The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 98-10; Carlsbad Raceway Business Park; Tentative Map (CT) (17)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18(BVCT 98-10/HDP 98-09/PIP 01-01 DATE: May 3, 2001 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park 2. APPLICANT: Hofitian Planning Associates/Raceway Properties, LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150. Carlsbad. CA 92008. r76QU38-1465 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 4. 1998 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Office (O) General Plan Designation and redesJRnate proposed open space to the Open Space (OS) General Plan Designation, a zone change to add Open Space zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Planned Industrial Permit for an 146 acre. 25 lot, industrial subdivision with 3 open space lots on property located north of Palomar Airport Road between the City's eastern boundary and future Melrose Drive. The project design includes a 400 foot wide north-south wildlife corridor that provides access to an east-west wildlife corridor within the northern portion of the property. Access to the industrial lots will be provided by construction of the remaining segment of Melrose Drive between Palomar Airport Road and the City of Vista boundary and the extension of Poinsettia Avenue from its existing westerly terminus in the City of Vista to Melrose Drive. No industrial buildings are proposed as part of the project. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning IXI Transportation/Circulation [X] Air Quality Population and Housing £3 Biological Resources Geological Problems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Water Rev. 03/28/96 IX| Hazards I | Noise |~~| Public Services I [ Utilities & Service Systems £3 Aesthetics IXI Cultural Resources I I Recreation I | Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [~~l I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [X] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. 7-ff Planner Signature^ (/ Date Planning Directors Signiture Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6- 1-5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1- 15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #4) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1- 15; #4) Potential ly Significa nt Impact D D D D D D D D Potential! y Significa nt Unless Mitigatio n Incorpora ted D D D D D D Less Than Signific ant Impact No Impa ct D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). i) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15; #4) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1- 15' #4) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15; #4) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2, #2) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2- 1-5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs5.2-l-5..2-ll;#2;#2) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2; #3 ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2- 1-5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) Potential ly Significa nt Impact D D DD D D D D D D D D Potentiall y Significa nt Unless Mitigatio n Incorpora ted D D D Less Than Signific ant Impact No Impa ct D DD D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) c) d) Potential ly Significa nt Impact Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? | | (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, I I or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - [ | 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22; #3) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #5) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1-5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #5;) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs5.4-l-5.4-24;#5) D D Potentiall y Significa nt Unless Mitigatio n Incorpora ted D D D D D D D D D Less Than Signific ant Impact No Impa ct D D D D D D D D m D E D 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1-5.9-15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15) XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) Potential ly Significa nt Impact D n n n n n n Potentiall y Significa nt Unless Mitigatio n Incorpora ted D D n n D D D D Less No Than Impa Signific ct ant Impact n n n n n n n nn Rev. 03/28/96 ^^ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-5) D d) Maintenance of public facilities, including I [ roads? () e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1- I I 1-5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1-5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs5.11-l -5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#1 :Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) resources? (#1 :Pgs resources? (#1 :Pgs XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological 5.8-1-5.8-10) b) Disturb archaeological 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1-5.8-10) Potential Potentiall ly y Significa Significa nt nt Unless Impact Mitigatio n Incorpora ted D DD D D D D D D D i—i D D DD D D D D Less Than Signific ant Impact No Impa ct D D D D DD D D D D D 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8- 1-5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potential ly Significa nt Impact D D D D D Potentiall y Significa nt Unless Mitigatio n Incorpora ted D Less Than Signific ant Impact D No Impa ct D D D D D D D XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: 11 Rev. 03/28/96 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Environmental Setting The Carlsbad Raceway property is located north of Palomar Airport Road in the City's northeast quadrant. The property is surrounded by open space and industrial park development to the north, vacant industrial property and a small commercial development in the City of Vista to the east, a vacant industrially zoned property and Palomar Airport Road to the south, and the existing Carlsbad Oaks East industrial park to the west. The property is characterized by gentle slope terrain which descends northward into a prominent east/west canyon on the northern half of the property in which a drainage spans most of the length of the property. Tributaries to the main drainage occur in two smaller canyons on the southern half of the site which drain towards the north. Three other tributaries to the main drainage enter from the north side of the property. The drainage on site is an unnamed tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek which drains into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Two larger hills occur on the northern edge of the site and on the southwest corner of the site, and elevations