HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-06; City Council; 16423; Pacifica Palomar Office BuildingCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# jb! %3
MTG. \ \-d-o/
DEPT. PLN &
TITLE- -.
PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
GPA 01 -0SICDP 01-02
CITYMGR a-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. JOO/ -3c3q ADOPTING the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
APPROVING the General Plan Amendment, GPA 01-05 and Coastal Development Permit, CDP
01-02 based upon the findings contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Development
Permit for the Pacifica Palomar Office Building project. The project site is a total area of 15.69
acres located adjacent to and south of Palomar Airport Road and 500 feet east of Aviara
Parkway. The project consists of a three-story office building totaling 120,000 square feet.
The General Plan amendment is to adjust the boundaries between the Planned Industrial (PI)
and Open Space (OS) areas to have them coincide with the physical and environmental
constraints of the property. The proposed OS area is equal in area to the existing OS area (6.3
acres). The property has been biologically surveyed to determine the sensitive and developable
portion of the property. The new proposed OS boundary will follow the northern extent of the
proposed 50-foot riparian buffer for Encinas Creek and existing open space easements. The PI
portion on the south side of the site, south of Encinas Creek, is also proposed to be changed to
OS. This area of southern mixed chaparral is adjacent to other open space property and is of
better habitat quality than the disturbed PI area. An amendment to the Open Space and
Conservation Map will also be made to reflect the amendment.
As designed, the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 21.202) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance Chapter
21.203).
In the event that the California Coastal Commission appeals and denies the issuance of the
coastal permit for the office building development, the General Plan amendment is still a
necessary action to correct the land use designations to reflect the environmental constraints of
the property.
More details and analysis of the project is in the attached Planning Commission report dated
September 19, 2001. The Planning Commission approved (4-2) the related Site Development
Plan and recommended (4-2) that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and
Coastal Development Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Director determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the
environment and, therefore, issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on July 5, 2001.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. bb,, 43 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the proposed project would have no fiscal impact on the City.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 230 0 \ - 3 3 3
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5040, 5042, and 5043.
4. Planning Commission Staff Report and exhibits, dated September 19, 2001 5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 19, 2001.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-334
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING ON A
15.69 ACRE SITE AND REFERRING A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE
OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR APPROVING
DOCUMENTS.
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: GPA 01-05/CDP 01-02
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on September 19, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Coastal Development Permit, and General Plan Amendment, and
recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th day of
November, 2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Coastal
Development Permit, and General Plan Amendment and at that time received
recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to
GPA 01-05 and CDP 01-02;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Attorney’s office shall prepare a document reflecting that the Land
Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan are amended as shown
in Exhibit “GPA 01-05” dated September 19, 2001.
3. That Coastal Development Permit 01-02 to develop a 15.69 acre site with a
120,000 sq ft office building as shown on Exhibits “A” - “S” dated September 19, 2001 (on file
in the Planning Department) is approved.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 5, 2001 (on file in the Planning
Department) are adopted.
5. That the findings of the Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5040, 5042 and
5043 are incorporated herein by reference and are the findings of the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 6th day of NOVEMBER 2001, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: ,.. -
-<ORwNE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
PACIFICA PALOMAR
OFFICE BUILDING
GPA Ol-OUCDP 01-02
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHISIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO DEVELOP A 15.69 ACRE SITE
WITH A 120,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATED ADJACENT AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF AVIARA PARKWAY IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: GPA Ol-05/ SDP Ol-Ol/ CDP Ol-02/ PIP 01-02
WHEREAS, Pacifica Enterprises Island Realty 1 Limited Partnership,
CLDeveloper and Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding
property described as
That portion of that certain parcel of land shown and
designated as description No. 3,78.01 acres on record of survey
map no. 5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot G of
the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No 823,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, lying southerly of the centerline of
Palomar Airport Road, as shown on County of San Diego Road
Survey No. 1534, on file in the office of the County Surveyor of
said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of September, 2001
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 5, 2001, and “PII” dated June 5, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 1
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Pacika Palomar
Office Building Mitigation, Addendum, and Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PC RESO NO. 5040 -2- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of September 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
.~
CARLSBAD PLANkNG1~~~~SSION
ATTEST:
~~H~~LJ.MLMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5040 -3-
City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: South and adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara
Parkway. Project site is accessed via Laura1 Tree Road extension.
Property is also identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 212-040-
25-00
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment, Site development Plan, Planned
Industrial Permit for the construction of a 120,000 square foot,
three-story office building and associated parking on 15.69 acres of
land and to adjust the open space/planned industrial boundary.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on tile in the
Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4613.
