HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-29; City Council; 07; Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a new medical office building on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway (SDP 2023-0022/CDP 20CA Review CKM
Meeting Date: April 29, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Geoff Patnoe, City Manager
Staff Contact: Lauren Yzaguirre, Associate Planner
lauren.yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2634
Subject: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a new medical
office building on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and
Aviara Parkway (SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034/DEV2022-0094)
District: 2
Recommended Action
1)Hold a public hearing; and
2)Adopt a resolution denying an appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a minor site develop plan, SDP 2023-0022, and coastal
development permit, CDP 2023-0034, to construct a 62,600-square-foot, three-story, 42-
foot-tall medical office building with a 52-foot-tall glass tower, a surface parking lot with
316 spaces and interior and exterior employee eating areas on a 6.07-acre property located
on the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway, in the southwest
quadrant of the city, the Office (O) and Open Space (OS) zone, the Mello II segment of the
Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Executive Summary
A private applicant proposes to construct a new 62,600 square-foot medical office building on a
vacant lot located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the project on Feb. 5, 2025,
and voted unanimously to approve the application. The decision included an environmental
finding that the project is within the scope of a previously adopted mitigated negative
declaration issued for an office building approved on the site in 2007. A timely appeal of the
Planning Commission decision was filed challenging that California Environmental Quality Act
determination (Exhibit 4).
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54 states that an appeal of a Planning Commission
decision shall be presented to the City Council, which may affirm, modify or reverse the
decision. Staff are recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) denying
the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a site
development plan and coastal development permit and making the required CEQA findings to
allow the construction of the medical office building.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 1 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 1 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Explanation & Analysis
Project description
The project consists of a proposed 62,600-square-foot, three story, 42-foot-tall medical office
building with a 52-foot-tall glass architectural tower, 316 surface parking stalls and interior and
exterior employee eating areas, a 2,703-square-foot interior employee eating areas and 1,372
square-foot outdoor eating area. The project also includes site amenities and grading,
hardscape, stormwater basins, landscaping and other site improvements.
In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Commission’s decision included an environmental
finding that the effects of the project were examined in the previously adopted Kelly/JRM
Office Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/
SDP 03-01), all feasible mitigation measures adequately address the anticipated adverse effects
of the project and the project is within the scope of the previous previously adopted
declaration.
Planning Commission hearing
The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at the public hearing held on
Feb. 5, 2025. No members of the public spoke at the hearing, but staff received public
correspondence leading up to the meeting that largely focused on the city’s CEQA analysis and
related findings.
The applicant and staff responded to the issues raised before the Planning Commission, some
of which were cited in the appeal and are discussed further below. After questions and
discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project. A full account
of the Planning Commission’s actions and a complete description and staff analysis of the
proposed project is provided in the attached minutes (Exhibit 2) and staff report (Exhibit 3).
Public comments received on the project prior to the hearing can be found attached to the
Planning Commission staff report.
Appeal
As stated in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.150, a decision made by the Planning
Commission may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals must be made in writing within
ten calendar days of the decision made by the Planning Commission. Municipal Code Chapter
21.54.150 also states that the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial
evidence that the grounds for the requested action exist. Grounds for appeal are limited to the
following:
• There was an error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission in that
the decision was not supported by the facts presented to the Planning Commission prior
to the decision being appealed; or
• There was not a fair and impartial hearing.
The appeal hearing before the City Council is what is known as “de novo public hearing, which
means that a case is heard "anew" or "from the beginning," as if no prior hearing or decision
had occurred, allowing for a fresh examination of the facts and legal issues. However, the City
Council may consider only the evidence presented to the Planning Commission for
consideration in the determination or decision being appealed. No additional information or
issues not previously addressed or discussed during the Planning Commission hearing is
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 2 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 2 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
admissible. The City Council shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been
found by the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence.
The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, and
make such order supported by substantial evidence as deemed appropriate, including remand
to the Planning Commission with directions for further proceedings.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s Feb. 5, 2025, decision was timely filed on Feb. 13,
2025, by Andrea Contreras on behalf of SSG-TH (Exhibit 6). The appellants’ grounds for the
appeal are summarized below, along with staff’s analysis.
Issues cited in the appeal
The appellant’s positions and staff’s responses are summarized in the sections below.
1. California Environmental Quality Act – Reuse of a prior mitigated negative declaration
Appellant’s position
The 2007 mitigated negative declaration for the previously approved office building,
which the CEQA document relies upon, was not provided as an attachment to the staff
report. Therefore, the Planning Commissioners were not able to fulfill their
responsibility to review the entire record, rendering the prior declaration meaningless.
Staff’s response
The issue and argument raised in the appeal should be disregarded. Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.54.150(c) states that the City Council shall consider only the evidence
presented to the Planning Commission for consideration in the determination or
decision being appealed. This concern was not raised at the Feb. 5, 2025, Planning
Commission hearing, nor was it raised in the correspondence received before the
hearing.
Moreover, the previously adopted environmental document for the Kelly/JRM Office
Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been publicly accessible via a link1
since 2007. The Planning Commission and any member of the public had, and continue
to have, access to this link and can review the 2007 declaration on the city’s website at
any time, including in advance of the Feb. 5, 2025, hearing. This is generally supported
by the findings and determinations of the approve Planning Commission resolution
(Exhibit 2), which indicate that the Planning Commission “considered the [2007] MND
and all significant impacts and mitigation measures in the previously adopted [2007]
MND.”
1 https://records.carlsbadca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=4864860&dbid=0&repo=CityofCarlsbad&searchid=1d3
4d0c7-13e5-4150-82d5-dc4a3668eee6
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 3 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 3 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
2. California Environmental Quality Act – Substantial Change
Appellant’s position
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requires a subsequent environmental impact report or
negative declaration to be prepared when "substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects." The previous
mitigated negative declaration was for a general office located in the Planned Industrial
(PM) Zone. The change in uses is significant and the "Statement of Reasons and
Determination that a Project is Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and No
Further Documentation is Required,” known as the consistency analysis, does not
adequately analyze the changes in use and their impacts. In particular, a medical office
use is not permissible in the PM zone. Yet, the mitigated negative declaration was
completed for an office building in the former PM zone. The consistency analysis does
not account for the change in zoning in its analysis (or even refer to another
environmental document for the zoning change), so the consistency analysis is
inadequate.
Staff’s response
Staff disagree. California Public Resources Code Section 21166 addresses the situations
in which additional environmental review may be necessary following adoption of a
mitigated negative declaration or certification of an environmental impact report. It
identifies three events, any one of which triggers the requirement for a ‘‘subsequent or
supplemental’’ environmental document. Those events are:
1. Substantial changes to the project
2. Substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken; or
3. Availability of new information that was not known or could not have been
known when the environmental document was adopted or certified.
In general, CEQA review is reopened when there is a need for a subsequent version of
an environmental document that revises the earlier environmental document to make it
adequate for a project’s approval after conditions have changed.
At the time of adoption of the previous Kelly/JRM Office Project Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the site was zoned Planned Industrial and was in the Qualified Overlay
Development Zone (P-M-Q). The General Plan Designation was Planned Industrial (PI),
Open Space (OS) and Unplanned Area (UA). The Kelly/JRM Office Project included a
General Plan amendment, zone change and Local Coastal Program amendment2 to
clarify, refine and adjust the generalized land use boundaries of the Planned Industrial
(PI) and Open Space (OS) designations and eliminate the erroneous Unplanned Area
(UA) designation on site and to rezone the south portion of the lot containing the creek
into Open Space (O). The portion of the lot zoned P-M-Q was later rezoned to Office
Zone (O Zone) and the land use designation was changed to Office (O) during the 2015
Comprehensive General Plan Update (GPA 07-02/ZC 15-02/ LCPA 07-02).
2 The Local Coastal Program is a planning document that applies to the city’s Coastal Zone.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 4 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 4 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Regarding the ‘‘threshold question’’ of whether the current project is a change to a
particular project or a new project altogether, ultimately, the project site has long been
slated for non-residential development in the city’s planning framework and the project
has similar drawings, materials and configurations of structures. The project represents
a minor incremental change to that framework and does not introduce new or more
significant impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the city’s previously
adopted CEQA documentation. (This information is included in the consistency analysis
within section 3A Overview of Applicable CEQA Provisions and Findings - Prior
Environmental Document of the MND, included in Exhibit 2.) The change in zoning from
P-M-Q to O was previously analyzed during the 2015 Comprehensive General Plan
Update and associated environmental document, and therefore the use and activity
does not need to be further analyzed for this project. A medical office is a permitted use
in the current O zoning.
Moreover, the consistency analysis for this project analyses the impacts of the current
project under the current conditions and demonstrates that the impacts do not exceed
those impacts which were previously analyzed. The applicant prepared a traffic impact
analysis and considered the revised project’s trip generation rates and assessed any
impacts on the local roadway network. Based on the near-term and horizon year
analyses conducted in the traffic impact analysis, the proposed project would not result
in a significant impact to the roadway network in the project area, including the Palomar
Airport/College Boulevard/Aviara Parkway intersection adjacent to the site (i.e., causing
a vehicular Level of Service of C and D in the near-term and horizon-year conditions).
The change from a general office to a medical office does not qualify as a substantial
change because the environmental analysis demonstrates that the medical office
impacts will not exceed those impacts analyzed in the previous 2007 mitigated negative
declaration.
3. California Environmental Quality Act – New information of substantial importance
Appellant’s position
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(3) requires a subsequent environmental impact report
or negative declaration to be prepared when new information of substantial
importance, which was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence at the time of preparation of the original document, becomes
known. There was new information of substantial importance that was not analyzed in
the mitigated negative declaration existing, specifically as it related to:
1. Greenhouse gas emissions due to the increase in average daily trips caused by
the change in proposed use from general office to medical office
2. Traffic, due to the mitigated negative declaration using the previous standard of
level of service instead of the current standard of vehicle miles traveled, the
developer being unable to know trip distribution throughout the day without
knowing who the tenants will be, and one access point forcing all project traffic
to travel through Laurel Tree Lane
3. Wildfires, as our understanding of wildfires has significantly increased since 2007
and a modeling and analysis should be performed given the change in intensity
of the project
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 5 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 5 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Staff’s response
Staff disagree on all points, as summarized below.
• Greenhouse gases
The city adopted a Climate Action Plan in July 2015 that outlines actions that the
city will undertake to achieve its proportional share of state-mandated
greenhouse gas emissions reductions. A project’s incremental contribution to a
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions effect may be determined not to be
cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of the plan. The
project has provided a Climate Action Plan consistency checklist and will comply
with the project specific design features required to achieve compliance with the
greenhouse gas reduction strategies outlined in the Climate Action Plan. Because
the project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning
designations, the project would be consistent with the growth projections used
in the development of the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project would not
result in an impact to greenhouse gas emissions and is within the scope of the
prior environmental document.
• Traffic
Although vehicle miles traveled is the current standard of review CEQA requires
to analyze traffic impacts, developers are permitted to use the level of service
metric to analyze traffic impacts when their environmental review is tiered from
a prior CEQA analysis that analyzed traffic using that metric (in keeping with the
court rulings in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Economic Development v. San
Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515; and Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of
Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301).3 A new traffic study completed by Linscott
Law and Greenspan, Engineers, dated July 12, 2024, using updated traffic data
was provided for the project. The updated study demonstrates that the study
area intersections and street segments would meet the established level of
service performance standard of D or better during peak hours.
• Wildfires
The project, including its fire access, has been reviewed and preliminarily
approved by the Carlsbad Fire Department. The project’s ultimate design is
required to comply with the California Fire Code, which is a set of regulations
addressing fire safety and fire prevention in buildings, including fire service
features, water flows and hydrant connections. In addition, the project site is
adjacent to two major arterial roadways, Palomar Airport Road and Aviara
Parkway, which will enable evacuation in four directions in the event of an
emergency. The proposed medical office building will be located 100 feet from
the existing open space and surrounded by asphalt and irrigated landscaping.
Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe wildfire threat
and additional modeling and analysis is not required.
3 Level of service refers to the quality of traffic flow on roadways and intersections, typically rated on a scale of
A to F.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 6 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 6 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
4. Airport land use compatibility plan
Appellant’s position
The previously approved Kelly/JRM Office Project was required to obtain and secure
approval from the City Council to overrule the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, since part of the project fell within the 70-75 dBA
community noise equivalent level (CNEL),4 and office buildings were considered
inconsistent uses within these noise contours. Although both the current and previous
project will achieve the required interior noise threshold of 50 dBA CNEL, the current
project does not include that overruling to cure the inconsistency, which is an abuse of
discretion.
Staff’s response
The issue and argument raised in the appeal should be disregarded. Under Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21. 54.150(c), the City Council shall consider only the evidence
presented to the Planning Commission for consideration in the determination or
decision being appealed. This concern was not raised at the Feb. 5, 2025, Planning
Commission hearing, nor was it raised in the correspondence received before the
hearing.
Notwithstanding that, staff disagrees with the appellant’s position. The City Council
approved the overriding findings referenced in the appeal when it approved the
Kelly/JRM Office Project in 2007, but the proposed project currently being considered
does not require the same overrules since the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan subsequently changed after the 2007 approval.
An airport land use compatibility plan aims to promote compatibility between the
airport and the surrounding land uses. Under the provisions of state law, such a plan
may be amended from time to time to address changes that have occurred at the
airport and/or changes in the State Aeronautics Act and other regulations.
At the time the 2007 mitigated negative declaration was adopted, the project site was
subject to the 2004 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and was designated within the
65 to 70 and 70 to 75 dBA CNEL noise contours. The 2004 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan land use compatibility matrix in effect at the time of approval showed
the northern portion of the property within the 70 to 75 dB noise contour range, and
therefore, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, acting in its capacity as the
San Diego Airport Land Use Commission, determined that the proposed project was not
consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. Because only a portion of the
site extended into the 70 to 75 dBA CNEL noise contour and the project was subject to
the 50 dBA interior noise standard that was established by Title 24 of Code of Federal
Regulations and adopted by the City of Carlsbad, the City Council was able to make the
findings that the previous project was consistent with the purposes of the State
4 A community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of 70-75 dBA represents a moderate to high level of noise pollution.
A-weighted decibels (dBA) are a measure of sound loudness that takes into account the human ear's sensitivity to
different frequencies.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 7 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 7 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Aeronautics Act and overruled the Airport Land Use Commission’s consistency
determination.
The 2004 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was amended in January 2010 and again
in December 2011, along with updated noise factor maps. Based on the 2011 Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan, the proposed medical office project is now within the 60 to
65 and 65 to 70 dBA CNEL noise contours. However, medical offices are conditionally
compatible within these noise contours so long as the buildings are designed to
attenuate exterior noise to the indoor standard of 50 dBA CNEL. This is a standard noise
requirement of all office buildings under the 2023 California Building Code. Therefore,
the project is consistent with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and a City Council overruling of an inconsistency determination is not required nor
applicable.
5. Insufficient notice
Appellant’s position
The appellant, SSG-TH, LLC, who owns property across the street from the project site,
did not receive notice of the project.
Staff’s response
Three notices were sent to surrounding property owners prior to the Feb. 5, 2025,
Planning Commission hearing. A mailed notice to all owners of property located within a
1,000-foot radius of the project site and all occupants located within a 100-foot radius
of the project site was sent on Aug. 21, 2023, as part of the early public notice
procedures established by City Council Policy No. 84 – Development Project Public
Involvement Policy.
A notice of public hearing to all owners of property located within a 1,000-foot radius of
the project site and all occupants located within a 100-foot radius of the project site was
mailed on Jan. 3, 2025, for the Jan. 15, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, which was
continued. And a notice of public hearing to all owners of property located within a
1,000-foot radius of the project site and all occupants located within a 100-foot radius
of the project site was mailed on Jan. 24, 2025, for the Feb. 5, 2025, Planning
Commission hearing. Staff have confirmed that all three notices were mailed to the
property owner’s address on file.
A total of 30 property owners and 71 occupants were notified through the notice of
project application and various public hearing notices. The multi-family apartment
building to the south of the project site had not received its final occupancy until July
2024, and therefore the occupants were not provided early public notice by mail.
However, the occupants of this building were notified by mail in advance of the public
hearings.
