where good advance planning can have a significant effect. There are several major problems with the circulation study for this project that will lead to serious traffic and safety problems in a residential neighborhood, increased congestion in this important business corridor and worsened air quality for all of us. Further work is needed to adequately address these impacts. 1. The existing conditions analysis as shown on Figure 3-1 failed to identify current traffic levels on Melrose south of Faraday- an area very important to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The intersection analysis also did not look at any of the intersections that are key for this Vista neighborhood. There is a legitimate concern about cut-through traffic on these local streets. Impacts on this neighborhhood need to be specifically adressed. 2.. The short term future traffic conditions analysis described on page 6-1 failed to update the traffic model for changes in the adjacent cities. This has resulted in serious errors in the analysis. For example, it fails to include the proposed Home Depot project at Melrose and Sycamore in Vista. This project alone is expected to generate 5-10k ADT which will increase Melrose to over 60 ADT. Other Vista projects do not seem to be accurately reflected in either the baseline conditions or future traffic conditions. The impacts of the additional traffic for Home Depot and for projects not reflected in the old model need to be added to the traffic study. The need for additional mitigation must be assesed, possibly partially conditional upon the approval of the Home Depot and other key projects. 2. There is no indication that traffic mitigation planning has been coordinated with the neighboring cities- whose related short term traffic improvements are all assumed to be in place. The improvements shown on page 7-19 includes several in the City of Vista. Coordination between the cities on roadway projects has been problematic. The public needs some method of assuring that planned improvements will actually take place. Opening of the new roadways should be conditional upon all of these other referenced improvements being in place. 2 of 6 10/4/01 10:46 PM neg dec fralomar forum 3. The extension of Melrose across city boundaries has been the focus of a lot of regional controversy. Numerous newspaper stories, thousands of postcards, and proposed boycotts of Carlsbad businesses all indicate a high level of regional concern about this roadway. While there has been a lot of pressure to put the roadway through there remains a lot of opposition to its extension- particularly from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MND did not identify the level of controversy about this roadway extension. This controversy should have resulted in more extensive analysis of alternatives- such as a reduced roadway configuration. 4. The short term future conditions should also have modeled the roadway network with no El Fuerte or Faraday extension, and just with no El Fuerte. It is not possible to assess the interrelated impacts of each of these projects unless adequate alternatives analysis is done. There are significant environmental impacts associated with the extension of the other two roadways so they should not be assumed to be a done deal. 5. The 2020 build-out analysis should also have modeled Faraday terminating at El Fuerte, and with no El Fuerte extension. 6. Technically the project traffic volumes do not require freeway intersection analysis. However the failure of this city, and the other north county cities, to maintain any on-going cumulative impacts assessment for the associated freeway interchanges just keeps making a bad situation worse. There needs to be a point at which it is no longer ok to keep adding traffic because it just barely is below the threshold levels that require mitigation- all of the impacts on local freeway interchanges require mitigation and it is poor planning to pretend they can be ignored. 7. Table 10-1 in this report does not match 10-1 in the Carlsbad Raceway report- although both claim to be based on the same source data and to include the same improvements. 8. This project traffic study fails to even mention public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements- all of which could be designed to mitigate the impacts of increased use of this area and reduce traffic. Instead of contributing to more roads these project should be providing funds for transit capital improvements and on-going operating costs. SANDAG has prepared a long range transit improvement plan for the Palomar Airport Rd corridor. The findings from this should be integrated with all new projects in this corridor. Biological Resources We have very little left of our precious open space in north county- yet it remains a major attractant to residents and visitors, and is central to our quality of life. We southern californians love our outdoors- and we don't have a lot of it left. The MND needs to specifically address how the project will restrict public access to assure protection of the sensitive habitat. 1. The related Carlsbad Raceway project designates 1.7 acres of open space on the eastern end which is intended to be a corridor link to the northwest of the project and to the south side of Palomar Airport Rd. This is not a viable corridor for mammal movement across a major roadway. The bobcat and coyote, while not threatened or endangered, are essential for a healthy ecosystem. Corridor planning needs to address the barriers to their movement, and not just the birds. 3 of 6 10/4/01 10:46 PM neg dec palomar forum 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 hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek, into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the addition of a dirt floor and some native plant cover. Adequate drainage also needs to be addressed. 