DATED: JULY 5,200l
CASE NO: GPA Ol-OS/SDP Ol-Ol/CDP Ol-02/PIP 01-02
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 5,200l
MICHAEL J. HOL%ILl%R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: GPA 0 1 -OS/SDP 0 1-O 1 /CDP 0 l -02/PIP 0 l-02
DATE: June 5,200l
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PACIFICA CARLSBAD
2. APPLICANT: PACIFICA ENTERPRISES/ISLAND REALITY I, L.P.
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12780 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE,
SUITE 160, SAN DIEGO, CA 92130 (858) 755-0216
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 1,200l
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 120,000 square foot. three-story office building located adjacent
and south of Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara Parkway on 15.69 acres.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
cl Land Use and Planning la Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing El Biological Resources I7 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems El Energy & Mineral Resources El Aesthetics
q Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality lxl Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
cl
IXI
0
q
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
J-6,
Planner Sign&u e
($243 -01
Date
Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96 12
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 031’28?‘% 13
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the ’
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Disrupt br divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community) (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or _ -
4
b)
cl
4
e>
f)
9)
h)
i>
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15, # 2)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, # 2)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, # 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l- 1 -
5.1-15, # 2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11,#3)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1, # 3)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Potentially
Significant
impact
El
0
0
0
El
0
0
cl
0
0
El
El
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
lxl
151
lxl
Ix1
El
Ia
lxl
la
IXI
lxl
IXI
El
Is]
lxl
lxl
PII
la
El
lxl
lxl
5 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
8)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22, # 4)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7-22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #5)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #5)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#I :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24, #5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
El
0
El
0
0
q
IXI
0
0
0
lxl
0
0
cl
0
q
q
0
q
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
[x1
[XI
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
0
El
lxl
IXI
Ix]
(XI
lxl
cl
tzl
El
6 Rev. 03128196 15
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
4
VIII.
4
b)
c)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #5)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24, #5)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b)
cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
cl
4
e>
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
XILUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
Potentially Significanl
Impact
q
El
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
lxl
Ix1
txl
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
0
lxl
Ix1
txl
la
Ix]
IXI
7 Rev. 03128196 11
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
e)
f)
8)
XIII.
a>
b)
c>
XIV.
4
b)
c>
4
e)
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a. scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.1 l-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10,) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10, #6)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10, #6)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
4
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
a
El
0,
III
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
El
Ix1
lxl
[XI
lxl
[xl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lzl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
(XI
lxl
8 Rev. 03128196 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? E.l 0 0 lzl
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 0 lzl
either directly or indirectly?
9 Rev. 03/28/96 18
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c> Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03128!96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of a 120,000 square foot, three-story, office building with 385 surface and
104 underground parking spaces on 15.69 acres located south and adjacent to Palomar Airport
Road and east of Aviara Parkway. Improvements consist of the extension of Laura1 Tree Lane, a
public road, to cross Encinas Creek within the existing Laura1 Tree Lane private road easement
replacing the existing Laura1 Tree Ln. drainage culvert for Encinas Creek; extend drainage
facilities from Palomar Airport Road to proposed detention basins; frontage improvements on
Palomar Airport Road; and storm water detention basins. The General Plan amendment is to
adjust the boundary of the open space/planned industrial based on environmental and biological
constraints.
The project site is bordered by Palomar Airport Road to the north and to the south by Encinas
Creek. The northern developable portion of the site is relatively flat and has been used for
agricultural purposes. On site elevations range from 100 feet to 106 feet in the low-lying area
and up to 160 feet above MSL on the southern slope. The majority of the site is disturbed
habitat, with native vegetation communities (including southern willow scrub and southern
mixed chaparral) existing along the length of the drainage and on the steep slope along the
southern boundary of the parcel. No sensitive plant or animal species were observed on the site.
11 Rev. 03128196
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
12 Rev. 03128196 21
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Biology
The site supports, 2.0 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 0.15 acres of southern willow scrub
(disturbed), 0.3 acre of ephemeral drainage, and 9.15 acres of disturbed habitat. The .02-acre of
freshwater marsh and .15-acre southern willow scrub (disturbed) referenced in the biological
report are located west and downstream of the project site. Of these habitats, 0.2 acre is Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdictional wetlands (off-site) and .15 acre is ACOE jurisdictional
non-wetland Waters of the U.S (on-site). In addition, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG)
jurisdictional areas include all ACOE jurisdictional areas as well as an additional 2.3 acres of
riparian habitat (southern willow scrub). Development of the site would only impact disturbed
habitat. The project proposes to avoid direct impacts to all ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional
areas.
A focused survey for the least Bell’s vireo was conducted and it was not observed on the site.
Habitat quality was determined to be of poor quality for the support of the willow flycatcher. A
rare plant survey was conducted for the San Diego thornmint and thread-leaved brodiaea with
none found. No rare plants were observed within the project area proposed for development.
A 50-foot buffer is proposed to extend from the identified riparian habitat. A portion of the
buffer area will be improved with detention basins for the control of pollutant discharge in
accordance with the NPDES best management practices and a decomposed citywide trail along
the outermost portion of the buffer. The trail, with a non-paved but permeable surface, will be
placed in the buffer between the buildings and detention basin. Urban water runoff will be
collected from Palomar Airport Road and the project site and run through the basins prior to
being released into the Encinas Creek. The buffer area will be landscaped with a native mix of
plants to transition from the native to non-native landscaping. All sediment removal/swale
maintenance will be accomplished manually, not using motorized equipment that requires
placement in the buffer or wetlands.