In addition, a two-foot-tall by three-foot-wide yellow sign was posted at the project site
on Oct. 3, 2023, notifying all traffic passing by the project. This sign provided the
project’s name, application numbers and description, as well as both the developer’s
and city staff’s contact information.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 8 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 8 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Standard of review for appeals
The City Council is being asked to consider an appeal of an approval of the minor site
development plan, coastal development permit and a determination that the project is within
the scope of the 2007 mitigated negative declaration and that no additional environmental
review is required. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.150(c) outlines the procedures for
reviewing and considering appeals of Planning Commission decisions. Section 21.54.150(c) goes
on to state that the City Council’s consideration is “de novo” (that is, “like new”) but limits the
consideration to “only the evidence presented to the Planning Commission for consideration in
the determination or decision being appealed.” That means the City Council’s consideration of
the appeal is confined to only the issues presented to the Planning Commission that were also
raised in the appeal.
Any matters that were presented to the Planning Commission but that were not specified in the
appeal are considered to have been approved correctly and supported by substantial evidence.
None of the public record submitted to the Planning Commission or in the submitted written
appeal provides any documentation that the grounds for an appeal as outlined in the Carlsbad
Municipal Code have been met.
Community Engagement
A public notice of this meeting, as well as for the Planning Commission hearings, were mailed to
property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site and occupants within 100 feet of the
project site and posted consistent with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state’s
open meetings law, which resulted in 30 property owners, and 71 occupants being notified.
Public hearing notices were also posted in The San Diego Union-Tribune and on the Office of
the City Clerk’s webpages ten days prior to the meeting.
The developer completed both the early public notice procedures and the enhanced
stakeholder outreach program required in accordance with City Council Policy No. 84 –
Development Project Public Involvement Policy. In this case, the developer hosted a
stakeholder outreach meeting on Feb. 8, 2024. Two neighbors attended the meeting and asked
questions about the proposed building size and potential occupants.
The applicant’s stakeholder outreach report is included as Exhibit 2 to the Planning Commission
Staff Report. All comment letters received during the processing of this project have been
compiled and are included in Exhibit 5. Some comments are duplicated from the Planning
Commission staff report, but they are included separately to make sure a complete record of
comments, including those received between the continued hearings, are accessible in one
place. Any comments received after the publishing of this report will be posted by the City Clerk
and distributed to the City Council.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the proposed project.
Next Steps
If the City Council denies the appeal, approving the project, the decision on the permits is final.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 9 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 9 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Environmental Evaluation
In accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), State Clearinghouse No. 2004121003,
was adopted on Sept. 18, 2007, by the City Council for the Kelly/JRM Office Project. The
Kelly/JRM Office Project was a request to approve a General Plan amendment, zone change,
site development plan, Local Coastal Program amendment, and coastal development permit for
the construction of a three-story, approximately 85,000 SF office building on the project site
that was never constructed.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, and in compliance with Public
Resources Code Section 21166, the Palomar and Aviara Office Project is within the scope of the
previously adopted mitigated negative declaration. The effects of the project were examined in
the mitigated negative declaration, and all feasible mitigation measures adequately address the
anticipated adverse effects of the project. Staff has found that none of the criteria listed in
Sections 15162 or 15164 have occurred, and therefore there is no need for the additional
preparation of a subsequent, supplemental or addenda document. The full analysis is included
as Exhibit 2.
Exhibits
1.City Council resolution
2.Planning Commission Feb. 5, 2025, staff report (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
3.Planning Commission Feb. 5, 2025, minutes (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
4.Appeal form dated Jan. 24, 2025
5.Correspondence received through 5 p.m. Monday, April 21, 2025
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 10 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 10 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-099
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A MINOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
SDP 2023-0022, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CDP 2023-0034, TO
CONSTRUCT A 62,600-SQUARE-FOOT, THREE-STORY, 42-FOOT-TALL
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH A 52-FOOT-TALL GLASS TOWER, A
SURFACE PARKING LOT WITH 316 SPACES AND INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR
EMPLOYEE EATING AREAS ON A 6.07-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND AVIARA PARKWAY,
IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, THE OFFICE (O) AND OPEN
SPACE (OS) ZONE, THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT
CASE NO.: SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034 (DEV2022-0094)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that James
McCann, “Developer,” and “Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad described
as:
A PORTION OF PARCEL "C" AND ALL OF PARCEL "D" OF PARCEL MAP NO.
2993 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, AUGUST 23, 1974 AS FILE NO. 74-230326, O.R., AND A PORTION
OF PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 15, 1990 AS FILE
NO. 90-085876 O.R., ALL BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the verified application constitutes a request for a Minor Site Development Plan and
Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” – “W” dated Feb. 5, 2025, on file in the Planning
Division, SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034 (DEV2022-0094) – Palomar and Aviara Office Project, as
provided by Chapters 21.06 and 21.201 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 11 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 11 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Feb. 5, 2025, hold a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider the applicant’s request and adopted Planning Commission Resolution
7535; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to approve the Minor
Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit application for the project; and
WHEREAS, on Feb. 13, 2025, the appellant Andrea Contreras, on behalf of SSG-TH, LLC, timely
filed an appeal with the city as provided in accordance with Chapter 21.54 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
State Clearinghouse No. 2004121003 (Planning Case Nos. GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-
03/SDP 03-01), was prepared and the City Council certified it on Sept. 18, 2007, for the Kelly/JRM Office
Project; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162
through 15168) set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental
documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously certified negative declaration (ND)
or mitigated negative declaration (MND) covering the project for which a subsequent discretionary
action is required; and
WHEREAS, there is no "new information of substantial importance" pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 through 15168 and the potential environmental effects of the project were
adequately analyzed by the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Kelly/JRM Office Project GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 12 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 12 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01 (City Council Resolution No. 2007-199). Therefore, the previously certified
MND is adequate without modification and no additional environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project’s Minor Site Development
Plan and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is denied, that all other matters
not specified in the appeal have been supported by substantial evidence with findings
and approved by the Planning Commission, and that the findings and conditions
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7504 on file in the Office of the City
Clerk and incorporated by reference and as “Attachment A,” are the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
3.That this action is final on the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council and the
time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad
by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial
review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the 90th day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within 10 days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later
than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered
or mailed to the party, or the party's attorney of record, if the party has one. A written
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 13 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 13 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the Office
of the City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad on the 29th day of April, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Burkholder, Shin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
______________________________________
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
______________________________________
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 14 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 14 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN,
SDP 2023-0022 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CDP 2023-
0034, TO CONSTRUCT A 62,600-SQUARE-FOOT, THREE-STORY, 42-
FOOT-TALL, MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH A 52-FOOT-TALL GLASS
TOWER, A SURFACE PARKING LOT WITH 316 SPACES AND INTERIOR
AND EXTERIOR EMPLOYEE EATING AREAS ON A 6.07-ACRE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
AND AVIARA PARKWAY, IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY,
THE OFFICE (O) AND OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONE, THE MELLO II SEGMENT
OF THE LOCAL COSTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PALOMAR AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT
CASE NO.: SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034
WHEREAS, James McCann, “Developer,” and “Owner,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
A PORTION OF PARCEL "C" AND ALL OF PARCEL "D" OF PARCEL MAP
NO. 2993 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 23, 1974 AS FILE NO. 74-230326, O.R., AND
A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
FEBRUARY 15, 1990 AS FILE NO. 90-085876 O.R., ALL BEING IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan and Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” – “W” dated Feb. 5, 2025, on
file in the Planning Division, SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034 (DEV2022-0094) – PALOMAR AND
AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT as provided by Chapter 21.06 and Chapter 21.201 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Feb. 5, 2025, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7535
Attachment A
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 15 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 15 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit.
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, State Clearinghouse No. 2004121003 (Planning Case Nos. GPA 04-20/ZC
04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01), was prepared and the City Council certified it on Sept.
18, 2007, for the Kelly/JRM Office Project; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public
Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA
Guidelines), Sections 15162 through 15168 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate
additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously
certified negative declaration (ND) or mitigated negative declaration (MND) covering the project
for which a subsequent discretionary action is required; and
WHEREAS, there is no "new information of substantial importance" pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 through 15168 and the potential ·environmental effects of the
project were adequately analyzed by the previously-certified MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM for the KELLY/JRM
OFFICE PROJECT GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01 (City Council
Resolution No. 2007-199). Therefore, the previously certified MND is adequate without
modification and no additional environmental review is required; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad as follows:
Item #1 7 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 16 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 16 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
A)That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B)That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVES SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034 (DEV2022-0094) –
PALOMAR AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
Site Development Plan (SDP2023-0022)
1.That the proposed development or use is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable master plan or specific plan, complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter
21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and all other applicable provisions of this code, in
that the project consists of a 62,600-square-foot, three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office
with a 316-spaces surface parking lot and interior and exterior employee eating areas
on a lot located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway.
All improvements are proposed within the northern 118,396-square-foot portion of the
property subject to the General Plan Land Use designation of O, Office and within the
Office (O) Zone. The O land use designator allows for a wide range of general office,
medical, and other professional uses as well as ancillary uses with a maximum
permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The 62,600-square-foot building is below the
118,396-square-foot maximum square footage allowed with a 0.32 FAR. The remaining
south portion of the lot which contains the Encinas Creek, is included within the Laurel
Tree Lane Preserve, and is protected by a conservation easement. The preserve area
has a General Plan Land Use Designation of OS, Open Space and is within the Open
Space (OS) Zone, which allows for natural resource areas, areas for production of
resources and recreation and aesthetic area. No development is proposed within the
OS portion of the lot which contains riparian habitat and acts as a habitat buffer
between the project site and the Encinas Creek to the south. The project is consistent
with all remaining development and design standards applicable to the property as
contained in Chapters 21.27 Office Zone of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2.That the requested development or use is properly related to the site, surroundings and
environmental settings, will not be detrimental to existing development or uses or to
development or uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed
development or use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings
or traffic circulation, in that the proposed 62,600-square-foot, three story, 42-foot-tall,
medical office with a 316-spaces surface parking lot and interior and exterior employee
eating areas is located on a portion of a 6.07-acre site zoned O. The project will not be
detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the
use is located in that medical office uses are permitted by right in the O Zone. The
property is surrounded on two sides by commercial uses, including a commercial golf
course to the north, a gym to the east and office uses to the west. The existing open
Item #1 8 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 17 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 17 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
space preserve located on the southern portion of the property provides a buffer
between the proposed medical office and the Encinas Creek. This area also acts as a
buffer between the proposed medical office and the existing multi-family residential
apartment building to the south. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the
proposed Project was conducted and found that the medical office will generate 3,130
average daily trips (ADT). The project trips were distributed to the local roadway
network to evaluate the potential for traffic impacts. The TIA also took into account
near-term traffic associated with approved and pending projects that will add traffic to
the local study area by the time of project occupancy. One additional signal
modification was also assumed since one of the near-term projects was conditioned to
install the northbound right-turn overlap phase at Palomar Airport Road/Aviara
Parkway. Based on the analyses conducted in the TIA, the proposed medical office
would not result in a significant impact to the roadway network in the project area,
including the Palomar Airport/College Boulevard/Aviara Parkway intersection adjacent
to the site.
3.That the site for the intended development or use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the use, in that the proposed 62,600-square-foot, three story, 42-foot-
tall, medical office building with a 316-spaces surface parking lot and interior and
exterior employee eating areas is located on a portion of a 6.07-acre site zoned O. All
applicable code requirements have been met including parking and building coverage
standards. The project’s proposed increase in building height from 35 feet to 42 feet
with an addition 3-feet for a parapet is permitted pursuant to CMC 21.27.050(A)(3) as
all required setbacks have been increased at a ratio of one horizontal foot for every one
foot of vertical construction beyond 35 feet for a total setback increase of 7 feet on each
side. The additional 3-foot parapet is a permitted height protrusion pursuant to CMC
21.27.050 as it does not exceed an overall height of 45-feet. The proposed 52-foot-tall
architectural tower is a permitted protruding architectural feature as the extra height
does not function to provide usable floor area, does not accommodate and/or screen
building equipment, does not adversely impact adjacent properties due to the distance
of the structure from property lines and provides architectural interest by providing
interest and contrast in the building façade and roofline.
4.That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested development or use to existing or permitted future development or use in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that setback areas have been
landscaped to screen the parking areas. Adequate on-site vehicular circulation has been
provided to accommodate passenger and truck traffic. In addition, the existing open
space preserve located on the south portion of the project site which provides a buffer
between the project and the existing Encinas Creek and between the proposed project
and the multi-family apartment building to the south will remain untouched as required
by the recorded open space easement.
Item #1 9 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 18 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 18 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
5.That the street systems serving the proposed development or use is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed 62,600-square-
foot, three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office building will generate 3,130 average daily
trips (ADT). A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Project was
conducted and found that the medical office will generate 3,130 average daily trips
(ADT). The project trips were distributed to the local roadway network to evaluate the
potential for traffic impacts. The TIA also took into account near-term traffic associated
with approved and pending projects that will add traffic to the local study area by the
time of project occupancy. One additional signal modification was also assumed since
one of the near-term projects was conditioned to install the northbound right-turn
overlap phase at Palomar Airport Road/Aviara Parkway. Based on the analyses
conducted in the TIA, the proposed medical office would not result in a significant
impact to the roadway network in the project area, including the Palomar
Airport/College Boulevard/Aviara Parkway intersection adjacent to the site.
6.That the proposed development or use meets all other specific additional findings as
required by Title 21, in that pursuant to CMC section 21.27.050, the proposed
architectural tower is allowed to exceed the 45-foot height limit, up to a height of 52-
feet because the protruding architectural features does not function to provide usable
floor area, does not accommodate and/or screen building equipment, does not
adversely impact adjacent properties and provides architectural interest.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2023-0034)
7.That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II Segment of the
Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and all applicable policies, in that the site is
designated OS, Open Space which allows for natural resource areas, areas for
production of resources and recreation and aesthetic areas, and O, Office allows for a
wide range of general office, medical, and other professional development by the Mello
II Segment of the LCP. The project consists of the construction of a 62,600-square-foot,
three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office building with a 316-spaces surface parking lot
and interior and exterior employee eating areas on a 6.07-acre site located on the
southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway. The medical office is
proposed on the portion of the lot that is zoned and designated for office uses. The
proposed three-story medical office will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from
public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the
coastal zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site. The project footprint is
located entirely outside of the sensitive resources (Encinas Creek and associated
habitat) located in the open space easement on the south portion of the lot and
adequate buffers have been established to ensure this area will continue to be
conserved. In addition, the proposed three-story medical office project is not located in
an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards. Since the site does not have
frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are
Item #1 10 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 19 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 19 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
available from the subject site. Furthermore, the office designated site is not suited for
water-oriented recreation activities.
8.The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the property is not located adjacent to the shoreline. Therefore,
the three-story medical office project will not interfere with the public’s right to
physical access to the ocean and, furthermore, the office designated site is not suited
for water-oriented recreation activities.
9.That the project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the three-story medical
office project will adhere to the city's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm
Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program
(JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No undevelopable
steep slopes and the previously graded site is not located in an area prone to landslides,
or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. A 70-foot buffer between
the Encinas Creek and the development has been approved by the wildlife agencies.
The riparian habitat within this buffer is protected by a conservation easement and will
not be impacted by the development of the project. Therefore, there will be no impacts
to native habitat.
10.The project complies with the requirements of the Coastal Agricultural Overlay 20 Zone
as the project is conditioned to pay the agricultural conversion mitigation fee to develop
with other than agricultural uses.
11.The project is not between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
McClellan Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
12.The project is consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport (ALUCP), dated Dec. 1, 2011, in that:
a.The proposed project is located within the 60-65 and 65-70 dB Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours. Medical offices are deemed a compatible
use within the 60-65 CNEL noise contour in the ALUCP that will not be affected by
aircraft noise and a conditionally compatible use in the 65-70 dB CNEL noise
contour in the ALUCP. Buildings must be designed to attenuate exterior noise to
the indoor standard of 50 dBA CNEL pursuant to California Code of Regulation
(CCR) Title 24. Exterior noise levels associated with aircraft operations would be
70 dBA CNEL and noise modelling found in the Noise Evaluation (Ldn Consulting
2024) demonstrates the building could attenuate exterior noise to the indoor
Item #1 11 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 20 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 20 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
standard of 50 dBA CNEL pursuant to CCR Title 24 by implementing
recommendations in the Noise Evaluation.
b.The proposed project is in compliance with the ALUCP airspace protection
surfaces because the maximum height of the proposed medical office including
the architectural tower is below the height that requires notification of
construction to the FAA. Despite this, the project has been reviewed by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for compliance with CFR Title 14, Part 77, in
accordance with the Review Area 1 procedures (FAA 2024). Through the review
process, it has been determined that the Project design would comply with the
safety provisions of the ALUCP, would not exceed obstruction standards and
would not result in hazard to air navigation.
c.The proposed project is located within Safety Zones 2, 4 and 6. The ALUCP
identifies office buildings (including medical offices) within Safety Zone 6 as
compatible with airport uses, and conditionally compatible with airport uses in
Safety Zones 2 and 4. Offices are allowed in Safety Zones 2 and 4 only if the
development complies with either the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR)
or the maximum intensity and lot coverage limits as specified in Table III-2 (ALUCP
Section 3.4.14). The project proposes 14,721 square feet of office space in Safety
Zone 2, 3,058 square feet in Safety Zone 4 and 44,821 square feet in Safety Zone
6, all of which comply with the maximum square footages permitted within each
safety zone per the respective FAR as outlined in the ALUCP.
d.The proposed project is not located within the overflight notification area.