range from approximately 310 feet to 495 feet above sea level. A drag strip stretches about two thirds of the property from the northeast corner to the south central area. Much of the site is heavily disturbed in that a drag strip was created in the canyon bottom in the northeast area of the site where water has been diverted to flow alongside it in a previously upland area. Also, numerous dirt roads created from off-road motorcycle activity occur in all areas of the site. The southwestern portion of the site has also been used for agriculture, and a SDG&E powerline easement bisects the eastern half of the property. The north-central portion of the site, which is abutted by dedicated open space in the City of Vista, is the least disturbed portion of the property. The northern portion of the Raceway property is a hardline area in the City's draft HMP, which identifies it as a part of a linkage (Linkage Area D) that connects core areas to the north and south of the property. I. LAND USE The Carlsbad Raceway property is currently designated by the General Plan for Planned Industrial/Office (PI/O) land use and zoned Planned Industrial (P-M). The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the property's dual PI/O General Plan designation to PI and Open Space (OS) thereby eliminating the O designation. The General Plan Amendment would retain only the PI designation on the portion of the property proposed to be developed with industrial lots, and the 43.36 acres of the property proposed to be dedicated as permanent open space would be redesignated to OS. Justification for elimination of the O designation, which allows office and related commercial use, is that it is unnecessary since professional offices that are incidental to the industrial uses and not retail in nature, are permitted by P-M zoning under the PI land use designation. Limited retail commercial uses that provide services to occupants of the industrial zones are also permitted by conditional use permit. To ensure zoning consistency with the proposed General Plan land use designations, the portion of the property redesignated as OS would be rezoned to the O-S zone. The project is located within the boundaries of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The project is located within the eastern portion of the airport flight activity zone. The project, which consists of industrial lots to be developed in the future with industrial buildings that are consistent with the P-M zone standards, is consistent with the CLUP. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project will require the construction of the last segment of Melrose Drive between its existing northerly terminus in the City of Vista and Palomar Airport Road and Faraday Avenue between its existing westerly terminus in the City of Carlsbad and the City's easterly boundary. These extensions of prime and secondary arterial roadways are part of the City's circulation arterial roadway system necessary to support existing and proposed development in the surrounding area and to alleviate regional traffic congestion. Given that existing development surrounds the Carlsbad Raceway property, construction of these roadways cannot be considered to be directly or indirectly growth inducing. III. GEOLOGY Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by Vinje & Middleton, Inc., the development of the Carlsbad Raceway property as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations for remedial grading and site development are followed. A brief summary of findings of the investigation indicate that: • Hard bedrock units are present in the north central areas of the property where only minor grading is proposed. • Topsoils, alluvium and existing fill soils at the project site are not suitable in their present conditions for support of structures or new graded fills and will need to be removed. • Groundwater conditions at the project are not expected to be significant, although some dewatering may be necessary in connection with alluvial removals in the northwest portion of the property. • Expansive soils are present and not recommended at pad or roadway finish grade levels • Liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not impact the proposed development • Landslide conditions are not indicated at the site. • Soil collapse will not be a factor IV. WATER The project, upon ultimate development, will consist of industrial lots with a large coverage of building and parking. Storm water runoff from each lot will be picked up in a subsurface storm drain pipe and will flow underground into the public storm drain under the streets. The public storm drain outlets into one of two detention basins which drain into a tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek. The mass grading has been designed to generally perpetuate existing drainage patterns. As the lots are developed, the site will absorb less water than in the undeveloped condition. The project includes work to constrict the inlet to the existing storm drain culvert under Melrose Drive in the City of Vista. This will create a detention basin to the east of Melrose Drive and reduce the peak flow in the Agua Hedionda Creek tributary to below pre- development conditions. Due to the reduced peak flows, the project will have no impact on erosion downstream. The project is creating roads and building pads that are not subject to inundation by storms, and would not expose people or property to flooding hazards. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 The development of the project into industrial lots will create an increase in pollutants discharged in storm water. These pollutants, detailed in the Summary NPDES Study ("Study"), entitled "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention", prepared for the project by O'Day Consultants, include oxygen demand, sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The Study indicates a potential impact totaling 8 pounds of pollutants per acre per year. Many of these pollutants collect on roof and pavement surfaces, and are transported in the "first flush" of rainfall. The Study lists potential structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used, their effectiveness at removing the anticipated pollutants, and some preliminary sizing calculations. The sample BMPs listed in the study are: Oxygen Demand • Infiltration/constructed wetlands (most effective BMP) • Wet ponds • Biofilters • Etended ponds • Media filtration • Oil/water sep. • Multiple systems Nutrients • Constructed wetlands (most effective BMP) • Wet ponds • Biofilters • Etended ponds • Media filtration • Oil/water sep. • Multiple systems Heavy