13 Rev. 03128/96 2a
Mitigation
The focused surveys for the least Bell’s vireo are typically valid for two seasons, with the
projects surveys therefore applicable to at least the year 2001. If the project grading were
completed prior to April 1,2002, no additional surveys or mitigation would be recommended. If
the project grading activities were expected to extend beyond the beginning of the 2002 breading
season, the project applicant shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife service
(USFWS) prior to commencing grading to determine if additional surveys or mitigation would be
necessary.
Prior to grading plan approval, areas of the site to be preserved in their existing condition shall be
clearly demarcated on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Public
Works Director. A habitat protection fence detail approved by the Planning Director and Public
Works Director shall be included on the grading plan along with the location for its installation.
These areas shall be fenced in the field by a qualified biologist who shall also submit to the
Planning Director a letter attesting to the accuracy of the fencing location prior to the issuance of
the grading permit.
To minimize indirect impacts to the Encinas Creek, the proposed 50-foot setback shall be
revegetated using native upland plant species. This shall be included in the final landscape plans
for the project that must be approved prior to the approval of a grading plan. Review and
approval of the landscape plans for the buffer area by the USFWS is required prior to grading
plan approval.
All sediment removal/swale maintenance will be accomplished manually, not using motorized
equipment that requires placement in the buffer or wetlands.
The citywide pedestrian trail, with a non-paved but permeable surface, will be placed in the
northern portion of the buffer between the building and detention basin.
An exterior lighting plan, including parking areas, shall be submitted for Planning Director
approval prior to building permit issuance. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward
and avoid any impacts to adjacent habitat areas and homes. The maximum height of all fixtures
shall not exceed 30 feet.
Noise
The majority of the site is located within the 65 to 70 decibel Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) noise contours identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Palomar
Airport with an area on the northerly portion of the property being within the 70 to 75 CNEL
noise contour. No development that would be affected by noise will be placed within the 70 to
75 CNEL area. Office buildings are listed on the airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix
as a conditionally compatible in the 65 to 70 decibel CNEL noise level with the following
mitigation measures:
1. The proposed office building shall be noise attenuated to an interior level of 50
decibels CNEL based on an acoustical study submitted along with the building
plans. Concurrent with the submittal of building plans, the applicant shall submit
an acoustical study documenting what construction materials or measures must be
utilized to meet required interior noise levels. A letter signed by the acoustical
engineer and the project architect which contains the architects registration stamp
14 Rev. 03128196 a3
and certifies that the recommendations of the acoustical study have been
incorporated into the building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director
prior to building permit issuance.
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the existing
Palomar Airport Road Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of
the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the
Planning Department).
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a
Notice that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft
operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the
Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the
Planning Department).
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation
Easement for the property to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the
recorded document with the Planning Director.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Geotechnical Investigation, Pacifica Carlsbad, California, Geocon Incorporated, February
7,200l.
3. Preliminary Drainage Studv for Pacifica Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California, Shapouri and
Associates, dated April 2001.
4. Transportation Analvsis for Pacifica Palomar, Urban Systems Associates, Inc., dated
April 13,200l.
5. Biological Conditions and Constraints at the Pacific Entermises Site, Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. dated March 13,200l
6. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Pacifica Carlsbad Property, Carlsbad,
California, Gallegos & Associates, dated April 2000
15 Rev. 03128196 24
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Prior to commencing grading, the project applicant shall consult with the United States
Fish and Wildlife service (USFWS), if the project grading activities are expected to
extend beyond the beginning of the least Bell’s vireo 2002 breading season, to determine
if additional least Bell’s vireo surveys or mitigation would be necessary. If the project
grading were completed prior to April 1, 2002, no additional least Bell’s vireo surveys or
mitigation would be recommended.
Prior to grading plan approval, areas of the site to be preserved in their existing condition
shall be clearly demarcated on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director and Public Works Director. A habitat protection fence detail approved by the
Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be included on the grading plan along
with the location for its installation. These areas shall be fenced in the field by a qualified
biologist who shall also submit to the Planning Director a letter attesting to the accuracy
of the fencing location prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
To minimize indirect impacts to the Encinas Creek, the proposed 50-foot setback shall be
revegetated using native upland plant species. This shall be included in the final
landscape plans for the project that must be approved prior to the approval of a grading
plan. Review and approval of the landscape plans for the buffer area by the USFWS is
required prior to grading plan approval.
An exterior lighting plan, including parking areas, shall be submitted for Planning
Director approval prior to building permit issuance. All lighting shall be designed to
reflect downward and avoid any impacts to adjacent habitat areas and homes. The
maximum height of all fixtures shall not exceed 30 feet.
The proposed office building shall be noise attenuated to an interior level of 50 decibels
CNEL based on an acoustical study submitted along with the building plans. Concurrent
with the submittal of building plans, the applicant shall submit an acoustical study
documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet required
interior noise levels. A letter signed by the acoustical engineer and the project architect
which contains the architects registration stamp and certifies that the recommendations of
the acoustical study have been incorporated into the building plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the existing Palomar Airport
Road Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director
and City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from
McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department).
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer.shall record an Avigation Easement
for the property to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the recorded document
with the Planning Director.