California Environmental Quality Act
13.Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has considered the full record
before it, which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth
above are found to be true and correct and material to this resolution; and are
incorporated herein by reference.
14.Compliance with CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 through 15168, this
project is covered by a previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, State Clearinghouse No. 2004121003 (Planning Case
Nos. GPA 04-20/ZC 04-15/LCPA 06-05/CDP 03-03/SDP 03-01) that was prepared, and the
City Council certified it on Sept. 18, 2007, for the Kelly/JRM Office Project. The effects of
the project were examined in the previously certified Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and all feasible mitigation measures developed in the MND are incorporated into
the appropriate entitlements to ensure that the mitigations measures will be
implemented.
Item #1 12 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 21 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 21 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
a.There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the certified MND.
b.There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified MND.
c.There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known at
the time the MND was certified by the City Council on Sept. 18, 2007 pursuant to
City Council Resolution No. 2007-199.
15.The Planning Commission considered the MND and all significant impacts and mitigation
measures in the certified MND, and considered all written and oral communications from
the public regarding the environmental analysis, and found that (1) The project falls under
the scope of the certified MND; (2) All significant impacts were adequately addressed in
the certified MND; (3) The project would not make a considerable contribution to a new
significant cumulative impact; and (4) None of the triggers for subsequent/supplemental
NDs/MNDs in CEQA apply. The project is, therefore, determined to be within the scope
of the certified MND and the certified MND satisfies all requirements of CEQA for this
later activity.
General
16.The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated Feb. 5, 2024, including, but not limited to the following.
a.Land Use & Community Design – The proposed project is adjacent to a
commercial golf course to the north, a gym to the east, a multi-family residential
apartment to the south and additional offices to the west. The proposed medical
office will provide a convenient essential service to surrounding residences. The
medical office will also provide employment opportunities for residents who live
within proximity to the site, therefore enhancing the city’s position as a premier
regional employment center.
b.Mobility – The project includes the construction of approximately 380 feet of
ADA-compliant sidewalk on the south side of Palomar Airport Road along with
new street trees. The project also includes a new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
driveway on Laurel Tree Lane. These upgrades will create an inviting streetscape
and encourage walking. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay any
applicable traffic impact fees, prior to issuance of a building permit, that will go
toward future road improvements.
c.Public Safety – The proposed structural improvements will be required to be
designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the
Item #1 13 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 22 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 22 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
proposed project is consistent with all the applicable fire safety requirements
including fire sprinklers. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to
develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported
within storm drainage facilities.
d.Noise – Operational noise impacts due to new mechanical heating-ventilation
(HVAC) systems, roadway noise, and aircraft operations were addressed in the
Noise Evaluation (Ldn Consulting 2024). The evaluation concludes that the
project’s HVAC would not expose nearby residential properties to noise levels in
excess of the city standards. Nosie related to roadway traffic aircraft when
combined with operations at McClelland-Palomar Airport would result in an on-
site noise exterior noise level of 74.4 dBA CNEL. According to Table 5-1 of the
Noise Element of the General Plan, the city considers office uses conditionally
compatible with noise levels up to 77 dBA CNEL provided it can be demonstrated
that interior noise standards can achieve the interior noise standard of 50 dBA
CNEL in accordance with CCR Title 24. Interior noise standards would be
achieved for the project through the incorporation of noise attenuation design
recommendations in the noise evaluation and shown on the project plans as
design features.
17.The project is consistent with the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 and all city public facility policies and ordinances.
The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to
ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection and treatment;
water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries;
government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be
installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically,
a.The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
b.The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 5 is required by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
18.That the project is consistent with the city’s Landscape Manual and Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50).
19.The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are
imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the
extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused
by the project.
Item #1 14 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 23 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 23 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
20.To offset the conversion of non-prime agricultural land to urban land uses per the
requirements of the Mello II Local Coastal Program, the applicant shall provide payment
of the agricultural mitigation fee, pursuant to the amount established by the City Council
at the time of payment. The amount of the fee shall be paid by the applicant prior to
issuance of the grading permit and shall be consistent with the provisions of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Program.
Conditions:
NOTE: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading permit,
building permit or recordation of final map, whichever comes first; or pursuant to an
approved construction schedule at the discretion of the appropriate division manager or
official.
1.If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the city shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on
the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer
or a successor in interest by the city’s approval of this Site Development Plan and Coastal
Development Permit.
2.Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit
documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the
final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the
approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require
an amendment to this approval.
3.Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4.If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
5.Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
Item #1 15 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 24 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 24 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the city arising, directly or
indirectly, from (a) city’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan and Coastal
Development Permit, (b) city’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c)Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility
of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives
until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city’s approval
is not validated.
6.Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map,
whichever occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the
Site Plan, conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions
approved by the final decision making body. The copy shall be submitted to the City
Planner, reviewed and, if found acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and
project engineer. If no changes were required, the approved exhibits shall fulfill this
condition.
7.This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that
Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
8.This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project
within 24 months from the date of project approval.
9.Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water
and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the city that adequate
water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of
the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities
will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
10.Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17,
the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local
Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 5, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees
shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval
will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
11.Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the city a Notice of
Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to
be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner,
notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has
Item #1 16 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 25 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 25 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
issued a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit on the property. Said
Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing
complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or
restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the
authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or
terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in
interest.
12.Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), developer shall make a separate formal landscape
construction drawing plan check submittal to the Planning Division and obtain City
Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the
approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the city’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall
construct and install all landscaping and irrigation as shown on the approved Final Plans.
All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds,
trash, and debris. All irrigation systems shall be maintained to provide the optimum
amount of water to the landscape for plant growth without causing soil erosion and
runoff.
13.The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
14.Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, Developer shall list the following
condition on all grading and building permit construction plans. Construction activities
shall take place during the permitted time and day per Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
8.48. Developer shall ensure that construction activities for the proposed project are
limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no work shall be conducted on Sundays or on federal holidays.
15.All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and Building Official.
16.No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When
so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the City
Planner of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan.
17.Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any
impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Item #1 17 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 26 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 26 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
18.Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit a construction staging
and operations plan to show vehicle and equipment areas which complies with the
following requirements.
a.All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000
feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers.
b.Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as feasible from
dwellings and other noise sensitive receptors.
19.Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field testing in
accordance with Title 24 regulations may be required by the City to verify building
compliance with STC and IIC design standards.
20.A minimum of 1,052.66-sqaure-feet of indoor employee eating areas must be provided
prior to occupancy of the first tenant space.
21.The project shall to the maximum extent practicable avoid impacts during the vireo
breeding season (generally March 15–September 15). If the project cannot be
conducted without placing equipment or personnel adjacent to Encinas Creek prior to
the initiation of the breeding season (generally before March 15), protocol surveys for
vireo will be conducted in the adjacent habitat prior to the initiation of project
construction for each breeding season as needed. If vireo are found, construction noise
levels at the riparian canopy edge shall be kept below 60 dBA Leq or ambient level
(whichever is greater) (Measured as Equivalent Sound Level) from 5 a.m. to 11 a.m.
during the peak nesting period of March 15 to July 15. For the balance of the
day/season, the noise levels shall not exceed 60 decibels or ambient level, averaged
over a 1-hour period on a weighted decibel (dBA) (i.e., 1 hour Leq/dBA). Noise levels
shall be monitored, and monitoring reports shall be provided to the City and Wildlife
Agencies. Noise levels in excess of this threshold shall require written concurrence from
Wildlife Agencies and may require additional minimization/mitigation measures.
22.To help ensure the project does not create attractive conditions for brown-headed
cowbirds, the office trash enclosure will be located in the eastern portion of the site,
away from Encinas Creek, and trash cans in the outdoor eating areas abutting the office
building will be fully enclosed (e.g., Rubbermaid Brute 55-gallon trash cans with dome
lids). In addition, trash cans will be monitored and emptied regularly to ensure trash
does not over-flow or become exposed in a way that attracts cowbirds. Upon project
completion, the applicant will submit documentation to the Wildlife Agencies that the
trash enclosure and cans are placed in the correct locations and are monitored and
emptied regularly to ensure trash does not over-flow or become exposed in a way that
attracts cowbirds.
Item #1 18 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 27 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 27 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
23.Lighting in or adjacent to the preserve will not be used, except where essential for
roadway, facility use, and safety. If nighttime construction lights or permanent lights
are necessary, all lighting adjacent to natural habitat will be limited to low pressure
sodium sources and shielded and/or directed away from habitat.
24.Grading is permitted during the rainy season (from October 1st to April 1st of each year),
however, no grading shall occur during a Qualified Precipitation Event (QPE), defined
by the 2022 Construction General Permit (CGP) as a forecast of 50 percent or greater
probability of precipitation of 0.5 inches rm ore within a 24-hour period.
Engineering Conditions
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a (building or grading
permit whichever occurs first).
General
25.Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer
for the proposed haul route.
26.This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit
issuance and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
27.Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in
accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this
condition.
28.Property owner shall maintain all landscaping (street trees, tree grates, shrubs,
groundcover, etc.) and irrigation along the parkway frontage with Palomar Airport Road
and Aviara Parkway as shown on the Site Plan.
Fees/Agreements
29.Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for
recordation, the city’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement.
30.Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for
recordation the city’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement.
Item #1 19 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 28 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 28 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
31.Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer
for recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management
Practice Maintenance Agreement.
32.Developer shall cause property owner to apply for, execute, and submit, to the city
engineer for recordation, an Encroachment Agreement covering private retaining wall,
paved parking, fire hydrant, reclaimed water and trash enclosure located over (existing)
easements as shown on the site plan. developer shall pay processing fees per the city’s
latest fee schedule.
33.Developer shall implement Transportation Demand Management strategies per the
Carlsbad Municipal Code section 18.51. Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer
shall have a consultation with city staff regarding submittal of the final TDM Plan. Prior to
occupancy, the Developer shall submit a final Tier 3 Transportation Demand Management
Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
34.Prior to occupancy, the developer shall install transportation demand management
infrastructure measures, in accordance with the project’s Transportation Demand
Management Plan, as shown on the site plan, including but not limited to the following,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
a.) Secured bike enclosure to accommodate a minimum of 14 bicycles.
b.) Public bike parking and bicycle repair station.
c.) Six dedicated car/vanpool spaces with proper signage and striping.
d.) Two showers/changing rooms for employees.
Grading
35.Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit
plans and technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all
applicable grading plan review and permit fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
36.This project may require off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur
outside the project unless developer obtains, records, and submits a recorded copy, to
the city engineer, a temporary grading, construction or slope easement or agreement
from the owners of the affected properties. If developer is unable to obtain the
temporary grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In
that case developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or
modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a
finding of substantial conformance and/or consistency determination from both the city
engineer and city planner.
37.Submit to San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) for review the final grading and
improvement plans, including permission-to-grade language, and the project
landscaping and irrigation plans. Plans should substantially conform to those reviewed
Item #1 20 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 29 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 29 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
during the tentative map stage. The plans must be signed by SDG&E prior to issuance
of any construction permits.
Storm Water Quality
38.Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall
implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include
but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent
silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and
educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or
devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water
or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall
notify prospective owners and tenants of the above requirements.
39.Developer shall submit for city approval a Tier 3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(TIER 3 SWPPP). The TIER 3 SWPPP shall comply with current requirements and provisions
established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad
Requirements. The TIER 3 SWPPP shall identify and incorporate measures to reduce
storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project to the maximum extent
practicable. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per
the city’s latest fee schedule.
40.This project is subject to ‘Priority Development Project’ requirements and trash capture
requirements. Developer shall prepare and process a Storm Water Quality Management
Plan (SWQMP), subject to city engineer approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP
Design Manual latest version. The final SWQMP required by this condition shall be
reviewed and approved by the city engineer with final grading plans. Developer shall pay
all applicable SWQMP plan review and inspection fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
41.Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement
plans, landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design,
pollutant control BMP and applicable hydromodification measures.
Dedications/Improvements
42.Developer shall cause owner to dedicate to the city an easement for public sewer
purposes over the easterly 10 feet of the project site. The offer shall be made by a
separate recorded document. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances and without cost to the city. Streets that are already public are not
required to be rededicated. Additional easements may be required at final design to the
satisfaction of the city engineer.
43.Developer shall cause owner to quitclaim the existing public water easement as shown
Item #1 21 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 30 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 30 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
on the site plan. The quitclaim shall be made by a separate recorded document.
Developer shall pay processing fees per the city’s latest fee schedule.
44.Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the site plan to the
satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12” diameter storm drain
and larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement
plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems.
45.Prior to any work in city right-of-way or public easements, Developer shall apply for and
obtain a right-of-way permit to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
46.Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer
approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070
for public improvements shown on the (site plan). Said improvements shall be installed
to city standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include,
but are not limited to:
a.Curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveway and AC grind and overlay on Laurel
Tree Lane.
b.Extend left turn pocket (from 95 feet to at least 170 feet) on northbound
Aviara Parkway to Palomar Airport Road.
c.Upsize the existing sewer main (located on the adjacent property) and
rehabilitate three existing manholes.
d.Fire service.
e.Sewer lateral.
f.Construct approximately 380 feet of ADA-compliant sidewalk on the
south side of Palomar Airport Road.
Additional public improvements required in other conditions of this resolution are hereby
included in the above list by reference. Developer shall pay the standard improvement
plan check and inspection fees in accordance with the fee schedule. Improvements listed
above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or
development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
47.Developer shall design, and obtain approval from the city engineer, the structural section
for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with city standards due to
truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500. Prior
to completion of grading, the final structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be
submitted together with required R-value soil test information subject to the review and
approval of the city engineer.
48.Developer is responsible to ensure utility transformers or raised water backflow
preventers that serve this development are located outside the right-of-way as shown
Feb. 5, 2025 Item #1 22 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 31 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 31 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
on the Site Plan and to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These facilities shall be
constructed within the property.
Utilities
49.Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire
flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project
50.The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water
as a source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning
Department for processing and approval by the district engineer.
51.Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at
locations approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
52.The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved
by the city engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
53.The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water
facilities substantially as shown on the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the district engineer
and city engineer.
54.The developer shall submit a detailed sewer study, prepared by a registered engineer,
that identifies the peak flows of the project, required pipe sizes, depth of flow in pipe,
velocity in the main lines, and the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Said study shall
be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the project and the study shall
be prepared to the satisfaction of the district engineer.
55.The developer shall submit a detailed potable water study, prepared by a registered
engineer that identifies the peak demands of the project (including fire flow demands).
The study shall identify velocity in the main lines, pressure zones, and the required pipe
sizes. Said study shall be submitted concurrently with the improvement plans for the
project and the study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the district engineer.
56.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit detailed design
drawings and studies for the construction of private potable water, sewer, and fire service
line required to serve the project. Said drawings and studies shall be prepared and
submitted to the satisfaction of the building official.
Feb. 5, 2025 Item #1 23 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 32 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 32 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Code Reminders
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited
to the following:
57.Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section
15.08.020 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
58.Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and
Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips
(ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the (Site Plan) are for
planning purposes only.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning
Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150,
the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make
a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
The project site is within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. This Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) shall not become effective until ten (10) working days have elapsed,
without a valid appeal being filed with the Coastal Commission, following the Coastal
Commission’s receipt of the city’s notice of the CDP issuance (“Notice of Final Action”). The filing
of a valid appeal with the Coastal Commission within such time limit shall stay the effective date
of this CDP until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached by the Coastal Commission.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow
that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul
their imposition.