5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction. 6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND. 7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in this project area- and 100% of all of them will be destroyed by this project. This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location of off-site areas is not specified. Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet success criteria; 8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to eliminate this impact. 9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with 4 of 6 10/4/01 10:46 PM neg dec palomar forum permits with sanctions and penalties for non-compliance by contractors. Continuous on-site monitors may be required during grading to protect both natural and cultural resources. 10. Cumulative impacts for loss of sensitive habitat and the further fragmentation of critical habitats has been ignored and must be included in the MND. 11. The overall mitigation plan needs to address timing and sequencing of mitigation and construction, Prior case law requires that mitigation be in place before the habitat being mitigated is destroyed. The mitigation plan needs to address the restoration and improvement of the preserved area, relocation or mitigation for sensitive species in the area to be developed, and then the construction on the developed portions of the land that will destroy sensitive habitat. 12. Carlsbad has used all of their authorized take of DCSS under the provisions of rule 4(d). The city is therefor not authorized to issue any further take permits, nor is any other agency allowed to authorize take permits until approval of Carlsbad's HMP. Noise People and animals both need some level of peace and quiet to thrive. The proposed noise mitigations for this project need to address both. 1. Because of construction in nearby projects with impacted DCSS, there should be no impacts to DCSS during the Gnatcatcher breeding season. Blasting and extensive grading is proposed for the nearby Carlsbad Oaks North project. The disruption of normal movement and nest location is expected to be extreme from the combination of projects in this area. The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to take into account the impacts of the combined projects that are all within the same linkages and stepping stone area of expected bird movement. Either a comprehensive/grading/noise impact schedule needs to be established for all of the projects in this area, or this project must restrict grading and construction activity during the breeding season. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to adequately assess the impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood in Vista, or the users of the industrial/commercial facilities that surround this site. The greatly increased traffic volumes on Melrose will impact the entire length of the roadway from 1-78 south. Much more extensive analysis of impacts is required. 3. Noise testing needs to be done from the level of the residences which varies greatly along Melrose. Cultural Resources We are concerned that this project, by making the known significant archeological site under the Vista portion of the Melrose roadway even more difficult to access, could lead to future loss of this site. We would like to see an independent review of the 1989 and 1999 RECON report to review alternatives to assure that this site has been best protected and documented. 2. There is no indication that there has been consultation with local representatives of the historical native american tribes. Tribal representatives need to be consulted and included in the mitigation management plan. 5 of 6 10/4/01 10:48 PM neg dec palomar forum 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 protocols 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 hills along Agua Hedionda Creek and then disperses along the creek, into the Calavera preserve, and to other connecting open space. The proposed 12' arch under Melrose is insufficient mitigation for the impacts to this major regional wildlife corridor without the addition of a dirt floor and some native plant cover. Adequate drainage also needs to be addressed. 5. There is no provision for protection of the wildlife corridor during construction. Specific mitigation is required to minimize the adverse impacts to the wildlife that will be caused by this construction. 6. Because this area is connected to a proposed large preserve core area, the MND needs to assess how the proposed development is integrated with preserve planning. This would include specifying site specific areas for mitigation, defining criteria for mitigation success, and corrective action, and funding for long term mitigation monitoring. None of this is addressed in the MND. 7. There are three distinct sensitive vegetative communities in mis project area- and 100% of all of them will be destroyed by this project This level of destruction of sensitive habitat is not consistent with the MHCP. This area serves as an important linkage between core habitat areas. Sufficient DCSS must be retained in this area to assure adequate stepping stones for the Ca Coastal gnatcatcher and movement potential for other species. The adequacy of mitigation cannot be assessed when the location of off-site areas is not specified. Furthermore the mitigation plan needs to specify site specific areas for mitigation, define criteria for success, identify funding mechanisms, and provide for corrective measures if mitigations fail to meet success criteria. 8. The MHCP standards require avoidance of wetlands impacts, and only when this is determined infeasible to propose mitigation for an adverse impact. This project proposes to impact .08 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This is a significant impact- alternatives should have assessed ways to eliminate this impact. 