16 Rev. 03128196
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
See attached
17 Rev. 03/28/96 aC,
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASUFUZS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
d%&b,
Date /
18 Rev. 03/28/96 27
ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA Ol-
05 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior
to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994
MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although
the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its
adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed
circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in
the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no
new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later
projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
L c- Q, .- + egg O=JCl
$ r, 0 d
3 5
5 ii E - 2 p! 3 E 8 .-
= E zi n E
I ‘27
L: .b g .-
3 E
8 .- P
E .%I cgc 0-o ‘kg g B
m-0 m e g 3
Eug aim 2)az 353
II ‘0, 5
5-03 ‘3 .c -0
2 = T
E 2 3 .s 5
2 3 CT E
5 2 In .2 2 2 8 E
s ‘Z
E ‘S .- E . =d $ii
30 II fz mm
6% .hB 5 c 4 Liz OS
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST Page 1 of 1
i :E : (0 !h i
2 E z
E 1 8 ln lg
E 3 P s
f
G .“- E 5 z E
s -= m .g .-
Ed g#
3: II c mm
5% .h3 g =:?d ‘G or
11
.E UY 30
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23,
24
25
26
27
28
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 01-02 TO
DEVELOP A 15.69 ACRE SITE WITH A 120,000 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
ADJACENT AND SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
EAST OF AVIARA PARKWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: CDP 01-02
WHEREAS, Pacifica Enterprises Island Realty 1 Limited Partnership,
“Developer and Owner,” has tiled a verified application with the City of .Carlsbad regarding
property described as
That portion of that certain parcel of land shown and
designated as description No. 3,78.01 acres on record of survey
map no. 5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, December 19,1960, being a portion of Lot G of
the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No 823,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, lying southerly of the centerline of
Palomar Airport Road, as shown on County of San Diego Road
Survey No. 1534, on file in the office of the County Surveyor of
said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “S” dated September 19, 2001 on file in the
Planning Department, PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING - CDP 01-02 as
provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of September, 2001
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Coastal Development Permit. 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W
Findinps:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE
BUILDING - CDP 01-02 based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
1. .That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and the General Plan and all applicable policies in that the project is in
compliance with the relevant polices of the Mello II Segment of the local Coastal
Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone, and the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone in that no prime agricultural lands exist on or near the
site; no impacts will occur to environmentally sensitive habitats; no coastal access is
or will be needed through or adjacent to the project site; and no significant public
view points are on or near the site.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the site is located over 2 miles from the Pacific Ocean and
no coastal access areas or water-oriented recreational activities exist on or near the
project site.
3. The project complies with the requirements of the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
Zone as the project has been conditioned to pay the agricultural conversion
mitigation fee to develop the property with other than agricultural uses.
4. The project also complies with the requirements of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone as erosion will be controlled by grading in conformance with the
City’s Standards; grading will be restricted to the summer season unless winter
grading is required because of the presence of endangered species; the site contains
no dual criteria slopes; and the project will adhere to the City’s Master drainage
and Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Grading Ordinance to avoid
increased runoff and soil erosion.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit issuance.
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; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
PC RESO NO. 5042 -2- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of’
this Coastal Development Permit.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the 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.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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.
The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit,
(b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 01-05, and SDP 01-02 and
is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5040,
5041 and 5043 for those other approvals.
The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 21.201.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
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 an agricultural mitigation fee, the amount of which shall not be less than
$5,000 nor more than $10,000 for each net converted acre of non-prime agricultural
land. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council and be paid by
the applicant prior to approval of the final map or issuance of any grading permit,
whichever occurs first and shall be consistent with the provisions of Carlsbad’s
LCP.
PC RESO NO. 5042 -3- 349
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project ,includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
13
14
15
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of September 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioners Heineman and Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
26
27
28 Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5042 -4- 35 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT AND THE OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT AND SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF AVIARA
PARKWAY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO: GPA 01-05
WHEREAS, Paciika Enterprises Island Realty 1 Limited Partnership,
“Developer and Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding
property described as
That portion of that certain parcel of land shown and
designated as description No. 3,78.01 acres on record of survey
map no. 5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, December 19,1960, being a portion of Lot G of
the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No 823,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, lying southerly of the centerline of
Palomar Airport Road, as shown on County of San Diego Road
Survey No. 1534, on file in the office of the County Surveyor of
said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 01-05” dated September 19, 2001 on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING - GPA 01-05 as
provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of September 2001
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
‘B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE
BUILDING - GPA 01-05, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of
the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated September
19, 2001 including, but not limited to the following: that the proposed Planned
Industrial and Open Space land uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses
in that the adjacent land uses are also designated Planned Industrial and Open
Space; that the land use change is based on the environmental constraints of the
property and is environmentally and topographically appropriate for the site in that
the riparian area, habitat buffer, and upland slope and habitat area are proposed to
be designated as Open Space and the flat, disturbed area is proposed to be
designated Planned Industrial.
2. That the proposed open space area:
A. is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space and
Conservation Map; and
B. is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that depicted on the Official
Open Space and Conservation Map; and
C. is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the Official
Open Space and Conservation Map.