Feb. 5, 2025 Item #1 24 of 118April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 33 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 33 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES
NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning,
grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project;
NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE
similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on Feb 5, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Burrows, Foster, Hubinger, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, Stine
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
���� ROY MEENES, Vice Chair
��C£
ERIC LARDY, City Planner
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 34 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 34 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Exhibit 2
Planning Commission Feb. 5, 2025, staff report
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 35 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 35 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Exhibit 3
Planning Commission Feb. 5, 2025, minutes
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 36 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 36 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Exhibit 4
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 37 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 37 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
APPEAL FORM Develop_men t Services l_ City of Planning Division P-27 Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
www.carlsbadca.gov
RECEIVED
Date of Decision you are appealing: February 25, 2025 FEB 1 3 2025
CITY or CARLSBAD
Subject of the Appeal: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Planner's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple
applications, (such as a Coastal Development Permit, Planned Unit Development, Minor Conditional Use
Perm it, etc) please list all of them . If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here.
Please see fee schedule for the current fee.
Challenging all of Planning Commission Resolution No 7535" finding no new information of substantial
importance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 through 15168 and the previously certified
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is adequate without
modification and no additional environmental review is required; and Site Development Permit 2023-0022/
CDP 2023-0034
Reason(s) for the Appeal: PLEASE NOTE: The appeal shall specifically state the reason(s) for the
appeal. Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal. and you will be limited to the
grounds stated here when presenting your appeal.
BE SPECIFIC How did the decision-maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with local laws, plans,
or pol icy? Please see Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.54.140(b) for additional information
(attached). Please attach additional sheets or exhibits if necessary.
Please see attached letter.
NAME (Print): SSG-TH LLC
MAILING ADDRESS: c/o Law Offices of Andrea Contreras, 9211 Carmel Mountain Road, No. 375
CITY, ST A TE, ZIP: San Diego, CA 92129
TELEPHONE: 858-733-0002
EMAi L ADDRESS: andrea@sciciictlaw com
SIGNATURE: -M I .,I ' ( :~r?
DATE: February 12 2025
P-27 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 05/12
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 38 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 38 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Law Offices of Andrea Contreras
LAND USE I REAL ESTATE I ENVIRONMENTAL
February 12, 2025
Faviola Medina, Clerk Services Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village D1ive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 7535
Agenda of February 5, 2025-Item No. I-Palomar & Aviara Office Project
Ms. Medina:
I represent SSG-TH, LLC, a stakeholder and owner of property adjacent to the subject
property of the above-referenced Project. The purpose of this letter is to support the appeal of the
above-referenced planning commission decision. My Client's appeal is based on the planning
commission's en-or and abuse of discretion because the decision was not supported by the facts
presented to the Planning Commission. In pa1ticular, the planning commission's decision contains
several deficiencies in the analysis performed under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") for the Project. In summary, the planning commission incorrectly adopted staff's
decision that the Project does not require preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") or Negative Declaration ("ND").
The Planning Commission Did not Review the Prior Mmgated Negative Declaration
The 2007 Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the prior unrealized project was
not included in the staff report materials. Therefore, the planning commissioners were unable to
fulfill their responsibility to review the entire record, rendering the prior MND meaningless.
A decision to proceed under CEQA's subsequent review provisions must thus
necessa1ily rest on a determination -whether implicit or explicit -that the
original environmental document retains some informational value. If the proposed
changes render the previous environmental document wholly i1Televant to the
decisionmaking process, then it is only logical that the agency start from the
beginning under section 21151 by conducting an initial study to determine whether
the project may have substantial effects on the environment.
(Friends of College qfSan Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist.
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951.)
By failing to review the prior MND, the planning commission could not objectively
determine whether a substantial change had occurred and therefore could not make the
finding that a subsequent environmental review was unnecessary. "To facilitate CEQA's
informational role, the [environmental analysis] must contain facts and analysis, not just
the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." (Laurel Heif?hls Im prov. v. Ref{ents qf Univ. qf
Cal(f (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-405.)
992 1 Crnrnel i\•lnuntain Road, No. 375 I Snn Diego. CA 92129-2813
andrc:a@sddirtlaw.com I w11w.sddirtla11 .com
858.733.0002
Law Offices of Andrea Contreras
The Change In Usefi·om Office to Medical Office is a Substantial Change
California Code of Regulations title 14, division 6, chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines") section 15162 requires a subsequent EIR or ND to be prepared when "[ s ]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects." In this case, the change of use from
general office to medical office is significant and requires the preparation of at least an addendum.
The 2007 Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") analyzed a general office building located in the planned industrial zone. The current project is a medical office building in the office zone. The change in uses is significant and the "Statement of Reasons and Detennination that a
Project is Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and No Fwiher Documentation is Required" ("Consistency Analysis") does not adequately analyze the changes in use and their impacts.
In particular, a medical office use is not permissible in the planned industrial zone. Yet the MND was completed for an office building in the fonner planned industrial zone. The Consistency
Analysis does not account for the change in zoning in its analysis ( or even refer to another environmental document for the zoning change). As such, the Consistency Analysis is inadequate.
New b?formation of Substantial Importance
CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) requires a subsequent EIR or ND to be prepared when
new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of preparation of the original document. In this case, there is a trove of new infonnation of substantial importance that was not analyzed in the MND.
Many categories now requiring analysis by CEQA were not required in 2007, for example,
Energy Resources, Greenhouse Gas ("GHG"), and Wildfire. For each of these impacts, the City acknowledges the past MND did not address these impacts but fails to provide substantial evidence to demonstrate why they are not substantial. Project-specific technical rep01is and exhibits should be completed to enhance the original environmental analysis to provide more transparency to the public.
The GHG section of the Consistency Analysis states:
11The Project does not propose an intensification of the planned Office use of the site and is also consistent with General Plan policies that would help reduce GHG
emissions. As a result, the Project would not contribute considerably to climate
change impacts and is still in compliance and within the scope of this prior environmental document. Impacts to GHG emissions associated with the proposed is less than significant. 11
9921 Cnnnol tvlou11lai11 Road, No. 375 I San Diego. Ci\ 92129-2813
a11dn.:n(d1sddirllaw.com I nw,,.sddirllnw.com
858.733.0002
2 April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 39 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 39 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 40 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 40 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Law Offices of Andrea Contreras
This reasoning is incorrect. The change of use from General Office to Medical
Office does constitute an intensification of use. For example, consider the additional 3,130
Average Daily Trips ("ADT") projected to result from the project. The MND assumed the original
project would add 1,700 ADT to the circulation network, while this Prqject projects 3,130, an
increase of 1,430 ADT, or nearly double what was anticipated for the original project. In addition,
the general office use is not a customer-facing use, whereas a medical office use is primarily
customer-oriented.
Regarding traffic, the use of the previous CEQA standard of Level of Service
("LOS"), instead of the current CEQA standard of Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT") is
questionable because the project represents a different use than was previously analyzed. Staffs
assertion that "the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts relative to what was
identified the MND" is undermined by a failure to update the analysis with a VMT report. When
analyzed under VMT, the Project will most likely have impacts beyond those determined in the
original MND. The impacts may also be different from the impacts analyzed in the original MND
and therefore require a different form of mitigation. A VMT analysis should be carried out before
the Project is approved.
At the planning commission hearing, there was a discussion regarding how traffic will be
distributed differently throughout the day, because an office use has more traffic from employees
at the beginning and end of a day and medical offices have more consistent trips distributed over
the day. The applicant admitted, however, that the building is being built on spec and they do not
know who the tenants will be. The planning commission's assumptions about the distribution of
traffic is therefore erroneous. This is underscored by the example in the record that the PM peak
trips are higher than the original project.
The planning commission barely touched on how Project is designed with only one access
point. The design forces all traffic through Laurel Tree Lane. The residential units located there
will now experience high volumes of peak traffic throughout the day instead of at rush hour.
Finally, given the significant increase in understanding of wildfires since 2007, the paltry
documentation in the Consistency Analysis is insufficient. An evacuation modeling and analysis
should be performed given the change in intensity of the Project.
ALUCP
Approval of the prior project required the city council to override the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Land Use Consistency Plan ("ALUCP") because part of the project fell within the 70-75
dBA CNEL and was therefore inconsistent with the ALUCP. The prior project proposed to be able
to achieve the required 50 dBA CNEL in the interior, as does the proposed project. The difference,
992 1 Crnrncl Jvlountain Road. No. 375 I San Diego, CA 92129-28 13
andn.m((fi~ldirtlaw.co111 I 11ww.sddirtlaw.com
858.733.0002
3
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 41 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 41 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Law Offices of Andrea Contreras
however, is that there has been no council override to cure the inconsistency. This omission is an
abuse of discretion.
Insufficient Notice
Finally, despite being located across the street from the Project site, my Client has never
been properly noticed of the proceedings of this application. It was only through word of mouth
that my Client was able to comment on this matter.
For the foregoing reasons, SSG-TH, LLC, respectfully requests the city council grant the
appeal and deny the applications for Site Development Plan Number 2023-0022 and Coastal
Development Permit Number 2023-0034.
Sincerely,
~Ct1:---
Andrea Contreras
992 1 Carmel 1'vlou11lai11 Road, No. 375 I San Diego. CJ\ 92 129-28 13
und1\.W<1:,cJdirllaw.com I \\,1~1•.sddirllaw.c,1111
858.733 .0002
4
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
April 29, 2025
SSG TH, LLC
3 CORPORATE PLAZA DR, STE 220
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
For ____________ _
-------
Morgan Stanley
l rP'.?-d> ~'5"
Date
1002
25-80/440
-.. s~•• 0100,H• ~b •,.~
Item #7 Page 42 of 53
From:Steve Linke
To:Lauren Yzaguirre
Subject:Palomar Aviara Medical Office Building CEQA Determination
Date:Tuesday, December 3, 2024 5:19:13 PM
Ms. Yzaguirre:
I noted the determination that the Palomar Aviara Medical Office Building project (formerly
Kelly-JRM Office Building project) does not require any further CEQA documentation
relative to a previous MND approved by the City Council on 9/18/2007.
Regarding the Transportation component:
(a) The MND is over 17 years old. and the traffic study for that MND is probably a few years
older than that.
(b) The project will be adding vehicle traffic to an intersection of Palomar Airport Road that
has now been exempted from the Growth Management Program vehicle congestion
performance standard due to degradation below LOS D.
(c) I believe there is a substantial residential project being built directly adjacent, and which
will also be adding its traffic to the same intersection. That project would not have been
included in any 2007-era cumulative Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) cumulative impact
study and may not have been included in a more recent analysis.
(d) This project would be required to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
plan under existing rules based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Questions:
A. Is there a method to appeal this determination?
B. Please provide the following documentation, or let me know whether I need to file a public
records request:
2024 Transportation Impact Analysis (LLG)
2007 Planning Commission Agenda Bill for the project (the 9/18/2007 City Council
Agenda Bill refers to a date of 5/16/2007, but I was unable to locate the corresponding
Agenda Bill on the records site)
TIA conducted for the 2007 MND
C. Is there no "expiration date" on old EIRs and MNDs that can trigger the need for
meaningful updates? A lot of things change over 20 years.
Best regards,
Steve Linke
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Exhibit 5
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 43 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 43 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
•
•
•
From:C B
To:Lauren Yzaguirre
Subject:Palomar and Aviara Office Project
Date:Tuesday, January 14, 2025 1:03:10 PM
Hi Lauren,
Thank You for listening/answering questions when I called this morning.
The City of Carlsbad / Jasmyne Sheridan provided support and assistance 09/2024 move into :
Vista Azul
1380 Laurel Tree Ln. Apt. 203
Carlsbad, Ca 92011.
Thanks Again City of Carlsbad!
This property has limited parking.
Providing no Guest Parking.
Residents having more then one car per household must find parking on
Laurel Tree Ln.
Laurel Tree Ln. Is also forced to accommodate for lack of on site parking for residents and
guests of Laurel Tree Apts.
Laurel Tree Ln. Not a through street.
Cup-de-sac where 24 Hour Fitness is located.
Laurel Tree Ln. and Aviara more housing currently under construction.
Only exasperates problems.
Safety concerns due to speeding cars in out 24 Hour Fitness, Blind Spots trying to pull out of
Vista Azul Apts.
And recently witnessed disabled man operating scooter not visible to driver
almost hit by car.
Many cars parked on Laurel Tree Ln.
not moved regularly. Not do much to alleviate problems.
Parking and Traffic solutions needed.
Office project not likely help.
Sincerely,
Catherine Besmehn
,WHP&RUUHVSRQGHQFH5HFHLYHGE\SP
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 44 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 44 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
January 31, 2025
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: PALOMAR AVIARA MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (CDP 2023-34 AND MINOR SDP 2023-
22) RESPONSE TO MR. STEVE LINKE E-MAIL
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Baranek Consulting Group, Inc. is in receipt of the e-mailed comments or questions received
by the City of Carlsbad from Mr. Steve Linke of Equitable Land Use Alliance, dated December
3, 2024, and transmitted to Kelly/JMR Palomar Airport 1, LLC, the project applicant. We would
like to offer additional support for the city’s determination that the Statement of Reasons and
Determination that a Project is Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and No
Further Documentation is Required Pursuant to CEQA §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162
and 15164 (Statement of Reasons) is appropriate and valid for the proposed project before
you.
When addressing project modifications, the lead agency must provide a reasoned basis
supporting its conclusion that project changes would not result in new or substantially more
severe significant impacts (American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v.
City of American Canyon (2006) 154 Cal.App.4th 1062). As noted in the Statement of
Reasons, the city completed a CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 consistency evaluation
in compliance with Public Resources Code §21166 for the Project. The provisions of CEQA
Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to, or
further approval for, a project for which an EIR or negative declaration was previously certified
or adopted. Because the project has already been the subject of an MND and the time for
challenging the adequacy of the previous document has passed, the "fair argument" test does
not apply (Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065). Instead, the lead
agency can rely on substantial evidence in the record when assessing consistency with the
prior MND.
Specific responses to the questions and comments posed in Mr. Linke’s e-mail are provided
below:
9984 Scripps Ranch Blvd, #138
San Diego, CA 92131
www.baranekconsulting.com
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 45 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 45 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
BARANEK
Consul~ing Group
Letter to Carlsbad Planning Commissioners
January 31, 2025
Page 2
1) Comment: The MND is over 17 years old. and the traffic study for that MND is probably
a few years older than that.
Response: The prior MND was adopted in 2007, along with the accompanying traffic
study, dated December 17, 2002. To address the potential for new or increased
severity of significant impacts, the city requested the applicant prepare an updated
transportation analysis, which was completed by Linscott Law and Greenspan,
Engineers (LLG) on July 12, 2024. All new traffic counts were collected, updated future
forecasts were completed, and all near-term cumulative projects in the area were taken
into consideration. The analysis was independently reviewed and approved by city
transportation staff and clearly demonstrates that no new traffic impacts would arise as
a result of the proposed project modifications. The 2024 transportation analysis
provides the substantial evidence in the record required to make the determination that
additional environmental review is unnecessary and to support reliance on the prior
MND, as envisioned in CEQA §§21166 and 15162 (Friends of College of San Mateo
Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937).
2) Comment: The project will be adding vehicle traffic to an intersection of Palomar Airport
Road that has now been exempted from the Growth Management Program vehicle
congestion performance standard due to degradation below LOS D.
Response: The LLG transportation analysis demonstrates, using updated traffic data,
that study area intersections and street segments would meet the established LOS
performance standard of D or better during peak hours. Therefore, the analysis provides
substantial evidence that no additional significant project impacts are identified and no
additional project mitigation measures are needed, consistent with the standard of
review required in CEQA §§21166 and 15162.
3) Comment: I believe there is a substantial residential project being built directly
adjacent, and which will also be adding its traffic to the same intersection. That project
would not have been included in any 2007-era cumulative Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) cumulative impact study and may not have been included in a more
recent analysis.
Response: The Statement of Reasons relies on the 2024 transportation analysis by
LLG, not the prior 2002 TIA reference in this comment. All new traffic counts were
collected, updated future forecasts were completed, and all near-term cumulative
projects in the area were taken into consideration. The Near-Term Conditions outlined
in the 2024 transportation analysis take into account the ten near-term projects in the
project study area (refer to Table 6-1), including nearby residential projects, when
assessing the cumulative impacts of the modified project. With these updates, the 2024
transportation analysis demonstrates that the study area intersections and street
segments would meet the established LOS performance standard of D or better during
peak hours. Therefore, no new significant project impacts are identified and no
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 46 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 46 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Letter to Carlsbad Planning Commissioners
January 31, 2025
Page 3
additional project mitigation measures are needed, consistent with the standard of
review required in CEQA §§21166 and 15162.