9. The MND needs to specify field monitoring that will ensure that grading is done consistent with 4 of 6 10/4/01 10.46PM tjct 08 Ol 03:29p P.2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO UCSD SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRU7. NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM TELEPHONE: (858) 534-2077 9500 OILMAN DRIVE FAX (858) 534-7108 or 822-0696 LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 e-mail: ikayffucsd.edu October 5, 2001 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Via Facsimile to: (760) 602-8559 Attn: Anne Hysong, Planning Department Re: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum Business Park joint project hearing scheduled for October, 2001 (CASE NO. GPA 98- 05/LFMP 87-18(B)/CT 98-10/HDP98-09/PIP 01-01) Dear Commissioners: The University of California Natural Reserve System owns and manages the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve ("Reserve"), that lies along the Aqua Hedionda Creek, at the eastern boundary of Carlsbad. It lies to the northwest of the Carlsbad Raceway parcel, connected to it by the high quality habitat on the Carlsbad Oaks North property. The Reserve has been identified as core, high quality habitat in the North San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MHCP), and in the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Dawson Reserve supports a wide range of habitats, from mature oak, sycamore and willow woodland along the creek, to mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub. To date, the reserve has lost major components of the ecosystem due to isolation from large blocks of habitat inland, and habitat fragmentation, notably large animals, including golden eagle, mule deer, and mountain lion. We are, however, fortunate to still have several species at the highest trophic levels, including coyote, bobcat, fox. and many species of raptors. This is almost certainly because of the large areas of semi-natural land that are still available to individuals of these species, through connections to parcels of land beyond the relatively tiny 200 acres of the Dawson Reserve. The City of Carlsbad has recognized the importance of such connections, and called them out in the core and linkage concept of the HMP. The two properties under consideration by the Commission for development approval contribute significantly to one of these connections: Linkage Area D connects the Reserve to extensive areas of natural open space through the Carlsbad Oaks North proposed industrial project, and Oct 08 01 03:29p P-3 thus to major core open space to the south, northeast, and east. Within the City of Vista to the north of the Raceway parcel is designated open space that also functions as habitat through these connections. The current plans for the Carlsbad Raceway Business Park and Palomar Forum jeopardize the realization of a functional habitat preserve, as envisioned and planned by the residents of Carlsbad and the surrounding cities, by the resource agencies, and by City of Carlsbad staff. The remainder of this letter details the specifics of our concerns regarding this plan. 1. Need for a full Environmental Analysis The scope and impacts of the project certainly merit a full environmental analysis; a mitigated negative declaration is clearly inadequate. For instance, one of the exemptions sought by the applicant - to the grading limits of 10,000 cu yds of fill per acre acre is based on the assumption that the major arterial that they will be building for the public infrastructure, Melrose Drive, is the^nvironmentallv preferred alternative. This has not been determined, since an environmental analysis of alternatives has not been carried out. Furthermore, it is certain that these two projects combined and separately will have major impacts on the remaining open space in the area, with the resulting consequences, including habitat loss, stormwater runoff, air pollution, loss of dark skies, traffic congestion, degradation of views, etc. However, except for traffic analysis, no cumulative impacts have been analyzed. We suggest that an equally wholistic approach be taken with other areas of potential significant impact, through the completion of a thorough Environmental Impact Report. Although these two projects were superficially (and inconsistently) combined for impact analysis, there is not enough effort to look at the surrounding properties and their projected development and/or preservation as open space. The watershed (drainage of the Aqua Hedionda) as a whole should be the minimum area used for cumulative analysis. In addition, the degree to which the projects comply with, and affect the preserve creation goals of, the HMP and MHCP should be presented. When this is done, to say that the project "conforms with.." these plans will not be sufficient; a case needs to be made to support this contention, with precise and specific information, and clear-cut examples. In support of the application for the project approval the latest evidence provided to the interested public appears to be nothing more than the Environmental Impact Assessment Form (EIA) dated 3/28/96. If this is the case, it is certainly out of date. In any case, the following environmental factors will be subject to potentially significant impacts under the proposed projects; they should therefore have been checked (in addition to those that were) as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated", or "Potentially Significant Impact", in the extended Environmental Impact Assessment form (pages 5-10), whether or not the impacts are mitigated: I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. d) Agricultural resources: agricultural land will be converted to industrial; C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 2 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:30p P-4 e) Disruption of the community: the introduction of more traffic and industrial area will exacerbate the division of south Carlsbad from north Carlsbad. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. f) significant changes in topography will accompany these projects; g) land subsidence is likely unless alluvial material is removed as mitigation. IV. WATER. There WILL be: a) changes in absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff; b) exposure of people and property to flooding, both upstream and downstream; d) changes in the amount of surface water in the Aqua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon; h) impacts to groundwater quality (BMPs have been proposed to be incorporated as mitigation.) IV. AIR QUALITY. The projects as designed will likely: b) expose sensitive animals, plants, and humans to pollutants; c) alter air movement, moisture, and temperature locally due to hardscaping; d) create objectionable odors due to construction and industrial processes. In addition, there is no clear evidence that any measures other than circular reasoning have been undertaken to reduce the significant impacts of added aerosols to the San Diego Air Basin: just because the project lists the measures recommended by the final Master EIR for the city's update of the General Plan does not mean that any such measures have been incorporated. They are certainly not explicitly called out. Furthermore, the MEIR is no longer adequate as it is older than five years, and substantial changes have occurred in that time. VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION. The following should have been listed as having significant impacts due to the proposed projects: b) & e) hazards to safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers due to the enhanced speeds allowed on roads of the width prescribed for business parks in Carlsbad. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The proposal would result in impacts to: b) Locally designated species (i.e. those called out as covered in the MHCP, including Quercus dumosa, Quercus agrifolia, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Adolphia californica, Ferocactus viridescens, California gnatcatcher, Black-tailed jackrabbit, coyote, bobcat, Cooper's hawk, Black-shouldered kite, and possibly burrowing owl); this does not mean that other sensitive and target species will not also be significantly affected, just that the author is not aware of their status on the sites (e.g. particular herptiles, nocturnal animals, wet-season species, etc.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. Coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, mixed (native and non-native) grassland) will be destroyed; The following resources will potentially be significantly impacted, in spite of the mitigation measures proposed, and should therefore be indicated as "Potentially Significant Impact": d) Wetland habitat: riparian habitats including southern willow scrub, baccharis scrub, oak woodland; and C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 3 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:30p P-5 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors: the designated wildlife habitat linkage D is severely compromised by the plan as proposed. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. a) Adopted energy conservation plans, such as those incorporated into the county-wide REGION2020 and others call for a different approach to growth, including more integrated communities, and fewer roads. b) Similarly, non-renewable resources, including petroleum and open space would be used in wasteful and inefficient manners by the mode of wholesale land recontouring to place low buildings with large footprints, such as are envisioned on such sites. The developments as conceived in the proposed projects entail the continued development of Carlsbad using an outdated (30-year old) vision. There is no evidence that any of SANDAG's recommendations for "Smart Growth" are being incorporated. See, for example, their website describing goals and methods for more energy-efficient communities: http://www.sandag.org/whats_new/work_program/work_program_105.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 stormwater drainage (e) are not impacted to the same degree. The latter is discussed in the document, but it is not evident that the measures proposed will mitigate the negative effects of the proposed projects. XII. AESTHETICS. The project will most likely have potentially significant impacts on all three categories listed (impairing scenic views; affecting aesthetics; and creating light and glare) and should thus be recognized at that level. XV. RECREATION. Contrary to the assessment of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT given in the checklist, there WILL most likely be an increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities as a result of the projects: first, at least some portion of die employees of the business parks will reside in the city of Carlsbad or neighboring cities; second, there is a recognized need C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 4 of 7 iDct 08 01 03:31p P-6 for recreational facilities in competitive business areas, as employees need to exercise or relax before, during, and after work. In addition, trails and paths that are offered as amenities by the business park will be used to access the open space, thus requiring the development of a larger trail system. Finally, if bicycles are to be encouraged as a form of transportation in the area, the necessary facilities should likely be a recreational resource as well. a) The existing recreational opportunities afforded by natural open space (the chance to view wildlife; the enjoyment of open space; the ability to walk along a natural riparian corridor; etc.) will surely be negatively impacted by these projects. 