Metals • Infiltration/constructed wetlands (most effective BMP) • Wet ponds • Biofilters • Etended ponds • Media filtration • Oil/water sep. • Multiple systems Oil and Grease • Infiltration/constructed wetlands/oil/water sep. (most effective BMPs) • Wet ponds • Bio filters • Extended ponds • Media filtration • Multiple systems Each lot, upon development, will be required to construct BMPs selected and sized to remove the type and quantity of the anticipated pollutants from the storm water before it enters the storm drain system. Ultimately the maintenance procedures and frequency will depend on the BMPs installed. During grading, and after rough grading is complete, the site should be inspected 15 Rev. 03/28/96 prior to every anticipated storm event and after every storm event. This will be spelled out in the S WPPP that the applicant must prepare prior to issuance of a grading permit. The maintenance of the permanent BMPs will be specified in the SWPPP that we condition them to do during the discretionary review (Planned Industrial Permit) process required prior to development of each industrial lot. BMPs will be maintained by the industrial park association. The storm drain system empties into one of two detention basins prior to flowing into the Agua Hedionda Creek tributary. This provides backup water quality treatment. The project drains into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is an Impaired Waterbody on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. The beneficial uses of aquatic life, Recreation-1 (non- contact) and Recreation-2(contact), and shellfish harvest are impaired by sediment and coliform respectively. During construction, the project will be required to implement extensive erosion control measures pursuant to City standards. These will be maintained by the developer and inspected by the City, and will reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant during grading. After grading is complete, the graded pads will each have a sediment basin onsite, to remove sediment from storm water runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. The detention basin at the end of the storm drain system provides redundancy. These mitigation measures will reduce the impact of sediment to less than significant after grading operations. As the lots are developed, they will be paved and landscaped, and the potential impact of sediment will be less than significant. The major source of coliform in storm water runoff is pet waste. Since this is an industrial development, there is no impact of coliform. Due to the detention of runoff at Melrose Drive, no significant change in the amount of surface water body is anticipated. The geotechnical report does not indicate any high groundwater in the area to be graded, so the impact on groundwater quality, quantity or flow patterns is less than significant. Reductions in absorption caused by the increase in impervious surfaces will be offset by infiltration from the detention basin, and waters temporarily impounded behind Melrose Drive. V. AIR QUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation 16 Rev. 03/28/96 Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. CIRCULATION: (The information presented in this section is summarized from the Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Transportation Analysis prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated May 3,2001) The project will consist of approximately 75 acres of planned industrial uses with an expected vehicle generation of 10,320 ADT. The ADT is anticipated to result in 1,135 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour (split 1,022 inbound and 114 outbound) and 1,238 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (split 248 inbound and 991 outbound). The project as proposed will construct adjacent roadways to complete the City's circulation network in this area of the City. The specific roadways to be constructed are: • Poinsettia Ave will be extended from its existing terminus west of Business Park Drive to Melrose Drive. • Melrose Drive will be constructed from Palomar Airport Road to the existing terminus in the City of Vista. • Faraday Ave. will be extended from the existing terminus near Melrose Drive in Vista to the existing terminus near Orion Circle in Carlsbad. This extension will add another arterial parallel to Palomar Airport Road that provides direct access to the City's industrial corridor and reduces traffic on Palomar Airport Road, a regional arterial serving the City's of Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos. • Onsite, Street "A" will connect to Palomar Forum, providing another link and secondary access to Palomar Airport Road and to Melrose Drive/ Business Park Drive. A) The project, upon ultimate development, will produce a potentially significant impact of increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion unless mitigation is incorporated. Arterial roadway connections and improvements to Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave., connecting a network of roadways adjacent to Palomar Airport Road are identified as mitigation for this project. (See mitigation plan below). 17 Rev. 03/28/96 B) The project as designed will improve existing arterial roadways reducing hazards to safety and also producing additional connections or network for public access. The proposed widening of Palomar Airport Road intersection at Melrose Drive will provide a safer roadway free of lane transitions and bottleneck roadway design. C) The industrial lots will receive access from Street B, an east-west street that will connect to Business Park Drive in the City of Vista to the east and Melrose Drive to the west. To avoid Street B from bisecting a north-south wildlife corridor, it was suggested that Street B be designed so that it culdesacs on each side of the corridor. A culdesac design would require that industrial lots located on the east side of the corridor receive access via Business Park Drive in the City of Vista. It is the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad Fire Department in cooperation with surrounding mutual aid cities to respond if evacuation and emergency response is necessary due to a chemical spill, fire or other incident. The Carlsbad Fire Department has a five minute response standard for all Emergency Medical Services (EMS) incidents throughout the City. Without the connection of Street B through the project, the Fire Department response to the eastern lots could be delayed; therefore, this five minute EMS standard would be exceeded. Response to the project by mutual aid units from surrounding cities could also be delayed. As