4) Comment: This project would be required to prepare a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan under existing rules based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Response: Despite the adoption of VMT thresholds, projects under city review are
permitted to use the LOS metric when their environmental review is tiered from a prior
CEQA analysis that used an LOS analysis. The lead agency should generally focus the
analysis on impacts that were not analyzed as significant impacts in the prior document
and impacts that can be mitigated or avoided by the project being analyzed. The 2024
transportation review referenced in the Statement of Reasons correctly relies on a LOS
metric because the project tiers from the 2007 MND, pursuant to CEQA §§15162 and
15164, which used LOS as the metric for assessing transportation impacts. Neither a
VMT analysis nor TDM is warranted to demonstrate consistency with the prior MND.
However, the city General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3.P-11 requires any project that
adds more than a de minimis amount of traffic to the “exempt” roadways provide a TDM.
This requirement is separate from VMT/CEQA, predates the adoption of VMT, and is not
tied to the identification of any specific impact or deficiency. The project’s TDM is on file
with the city and will be implemented as a condition of approval.
5) Comment: Is there no "expiration date" on old EIRs and MNDs that can trigger the
need for meaningful updates?
Response: Substantial evidence in the record and presented in the Statement of
Record demonstrates that the conclusions reached in the 2007 MND are still valid and
appropriate for disclosing the impacts of the proposed project modifications. In addition,
pursuant to CEQA §§ 21080 and 21064.5, the Planning Commission can find that:
The modified project is consistent with the program, policy, plan or
ordinance for which the previous MND was prepared.
The modified project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the
city.
The modified project will not result in any significant effects which were not
examined in the previous MND.
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, feel free to reach
out to me at 858-922-8604 or kim@baranekconsulting.com.
Sincerely,
Kim Baranek
Principal
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 47 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 47 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Law Offices of Andrea Contreras
LAND USE | REAL ESTATE | ENVIRONMENTAL
9921 Carmel Mountain Road, No. 375 | San Diego, CA 92129-2813
andrea@sddirtlaw.com | www.sddirtlaw.com
858.733.0002
February 4, 2025
Via email only: planning@carlsbadca.gov
Chair Peter Merz
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Planning Commission Agenda of February 5, 2025
Item No. 1-Palomar & Aviara Office Project
Chair Merz and Planning Commissioners:
I represent SSG-TH, LLC, a stakeholder and owner of property adjacent to the subject
property of the above-referenced Project. The purpose of this letter is to convey my Client’s
objections to several deficiencies in the analysis performed under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the Project. In summary, city staff has incorrectly found the Project
does not require preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) or Negative
Declaration (“ND”).
The Change In Use from Office to Medical Office is a Substantial Change
California Code of Regulations title 14, division 6, chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) section
15162 requires a subsequent EIR or ND to be prepared when “[s]ubstantial changes are proposed
in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects.” In this case, the change of use from
general office to medical office is significant and requires the preparation of at least an addendum.
The 2007 Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the prior unrealized project
analyzed a general office building located in the planned industrial zone. The current project is a
medical office building in the office zone. The change in uses is significant and the “Statement of
Reasons and Determination that a Project is Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and
No Further Documentation is Required” (“Consistency Analysis”) does not adequately analyze the
changes in use and their impacts.
For example, a medical office use is not permissible in the planned industrial zone. Yet the
MND was completed for an office building in the former planned industrial zone. The Consistency
Analysis does not account for the change in zoning in its analysis (or even refer to another
environmental document for the zoning change). As such, the Consistency Analysis is inadequate.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 48 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 48 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Law Offices of Andrea Contreras
9921 Carmel Mountain Road, No. 375 | San Diego, CA 92129-2813
andrea@sddirtlaw.com | www.sddirtlaw.com
858.733.0002
2
New Information of Substantial Importance
CEQA Guidelines section 15162(3) requires a subsequent EIR or ND to be prepared when
new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of preparation of the original document. In
this case, there is a trove of new information of substantial importance that was not analyzed in
the MND.
Many categories now requiring analysis by CEQA were not required in 2007, for example,
Energy Resources, Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”), and Wildfire. For each of these impacts, the City
acknowledges the past MND did not address these impacts but fails to provide substantial evidence
to demonstrate why they are not substantial. Project-specific technical reports and exhibits should
be completed to enhance the original environmental analysis to provide more transparency to the
public.
The GHG section of the Consistency Analysis, states:
"The Project does not propose an intensification of the planned Office use of the
site and is also consistent with General Plan policies that would help reduce GHG
emissions. As a result, the Project would not contribute considerably to climate
change impacts and is still in compliance and within the scope of this prior
environmental document. Impacts to GHG emissions associated with the proposed
is less than significant."
This reasoning is incorrect. The change of use from General Office to Medical
Office does constitute an intensification of use. For example, consider the additional 3,130
Average Daily Trips (“ADT”) projected to result from the project. The MND assumed the original
project would add 1,700 ADT to the circulation network, while this Project projects 3,130, an
increase of 1,430 ADT, or nearly double what was anticipated for the original project.
Regarding traffic, the use of the previous CEQA standard of Level of Service (“LOS”),
instead of the current CEQA standard of Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) is questionable because
the project represents a different use than was previously analyzed. Staff’s assertion that "the
Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts relative to what was identified the
MND" is undermined by a failure to update the analysis with a VMT report. A VMT analysis
should be carried out before the Project is approved.
When analyzed under VMT, the Project will most likely have impacts beyond those
determined in the original MND. The impacts may also be different from the impacts analyzed in
the original MND and therefore require a different form of mitigation.
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 49 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 49 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
La
w
O
f
f
i
c
e
s
o
f
A
n
d
r
e
a
C
o
n
t
r
e
r
a
s
99
2
1
C
a
r
m
e
l
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
o
a
d
,
N
o
.
3
7
5
|
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
,
C
A
9
2
1
2
9
-
2
8
1
3
an
d
r
e
a
@
s
d
d
i
r
t
l
a
w
.
c
o
m
|
ww
w
.
s
d
d
i
r
t
l
a
w
.
c
o
m
85
8
.
7
3
3
.
0
0
0
2
3
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
,
g
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
u
n
d
e
rs
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
w
i
l
d
f
i
r
e
s
s
i
n
c
e
2
0
0
7
,
t
h
e
p
a
l
t
r
y
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
s
i
n
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.
A
n
e
v
a
c
u
a
t
i
on
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
g
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
In
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
N
o
t
i
c
e
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
,
d
e
s
p
i
t
e
b
e
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
m
y
C
l
i
e
n
t
h
a
s
n
e
v
e
r
be
e
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
n
o
t
i
c
e
d
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
t
w
a
s
o
n
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
w
o
r
d
o
f
m
o
u
t
h
th
a
t
m
y
C
l
i
e
n
t
w
a
s
a
b
l
e
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
t
t
e
r
.
Fo
r
t
h
e
f
o
r
e
g
o
i
n
g
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,
S
S
G
-
T
H
,
L
L
C
,
r
e
s
p
ec
t
f
u
l
l
y
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
de
n
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
S
i
t
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
-
0
0
2
2
a
n
d
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
-
0
0
3
4
.
Si
n
c
e
r
e
l
y
,
An
d
r
e
a
C
o
n
t
r
e
r
a
s
cc
:
L
a
u
r
e
n
Y
z
a
g
u
i
r
r
e
(
la
u
r
e
n
.
y
z
a
g
u
i
r
r
e
@
c
a
r
l
s
b
a
d
c
a
.
g
o
v
)
Ci
n
d
i
e
M
c
M
a
h
o
n
(
ci
n
d
i
e
.
m
c
m
a
h
o
n
@
c
a
r
l
s
b
a
d
c
a
.
g
o
v
)
Je
f
f
M
u
r
p
h
y
(
je
f
f
.
m
u
r
p
h
y
@
c
a
r
l
s
b
a
d
c
a
.
g
o
v
)
Mi
k
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
(
mi
k
e
.
s
t
r
o
n
g
@
c
a
r
l
s
b
a
d
c
a
.
g
o
v
)
Er
i
c
L
a
r
d
y
:
er
i
c
.
l
a
r
d
y
@
c
a
r
l
s
b
a
d
c
a
.
g
o
v
Ap
r
i
l
2
9
,
2
0
2
5
It
e
m
#
7
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
5
3
Ap
r
i
l
2
9
,
2
0
2
5
It
e
m
#
7
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
5
3
Do
c
u
s
i
g
n
E
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
I
D
:
7
E
E
1
2
4
4
6
-
D
7
F
8
-
4
B
F
9
-
9
8
6
8
-
E
3
4
C
4
B
2
9
7
2
0
A
f r
February 5, 2025
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: PALOMAR AVIARA MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (CDP 2023-34 AND MINOR SDP 2023-
22) RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM MS. ANDREA CONTRERAS AND MR. STEVE LINKE
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners:
Baranek Consulting Group, Inc. is in receipt of a letter and e-mail received by the city Planning
Department from Ms. Andrea Contreras of Law Offices of Andrea Contreras, dated February 4,
2025, and Mr. Steve Linke, dated February 5, 2024, respectively. We would like to offer
continued support for the city’s determination that the Statement of Reasons and
Determination that a Project is Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and No
Further Documentation is Required Pursuant to CEQA §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162
and 15164 (Statement of Reasons) is appropriate and valid for the proposed project. The
claims in Ms. Contreras’ letter and similar comments in Mr. Linke’s e-mail lack merit as outlined
below.
1) Comment: The Change in Use from Office to Medical Office is a Substantial Change.
Response: Although the subject property was formerly designated and zoned for
industrial use at the time the 2007 MND was adopted, the portion of the property zoned
Planned Industrial (P-M-Q Zone) was later rezoned to Office Zone (O Zone) and the
land use designation was changed to Office (O) during the 2015 Comprehensive
General Plan Update (GPA 07-02/ZC 15-02/ LCPA 07-02), as stated on page 2 of the
Statement of Reasons. As part of the 2015 and 2024 General Plan Updates, the city
certified Program and Subsequent EIRs addressing the project site’s Office use. Those
analyses are incorporated by reference and part of the evidence in the record
supporting the proposed Statement of Reasons. The project does not require any
further land use actions and is permitted under the Office Zone with a CDP and Minor
SDP. As stated in the Land Use and Planning discussion (page 27), the project would
comply with all applicable city development regulations, including CMC Title 21, Local
9984 Scripps Ranch Blvd, #138
San Diego, CA 92131
www.baranekconsulting.com
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 51 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 51 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Letter to Carlsbad Planning Commissioners
February 5, 2025
Page 2
Coastal Plan and Habitat Management Plan, and no impact is assessed. Thus, the
Statement of Reasons adequately analyzes the project’s land use impacts.
2) Comment: New Information of Substantial Importance.
Response: The Statement of Reasons includes a discussion of three new
environmental topics added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines since the 2007 MND
was adopted. Each of these topics assess project’s compliance with policies of the
General Plan, Climate Action Plan (CAP) and city ordinances to demonstrate that the
project would not result in any new significant impacts to Energy, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (GHG) and Transportation, consistent with the standard of review required in
CEQA §§21166 and 15162.
GHG Resources discussion (page 19) - The Statement of Reasons indicates that the
CAP contains actions that the city will undertake to achieve its proportionate share of
the state-wide GHG reductions. Projects that comply with the CAP requirements would
not have an incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions that is considerable.
As required by the city’s CAP policies, a project-specific CAP Consistency Checklist
was prepared and summarized in the Statement of Reasons. The CAP Consistency
Checklist outlines the project’s specific design features required to achieve compliance
with the GHG reduction strategies outlined in the CAP, specifically:
x On-site renewable energy system
x Heat pump for water heating
x 10% EV charging systems and spaces
In addition, the project will be required to implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan to minimize mobile GHG sources, as indicated in the CAP
Consistency Checklist. Because the site’s change to an Office designation and zone
were assessed in programmatic CEQA documents when the General Plan and CAP
updates were approved in 2015 and 2024, additional project-specific technical reports
or exhibits are not warranted to demonstrate that the project would not result in new
significant impacts or more severe GHG impacts. Thus, the Statement of Reasons
adequately analyzes the project’s GHG impacts.
Transportation discussion (page 27) - Despite the city’s adoption of vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) thresholds, projects under review are permitted to use the level of
service (LOS) metric when their environmental review is tiered from a prior CEQA
analysis that used an LOS analysis. Pursuant to CEQA §§15162 and 15164, the
transportation review referenced in the Statement of Reasons correctly relies on a LOS
metric because the project tiers from the 2007 MND. A VMT analysis is not warranted
or appropriate to demonstrate consistency with the prior MND.
The updated transportation analysis conduct for this project demonstrates, using the
higher trip volumes and updated baseline traffic data, that study area intersections and
street segments would meet the established LOS performance standard of D or better
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 52 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 52 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
Letter to Carlsbad Planning Commissioners
February 5, 2025
Page 3
in the city’s Growth Management Program during peak hours. No new significant project
impacts or mitigation measures are warranted. Thus, the Statement of Reasons
adequately analyzes the project’s transportation impacts.
Wildfire discussion (page 40) – As stated in the Statement of Reasons, the project site
is situated along Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway, major arterial roads that
facilitate evacuation in the event of an emergency. No improvements are proposed that
would impair the use of those roads for evacuation. The proposed Medical Office
Building will be situated approximately 100 feet from the nearest open space and
surrounded by asphalt parking and irrigated landscaping. The site and surrounding
properties are on level land with prevailing winds originating from the west. No
infrastructure is proposed that would exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the city’s Office
of Emergency Management and Resilience offers support on emergency preparedness
for local businesses, such as the proposed project. In May 2024, police, fire and
emergency management leaders announced the new Genysys System that makes
emergency evacuation instructions more precise and efficient for communities. The
project site’s locational characteristics and moderate wildfire risk combined with the
city’s robust emergency preparedness program, would mean that the project would not
result in new or more severe wildfire impacts. There is no need to conduct a project-
specific evacuation model and analysis to make this determination. Thus, the Statement
of Reasons adequately analyzes the project’s Wildfire impacts.
3) Comment: Insufficient Notice
Response: The surrounding property owners and occupants were properly notified in
writing regarding the upcoming Planning Commission hearing, in accordance with
Council Policy for development projects.
In conclusion, the Planning Commission can find that the proposed project will not result in any
significant effects which were not examined in the previous MND pursuant to CEQA §§ 21080
and 21064.5. Therefore, the Statement of Reasons is both appropriate and valid for the
Palomar Aviara Medical Office Building Project.
Sincerely,
Kim Baranek
Principal
April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 53 of 53April 29, 2025 Item #7 Page 53 of 53
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE12446-D7F8-4BF9-9868-E34C4B29720A
TO: CITY CLERK
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: _'f,__./~;;2_~9~/...-<-AJ~S)~,S~-------
SUBJECT: :PcVhaaAja,_;~_ * ·c .,_ /J~' ·
LOCATION: c::Bl200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
D Other: _______________ _
DATE POSTED TO CITY WEBSITE '1 /3 /;J,0 ~
DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: '-f /17/ 6}.o@S
NUMBER_ MAILED: Jo i
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by
the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.
DEPARTMENT: ~TY CLERK'S OFFICE □OTHER _______ _
Jm~--Signature Date
SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: □ Union Tribune on ----
~ Coast News on 2:l:,,f;;)s
PUBLICATION DATE: Union Tribune --------------
Coast News __ L-{~j~L ...... '2~/:Jo;J,~-=-5 ____ _
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by
the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct.
DEPARTMENT: ~ CLERK'S OFFICE □ OTHER _______ _
Signature Date
Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels
2) Notice w/ attachments
The Coast News
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court
of San Diego County.
Mail all correspondence regarding public
notice advertising to:
The Coast News
P.O. Box 232550
Encinitas, CA 92023
(760) 436-9737
Proof of Publication
ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
county aforesaid.
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or
interested in the above-entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a
newspaper printed and published weekly and which newspaper has
been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation for the County of
San Diego and the County Judicial District by the Superior Court
of the State of California, for the County of San Diego (8/4/94,
#677114, B2393, P396) distributing into the cities of Carmel
Valley, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Cardiff, Carlsbad,
Oceanside, Rancho Santa Fe, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido,
Bonsall, Fallbrook, San Diego,; and that the notice, of which the
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in, each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
April 18, 2025
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California on this 18th of April 2025.