PC BESO NO. 5043 -2- 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of September 2001 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, and Trigas
NOES: Commissioners Heineman and Nielsen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. MLZWLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5043 ’ -3- 38
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA: 01-05
draft q final 0
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Project Name: Pacifica Palomar Office Building 1 Related Case File No(s): SDP 01-Ol/CDP 01-02
Property/Legal Description: That portion of that certain parcel of land shown and designated as description No. 3,
78.01 acres on record of survey map no. 5715, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot G of the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No 823, filed
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, lying southerly of the centerline of Palomar Airport Road, as shown on County of San
Dieao Road Survev No. 1534. on file in the office of the Countv Survevor of said Countv
G.P. Map Designation Change
Property From: To:
A. 212-040-25-00 PI (PORTION) OS
B.
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Resolution No:
Effective Date:
I
L
39
Signature:
. EXHIBIT 4 0 0 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 6
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 19,200l
q
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: GPA Ol-05/CDP Ol-02/SDP 01-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE
BUILDING - Request for the recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and the recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment and
Coastal Development Permit and the approval of a Site Development Plan to
construct a three-story multi-tenant office building with a total area of 120,000
square feet, with subterranean and at-grade parking, on a 15.69 acre site located
adjacent to and on the south side of Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara
Parkway in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5040, 5043,
5042 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, addendum, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GPA 01-05 and CDP 01-02 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5041,
APPROVING SDP 01-01, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
These applications propose developing one lot with a three-story multi-tenant office building
having a total area of 120,000 square feet. A total of 489 parking spaces will be provided. The
General Plan Amendment is to adjust the boundary of the Open Space and Planned Industrial
land use designations based on a biological survey of the property. The proposed land use is
permitted by the Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (P-M-Q) for the
property, subject to the approval of a Site Development Plan. The property is located within the
Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program requiring the approval of a Coastal Development
Permit. The project includes extending Laurel Tree Lane to the project site over the existing
private Laurel Tree Road alignment. Fifty foot landscaped setbacks will be provided along
Palomar Airport Road and from Encinas Creek located along the southern boundary of the site.
The project is in compliance with all city requirements. A Planned Industrial Permit is also
required for the project and will be acted upon by the Planning Director after Planning
Commission and Council decisions. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed containing
mitigation measures for biological resources and noise.
GPA Ol-OS/CDP 01-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR
September 19,200 1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a General
Plan Amendment and Coastal Development Permit and approve a Site Development Plan for the
Pacifica Palomar Office Building project. The project site is a total area of 15.69 acres located
adjacent to and south of Palomar Airport Road and 500 feet east of Aviara Parkway. The project
consists of a three-story office building totaling 120,000 square feet. Parking will be provided
at-grade and in a subterranean parking garage with a total of 489 parking spaces. Indoor and
outdoor employee eating areas are proposed. An outdoor eating area on the east side of the
building will have tables, chairs, trash container and cloth shade structure. A fully enclosed
mechanical equipment yard located immediately to the east of the building, thereby minimizing
the amount of rooftop equipment necessary for the building. The mechanical equipment
enclosure will be 12 feet tall and will be constructed with split-face masonry block.
As depicted on the exhibits, the project contains significant landscaped building setbacks around
the perimeter of the development area. A fifty-foot landscape setback is proposed from Palomar
Airport Road and Encinas Creek. The Encinas Creek buffer will include a citywide pedestrian
trail and retention basins in addition to naturalized landscaping.
Vehicular access is provided to the site from the proposed extension of Laurel Tree Lane off of
Aviara Parkway. The new road will follow the old alignment of Laurel Tree Road
improvements and will require the replacement of the culvert for Encinas Creek under the
existing Laurel Tree Road. No access is provided from Palomar Airport Road, except for an
emergency access point located on the easterly portion of the site. The project will provide
frontage improvements, including median paving, median landscaping median irrigation, and
sidewalk along Palomar Airport Road. No roadway improvements are required for Aviara
Parkway.
The building is rectangular in shape with glass reentrant comers and a central evergreen tinted
convex curved glass entry. The third level is primarily a jade colored glass wall with the first
and second floors having large evergreen tinted picture windows with aluminum mullions
surrounded by a red sandstone veneer. Metal panels and louvers also accent the building. The
building height is 45 feet and the highest architectural feature is 55 feet tall.
Grading for the project consists of 24,026 cubic yards of cut and 19,305 cubic yards of fill with a
net export of 4,721 cubic yards of material. At the completion of grading, the first floor level
will be six feet lower than the elevation of Palomar Airport Road and two feet higher than the
existing grade.
The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent
properties:
0 !!? GPA 01 -OS/CDP Ol -02/SDP 01-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFF1 E BUILDING
September 19,200l
General Plan, Zoning & Existing Land Use for the Site and Adjacent Property
GENERAL PLAN ZONING EXISTING LAND
USE
Site PI and OS P-M-Q, OS, Vacant
North PI P-M Vacant - City Golf
Course/Industrial Site
South
East
West
OS, RL, and RLM
PI and OS
OS and OS
LC and OS
P-M-Q
P-M-O
Open Space
Vacant
Vacant
Site Description
The northern developable portion of the site is relatively flat and has been used for agricultural
purposes. On-site elevations range from 100 feet to 106 feet in the low-lying area and up to 160
feet above MSL on the southern slope. The majority of the site is disturbed habitat, with native
vegetation communities (including southern willow scrub and southern mixed chaparral) existing
along the length of the Encinas Creek drainage and on the steep slope along the southern
boundary of the parcel. The site has street frontage on Palomar Airport Road.