2. Mitigation for habitat impacts a) Wetlands The area proposed for wetland mitigation is apparently planned for an area that is topologically unsuitable (i.e. it is upland, and not adjacent to existing wetland vegetation see Figure 3. Mitigation Areas, Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan, Helix, 1998.) In addition, the 0.08 acres that are needed for mitigation for the Palomar Forum project are not included in existing plans. b) Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub includes 8.5 acres of seeding on manufactured (2:1) slopes. It is not clear that this will result in functional wildlife habitat, or that this is an adequate acreage for restoration, at 1:1, since 100% success is rare. Furthermore, there appears to be no plan for fire protection or setbacks from native vegetation, which should occur only in the development footprint and not in the designated mitigation area. c) Oaks There are no explicit plans for mitigating for the losses of oaks (Quercus agrifolia and Quercus dumosa) on either of the projects, in spite of the fact that oak woodland is to be conserved under the BMP. d) Overlooked species and occurrences It is not clear whether the ten Comarostaphylos to be transplanted include those NOT shown on the vegetation resources map: many locations of this and other species were overlooked. Examples: 1. Comarostaphylos was observed on the north-facing slope at the east end of the dragstrip, but was not shown on the map. 2. Large clusters of Quercus dumosa to the west of the Comarostaphylos were not recorded on the map. 3. Quercus agrifolia individuals on the north-facing slope were apparently overlooked. 4. An area of Baccharis scrub hi the center of the former circular racetrack was shown as a bare, disturbed area. 5. It therefore appears that the applicant(s) are not be proposing sufficient mitigation for impacts to sensitive species and habitats. C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 5 of 7 Oct 08 01 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 identify the acquisition parcels prior to project approval. In general, the mitigation and monitoring plans need to be much more explicit and need to be made available for review by the public as part of the environmental review process that culminates in City Council consideration, and should NOT be drawn up after the fact of public review. 3. Wildlife corridors The two parcels proposed for the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects make up the northern portion of linkage area D, as described in the HMP. According to that document (p. D- 6) "The northern section of this linkage includes the disturbed area near the Carlsbad Raceway that should be evaluated for potential restoration. This section should be a moderately effective corridor for birds and mammals." However, as proposed the corridor is not only quite narrow (less than 400 feet wide in some areas), but it is completely transected by roads in two places. Most noticeable is the obstacle created by placing Melrose Drive on fill across the northwest 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 a real alternative. (N.B. It is almost impossible to visualize either of these with the plans provided, as they are so reduced as to be unreadable.) The Poinsettia (aka Street B) Avenue alignment also cuts across the wildlife corridor, rendering it another "sink" for non-flying wildlife, where inevitable deaths will eventually have a negative impact on the population at large. There are numerous studies and publications on the issue of habitat linkages, and corridors, and the degrees to which various configurations (bridges, culverts, etc.) are successful. Please contact my office if you do not already have copies of these references for the Planning Commission before the hearing. 4. Circulation "The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated." (p. 15, EIA). The mitigation proposed is to complete all the planned roads in the area. It has not yet been decided C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 6 of 7 Oct 08 01 03:33p P-8 whether these projects (Faraday, El Fuerte, etc.) should be constructed. Therefore there appears to be a very real need for a thorough alternatives analysis, in the form of an Environmental Impact Report. This section of the document also presents unsubstantiated conclusions that fly in the face of current evidence to the contrary, i.e. that building more roads eases congestion and encourages alternative forms of transportation: "The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road) will ... reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate modes of transportation." Finally, the justification for using the 1994 MEIR to allow the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" to stand is that "... no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified..." and that ".. .there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified." In light of the construction and occupation of major business and residential projects in Carlsbad and the neighboring cities, and the major increase in long-distance commuters in the past 5 years on San Diego's freeways, these statements should be re-examined. 