~inre r
Space above for Court Clerk's Filing Stamp
0 • CITY OF CARISBAD
NOTICE OFPUBUC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GlVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a pmlic hearina at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carls-
ba.d Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 5 p.m. on 'l\iesday, April 29, 2025, to consider an
appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a Site .Development Plan and Coastal
Development Pefmit to construct a 62,600-square-foot, three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office
building with a 52-foot-tall glass arehitectural tower, 316 surface parking spaces, indoor and
outdoor-empl,oyl,e,amng-, a-truh--tmcloimr and a mechanical enclosure on a 6.07-acre
-property located at the acatbeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway (APN
212-040-6+-00), in the southwest quadrant of the city, the Office (0) and Open Space (OS)
zones, and Local Facilities Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF PARCEL "C• AND ALL OF PARCEL "D" OF PARCEL MAP
NO. 2993 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 23, 1974 AS FILE NO. 7+-230326, O.R., AND A
PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED IN
TIIE OFFICE OF 1HE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
FEBRUARY 15, 1990 AS FILE NO, 90-08S876 O.R., ALL BEING IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SI'ATE OF CALIFORNIA
Whereas, on Feb. 5, 2025, the City of carlsbad Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend the City Council approve a Site Development Plan to demolish an existing medical
office building and construct a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to con-
struct a 62,600-square-foot, three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office building with a 52-foot-tall
glass architectural tower, 316 surface located at the southeast comer of Palomar Airport Road
and Aviara Parkway. This item was approved by the Planning Commission and was appealed;
therefore, the appeal and final decision is being considered by the City Council.
Those persons wishing to speak on this-proposal are cordially invited to attend die pablic bear-
ing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, April 25, 20ll.5, and on the
city's website at bttps://www.carlsbadca.gnv/cltf-hall/meetings-ageudas If you have any ques-
tions, please contact Lauren Yzaguirre in the Planning Division at ( 4-42) 339-2634 or lauten.
yzaguirre@carlsbadr.a.gm-. The meeting can be viewed online at bttps:t/wwwrNlshadca grw/
city-hall/communication-engagement/city-tv-cbannel or on the city's cable channel. In addi-
tion, written comments may be submitted to the City Council at or prior to the hearing via
U.S. Mail to the attention of Office of the City Clerk, 1200 C&rlsba.d Village Drive, C&rlsbad, CA
92008, or via email to clerk@carlshadca.grw. •
If you challeng., the Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public bearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn:
City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public
bearing.
CASE FILE: SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034
CASE NAME: PALOMAR AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT
PUBLISH: FRID;\Y, APRIL 18, 2025
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY l."OUNCIL
04/18/2025 CN 304,07
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision
to approve a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 62,600-square-foot,
three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office building with a 52-foot-tall glass architectural tower, 316 surface
parking spaces, indoor and outdoor employee eating areas, a trash enclosure, and a mechanical enclosure
on a 6.07-acre property located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway (APN
212-040-64-00), in the southwest quadrant of the city, the Office (O) and Open Space (OS) zones, and
Local Facilities Management Zone 5 and more particularly described as:
A PORTION OF PARCEL "C" AND ALL OF PARCEL "D" OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2993 FILED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 23, 1974 AS
FILE NO. 74-230326, O.R., AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
FEBRUARY 15, 1990 AS FILE NO. 90-085876 O.R., ALL BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Whereas, on Feb. 5, 2025, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
the City Council approve a Site Development Plan to demolish an existing medical office building and
construct a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 62,600-square-foot,
three story, 42-foot-tall, medical office building with a 52-foot-tall glass architectural tower, 316 surface
located at the southeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway. This item was approved by
the Planning Commission and was appealed; therefore, the appeal and final decision is being considered
by the City Council.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies
of the staff report will be available on and after Friday, April 25, 2025, and on the city's website at
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/city-hall/meetings-agendas . If you have any questions, please contact
Lauren Yzaguirre in the Planning Division at (442) 339-2634 or lauren.yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov. The
meeting can be viewed on line at https://www.carlsbadca .gov/city-hall/communication-engagement/city-
tv-channel or on the city's cable channel. In addition, written comments may be submitted to the City
Council at or prior to the hearing via U.S. Mail to the attention of Office of the City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or via email to clerk@carlsbadca.gov.
If you challenge the Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH:
SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034
PALOMAR AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT
FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 2025
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARI.SB.ill
NOTICE..OE.PIIBJ IC HF4.RING
NO'nCE JS HERF,RY G1VF.N to you, because your int.erest may be a.ffect.ed, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing Rt the Council Chamber, 1200 Carls-
bad \'illage Dri\0e, Carlsbad, California. al 5 p.m, on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, to consider an
ap1leal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a Sil.t' Df'n!lopmenl Plan and Coasla.l
~velopment rermit to construct a 61,60()-square•foot, thitt stnry, 42-foot-tall, medical office
building wilh a 52-fooH.all glass arehilectural tower, 316 !<urface parking spaces, indoor and
out.door emplo_ret-eating areas, a trash enclosure. and a mf'chanicaJ enclosure on a 6.07-acre
property located at the soulhea.-.L comer of Palomar Airport Koad and A .. iara Parkway (APN
'.ll'.l-040--6+-00), in the southwest quadrant of the city, lhc Office (0) and Open Spa,oc (OS)
L0nes, and Local Facilities Management Z(me 5 and more particularly described~:
A PORTlON OF PARCt:L "C" AND AlL OF PARCEL ~o" OF PARCEL .MAP
NO. 2993 tlIBD IN THE OFFICt: Of-' lltE COUNI'Y RECORDER OF SAN
DIEGO COUNIY, AUGUST 23, 1974 AS fll..E NO. 74-230326, 0.R., AND A
PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF CERTlflCATE OF COMPLIANCE FlLED IN
THE Of-'FICE OF THE COUNIY RJ::COKDEK OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
FEBRUARY 15, 1990 AS tlLE NO. 90-085876 0.R., ALL BEING IN TH£ Cl'IT OF CARI.SBAD, COUN'IT OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
\\'hereas, on Feb. 5, 2025, the City of Carlsba.d Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend the City Council approve a Site De11elol)ment Plan to demolish an existing me<licaJ
office buildinp; and com>trucla Si~ Developmtml Plan and Coa.,;tal De,·elopment Permit lo con-
struct a. ti2,600~uare--foot., three story, -1-2-foot-tall, medical offic.e building with a52-foot-tall
glass architeduraJ Lower, 316 surface located at the southeast corner of PaJomar Aiqx>rt Road
and A\iara PaI"kway. This item was approved by the Planning Commission and was appealed;
therefore, the a.ripeal and final deci.,;;ion is heing oon.,;;idered hy the City Council.
Thost> rersons wlShing to speak on this proposaJ a.re cordiaJly invited to attend the public hear•
ing. Copies of the staff report will he available on an<l after Friday, April 2.'i, 202.'i, and on tl,e
cit)"S "''ebsiteal ht11wlfwv,y.•cadsbadca g,wtd11-baU/mee1ings-agendas If you ha,<e an.\· ques-
lions:, please contact Lauren Y1.aguirre in the Planning Division al (-142) 339-263'1 or l.a.u.ren..
pag;11ia:e@:cadsbadca gov The meeting can be vie""-ed online at b1J115·/(wu;wcadsbadca 'l/'Y/
dt:i,·-ball/commnuication--engagcmeot lcity-w.,-banne) or on lhe ci~··s cable channel. In addi-
lion, written commenl5 may be submitted lo the Cily Council al or prior Lo lhe hearing ,;a
U.S. ~fail to the attention of Office <if the City Clerk, 1200 Carl~had Village Drive, Carl,;;had, CA
92008, or ,ia email IP clecktg catlsbadca gov
If you challenge the Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issL1es you or someone elst> raised at the public hearing
de$Cribed in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Cit:,· of Carlsbad, Attn:
City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, C.-\ 9200!1, at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE:
CASE NAME:
l'UHLISH:
Cln· Qt• CARLSBAD
CITI' COUNCIL
SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034
PALOMAR AND AVIAR.AOFFICE PROJECT
FRIDAY, APRIL IS, 2025
o+/18/2:025 CN
3 col x 7"
21" X $15.50
$325,50
,.H3/\V·m>·00S-~
WO)"A.l~A8"MMM
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 101
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 107
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPAN--T~-------
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 127
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 202
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
------OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 205
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 209
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 214
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPAN,-----
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 220
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 224
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 227
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
r 111,dn-dOd p.ioqaJ 81 Jal,Af-1 I' ap uy.e a.Jn4:,e4 et·, zaudaa
iuawa5.1e4>
a.p suas
•.
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 103
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 123
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 129
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 203
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 206
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
otcDPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 210
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 216
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 221
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 225
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 228
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
~
T .,,.,aDp:1 dn-dod asodxa -Jaded paa:1 l oi au,, 6uopr puaa -.,.
f I I
®09~5 ~l:1:1/\'o' n,eqe6 aI zasmm
Jele.d , sen,~:J seWtnbn~
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 105
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 125
•. CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 201
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCU-PANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 204
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
i
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 207
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 212
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT ----
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 218
CARLS~AD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 223
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 226
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 229
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
' I I
@09~5 i1,eIdwa1 .,._,a11.v asn
51aqe, e18acl .<se:1
,AH3J\'o'-O~·OOS-J.
wo:,•~~Ae"MMM
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 301
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 304
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 307
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 312
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
--------OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 318
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 323
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 326
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 329
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
·-------OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 404
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 409
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
' -------.
• i e091,.s @AllaJ\V \jl .
r 111dn-dod pioqa.i at Ja1i,11i,J
l··ep uue a,mpe1.1 et , za11da1 •.
iuawa6Je4>
apsuas
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 302
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 305
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 309
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 314
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 320
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
lJCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 324
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 327
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 401
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 406
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 410
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
T
f I l I
®091,.5 @AH3A'I :a.tJeqe6 a1 zasmin
Ja1ad Q sa11>1U sa»anbti;t
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 303
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OC~UPANT ---•
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 306
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 310
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT ;
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 316
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 321
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
';)
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 325
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANI -------
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 328
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 403
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 407
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 412
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
' I I I
e09J.5 aie1dwai flfoaAY asn
s1aqe, elNd Me:1
T I .
I
AH3,W-09·008-I.
• W03"Al~A8"MMM
COTTAGE ROW CARLSBAD LLC
1400 FLAME TREE LN UNIT C
CAR~BAQ4 ¢4·_920J.i. ~. -... . --· •. i. l · I: . . : -✓. • • .... ~ • . • ,,·
1000 AVIARA HOLDl~GS [LC -
~~51 p~~~~~, W~tTJ~.o
c;~8~~?t.~!~~1:--. 1,£Wt:1TI;•; UNiT 1...::,
~ ,. :,, ~!}.,\~), C,\ 'PC~: 1
AVIARA INVESTORS LP/fMW AVIARA LP
5120 SHOREHAM PL UNIT 150
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122
AVIARA INVESTORS LP
5120 SHOREHAM PL UNIT 150
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122
VINODH VASUDEVAN/KETAN PAREKH
P.O. BOX #205 .
PHOENIX, AZ 85001
COLLINS CHARLES G TRUST
2100 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD UNIT 214
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
VISTA LAS FLORES LP
1230 COLUMBIA ST UNIT 950
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
HOLLIGER SUSAN L QUALIFIED
PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST
10671 N 137TH ST
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259
TSAI FAMILY 2003 TRUST
1368 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
T - --.
• I e091.s @All:IA\:I ~
f IUdn-dOd. p.ioqa.1 a1 JaJ~A;;u
}ep uy.e aani.petf l!I Q 2a11daH •.
:i.uawali.le4,
ap suas
'I'
MAAC LAUREL TREE LP
1355 3RD AVE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91911 -' •
CARLSBAD APL MP L(C-
P.Q •• ~_c;>X 3 ?2,43 . ·. , , .. ._,."' -.. ,.:-:,,:
C!:i-A-R~QTTE,-NC 28237 ,. · -. ,, , • . ' .. · . .• . ' . ,_._ ...
PALOMAR FITNESS PARTNERS LP
M6Ql WILS!-l~~E BL\(~ +.J..Nll;J1,;9cr,:i~:;
L0)?.AN~ELES, CA.$002,5 ·
AVIARA INVESTORS LP
5120 SHOREHAM PL UNIT 150
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122
AVIARA EAST HOUSIING LP
4142 ADAMS AVE UNIT 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92116
SALTAIRE AT CARLSBAD BOMEOWNERS ASSN~
4100 NEWPORT BLVD UNIT 350
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
SAlTATRE ATCARLSBAD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
2146 ENCINITAS BLVD UNIT 102
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
CARLSBAD SHOREPOINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSN
3088 PIO PICO DR UNIT 200
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MAHER FAMILYTRUST
1363 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
FERRER EDWARD & MAJD SANAZ
1372 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
r IP~6p:1 dn-dOd asodxa -Jaded pa.I:! I o:i. aun 6110je puae -T
f I I I I
®091.5 @AH3AV 1-1.1eqe6 a1 zasmm
J~le.d f 5al!)~ S;m(,i'ibflf
KELLY/JRM-PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD LLC
330 ENCINITAS BLVD UNIT 201
E'.N~INITAS, CA 92024 .
, ,; . . .
,' I • • • ; .
SSGTH LLC --
3,CORPORATE PLAZA DR UNIT 220
NEWPORT sEAcA, dx 9~·550·· ·' • •
• ~:.-:\. t ·.i: •
PALOMAR FITNESS PARTNERS LP
501 SAN.TA MONl½A _BLVD 1,JNIT 3p t~kr~ rx,o.~·1t~ ~A 9o~ri1·· • • .: ••
•. • . • '• • I \ • I · j,/ • • I .'
'.' .... .. )• ,'':
AVIARA INVESTORS LP --
9191 TOWNE CENTER DR UNIT 180
SAN DIEGO, CA 2122
AVIARA LP
9191 SAPPHIRE DR UNIT 180
CARLSBAD, CA 92122
SURESH & ROSHNI CHINTALAPATI
6381 EBB TIDE ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
FAUSNER DAWN M REVOCABLE TRUST -
4671 PANNONIA RD
CARLSB'AD, CA 92008
BOYNTON TRUST
1371 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
LU REVOCABLE 2004 TRUST
1364 SAPPHIRE DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
EMEAAIDl'OlNTE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN
1900 MAIN ST 5TH FL
IRVINE, CA 92614
T I I I
@091.5 a:a.e1dwa1 rJfoaA'f/ asn
s1aqei ®'a8d .ue3
T : .
I I
AH3AV-O9-008-L
' wo:,·.<J~Ae"MMM
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 414
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 420
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 424
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 428
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
r ,udn-dOd pJoqa.i a1 Jal;;!A;;!J
I· ap u11e aJm.pe4 e1 ~ zandaH
:i.uawa6Je4:>
ap suas
I
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 416
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 421
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 426
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1265 LAUREL TREE LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
...
T l'f,la6p3 dn-dod asodxa -Jaded paa:1 I oi au11 6uo1e puae --y
I
f
I I I I
@09L5 @AH3AV t!Jeqe6 a1 zasm:a.n
Ja1ad (! san>~:1-sa:w,nb1:a.;1
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 418
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 423
CARLSEID, CA 92011
OCCUPANT
1380 LAUREL TREE LN UNIT 427
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
Andrea Contreras
9921 Carmel Mountain Road #375
San Diego, CA 92129
T I I I I
@09L5 a:a.e1dwa1 ®!.Ja11v asn
s1aqe, eiaad ,<se3
Easy Peel• Labels
Use Averyfb Tempi~ 5160•
-~
EtJQuettes fadles • peler
Utilisez le gabarit AVERv® 51609
.. I I I _!
I I 1
. -FeedPaper -
• . I Bend along line to I
expose Pop-up Edge'l'lll A
,·,· ..
80026 VJ 'aV8SlHVJ
Ha 39'v111/\ GV8S1HVJ oon .
...
Sens de
chargement
GV8S1HVJ :10 AllJ
I
Replli,:r; 6 la hadlure afln de,I
reveler le rebord Pop-upTM J
@ AVERY® s160® • ! _
--. --.• !
::·:~:: ·'·:~ .; -';•:{, r : .... ' ' ....... ,.._ ;....!...'...:.... ~ -· •
. . ~ . . . .. ~ .