designed, the project is proposing that Street B provide the through connection required to satisfy the Fire Department emergency response threshold. The arterial connection of Melrose Drive, Faraday Ave., and Poinsettia Ave. (Business Park Dr. to Melrose Drive) will improve emergency access to the adjacent development in the City's of Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos. E) The additional roadways (Melrose, Poinsettia, and Faraday) and capacity (Palomar Airport Road) will provide for additional routes of travel, reduce conflict on roadways, and facilitate alternate modes of transportation. Information provided by NCTD regarding future service scenarios to the proposed business park indicate likely locations required for bus stops. These future locations are shown on the tentative map to ensure their availability thereby facilitating future bus service to the site. F) The project as conditioned and designed will support alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to: Additional bus routes, bus turnouts, bike lanes, car pooling, ride sharing, and walking. Mitigation Plan: Unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, there is a likelihood that significant impacts resulting from increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion will occur. • Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional Right turn lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road. • Poinsettia Ave. ("B" Street) shall be constructed as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia / Melrose intersection to accommodate turn lanes. • Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way. 18 Rev. 03/28/96 • Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to: Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping. A financing mechanism for the above-mentioned improvements is identified in the Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 18. In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR. This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES According to the "Carlsbad Raceway Project Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by 19 Rev. 03/28/96 Barry Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. and mitigation proposed in a July 1, 1998 letter to the USFWS, the site supports six vegetation communities: coastal and valley freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and non-native grassland. In addition, there are disturbed habitat/agriculture and eveloped areas. With the exception of the habitats located in the north-central portion of the site, all habitats have been at least partially disturbed and in most cases heavily disturbed for a number of years by ongoing raceway operations. The following table identifies the acreages of each vegetation community: Vegetation Community Upland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Non-native Grassland Riparian/Wetland Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Other Agriculture Disturbed Habitat TOTAL: Acreage 19.2 26.3 32.6 0.8 3.42 0.18 4.7 57.8 145.0 Sensitive plant species observed on the site include summer holly and California adophia. These species occurred in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral habitats onsite. The summer holly is an HMP target species. Sensitive animal species observed onsite include Cooper's hawk, Loggerhead shrike, White tailed kite, and California horned lark. Of the four species observed, only the Cooper's hawk is a HMP target species. Protocol surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted on March 2, 11, and 19, 2001, and no gnatcatchers were observed or detected on the Raceway site, however, one individual gnatcatcher was heard north of the site in chamise chaparral on one occasion during the first survey. This bird could not be relocated during the two subsequent surveys. The most significant resources on site are the wetland habitats and the Diegan coastal sage scrub along the northern property boundary. Direct impacts that result from the project total 111.85 of the 145 acres and are shown on the following table: IMPACTS Vegetation Community Upland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral Non-native Grassland Riparian/Wetland Acreage 19.2 26.3 32.6 Areas Impacted 9.6 21.6 28.0 Acres Preserved 9.6 4.7 4.6 20 Rev. 03/28/96 Freshwater Marsh Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Other Agriculture Disturbed Habitat TOTAL: 0.77 3.42 0.18 4.7 57.8 145.0 .15 .37 .13 4.7 47.3 111.85 .62 3.05 .05 0 10.53 33.15 IMPACTS TO STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Federal (ACOE): Non-vegetated Waters of the U.S. Wetlands State (CDFG) Total Acres On-Site .51 1.28 4.79 Acres Impacted .18 .24 .91 Acres Preserved .33 1.04 3.88 Mitigation The impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (DCSS), southern willow scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and mulefat scrub are considered significant. In addition to the onsite preservation of 9.6 acres of DCSS, restoration of approximately 8.5 acres of manufactured slope areas will be revegetated and approximately 9 acres of areas currently disturbed will be decompacted and seeded with a DCSS seed mix. In accordance with the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the project proposes a north-south wildlife corridor that will help link open space within the Rancho Carrillo project to the south with additional open space provided along the northern portion of the site. The resulting project design provides for a minimum corridor width of 400 feet along the eastern portion of the site and a larger block of open space that extends off site to the north into the City of Vista. A 12' high arched wildlife under-crossing where Melrose bisects the corridor and located towards the top of the slope of the roadway outside the floodplain will provide connection to open space to the north. Poinsettia Avenue will bisect the wildlife corridor, however, the road is "recessed" below grade through the corridor to reduce the impact of the roadway to birds crossing the corridor. A total of approximately .48 acre is proposed for habitat creation/enhancement for impacts to U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) jurisdictional impacts excluding the .18 acre of streambed. Streambed impacts will be mitigated through the relocation of the existing three-foot wide earthen channel that currently runs just north of the drag strip into a 15 foot wide channel (approximately .38 acre) running through the proposed wildlife corridor and adjacent to the northern boundary of the project. Exotic weeds will be removed from the channel for a period of five years following