5. Hydrology The proposal to use the wildlife corridor/riparian restoration site as a detention basin is ill- conceived. This very same concept has been rejected during preliminary reviews of the Carlsbad Oaks North development plans, and should not be used here. Detention basins intended to mitigate for the runoff created or exacerbated by a development project need to be located completely within the development footprint, not within areas designated as habitat preserve, and certainly not across the mouth of the designated regionally-significant wildlife passage. Thank you for your consideration of these points. These projects can be developed as assets or as detriments to the City of Carlsbad and the region, and it is your decisions that will make the difference. Sincerely, IsabeTle Kay Manager, Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve cc: USFWS CDFG Preserve Calavera C'bad Raceway comment 10/05/01 Page 7 of 7 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: October 3, 2001 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Anne Hysong Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/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. 5031, 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.BACKGROUND This item was originally heard on August 15, 2001 and continued to October 3, 2001. Staff is requesting a second continuance to the meeting of October 17, 2001. Tl City of Carlsbad Planning Departmlt A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: August 15, 2001 Item No.@· Application complete date: Project Planner: Anne Hysong Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/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. 5031, 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 prope1iy 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 zoning ordinances. The project complies with all applicable City standards, all project issues have been resolved, and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The project proposes to subdivide and grade the 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 GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT ,06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03-PALOM~ORUM August 15, 2001 Pa e2 zoning consistency with the proposed General Plan land use designations, the portion of the property redesignated as OS would be rezoned to the O-S zone. The 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 Melrose 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 A venue 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 GP A o 1-011zc o 1-06/CT f 06/HDP 99-03/PIP o 1-03 -P ALOM,FORUM August 15, 2001 Pae 3 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". The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards, and policies: A. Carlsbad General Plan 1. General Plan Amendment 2. General Plan Consistency B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.34); 2. Open Space (OS) Zone (Municipal Code Chapter 21.33); 3. Hillside Development (Municipal Code Chapter 21.95) 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 (Pl) 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 01-011zc 01-06/CT lo6/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -P ALOM,FORUM August 15, 2001 Pa e4 GP ELEMENT Land Use -PI, OS Circulation Open Space Noise Parks Public Safety COMPLIANCE Planned Industrial business park subdivision that is: • designed and landscaped within perimeter setbacks and manufactured slopes and properly functioning internal roads and adequately spaced driveways • compatible with surrounding industrial and open space uses • creates industrial lots that are large and level enough to accommodate industrial development including parking, loading, storage, and operational needs • 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: • Palomar Airport Road will be widened from the City of Vista boundary west to existing improvements west of Melrose Drive. • Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in the City of Vista. • 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. • Onsite, Street "A" Street will connect to off-site Poinsettia A venue, which will be constructed to provide another network link and secondary access to Melrose Drive 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 • Mitigation measures are required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances during construction and from future industrial development • Streets, sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants will be constructed per City standards GPA 01-011zc 01-06/CT lo6/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03-PALOM,FORUM August 15, 2001 Pae 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 ORDINANCE STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED Prime Arterial Setback 50 Feet Entirely Landscaped 50 Feet Entirely Landscaped Local Street Setback 35 Feet Average 35 Feet Average Interior Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet Rear Yard Setback 20 Feet 20 Feet Minimum Lot Area 1 Acre 2.1 -7.7 Acres Outdoor Eating Area Mini-Park in lieu of outdoor Mini Park satisfies outdoor eating area within 1,000 feet eating requirement for Lots 1, 2, 10 Internal Street System Safe, efficient, functional Two points of access to ensure accessibility; Paseo Valindo (Street "A") connection between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia A venue to ensure timely emergency response. -• -GP A O 1-07 /ZC O 1-06/CT 99-06/HDP 99-03/PIP O 1-03 -PAL OMAR FORUM August 15, 2001 Pae 6 Equipment Screening Architecturally integrated Architecture Architecturally integrated B2. Open Space Zone For future buildings: • 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. • Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. Require enhanced archi- tectural treatment of all future building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. 