90126 VJ '09310 NVS
S0Z .llNfl OH Hfl.lVJ30 JIMO.lSIH OLLZ
AJNV/\M3SNOJ .lV.118VH 09310 NVS
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY0
I I 1
Ana Alarcon
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Eric Lardy
Monday, April 28, 2025 12:23 PM
City Clerk
Lauren Yzaguirre; Mike Strong; Jeff Murphy
FW: Incorporation by reference requirements
Appplicant Response regarding Appeal Letter.pdf
Follow up
Completed
Please see attached correspondence from the applicant on Item 7.
(city of
Carlsbad
Eric Lardy, AICP
City Planner
Community Development Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www .ca rlsbadca .gov
442-339-2712 I eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Face book I Twitter I You Tube I Pinterest I Enews
From: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 11:29 AM
All Receive -Agenda Item#_ 7
For the Information of the:
%12,COUNCl,l ✓
patej!J.,t ..J cc ( CM_ACM_DCM{3)✓
To: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca .gov>; Eric Lardy <Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Lauren/Eric -please see attached response letter from Kim Baranek.
James P Mccann
(760) 445-7921
http:/ /jrmcre.com/
From: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:10 AM
To: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Hi James,
1
I provided it to the additional reviews; I am not sure what they incorporated but the report is being finalized. Attached is
the final version. Let me know if you have any questions.
Also, I will be out of the office starting this afternoon. Once you complete your letter for the city council please email it
to me and Eric Lardy (eric.lardy@carlsbadca .gov) so he can make sure it gets posted and sent to the councilmembers
prior to the hearing.
Thanks,
J.~~ 1/-;~1/Wt/l,,l!/
(Ci!)'of
Carlsbad
Community Development Department
Lauren Yzaguirre, Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2634 direct I Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gQ'i
Development or Planning-related Inquiries
The Planning Team is here to assist you with resources online, by phone (442) 339-2610, by email
planning@carlsbadca.gillt', or in-person by .a.Q.Qointment.
Appointment-Based Submittals
Appointments for new projects can be made online.
Application Resubmittals
Please contact your planner directly to schedule a resubmittal drop-off appointment.
Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews
From: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:02 AM
To: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Good morning Lauren -following up on the below. Thanks
James P Mccann
(760) 445-7921
http:/ /jrmcre.com/
From: James Mccann
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 8:52 AM
2
To: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren .Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Good morning Lauren -wondering if you had a chance to review the attached? And whether you think any of the
comments will be incorporated or not?
James P Mccann
(760) 445-7921
http:/ /jrmcre.com/
From: James Mccann
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 10:17 AM
To: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren .Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Please see attached. We'll also resubmit a final response letter from our end at some point as well.
James P Mccann
(760) 445-7921
http://jrmcre.com/
From: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca .gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 8:00 AM
To: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Hi James,
You are welcome to send it and I can take a look. The staff report has already been reviewed by a number of people so I
am not sure how much of her changes we could implement but I can definitely look it over. Once we have the final
version I will send it to you.
(City of
Carlsbad
Community Development Department
Lauren Yzaguirre, Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2634 direct I Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov
Development or Planning-related Inquiries
3
The Planning Team is here to assist you with resources online, by phone (442) 339-261 0, by email
planning@carlsbadca.go_j{, or in-person by appointment.
Appointment-Based Submittals
Appointments for new projects can be made online.
Application Resubmittals
Please contact your planner directly to schedule a resubmittal drop-off appointment.
Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews
From: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 10:27 AM
To: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren .Yzaguirre@carlsbadca .gov>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Lauren -Kim Baranek did some editing/added some comments to the draft staff report.
Obviously completely up to you and your team whether to incorporate anything-wondering if it's OK to send that
over to you?
James P Mccann
(760) 445-7921
http:/ /j rmcre.com/
From: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:11 PM
To: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Subject: RE: Incorporation by reference requirements
Thanks James. Here is the draft staff report and reso . Sorry, I completely forgot to send it to you yesterday. It is still
going through edits so it may change.
(City of
Carlsbad
Community Development Department
Lauren Yzaguirre, Associate Planner
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
442-339-2634 direct I Lauren.Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.g@
4
Development or Planning-related Inquiries
The Planning Team is here to assist you with resources on line, by phone (442) 339-261 O, by email
_planning@carlsbadca.go.'i, or in-person by appointment.
Appointment-Based Submittals
Appointments for new projects can be made on line.
Application Resubmittals
Please contact your planner directly to schedule a resubmittal drop-off appointment.
Facebook I Twitter I You Tube I Flickr I Pinterest I Enews
From: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:08 PM
To: Lauren Yzaguirre <Lauren .Yzaguirre@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: FW: Incorporation by reference requirements
Lauren -please see below from Kim regarding the comment about the previous MND not being included in the
staff report.
James P Mccann
(760) 445-7921
http~//jrmcre.com/
From: Kim Baranek <kim@baranekconsulting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:35 PM
To: James Mccann <jpmcCann@jrmcre.com>
Subject: Incorporation by reference requirements
James:
According to Section 15150(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, where an environmental document incorporates by reference a
prior analysis, the prior document must be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public
building. And the new document has to state where the incorporated document(s) are available for inspection. At a
minimum, the incorporated document must be made available to the public in an office of the lead agency.
Our Statement of Reasons document specifically states on page 3:
"The previously approved MND is on file with the City of Carlsbad (Resolution No. 2007-199)."
There is NOTHING in the statute or guidelines that the decision-makers must be provided a copy of the new CEQA
document.
If you want to provide this information to Lauren, please do and they can include this CEQA reference in the CC staff
report.
Thanks-
5
Kim Baranek
Principal/Senior Project Manager
Environmental Planning + Management Services
9984 Scripps Ranch Bou levard, #138
San Diego, CA 92131
kim@baranekconsulting.com
858.922.8604 (direct/cell)
baranekconsulting .com/
SLBE/SBE/WBE/SB Certified
SAN DAG Planning/ A&E Bench
Note: Our offices are closed the 2nd and 4th Friday of the month.
CAUTION: Do not o en attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i
safe.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i
6
BARANEK
Co11sul1i11g Group
9984 Scripps Ranch Blvd, #138
San Diego, CA 92131
WNW. baranekconsulting .com
April 28, 2025
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: PALOMAR AVIARA MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (CDP 2023-34 AND MINOR SDP 2023-
22) RESPONSE TO APPEAL LETTER FROM Ms. ANDREA CONTRERAS
Dear Mayor Blackburn and City Council Members :
On behalf of Kelly/JRM-Palomar Airport I, LLC, we would like to offer continued support for the
city's determination that the Statement of Reasons and Determination that a Project is
Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and No Further Documentation is Required
Pursuant to CEQA §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 (Statement of Reasons)
is appropriate and valid for the proposed project.
The claims in Ms. Contreras' appeal letter, dated February 12, 2025, lack merit as outlined
below.
1) Comment: The 2007 MND for the previously approved office building in which the
CEQA document relies upon was not provided as an attachment to the staff report,
therefore the Planning Commissioners were not able to fulfill their responsibility to
review the entire record, rendering the prior MND meaningless.
Response: As stated in the hearing staff report, the previously adopted environmental
document for the Kelly/JRM Office Project MND has been accessible to the public via a
link1 since 2007. The Planning Commission and any member of the public had (and
continue to have) access to this link and can review the 2007 MND on the city's website
at any time, including in advance of the February 5, 2025 hearing. This is generally
supported in the findings and determinations of the resolution that the Planning
Commission approved, which indicates that the Planning Commission "considered the
[2007] MND and all significant impacts and mitigation measures in the previously
adopted [2007] MND."
1 https: //records. carlsbadca. gov/Web Lin k/D ocView. aspx?id =4864860&dbid=0& repo=C ityofCa rlsbad&sea rch id= 1 d34d0c 7 -
13e5-4150-82d5-dc4a3668eee6
Letter to Carlsbad City Council
April 28, 2025
Page 2
2) Comment: The previous MND was for a general office located in the Planned Industrial
(PM) zone. The change in uses is significant and the "Statement of Reasons and
Defemination that a Project is Consistent with a Prior Environmental Document and No
Further Documentation is Required" ("Consistency Analysis") does not adequately
analyze the changes in use and their impacts. In particular, a medical office use is not
permissible in the PM zone. Yet the MND was completed for an office building in the
former PM zone. The Consistency Analysis does not account for the change in zoning
in its analysis (or even refer to another environmental document for the zoning change).
As such, the Consistency Analysis is inadequate.
Response: The CEQA statues and guidelines are very clear on this topic. Public
Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines both
address the situations in which additional environmental review may be necessary
following adoption of a MND or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The statutes and guidelines identify three circumstances which could result in the need
for a "subsequent or supplemental" environmental document. The three conditions that
should be evaluated when determining if additional environmental review may be
necessary are : (1) substantial changes to the project; (2) substantial changes to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken; or (3) availability of new
information that was not known or could not have been known when the environmental
document was adopted or certified. In general, subsequent CEQA review is only
reopened when new significant impacts or increased severity of a previously identified
significant impacts could occur under any one of the three circumstances using
substantial evidence in the record to make that determination. If new or more severe
significant impacts may occur, a subsequent version of an environmental document
must be prepared that revises the earlier environmental document to make it adequate
for a project's approval after conditions have changed.
As explained in the staff report, the change in zoning from P-M-Q to O was previously
analyzed during the 2015 Comprehensive General Plan Update and associated certified
Program EIR. Regarding the "threshold question" of whether we are dealing with a
substantial change to the project or a new project altogether, ultimately, the project site
has long been slated for industrial/office development in the city's planning framework
and the project has similar drawings, materials, and configurations of structures as were
approved in 2007. The current structure is the same number of stories but has a 23,000
SF smaller footprint than the approved project. The current project represents a minor
change to the type of office use approved in 2007 for the site and is a permitted use in
the O zoning. The project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the city's adopted CEQA
documentation, as demonstrated by the collective evidence in the record from the prior
MND combined with the new study(s) and city review process completed for the current
project. The evidence in the record serving as the basis of this determination is cited in
the Consistency Analysis within section 3A, Overview of Applicable CEQA Provisions
and Findings -Prior Environmental Document of the MND, included in Exhibit 2.
Letter to Carlsbad City Council
April 28, 2025
Page 3
Moreover, Section 4, Overview of Applicable CEQA Provisions and Findings, of the
Consistency Analysis for this project evaluates whether the environmental effects of the
subsequent project are adequately covered in the prior 2007 MND under the current
conditions and demonstrates that the impacts are not new and would not exceed the
significant impacts which were previously analyzed as described in Exhibit 2. The
applicant prepared a TIA and considered the revised projects trip generation rates, in
the context of an updated baseline and cumulative conditions, and assessed any
impacts on the local roadway network. Based on the near-term and horizon year
analyses conducted in the TIA, the proposed project would not result in a significant
impact to the roadway network in the project area, including the Palomar Airport/College
Boulevard/Aviara Parkway intersection adjacent to the site (i.e., projected to operate at
LOS C and Din the near-term and horizon-year conditions). Therefore, the change from
a general office to a medical office does not qualify as a substantial change as the
environmental analysis demonstrates that the medical office impacts will not exceed
those impacts analyzed in the previous 2007 MND.
3) Comment: New information of substantial importance that was not analyzed in the
MND existing, specifically as it related to (1) greenhouse gas emissions due to the
increase in average daily trips caused by the change in proposed use from general
office to medical office, (2) traffic, due to the MND using the previous standard of Level
of Service (LOS) instead of the current standard of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT),the
project being unable to know trip distribution throughout the day without knowing who
the tenants will be, and one access point forcing all project traffic to travel through
Laurel Tree Lane, and (3) wildfires as our understanding of wildfires has significantly
increased since 2007 and a modeling and analysis should be performed given the
change in intensity of the project.
Response: The Statement of Reasons includes a discussion of three new
environmental topics added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines since the 2007 MND
was adopted. Each of these topics assess project's compliance with policies of the
General Plan, Climate Action Plan (CAP) and city ordinances to demonstrate that the
project would not result in any new significant impacts to Energy, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (GHG) and Transportation, consistent with the standard of review required in
CEQA §§21166 and 15162.
• GHG Resources -The Statement of Reasons indicates that the CAP
contains actions that the city will undertake to achieve its proportionate
share of the state-wide GHG reductions. Projects that comply with the
CAP requirements would not have an incremental contribution to
cumulative GHG emissions that is considerable. As required by the city's
CAP policies, a project-specific CAP Consistency Checklist was prepared
and summarized in the Statement of Reasons. The CAP Consistency
Checklist outlines the project's specific design features required to achieve
compliance with the GHG reduction strategies outlined in the CAP,
specifically:
Letter to Carlsbad City Council
April 28, 2025
Page4
o On-site renewable energy system
o Heat pump for water heating
o 10% EV charging systems and spaces
In addition, the project will be required to implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) plan to minimize mobile GHG sources, as
indicated in the CAP Consistency Checklist. Because the site's change to
an Office designation and zone were assessed in programmatic CEQA
documents when the General Plan and CAP updates were approved in
2015 and 2024, additional project-specific technical reports or exhibits are
not warranted to demonstrate that the project would not result in new
significant impacts or more severe GHG impacts. Thus, the Statement of
Reasons adequately analyzes the project's GHG impacts.
• Transportation -Despite the city's adoption of vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) thresholds, projects under review are permitted to use the level of
service (LOS) metric when their environmental review is tiered from a prior
CEQA analysis that used an LOS analysis. Pursuant to CEQA §§15162
and 15164, the transportation review referenced in the Statement of
Reasons correctly relies on a LOS metric because the project addresses
consistency with the LOS analysis referenced in the 2007 MND. A VMT
analysis is not warranted nor appropriate to demonstrate consistency with
the prior MND.
It should be noted that the city's LOS transportation guidance requires an
analysis of total ADT and peak hour and not "traffic throughout the day,"
as suggested in this comment. In addition, both the prior traffic report and
the updated transportation analysis assumed a single access point. The
analysis referenced in the Statement of Reasons is consistent city
guidance and was reviewed and approved by city staff. The analysis
determined that study area intersections and street segments would meet
the established LOS performance standard of D or better in the city's
Growth Management Program during peak hours. No new significant
project impacts or mitigation measures are warranted. Thus, the
Statement of Reasons adequately analyzes the project's transportation
impacts.
• Wildfire -As stated in the Statement of Reasons, the project site is
situated along Palomar Airport Road and Aviara Parkway, major arterial
roads that facilitate evacuation in the event of an emergency. No
improvements are proposed that would impair the use of those roads for
evacuation. The proposed Medical Office Building will be situated
approximately 100 feet from the nearest open space and surrounded by
asphalt parking and irrigated landscaping. The site and surrounding
properties are on level land with prevailing winds originating from the west.
Letter to Carlsbad City Council
April 28, 2025
No infrastructure is proposed that would exacerbate fire risk. Additionally,
the city's Office of Emergency Management and Resilience offers support
on emergency preparedness for local businesses, such as the proposed
project. In May 2024, police, fire and emergency management leaders
announced the new Genysys System that makes emergency evacuation
instructions more precise and efficient for communities. The project site's
locational characteristics and moderate wildfire risk combined with the
city's robust emergency preparedness program, would mean that the
project would not result in new or more severe wildfire impacts. There is
no need to conduct a project-specific evacuation modelling analysis to
make this determination. Thus, the Statement of Reasons adequately
analyzes the project's Wildfire impacts.
4) Comment: The previously approved Kelly/JRM Office Project was required to obtain
and secure approval from the City Council to override the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, since part of the project fell within the 70-75 dBA CNEL
and office buildings were considered inconsistent uses within these noise contours.
Although both the current and previous project will achieve the required interior noise
threshold of 50 dBA CNEL, the current project does not include the mentioned override
to cure the inconsistency which is an abuse of discretion.
Response: The City Council approved the overriding findings referenced in the appeal
when it approved the Kelly/JRM Office Project in 2007. The McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan also changed following the 2007 approval and the
changes to that plan eliminated this requirement. Therefore, the project is consistent
with the ALUCP for the McClellan-Palomar Airport and a City Council overrule of an
inconsistency determination is not required.
In conclusion, the City Council can find that the proposed project will not result in any
significant effects which were not examined in the previous MND pursuant to CEQA §§ 21080
and 21064.5. Therefore, the Statement of Reasons is both appropriate and valid for the
Palomar Aviara Medical Office Building Project.
Sincerely,
Kim Baranek
Principal
Page 5
Lauren Yzaguirre, Senior Planner
Community Development
April 29, 2025
Palomar and Aviara Office
Project Appeal
SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034
1 1
C cityof
Carlsbad
PROCEDURES
1.Staff Presentation
2.City Council questions on staff
presentation
3.Appellant presentation (10 Min)
4.City Council opportunity to ask
questions of appellant
5.Applicant presentation (10 Min.)