Applicable Regulations
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed
within the following section of this staff report:
A. Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space General Plan Land Use Designations;
B. Planned Industrial, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (P-M-Q);
C. Site Development Plan findings required by the Qualified Development Overlay Zone -
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.06, Section 21.06.020;
D. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport;
E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone -
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 2 1.202 and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.203; and
F. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will
cover the project’s compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which
they are presented.
. . 0 GPA 01 -OS/CDP 0 l -02/SDP 0 l-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR
September 19,200l
Pane 4
BUILDING
A. General Plan
As shown on Exhibit “S”, the General Plan designation for the proposed development area of the
project site is Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS). The Open Space area (6.3 acres) is
generally located along Encinas Creek. The remainder of the lot and small portion of the site
(3.1 acres) south of Encinas Creek are designated as PI. The General Plan map shows the OS
area encroaching into the developable portion of the lot. The General Plan amendment is to
adjust the boundaries between the PI and OS areas to have them coincide with the physical and
environmental constraints of the property. The proposed OS area is equal in area to the existing
OS area (6.3 acres). The property has been biologically surveyed to determine the sensitive and
developable portion of the property. The new proposed OS boundary will follow the northern
extent of the proposed 50-foot riparian buffer for Encinas Creek and existing open space
easements. The PI portion on the south side of the site, south of Encinas Creek, is also proposed
to be changed to OS. This area of southern mixed chaparral is adjacent to other open space
property and is of better habitat quality than the disturbed PI area. An amendment to the Open
Space and Conservation Map will also be made to reflect the amendment. The project complies
with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in the table below:
ELEMENT
Land Use
Circulation
Noise
GENERAL PLA
1 USE,
CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR PROGRAM
Development area is
designated as PI
New development
shall dedicate and
improve all public
right-of-way for
circulation facilities
needed to serve
development
Utilize noise
standards contained in
the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for
Palomar Airport
COMPLIANCE
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
Office uses proposed
Additional dedication
for a public road,
Laurel Tree Rd. and
frontage
improvements to
Palomar Airport Rd.
The project includes
mitigation measures
to achieve the
required interior noise
levels
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
. 0 GPA 0 1 -OS/CDP 0 l -02/SDP 01-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFF1 m BUILDING
September 19,200l
Page 5
ELEMENT
Open Space &
Conservation
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE I PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
USE,
CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR PROGRAM
Designate as buffers
portions of land next
to sensitive
environmental areas
Proposed Open Space
area equal or greater
than depicted on map
Environmental quality
equal or greater
Contiguous with Open Adjacent to Open
Space as shown on Space as shown on
Official Open Space Official Open Space
Man Map
The project includes a
50-foot buffer from
Encinas Creek
Existing 6.3 acres
Proposed 6.3 acres
Replace disturbed
habitat with southern
mixed chaparral
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
B. P-M-Q Zoning Regulations
The development area of the project site is zoned Planned Industrial, Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (P-M-Q). The project complies with all requirements of the P-M Zone as
demonstrated in the following table:
STANDARD
Permitted Use
P-M ZONE COMPLIANCE
REQUIRED
Business & Professional
I Offices 1 nronosed
PROPOSED
Multi-tenant office use
Building Height
Setbacks
35 feet/ 45 ft.*; 55 ft. for
allowed nrotrusions
Palomar Airport Road - 50 ft.
(+ 10 feet*)
Interior Side Yard - 10 ft. (+
10 feet*)
Rear Yard - 10 ft. (+ 10 feet*)
45 Et. maximum; 55 ft. for
allowed protrusions
Palomar Airport Road - 80 ft.
Interior Side Yard - 320 ft.
Rear Yard - 215 ft.
Parking
Parking area landscaping
480 (1:250) 489 (1:244)
10% of the required parking 10% of the required parking
Minimum Lot Area
1 area
I 1 acre
1 area
1 15.69 acres tone lot)
Lot Coverage 1 50% maximum 1 10.8%
GPA 01 -OS/CDP 0 l -02/SDP 0 l-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR
September 19,200l
BUILDING
P-M ZONE COMPLIANCE
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED
Employee Eating Areas 4,320 sq. ft. 4,460 sq. ft.
Outdoor Equipment Enclose by a concrete or Mechanical equipment
masonry wall not less than 6 enclosure built to 12 ft. tall
ft. in height with masonry block
* Increase setbacks one foot for every foot of building height over 35 feet.
The increase in building height from 35 feet to 45 feet complies with Section 21.34.070, PM
Development Standards, in that the building is not more than three stories; all setbacks have been
increased the amount of the increase in building height; and the building will conform with
Section 18.04.170 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (regarding fire sprinklers, smoke alarms and
elevators). The increase in height for architectural features from 45 to 55 feet complies with
Section 21.34.070, PM Development Standards, in that the architectural features do not function
to provide usable floor area; do not accommodate and/or screen mechanical equipment; do not
adversely impact adjacent properties; and are necessary to ensure the building’s design
excellence. The building has very large setbacks; no adjacent neighbors on three sides; and
topographic separation to the south. The architectural elements provide vertical relief and add
interest to the building’s elevations.