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 landforms 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 01-011zc 01-06/CT lo6/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03-PALO~FORUM August 15, 2001 Pae 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 ofMelrose 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 remammg 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 Yes yds/acre allowed if the project Circulation Element Roadway (Melrose qualifies as an exclusion or Drive). See the discussion below. modification per Sections 21.95.130 and 21.95.140* Maximum Manufactured 40' Maximum manufactured slope Yes Slope Height: 40 feet* height except as required for the off- site extension of Melrose Drive Contour Grading: Contour grading is proposed where Yes Required for manufactured applicable adjacent to and visible from slopes greater than 20' Ill 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 Pennit applications for slope to strncture 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. * 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 01-011zc 01-06/CT lo6/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOM,FORUM August 15, 2001 Pae 8 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 fill 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 Melrose Drive to connect to the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer system. A temporary agreement may be provided to allow this project to sewer into the City of Vista's Raceway Sewer Lift station and outfall. Water service is provided by an existing 36" water line on Palomar Airport Road. 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. GPA 01-07/ZC 01-06/CT ,06/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOM,FORUM August 15, 2001 Pae 9 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 summarized below: Zone 18 LFMP Summary STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE W/STANDARDS City Administration Not Applicable Yes Library Not Applicable Yes Waste Water Treatment 350 EDU Yes Parks Not Applicable Yes Drainage 235 CFS Yes Circulation 5,226 ADT Yes Fire Station #5 Yes Open Space 2.4 Acres Yes Schools Not Applicable Yes Sewer Collection System 350 EDU Yes Water 116,800 GPD 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 01-011zc 01-06/CT lo6/HDP 99-03/PIP 01-03 -PALOMJFORUM August 15, 2001 Pa e 10 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. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 15, 2001. An addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepare to clarify the conditions under which mitigation measure number 1 must be satisfied and to renumber mitigation measures. 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. Full Size Exhibits "A" -"CC", dated August 15, 2001 AH:cs:mh SITE PALOMAR FORUM GPA 01-07/ZC 01-0·5 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 Diego, 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: N~o~t A~pp,.__l_ic_a=b~le~------ Existing Zone: P-M Proposed Zone: =--P--=-M=-=an=d-=O"--=S _______ _ Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Site P-M PI North P-M PI/O South P-C East CITY OF VISTA CITY OF VISTA West P-M PI PUBLIC FACILITIES Current Land Use VACANT CARLSBAD RACEWAY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CARLSBAD OAKS EAST BUSINESS PARK School District: San Marcos Unified Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CARLSBAD Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): ___ 35 __ 0 __________________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ~ Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued "'"'Ju=ly~l ___ S,..__2"'"'0 ___ 0 ___ 1 ___________ _ D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _ D Other, _____________________ _ 93 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: GPA 01-07, ZC 01-06, CT 99-06. HDP 99-03. PIP 01-03 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:~ GENERAL PLAN: ~Plcc._ _____ _ 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:::....:A=-=-C=RE=S=------- ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: -=UNKN.=...:.=::....:...=O-'-WN'--"--'-____________ _ A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage= NIA B. Library: Demand in Square Footage= NIA C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 277 EDU D. Park: Demand in Acreage = NIA E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 235 Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = 5 226 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 5 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 2.2 I. Schools: NIA (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 350 Identify Sub Basin = B (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPO = 116,800 r CRAJJINC ANALYSIS: -_. ... ltl.O/ll!Ot:r -"' ,w -~CJ' """' -'"""'"' •""'"' --lf.j A&. IN:. ..,,.__, fQM> -,4..., LEGAL DESCRIPTION: rICJNITY JfAP ·- GENERAL NOTES: 41SDSOtS Ma'1 Ml ........... n,-o,,-,a 11 1'ffllt Mlll'S ... . ....... Ml C CIIJQ#/MUIIC. IE'• DIIIIJJIS~••••••••••••rn•,.•••••••••••••••,.•"' ~~"""""•""•••-•MP-•-•--•••-•••• ,.-II l1tlS1'C tilMJIMt.,,,,,,, ~ .. -···-----··" ~GIJ'CJMtl"IAN...,,..., ......... ,. MoNIDf .t ~or"'"'··· .. ,, IQmllk i• IOl"EN51"1a'tflfl fl ~ 1.0,S __,. or .-,s ···--·-···-··· .. .. .. ,.,,. fOPJlf. ..... mllllilla' ......................... ,.,.. .......... ,.,.,,... .................. .... ~0,$1ft~,---.. -· ..... -........ Jlrl.AIIIIISl)lllf,.... MNIC SIIGJ'MIUID _______ 1/A a.l.OIUO,_.Ml' .. IIIVA KEY NAP ~ ,•.,400• ,,,.,. ,..j r OffNER/SUBPIVIDER: ,..,.,_.._.ni, N2'M'lll1'//lif*IIC_,,,_ .....,lt,0(1':111,_ ,,,._,,,. ,,...,,,,_,_ SHffT 1 OF 1 J SHEETS C.T. 99-06 TENTATIVE MAP FOR PALOMAR FORUM LEGEND: --· ,~,14' ~WODIT .. ~~'·-··· ,m...,,___. tw'NfWilff//fNII ..... . ~SJV1/AH1 .. ---~-,l:111-. ~.wuAIIJl'•n lfftllfl!DlltD-IAA """'9:IISf/WllfT,rMllillft ....... ,,,,""""' ~,,_ _ _.c. __ ~#fl ...... -~-~re,,.,, ... ,.....,.,..;,,,-,, .,,,..,,,, __ --...... ---,.........,. .. ,.,.41-,1ut11111 ___ ,.,_ ------------ --~---4--- --+--· .... --1 CIVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR: ,..,.llMlfAll'ISIIC -'1Ufl#aM?