6.City Council opportunity to ask
questions of applicant
7.Open public testimony
8.Close public testimony
9.Staff, Applicant, and Appellant
response (if necessary)
10.City Council discussion
11.City Council vote
2
{city of
Carlsbad
33
•This appeal is de novo
•The City Council shall consider only the evidence presented to the
Planning Commission prior to the decision
•The burden of proof is on the appellant to establish substantial
evidence
•Grounds are limited to if there was an error or abuse of discretion or
that the decision was not supported by the facts or that there was not a
fair and impartial hearing
•City Council may uphold, uphold in part, or reverse the decision that is
subject of the appeal.
PROCEDURES
{city of
Carlsbad
4
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
62,600 SF, 42’-tall, three story, medical
office building
52-foot architectural tower
316 space surface parking
Indoor and outdoor employee eating
areas
/
/ "I ,._ -.J'V ,ty _,. <. --
((
l ,
PROPOSED MEDICAL
OFFICE BU ILD ING
I
I
OUTDOOR EA TING AREA B
1,330.76 S.F.
• r-'!---f ---" t, I DECORATIVE PAVING, lYP.
,...._
EXISTING D.G. TRAIL TO BE <:>
PROTECTED-IN-Pl.ACE ' \_
ADJACE~1' UNDISTURBED
NATIVf\(sGETATIO~ . . ., ~-
O, I
. I
• I
I
-...-+ TRASH ENCLOSURE
PER OTHERS
ADJACENT
COMMERCIAL -:,~ •
• I \\
• ' 9 .
.\,._
_,___,___ VEHICULAR SIGHT LINES.
-~ --.._'='--. I
NEW TRAILHEAD SIGNAGE ~
I " I
NO LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
OVER 30" HT. PERMITTED.
I Li./ i /
1
,
f ; ,/(,.
BACKGROUND
5
Kelly/JRM Office
•Approximately 85,000 SF, three-story, 43-foot-tall office building
•MND and MMRP certified by the City Council
in 2007
•General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Coastal
Development Permit, Site Development Plan
. \
>. I
(0
Cl.
'
, rt Road Palomar Atrpo
10~0~,~000 . ;l~:-,.i;fl)~
• L~t I '-°' ~.oio o Q o.o o
(city of
Carlsbad
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 through 15164
Kelly/JRM Office Project MND & MMRP adopted
September 18, 2007
Project is within the scope of the prior
environmental document
No specific issues, changed circumstances or new
information were raised in the appeal application or
at the Planning Commission hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
6
1111111
C cityof
Carlsbad
“The city council shall consider only the evidence
presented to the planning commission for
consideration in the determination or decision being
appealed” (CMC 21.54.150(c))
Appeal letter received January 24, 2025
CEQA – Substantial Changes
CEQA – New Information of Substantial
Importance
Insufficient Public Noticing
DETAILS OF APPEAL
7
C cityof
Carlsbad
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
8
Change in Zoning (PM to O)
Change from general office to
medical office
Medical office use is not
permissible in the previous
PM zone
Appellant's Position(bcy of
Carlsbad
Statement of R ... ~--Exhlbll7
statement of Reasons and
Determination that a Project is consistent with a
Prior Environmental Document and
No Further Documentation is Required
Pursuant to cEQA §21166 and cEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164
oec. 03, 2024
Date: Project Title:
Planning Case No.:
Palomar A.viara Medical Office Bui\ding
COP 2021-34 and Minor SOP 2021-22
Office (0) and Open Space (OS) Office Zone (0 Zone) and open Space Zone (OS zone) in the eommercial
GP Designation:
zoning:
Staff Contact:
V1Sitor Serving Overlay Zone
Lauren:.~~~~.~::~~:~ ~sbadca.ov
This Calilomia Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Analysts evaluales environmental impacts troro the proposed three-story 62,600-SF Medical Office Building with two outdoor eating areas totaling 2,717-SF
and a surtace parl<ing lot and ancillary improvements on the southeast comer ot Palomar Airport Road at Aviara Parl<WaY, cartsbad, CA (APN 212-040-64-00; hereinafter reterred to as the •projeet").
oocumentation herein haS been prepared by the City ot Carlsbad as Lead Agency in lull accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements ot CEOA and CEOA Guidelines. Pnor environmental
documentation is conclusively presumed to comply with the provisions ot cEOA and CEOA Guidelines
tor purposes ot its use, unless the provisions ot section 21166 and sections 15162 and 15164 are
applicable.
1. Introduction
The City Planner has completed a CEOA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 consistency evaluation
in compliance with Public Resaurces Ccid• Section 21166 tor the Projeel The provisions ot CEOA
Guidelines sections 15162, and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to, or turther
approval tor, a project tor which an EIR Of negative declaration was previously certified or adopted.
2-Project Location and Description
2A-Project Location
of the t •
1 Palo;~~ A7as initially
iart of th L rport Road ipt for the aurel Tree d . e stormwater
improvements Th
pumpkins). The 1.38~
~ase""!ent in favor of
GiErtio~ of the site
utilitie:~1_ch contains
:cur on t~=·pr· sewer). , 1 operty .a ent Level (CNEL)
port operations, as
proposed Project ;t~?: Guidelines ocument or
~ation becomes
,e_quent negative
meal changes or
''.epared (CEOA
roJect area th
lt~er than thos:
information of
ed by this prior
~itional further
scl_osed in the
iallon that the
Southeast come< ot Palomar Airport Road al Aviara Parl<way, Carlsbad, CA (APN 212-040-64-00)
Th• Project is a request to reduce the previously approved three-slo<Y, 85,000 SF general office building
to a three-sto<Y, 62,600-SF medical office building. The proposed Projeel srte plan reconfigures the
placement of the smaller building and associated srte improvements. Access to the Project site would
continue to be provided via one unsignalized lull-access driveway al the cuHle-sac on the eastern
terminus of Laurel Tree Lane. Both the proposed Project and the previously approved project feature
parl<ing improvements up to the pedestrian trail along the southern portion ot the parcel, abutting the
Laurel Tree Lane Preserve with a narrow landscape strip between the parking stalls and trail tencioQ.
Th• overall Project parl<ing would meet the minimum 313 parl<ing spaces required per the Carlsbad
!,lunicipal ccide, including spaces tor electric vehicle (EV), clean air vehicles and disabled access. A 150-toot-wide sDG&E easement traverses the site diagonally and would contain a total ot 159 parl<ing spaces
2B. Project Description td Reporting
of Cartsbad
1 request to
al Program
d land use
erroneous
d Planned
12/3/2024
{city of
Carlsbad
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
9
Substantial changes to the
project
Substantial changes to the
circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken; or
Availability of new information
Staff’s Position(bcy of
Carlsbad
Statement of R ... ~--Exhlbll7
statement of Reasons and
Determination that a Project is consistent with a
Prior Environmental Document and
No Further Documentation is Required
Pursuant to cEQA §21166 and cEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164
oec. 03, 2024
Date: Project Title:
Planning Case No.:
Palomar A.viara Medical Office Bui\ding
COP 2021-34 and Minor SOP 2021-22
Office (0) and Open Space (OS) Office Zone (0 Zone) and open Space Zone (OS zone) in the eommercial
GP Designation:
zoning:
Staff Contact:
V1Sitor Serving Overlay Zone
Lauren:.~~~~.~::~~:~ ~sbadca.ov
This Calilomia Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Analysts evaluales environmental impacts troro the proposed three-story 62,600-SF Medical Office Building with two outdoor eating areas totaling 2,717-SF
and a surtace parl<ing lot and ancillary improvements on the southeast comer ot Palomar Airport Road at Aviara Parl<WaY, cartsbad, CA (APN 212-040-64-00; hereinafter reterred to as the •projeet").
oocumentation herein haS been prepared by the City ot Carlsbad as Lead Agency in lull accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements ot CEOA and CEOA Guidelines. Pnor environmental
documentation is conclusively presumed to comply with the provisions ot cEOA and CEOA Guidelines
tor purposes ot its use, unless the provisions ot section 21166 and sections 15162 and 15164 are
applicable.
1. Introduction
The City Planner has completed a CEOA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 consistency evaluation
in compliance with Public Resaurces Ccid• Section 21166 tor the Projeel The provisions ot CEOA
Guidelines sections 15162, and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to, or turther
approval tor, a project tor which an EIR Of negative declaration was previously certified or adopted.
2-Project Location and Description
2A-Project Location
of the t •
1 Palo;~~ A7as initially
iart of th L rport Road ipt for the aurel Tree d . e stormwater
improvements Th
pumpkins). The 1.38~
~ase""!ent in favor of
GiErtio~ of the site
utilitie:~1_ch contains
:cur on t~=·pr· sewer). , 1 operty .a ent Level (CNEL)
port operations, as
proposed Project ;t~?: Guidelines ocument or
~ation becomes
,e_quent negative
meal changes or
''.epared (CEOA
roJect area th
lt~er than thos:
information of
ed by this prior
~itional further
scl_osed in the
iallon that the
Southeast come< ot Palomar Airport Road al Aviara Parl<way, Carlsbad, CA (APN 212-040-64-00)
Th• Project is a request to reduce the previously approved three-slo<Y, 85,000 SF general office building
to a three-sto<Y, 62,600-SF medical office building. The proposed Projeel srte plan reconfigures the
placement of the smaller building and associated srte improvements. Access to the Project site would
continue to be provided via one unsignalized lull-access driveway al the cuHle-sac on the eastern
terminus of Laurel Tree Lane. Both the proposed Project and the previously approved project feature
parl<ing improvements up to the pedestrian trail along the southern portion ot the parcel, abutting the
Laurel Tree Lane Preserve with a narrow landscape strip between the parking stalls and trail tencioQ.
Th• overall Project parl<ing would meet the minimum 313 parl<ing spaces required per the Carlsbad
!,lunicipal ccide, including spaces tor electric vehicle (EV), clean air vehicles and disabled access. A 150-toot-wide sDG&E easement traverses the site diagonally and would contain a total ot 159 parl<ing spaces
2B. Project Description td Reporting
of Cartsbad
1 request to
al Program
d land use
erroneous
d Planned
12/3/2024
{city of
Carlsbad
New information of substantial
importance not analyzed in the
previous MND:
Greenhouse gas emissions
Traffic
Wildfires
10
New Information of Substantial Importance
Appellant's Position
C cityof
Carlsbad
NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE
- GREENHOUSE GAS
11
Climate Action Plan adopted 2015
CAP Consistency Checklist
Consistent with General Plan and
Zoning
11
Staff’s Position
a Ac o pa
{city of
Carlsbad
NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
IMPORTANCE - TRAFFIC
12
LOS metric used for Kelly/JRM
MND
Updated traffic study
LOS performance standard of
D or better
12
Staff’s Position
{city of
Carlsbad
NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE - FIRE
13
13
Staff’s PositionPalomar Airport Road
Av
i
a
r
a
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Open Space
Approved fire access
Compliance with California Fire
Code
Major arterial roadways for
evacuation
Approximately 200’ from open
space
Surrounded by asphalt and
irrigated landscaping
PA L OMAR AIRPO R T ROAD
_,
--------'"'------."i.".\TER ITT"B.'\S
eMP#2 F'a:..~ENGINEEE: _ -- - -Blillr'it1 .FER1CMLENllNEEn.
COnNEEl \IEHICUL".R~JGHT
LINBD 'lt.,ll,Tffi C :'\LITY 3.-"'IS '
l=MP"3F'aief':
r
I ,
1' ~ ~ I~ :,1 j. l 1K
1f
II >-?
I '.:~~ <( )
I :~\I 3: 1 JI~ Y'.
I ! fl'.:
<(
n..
' ' I-~ <( i,,.1 I 1;"~ IX
I'· :! 'µ I
I,". ± ," ~ J. ~~ <( -~ l,•j,.--' t~ 't ' '' _,
1...:; r-;j
I:~ ~\ OTESt
..
, SITE FURNISHINGS
~ EOUrMENr
.CltC6URE IFS
ER6
{city of
Carlsbad
Project was not noticed
correctly
The appellant, SSG-TH, LLC, did
not receive notice of the
project.
Insufficient Public Noticing
14
Applicant’s Position
C cityof
Carlsbad
Public Notification
15
Policy 84
•Early Public Notice
•600-foot owners
•100-foot occupants
•Project Sign
•Enhanced Stakeholder
Outreach
~
2"
\
21 ~
HT 2 --1
Public Notification
16
APN NAME UINIT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
212·040-64 KELLY/JRM-PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD Ill C UNIT 201 330 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 212--040·47 COTTAGE ROW CARLSBAD l l C UNITC 1400 FLAME TREE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 i,1v~ 212--040-59 CARLSBAD LAUREL TREE APARTMENTS LP 1355 3RDAVE CHULA VISTA CA 91911 X
107~ AC
212-040-67 SSG TH LLC UNIT 900 4747 EXECUTIVE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92121
" fl> 212-040·68 CARLSBAD APL MP LLC PO BOX 37243 CHARLOTTE NC 28237 /rJ ~,., i ~ .¢ ~l~'4 212-040-69 SSG TH LLC UNIT 220 3 CORPORATE PLAZA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ,.§l,c -.t-,-" ~,, " 212·040-70 1000 AVIARA HOLDINGS LL C UNIT330 S8S7 OWENS AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 .,. '1>',()i.f I I 212--040-71 PALOMAR FITNESS PARTNERS LP UNIT2110 11601 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 9002S
212·040-72 PALOMAR FITNESS PARTNERS LP UNIT312 501 SANTA MONICA BLVD SANTA MONICA CA 90401 212-04().73 TMW AVIARA LP 92122 UNIT 150 5120 SHORE PL SAN DIEGO CA
212·040-74 TMW AVIARA LP UNIT 150 S120 SHORE Pl SAN DIEGO CA 92122 2'\I 212-040-75 TMW AVIARA LP UNIT 150 Sl20 SHORE PL SAN DIEGO CA 92122 212-040-76 AVIARA EASTHOUSIING LP UNIT 103 4142 ADAMS AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92116 10
212-04().77 AVIARA LP UNIT 180 9191 SAPPHIRE DR CARLSBAD CA 92122
212-192-01 VINODH VASUDEVAN PO BOX#205 PHOENIX AZ 85001
212-210-23 SALTAIRE AT CARLSBAD HOMEOWNERS ASSN UNIT 3SO 4100 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 212-211-16 SU RESH & ROSHNI CHINTALAPATI 6381 EBB TIDE ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 212-211-17 COLLINS CHARLES G TRUST 02-17-06 UNIT 214 2100 PALOMAR AIRPORT RO CARLSBAD CA 92011 212-211-18 SALTAIRE AT CARLSBAD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION UNIT 102 2146 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 @) 212·220-01 FAUSNER DAWN M REVOCABLE TRUST 04-24--03 4671 PAN NO NIA RO CARLSBAD CA 92008 -~-, 212-223-14 VISTA LAS FLORES LP UNIT950 1230 COLUMBIA ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 p,-RA "' 212-223·16 CARLSBAD SHOREPOINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSN UNIT 200 3088 PIO PICO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 @ ST ~ 212•250-07 BOYNTON TRUST 07-21-21 1371 SAPPHIRE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 . " 1,76 AC , 212·250-08 HOLLIGER SUSAN L QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST 10671 N 137TH ST SCOTTSDALE AZ 8S259 , .• ,S> @), "·~ 212-250-09 MAHER FAMILYTRUST08·13·86 1363 SAPPHIRE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 .~ ~d'.,. < 212-250-10 LU REVOCABLE 2004 TRUST 1364 SAPPHIRE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 9.1~ ,.,c
,.,, __
212-250•11 TSAI FAMILY 2003 TRUST 07•18-03 1368 SAPPHIRE OR CARLSBAD CA 92011 212·250-12 EDWARD & MAIO SANAZ FERRER 1372 SAPPHIRE OR CARLSBAD CA 92011
212-250-15 EMERALD POINTE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSN 1900 MAIN ST 5TH Fl IRVINE CA 92614
212·250-16 SAN DIEGO HABITAT CONSERVANCY UNIT205 2770 HISTORIC DECATUR RO SAN DIEGO CA 92106 212-270-02 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
RECOMMENDED ACTION
ITEM 14: GRAND HOPE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
17
Adopt the resolution denying the appeal and
upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve the Minor Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development
Permit as described in the staff report.
C cityof
Carlsbad