C. Site Development Plan Findings Required by the Qualified Development Overlay
Zone
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone (Q-Overlay), which is a part of the zoning designation
for the property, requires that a site development plan be approved for the proposed use prior to
the issuance of any building permit. The Q-Overlay Zone requires four findings. The required
findings with justification for each are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5041.
This section summarizes the necessary findings and support for each.
The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental setting as the
project design complies with the requirements of the P-M zone as discussed above. All required
building setbacks are provided, lot coverage is well below the maximum permitted, and
landscaping in excess of the zone requirements will be provided. Adequate separation is
provided from adjacent uses and the required 50-foot buffer from Encinas Creek has been
incorporated into the site design. The site is also adequate in shape to accommodate the use as
all other applicable code requirements have been met, including the parking standard in addition
to building coverage. Nine parking spaces over the required number are planned and building
coverage is less than one fourth of the maximum permitted. Ten percent of the parking area is
landscaped which meets the minimum 10 percent requirement.
As shown on Exhibit “K”, all features necessary to adjust the use to existing and permitted future
uses will be provided. Landscaping is proposed to screen the parking areas from public
roadways. Adequate vehicle circulation has been provided to accommodate truck-turning
movements. Laurel Tree Road, a public street off of Aviara Parkway, will provide access to the
site. The planned street system is adequate to handle all traffic (1,889 average daily trips)
generated by the use.
GPA Ol-OYCDP Ol-02/SDP 01-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR
September 19,200l
BUILDING
D. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan - Palomar Airport
The project site is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the airport and within the
Airport Influence Area for McClellan - Palomar Airport. The site is inside the 65 CNEL noise
contour with an area in the northwest comer located within the 70 CNEL noise contour. No
buildings are proposed within the 70 CNEL noise contour. The airport land use plan identifies
the use as being conditionally compatible within the 65 and 70 CNEL noise contour provided
interior noise levels are attenuated to an indoor level of 50 CNEL. The project was sent to the
Airport Manager in addition to SANDAG staff. With the application of the noise mitigation
measures proposed, the project was found to be in conformance with the airport land use plan.
E. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay
Zone and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
As designed, the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello II Segment of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2 1.202) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Zoning Ordinance Chapter
2 1.203). The project includes the required 50-foot riparian buffer from the edge of the riparian
habitat of Encinas Creek. The project proposes to reduce the lOO-foot wetland buffer to 50 feet,
coincident with the riparian buffer. A retention basin is proposed within the buffer area to
control the rate of storm water runoff and improve water quality from the site and existing storm
drains from Palomar Airport Road. The buffer area is presently a disturbed habitat containing
exotic, primarily weedy, species. The objective of the buffer is to protect water quality and
associated biological resources by providing a filtering mechanism for runoff before it enters the
riparian zone. The proposed retention basins within the 50-foot buffer would provide better
protection to regional and local biological resources than a larger buffer as noted in the
Biological Report prepared for the project.
No direct impacts are proposed to the wetland or riparian resources as dictated by Policy 3-7 of
the LCP. Pursuant to Policy 3-8 of the LCP, the California Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were consulted on the determination of the adequacy of the
50-foot buffer. The buffer was determined to be acceptable with the following conditions: that
all maintenance of the proposed detention basin be done manually; the public trail be placed
between the building and basin; the public trail not be paved and will have a permeable surface;
and that the basin be planted with native vegetation. Please see attached letter dated June 8,200l
for reference. The buffer zone will be protected by the execution of an open space easement and
general plan open space designation. No activity other than seasonal maintenance will occur
within the basin. The project either incorporates these conditions or has been conditioned to
incorporate them. The proposed pedestrian trail, a passive recreational use, is located in the
upper half of the buffer zone as allowed per Policy 3-8 of the LCP.
Although the Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service have endorsed the placement of the
retention basin within the buffer area, the California Coastal Commission has not tilly endorsed
the concept. In the event the Coastal Commission does not approve the basin, the project can
provide adequate retention on-site. The on-site basin(s) would displace extra parking spaces and
would only treat the runoff from the site. The basin within the buffer area was designed to
accommodate the project runoff as well as the runoff from Palomar Airport Road and is
environmentally superior.
GPA 0 1 -OS/CDP 0 l -02/SDP 01-01 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFF1 BUILDING
September 19,200l
The property is designated as coastal agricultural land and has been conditioned to pay the
agricultural conversion mitigation fee. Because of the potential for least Bell’s vireos to be
impacted by grading noise levels, a condition providing for modification of the coastal grading
timeframe, if necessary, is proposed. This condition will provide for the potential to grade the
site during the normal coastal grading prohibition period (winter grading) so as not to impact the
least Bell’s vireo if present. Please refer to the mitigated negative declaration for more detail.
The project site is LCP Landuse designated as Planned Industrial (PI) and LCP Zoned as Planned
Industrial with the Qualified development overlay (P-M-Q). The site does not have any LCP
Qpen Space designations. The City is working on a comprehensive General Plan and Zoning
consistency program that will bring the designations into consistency. A subsequent
comprehensive LCPA will make the City’s General Plan and Zoning consistent with the LCP as
a comprehensive action.