construction of the channel. Approximately .98 acres of southern willow scrub will be planted to mitigate the additional .49 acre of impact to riparian vegetation considered jurisdictional by the CDFG. The wetland restoration mitigation total for the project is 1.46 acres. (See letter from Barry Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to USFWS dated July 1,1998). Approximately 50 percent of the California adolphia (approximately 50 individuals) and all of the summer holly (less than 10 individuals) will be lost as a result of the project. These impacts 21 Rev. 03/28/96 are considered adverse but not significant. Some foraging habitat for raptors, loggerhead shrike breeding and foraging habitat, and foraging habitat for the horned lark will be lost as a result of the project. All of these impacts are considered adverse but not significant. To summarize, the proposed mitigation plan consists of the following: • Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site • Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor • Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix • Provide a 12' high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose • Create 1.46 acres of wetland habitat • Create .38 acre of streambed habitat VIII. HAZARDS Due to the project's proximity to existing residential development located to the south across Palomar Airport Road and within 1,000 feet, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the project could pose a potentially significant risk to residents through exposure resulting from the accidental release of hazardous substances. Generally, the Fire Marshal has requested that safeguards be incorporated into the project to ensure a greater level of safety from the storage or use of hazardous materials that could otherwise be allowed under current fire or building code regulations as well as applicable state or federal statutes. Of major concern was the storage or use of hazardous materials that could pose hazards even under non-fire conditions and may not provide adequate warning or notification of a hazardous condition to either the occupants in the residential areas and/or the fire department. Based on research of building and fire codes as well as state and federal statutes, the Fire Department agreed to mitigation conditions that would significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances: 1. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire code. 2. Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk management plans for determination of risks to the community. 3. Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, 22 Rev. 03/28/96 wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety. The Carlsbad Raceway property has been used as a raceway since approximately 1961. In that time, various parts of the property have been subject to direct or indirect storage/use of hazardous substances (petroleum hydrocarbons). To ensure that no potentially significant health hazard exists on the site, a site assessment was performed, "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update" for the Carlsbad Raceway Property dated May 8, 1998, prepared by MVE Environmental, Inc., that included findings of three previous Phase I and/or II site assessments performed on the Raceway property since 1990. Based on findings of the first 1990 Phase I site assessment performed by GEI, a Phase II site assessment was performed in 1991. Surveys consisted of four test trenches from which soils were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and the installation of one groundwater monitoring well from which water was analyzed for the above in addition to orgnochlorine pesticides and organophosphorus pesticides. The conclusion was that based on the general hydrogeologic characteristics of the site and surrounding areas a»4- the detected levels of concentration were not significant and no additional assessment of the site would be needed. It was noted, however, that the due to the past application of oil for dust control on the unpaved entry road, a thin layer, approximately 1/8 inch - V* inch thick and located below 2-4 inches of soil cover, was detected. GEI concluded that the thin oil layer is fairly immobile and therefore probably does not represent a significant threat to contaminate the underlying groundwater. They further stated that the contamination does not present a threat to human health or the environment under current conditions, during development or foreseeable post development conditions. The most recent analysis prior to the 1998 analysis was conducted in 1997. In 1997, based on a review of the previous site assessment findings and conclusions, MVE performed additional soil sampling in areas deemed to present potential liability for the future development of the property. That analysis revealed five areas on the site not previously assessed where contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons would most likely occur. The five areas of concern included: 1) former heavy equipment storage along east end of south property line; 2) 10,000 gallon AST located on the south property line; 3) potential for south adjacent property draining agriculture residue onto Raceway property; 4) 55 gallon drums labeled Race Gas located in drag strip pit area; and 5) potential agricultural chemical residue in on-site stream sediments resulting from up-stream greenhouse activity north and east of the site (Mount Olive Floral and Marflor Farms). The results of the 1997 assessment revealed no concentrations of hydrocarbons or agricultural chemical residue exceeding regulatory action levels or high enough to be an environmental concern to occupants/tenants of the proposed development. The subsequent 1998 site assessment update included further soil sampling at the Raceway property that focused on the petroleum hydrocarbons either stored on-site, disposed on-site, or accidentally spilled or leaked into surficial soils of the property. The tests revealed only small concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons with the exception of the paved/oiled entry road where a very thin layer of TRPH (6,200 mg/kg concentration) contamination at a depth of approximately 4 inches. MVE concludes that the only exposure concern this contaminant presents to human receptors if left on-site is by ingestions and that an option to disposal would be a number of non-sensitive fill areas on the property where this soil can be used in grading since a large percentage of the property wil be paved with asphalt parking lots and roadways. 