~• C41'.a44 '4. lilW (JU),,,_,,. = :::,;,,,-----.... =:: :,-;:, =~--BENCHIIARI: SIii' .....a,s ,,..,,:0 JDID R1IKT CDIWDt ~ 1111!1'1' ~ ~ ~ O[IOQ .,, .a___ C-!L .lllll!m..a... aa ..,,..,. .. . ~ .........._ •JEii' osn.er Ul'#DI .....,.._ ,_. ,rr, JlllMrf" -CIMM' Ollt,llilllll .,, ----1,.L.._ !DU, A.,2:B!!___ ~-~"-= ::.,..r.w.11.fftnS :"'J:"IIINfl~ contAlM fl' 1-~0r:;:::..N,_.:.,::.__4N~,-.-I ~Cf "°"-...J.G......._ .IOt N!I, ~ --.. ..... f.""''_,._., --~""'=-.f'"""""'"""""" _-,;;:~ e ~~ ~--c_2_001_o_'D_•,_ConN __ ,_ .. _ ... _1nc_. _________________ ·_-_ .. _,_-_-_ ... _-__ -__ -__ ,,,_,_-__ -___ -____________________ -___ "_'_·"_u_, _______ ~_=-=---=-~~==-=-w~·~~-=-=-=--=-=-.=--=-=-=-:~~'ttf,;;--·.:.· .:::_!::: __ ._·.:.·=·='":::.o':_.:::---:::::::::'.J --·-------·----•---·- 7 .. '" 111 r,1 l!!1 ' ' l]'J'JCAl $Ulll'INfl eN-0.W Nflt'(Ntr 6IWI/ l(Cl/lOSC 1111M "'""" llf'/CAL sn;TIDN GJWlfP $WALE • me Pr Sfot'f -- CASCMCNT TABLE {9) ----.......... ~ ..... ,_ ..... ,. . -·---_,. .... _,_ ___ -·---~ ..... MU"---.,,.,.,...., ,._,._ --•...ea,r ........ .,,,,,~,,,...__.., ------_,._ ,.a,u.,...,,,..,,..,, ,_., __ -------•ir-•--.... _ --------t'IKC' .. ,..., ,.,.,_ -·----·--4-,.,.,_ ---_,.,., ---,.,,_ --........... -·- fAS£U£Nr NQrES; '~:&'11'11'-.., ___ ,. _,,_..,_ l :S,,,9#£:l,.,-•••--,,.•-•111-111111M -··-·-·-··-··-·-·-··-··- •• PAL/lllMR tlfl/PORT IIQID .etllll& ,..,., d' , Sft!'P ~-4, -l'Dlnwt ·- SH['ET 2 or f J SHEETS C.T. 99-06 ... .. ., • ,~,a,,,,Mt IIClROSC DR. rear Of CAfllS/IADJ £1!111& ·-(Al.t V11J1£S •--Sllfflr ,,,,,_cJ TYPICAL SECT/QNS __ , PALOMAR FORIJM ~ ;. -, --•· .,_ -BENCHIIARI: ~ .. _____ ...... .,......,..,.,,,,....,., -==:re:=:.;:,.-,. __ ,~:111 ---.. _ ---=--== =------~---· --- .__,P,ll,L_.(111.'lt,.-.ullL __, ft' ---1,L.__ SMC: JLl9._ ..... efiat....Ll5--MJl)...Jl:JC_ -.. --;;I;.<;.;;/ ':, "!'_ 7 _J r .... ~ l~~--:;:~~~-r.::'. ~ -I', ~ lri I a SHffT J or 'J SHffTS C.T. UU-06 ,. PALOMAR FORUM ~ ......... --~--- 7 r ... . ........ ........ II~; I I 7 ... -·-::.~. ---· ---··-- JlJp.J8Ufl ---• ~>'.:,,_.·_i --_<_ tJ SHffTS ------~-~s.g,Hifll'ffT 'O~.T. 99-06 I B!NCJJMARI: ,_,. --__,_.,,....... .,,,,,,,,,, . .., -=¥-· -~ CIIMJl'lll.,. ... ... ~m_:~ ._ m.n•u. r 7 SHffT 5 or tJ SHffTS C.T. 99-06 <o I f i ,. ltAel••,t " ~ , ~ -~ -!:: --"' ----- -~ "." ' ... , ,' ..... - i . . . '} ,•' • BENCHMARK; ............ lfllll'7"JUflff'.....,, --===:r~::;,--a--.... ,.. ~~~..,,.. .. ,. 02001 O'Day CoMultcmt1, tic. ...... lff.n•si. r ..., S££ SH££T No. 5 C,2001 O'Doy Consultant~ Inc, IJ SHffTS 99-06 SH[ET 6 or C.T. ;~~ ~=~~----·~--·.7_~_~·<t;!~~·-r. :0~10 1/-••• . • !. -<. • ·_ L •. J:...-__ :-~''-::: , . :..ic:--:--• -:_ --------·-.,;..--"'-'--_-.. -_-_--~-- ·_ ---~--" _ ;_:.j_:,~~ - ' --·- . -·-.--· I S££ SH££T No, 7 , BENCHMARK; ..... J'IIIIDI. ,.,.., auM't' lllJIUGI' -== = :f'~/l ~CUii ,. __ ........ ,.,,,,~.Pl:CQMMJl.a111 ,,., .... ,. a,-111.l~AIIJ.,. ~ ~ ..__ l:_j "1,\1,---"== ~ ~ ½ PALOMAR FORUM •-.-•w , . .,. -~., .. ~----------------..... 7 --~-... , ... , -4:>2001 O'Doy CoMultants, In<. I + SHffT 7 OF fJ C.T. PALOMAR SHffTS 99-06 7 r SH[[T 8 or IJ C.T. , r SHffTS 99-06 llllllCMD S,, JI&__ Qlff_ ~ __ t, _ _jL____tt,1,1.(r...u..»:._ IJIIJIG.:C'l.-.~MCl....11:::..1111 . ...----..... -.... ------------ 7 r .....__ <::) 0200! 0..,.,. Cenlulllftls, Inc. 7IHo CARRIJ.l!J Vl.UuE8 MAP 186112 \ \ \ BEHCIQIARI: ..... ..... nllJ'T..,,....,,, -== = :Jf'cll:.# =---,. __ ... ,......,auw,,.,,_mw,n..,. ,,,.,.., M/6#,, .... ff1.IIM&&. SH££T 9 OF 1 J SHffTS C.T. 99-06 ; PALOMAR FORUM .... -=t .. , U._)-----------------------------------------------------------' 7 r .180- STD- S5D- S40- e,2001 O'Dor tanooAten11, loc. ,..,. __ ,.,.,,.,.,. -· 1.,,,,.,, ....... ..... a;-•· .JO Z.J PLAN -MELROSE DRIVE (CITY Qr CARLSBAD PROJCC'[) al] ... , •• ,. .......... ,nu, JUMY...,,, -..._ •o ,rr, MAN 0, MIIIUW ....,, .. O,OJfJf/11.#r, ·--_,..lllflll'IICl:IIN"IP'A~-,,.,.., .,,,. --"7.N•&a. S. '££T fQ OF f C.T. -70 -50 -40 -.'JO '20 -00 -80 ,a ,i ,, IOlf;:l'..-1■• KIMIO "' .if.I..-Ol'l, .lllll!...a. -P,-.l.1-,_.ICAl.t,A.!ll,._ -:re i:!ti:b~!lf:tt::i1c-MMet """..LIL-• •• ..,ll:,..1IG._ ..:..:r:: ~ oac,JICW,_ L..;.;;;;'"'::==.::==::...._-___ J._---_'!~=.!..!-~~ .. , ~---..... ..,. .. ,... ___ ..,. __________ ___ 7 r '-e:,. \) Cl?OOI O'Do1 Cono&AIOll!t. Inc. ,..51!!!!!"!!!11,i---·-.. :.,. _.., PLAN -STREU t1' ~ _, .. ,,,. -46 -4.J -4' -.J9 BENCHIIARI: ...... ,.....,PlmT....,,.....,, -=='Jf'.=.:::--,. __ _,..,,,,,,,,,CIU(ln".,,...aMl'IJlal,. ,,_,_, al'>#nl ~ a,.1~•1,a. 7 PALOMAR FORI.IM -------, ........ -------------.--.. .,,. r .. _ SETBACK MAP NDSDILC PALOMAR rDIIVltl SHffT f2 or fJ SHffTS C.T. 99-06 --==--= ~--=-=--i = - Ii, © -----·-··-... ... ,. ---------- BENCHIIARJC: ..... .,....,,..,....,,,__,,, ~ ..... ,,,,.,..,.,,,,,,_..,... ...,,, ... "' GEMlitM' ,,, ·---... ,.,,,, ttJlllf'f p,m RIMJIDl .. ,.. ,,_,,,,,, ,.,_,, .,_. #1.#M,&t, SETBACK NOTES: , .,,,,,,__,.,,._,,,,,..,,,,,.w90.......,, , •.,~~-=:rs,.,:,~••rrrr ,.AIIIMIQ' J n:...,, l:"1•J,l.':Z,:',~Jxl,,,, ... , ... ...,,~ ... ~•m•Nlf,llfl#lfP~ ~ .. ..... "·.aL,_ DHI, -----Cllalt P:_..!&_ IQll.l1 .&Jll!!!L_ ,,..erllDlll.~Mie..Jl:JSIZl.._ 7 r ~ ',.) 02001 O'Dar ConOIAtOftlt. l,c. Qff-SITf,, GRADING 4: l~PRQV£M£Nrs FOR STAND-ALONE PHOJECT ~ .. , ... ~ ,Oflnll/JIAIIO,---~-::'~" --,_ AIDfflir COIIM" onca ~ .. ,. ,,_,.,,, ,a, .. ,. .,_ IW.N•U SH££T f J OF f J SHffTS C.T. 99-06 ,.. ,, ------------------------------- SCCTION 14 •-ti' TrPICAl ACCQ"S ROAD 5EC[(ON ,.,,.,,, • l -,i Qf:t·•111Y PALOMAR FORUM DUOUfJ,....__ Dlff,.alll!..Jla.. ... .,--l,L__ltltl:~ -::cc::i::!n~a1!!1b:t 11:--_,,. -..JJIL._,,. "'..JU11L ._:J:i ~ -== ....... . .-...-................. 11191> ...... ...__. ____ ..._ ...... 7 _J