HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 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.