23 Rev. 03/28/96 MVE recommends that the soil be used in one of these fill areas to eliminate the human concern. No environmental concerns are associated with these heavy hydrocarbons due to the strong soil bond and restricted ability to migrate. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical Review Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project. To avoid an increase in the fire hazard due to placement of buildings in proximity to slopes containing high fuel native vegetation, the project Landscape Plans identify a 30' wide fire suppression zone in which the 10' closest to the top of slope must be landscaped in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual provisions for manufactured slopes (Zone A-2). IX. NOISE The project consists of an industrial subdivision; therefore, an increase in existing noise levels occurring from temporary grading and construction activity will result. Noise generated from construction activities is regulated by the Carlsbad Municipal Code to avoid noise impacts to sensitive receptors. Noise levels resulting from future industrial development on each lot will be regulated through discretionary approval of a Planned Industrial Permit. The Planned Industrial (P-M) zone (Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) performance standard for noise generation prohibits the generation of noise exceeding 65 dBA as measured at the property line. The property is in proximity to two circulation arterial roadways resulting in exterior noise levels on lots adjacent to the roadways that exceed the City's interior noise standard of 55 dBA Leq. for general office use and 65 dBA Leq. for industrial use. In accordance with the General Plan Noise element, required mitigation consists of a Noise Report that is required in conjunction with future discretionary applicatons for Planned Industrial Permits (PIP). The noise report must specify the acoustical design features required to achieve the interior noise standard. XI/XII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The project consists of an amendment to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 18. The Zone 18 Plan identifies 11 necessary public services and utilities required to serve development within the zone including the project and includes a financing plan. The project is conditioned to comply with the Zone 18 LFMP to ensure the timely provision of public facilities required to meet the additional demand generated by the project. The northern portion of Zone 18 is within the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer service area. The projects within the northern portion of Zone 18 will ultimately connect to this sewer system. But in the interim, the developer has proposed to sewer through the Vista Sanitation District (VSD) to the Raceway sewer lift station. The Zone Plan provides for temporary sewer in the City of Vista's Buena Interceptor subject to a flow transfer agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Vista. This provision is made because the property is part of the Raceway Sewer Lift Station Assessment District in the City of Vista. XIII. AESTHETICS While the project will result in alteration of the existing landform due to the necessity of grading large flat industrial pads and requiring large quantities of cut and fill, the project will be terraced below and partially screened by the Palomar Forum industrial development proposed on the 24 Rev. 03/28/96 property to the south. As identified by photo simulations prepared for the Palomar Forum industrial project to the south of the Carlsbad Raceway property, the project will be partially visible from Palomar Airport Road, a scenic corridor circulation arterial roadway and Melrose Drive, a circulation arterial roadway. Fifty foot landscape setbacks in which large specimen trees are required adjacent to these roadways will partially screen the development, and compliance with the approved landscape plans will ensure that parking lots and manufactured slopes are screened. Potentially significant visual impacts could result from future industrial development that is visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive due to poor architectural design and/or visible rooftop equipment, and loading bays. Mitigation necessary to reduce visual impacts from any industrial development that is visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive includes: 1) prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless project incorporates architectural treatment consisting of parapets that are of sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment; 2) prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets that are integrated into the architectural design of buildings; 3) prohibit loading bays that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive; and 4) require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. These mitigation measures will be reviewed for compliance prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot. XIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES The existence of archaeological resources has been documented on the property by two archaeological reports, "Results of the Archaeological Significance Assessment" performed by RECON for the Melrose Drive extension project dated October 11, 1999, and the "Draft Archaeological Testing of Four Sites at the Wimpey Gentry Property: SDi-9041,-9042, -9043, and -9045, Carlsbad California" performed by RECON dated March 22, 1989. The two archaeological reports investigated a total of 6 sites and 5 of the sites are in proximity to the proposed Melrose alignment. The 1999 report further surveyed SDi 9045 and investigated two additional sites not previously surveyed, SDi-10,550 and SDi-10,552. The 1989 RECON report concluded that no significant subsurface deposits remain on SDi-9041, 9042, and 9043. The report recommended that since an important source of information could remain in the area of SDi-9043 and SDi-9045 monitoring during grading operations to enable recovery and documentation would be necessary. The 1989 report also recommended that the remaining portion of SDi 9045 north the Carlsbad Raceway property is an important site that should be fenced during the Carlsbad Raceway grading and construction activities for protection. The subsequent 1999 RECON report concluded that no further work is necessary for SDi- 9045 because the area of real concern located north of the property has been buried beneath a segment of Melrose Drive and is therefore inaccessible. The report also indicated that no artifacts were recovered from SDi-10,550 and that the artifacts from SDi-10,552 revealed that it was a small stone flaking station offering no substantive contribution to our current understanding of the prehistoric pattern for this area. No further work is recommended for these two sites. The report concludes that the three sites investigated are not significant cultural resources; therefore, impacts from the proposed development are not significant. XVI. RECREATIONAL The Carlsbad Raceway has operated under conditional use permit since 1963. The conditional use permit for the motocross and drag racing activities expires in February, 2002. The property has been designated for industrial land use for many years and within the past five years, the property has been surrounded by industrial, residential, and commercial development. Although 25 Rev. 03/28/96 the Carlsbad Raceway offers an existing recreational opportunity, its viability as a compatible conditional use in an urbanized area has weakened. The proposed development, which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and is a permitted use, is the intended land use. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention", prepared by 0"Day & Associates, dated June 6, 2001. 3. "Carlsbad Raceway Industrial Park Transportation Analysis", prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. dated May 3, 2001. 4. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Industrial Development-Carlsbad Raceway Property" dated August 26, 1997, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. 5. "Carlsbad Raceway Project Draft Biological Technical Report" prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated May 12, 1998; "Carlsbad Raceway Project Mitigation Plan", prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., dated June 1, 1998; Letters from Barry Jones, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., to: Julie Vanderwier, USFWS dated July 1, 1998; Letter to Mr Jon Kurtin ("Year 2001 protocol gnatcatcher survey report for the Carlsbad Raceway"), dated April 19, 2001; and Letter to Mr. Jon Kurtin ("Addendum to the Biological Resources Report for the Carlsbad Raceway Project"), dated May 11, 2001. 6. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update - Carlsbad Raceway Property", prepared by MV Environmental, Inc. dated May 8,1998. 7. "Results of Archaeological Significance Assessment of CA-SDI-10,552, CA-SDI-10,550, and a portion of CA-SDI-9045 for the Melrose Drive Extension Project", prepared by RECON dated October 11, 1999 and"Draft Archaeological Testiong of Four Sites at the Wimpey/Gentry Property: SDi-9041, SDi-9042, SDi-9043 and Sdi-9045, Carlsbad, California" prepared by RECON dated March 22, 1989. 26 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE) 1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first: • Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional Right turn lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road. • Poinsettia Ave. ("B" Street) shall be constructed as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia / Melrose intersection to accommodate turn lanes. • Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way. • Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to: Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping. 2. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the provisions of the "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention" summary NPDES study prepared for the project by O'Day Consultants dated June 6, 2001. 3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following: • Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site • Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor • Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix • Provide a 12' high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose • Create 1.46 acres of wetland habitat • Create .38 acre of streambed habitat 2. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot. • 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. 27 Rev. 03/28/96 • 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 architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. 6. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances: • No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire code. • Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk management plans for determination of risks to the community. • Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety. 7. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical Review Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE^) 28 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. g.. 29 Rev. 03/28/96 ADDENDUM TO CARLSBAD RACEWAY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measure No. 1 on Page 27 (List of Mitigating Measures) is revised as follows: 1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the developer shall design, dedicate, and bond for the following roadways: • Melrose Drive as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional Right turn lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road. • Poinsettia Ave. ("B" Street) as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia/Melrose intersection to accommodate turn lanes. • Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way. • Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to: Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping. Renumbering of the List of Mitigating Measures on Pages 27 and 28 for the last three items from Nos. 2, 6 and 7 to 4, 5, and 6 as follows: 4. The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot. • 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. • 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 architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. 5. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances: • No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at quantities which exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire code. • Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk management plans for determination of risks to the community. • Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential is determined for the specifics of the material in question. The use of these models is the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety. 6. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health-Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH-SAM) Technical Review Board and incorporate any recommendations into the project. 1 PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Raceway Business Park APPROVAL DATE: July 15. 2001 FILE NUMBERS: GPA 98-05/LFMP 87-18fBVZC 01-07/CT 98-107 HDP98-09/PIP01-01 CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: mz The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). m I Mitigation Measure1 ' :- . <-'\^$- -. - '; r : . , • :- .- : •- : : • •• : Monitoring Type Monitoring Department i: Shown on •• Plans Verified Implementation Remarks § O O O O OIrnO (QCD Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks rn 73 O m I ' 1. Prior to the recordation of a final map, issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first: • Melrose Drive shall be constructed as a Prime Arterial from existing terminus at the Carlsbad / Vista boundary south to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road. Additional Right turn lanes are required at Poinsettia Ave and at Palomar Airport Road. • Poinsettia Ave. ("B" Street) shall be constructed as an Industrial Collector from Business Park Drive to Melrose Drive. Additional widening may be required at the Poinsettia / Melrose intersection to accommodate turn lanes. • Faraday Ave. shall be financially guaranteed as a Secondary Arterial to be constructed from the existing terminus in the City of Vista west of Melrose Drive to the existing terminus in the City of Carlsbad at Orion Way. • Intersection improvements to Faraday Ave at Melrose Drive including but not limited to: Additional right of way, additional roadway, lane configuration, traffic signal modification and inter-connect, street signs, and roadway striping. Plancheck Engineering Grading/ Improvement zO O. mo CO T7&> (QO cxpianaTion 01 neauinqs. Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks mz O sm | 3 Q H O 2. Potential impacts to water quality shall be mitigated through compliance with the provisions of the "Carlsbad Raceway/Palomar Forum Storm Water Pollution Prevention" summary NPDES study prepared for the project by O'Day Consultants dated June 6, 2001. Plancheck Engineering Grading/ Improvement 3. Biological mitigation to mitigate both upland and wetland habitats, as described in Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. mitigation proposals, shall consist of the following: • Preserve 9.6 acres of DCSS on site • Restore 8.5 acres of DCSS on manufactured slopes adjacent to wildlife corridor • Decompact and seed 9 acres of disturbed habitat onsite with DCSS seed mix • Provide a 12' high arched wildlife movement under-crossing at Melrose • Create 1.46 acres of wetland habitat • Create .38 acre of streambed habitat Plancheck - Receipt of wildlife agency permits Planning O73 O OXmo7s (Q (D Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure 4.The tentative map will be conditioned to require that the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into projects prior to approval of the Planned Industrial Permit required for each lot. • 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. • 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 architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Palomar Airport Road or Melrose Drive. , Monitoring Type Plancheck Monitoring Department Planning Shown on Plans Future PIP site plans Verified Implementation X Remarks m 7J O m I G)> Oz 0 OImo7s 03 CD Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure 5. Mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous substances: • No project facilities located within 1 ,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic, or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at I quantities which exceed exempt amount as m defined in the most currently adopted fire [ code. • Facilities which store, handle or use regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk management plans for determination of risks to the community. • the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. » Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular Monitoring Type Plan check Ver Monitoring Department Fire/Planning fed Implementation = this column will be i Shown on Plans Future PIP building plans When mitigation me; litialed and dated. Verified Implementation sure has been implem Remarks anted, mz 50 O Z2m G>> O I 2 ZO OImo 3 •o Q) (Q CD information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure • Facilities which store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted fire code which are also regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code _25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis 1 shall be performed in accordance with Title m 19 of the California Code of Regulations | _2750.2 through _2750.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Note: Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters ^ such as temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability, quantity released, material properties and type of release (e.g. a pressurized release of gases) are considered by these models. Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular Monitoring Type Ver n Monitoring Department ied Implementation = this column will be i Shown on Plans When mitigation me; litialed and dated. Verified Implementation sure has been implem ... .. Remarks snted, for othn m 73 O m | § H O O soz3 G> OXmo (A (Q CD information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. Mitigation Measure• ''.'.• '" • • Models can be overlayed onto maps which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. Models can be performed under "worst case" meteorological and chemical release conditions. Under this situation, the maximum harm potential ispotential is determined for the specifics of L the material in question. The use of these m models is the most sophisticated method | available to ensure community safety. > Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular Monitoring f Type Ver Monitoring Department ied Implementation = this column will be i • Shown on Plans When mitigation me; litialed and dated. Verified Implementation sure has been implem Remarks snted, mz m s 5o zo oImo c/5 0)(O(D information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on pfans, this column wi'W be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. 8 Mitigation Measure .•'••. '•'•..- 6. Mitigation to ensure no risk to human health is that prior to development of the property, the applicant shall solicit peer review of these findings by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health- Site Assessment and Mitigation Division (DEH- SAM) Technical Review Board and incorporate any ^ recommendations into the project. > Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular Monitoring Type Plan Check Ver Monitoring Department Planning this column will be Shown on Plans Grading Plans When mitigation me; iltialed and dated. Verified Implementation sure has been implem Remarks anted, mz< 73O Zsm H O O72 O O Xmo (Q (D information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.