F. Growth Management Ordinance (LFMP Zone 5)
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 5 in the southwest
quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the
adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS
City Administration N/A Yes
Library N/A Yes
Wastewater Treatment 67 EDU Yes
Capacity
Parks $.4O/sq. ft. Yes
Drainage Basin C Yes
Circulation
Fire
1,889 ADT
Station 4
Yes
Yes
Open Space
Schools
N/A
Payment of non-residential
school fee at bldg. permit
issuance
Yes
Yes
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
67 EDU
67 EDU
Yes
Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Staff prepared an initial study for the project and concluded that potentially
significant impacts could result in the areas of air quality, circulation, biological resources and
noise. The project is within the scope of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report
(MEIR) which was utilized to address the project’s cumulative air quality and circulation
impacts. Project specific mitigation measures are proposed for biological resources and noise.
Please see the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II for a detailed description of the
mitigation measures and the expanded justification for the recommendation to approve the
GPA 0 l -OSICDP 0 l -02/SDP 0 1-O 1 - PACIFICA PALOMAR OFF1 BUILDING
September 19,200l
Mitigated Negative Declaration. In consideration of the foregoing, on July 5, 2001 the Planning
Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, additional discussion was
added regarding the adequacy of the MEIR. This addendum does not require the Mitigated
Negative Declaration to be re-circulated for public review because it does not constitute a
substantial revision according to California Environmental Quality Act Guideline 15073.5.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5040 (Mit. Neg. Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5043 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5042 (CDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5041 (SDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statements
Letter dated June 8,200l
Reduced exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “S”, dated September 19,200l
vL.cs:mll
0 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET l
CASE NO: GPA Ol-05/ CDP Ol-02/ SDP 01-01
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
APPLICANT: PACIFICA ENTERPRISES ISLAND REALTY I. L.P.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Development of a 120,000 square foot office building located
on south and adiacent to Palomar Airport Road east of Aviara Parkway
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of that certain parcel of land shown and
designated as description No. 3,78.01 acres on record of survey map no. 5715, filed in the office
of the County Recorder of San Diego Countv, December 19, 1960, being a portion of Lot G of
the Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No 823. filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego Countv, November 16, 1896. in the City of Carlsbad, Countv of San
Diego, State of California, lying southerly of the centerline of Palomar Airport Road, as shown
on County of San Dieno Road Survey No. 1534, on file in the office of the County Surveyor of
said County
APN: 2 12-040-25-00 Acres: 15.69 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 1
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial/Onen Space
Density Allowed: n/a Density Proposed: n/a
Existing Zone: Planned Industrial (PM-Q). Proposed Zone: Planned Industrial
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site PM-Q PI Vacant
North PM PI Vacant
South LC/OS RLLRLMIOS Vacant
East PM PI Vacant
West PM-Q PI Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 67
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Negative Declaration, issued July 5,200l
l-l Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
e CITY OF CARLSBAD 0
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORlU
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING - GPA 01-05/ CDP Ol-
02/ SDP 01-01
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 5 GENERAL PLAN: Planned Industrial
ZONING: Planned Industrial
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Pacifica Enternrises Island Realty I. L.P.
ADDRESS: 12780 High Bluff Drive, Suite 160, San Dieno. CA 92130
PHONE NO.: {858) 755-0216 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 212-040-25-00
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC,, SQ. FT., DU): 120,000 sq ft
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: unknown
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = n/a
Library: Demand in Square Footage = n/a
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 67 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = $ .4o/scl. ft.
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 68.56
Identify Drainage Basin = C - Encinas Creek
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 1.889
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = 7.2 acres
Schools: Carlsbad
Sewer: Demands in EDU 67
Identify Sub Basin = BuenaNallecitos
Water: Demand in GPD = 14,740
The project is units the Growth Management Dwelling unit
allowance. (Not Applicable)
. .
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s sfatement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applicatidns which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. I
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, c~partnership, .joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organisation, corporation, estate, trnst, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other COUIJ~, city and county, city
municipality, district or otherpolitical subdivision or any othergroup or combination acting asa unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and propeny owner must be
provided below.
I. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of m persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the
names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
TNDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE 1NDlCATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate offtcers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
persnnDario DeLuca/Robert Colucci Carp/Part PACIFICA ENTERPRISES LLC
Title Manager Title
Address 12780 High Bluff Drive Address
Suite 160
9 San Diego, CA 92130 -. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of m persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common. non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
cornoration or partnership. include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE m/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned corDoration, include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be. attached if necessary.)
person Island Realty 1 LP
Title
Address 12780 High Bluff Drive
Suite 160
San Diego, CA 92130
Corp/psR Albert Colucci/Salvatore Colucci
Title Partner
Address Barron Global RE Limited/Universal
Highland Assurance Company
Albert Colucci owns 100% Barron Global RE/Barron Glob31 ownc ~7 Island Realty 1
Salvatore Colucci owns 100% Universal Highland/UniversalHighland&ns 43% Island
Realy 1 LP CBC Investments, Inc. General Partner 1%
2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-089451 @j
4an-Lw-ul &#a; .LaI-
.j. . NON-PROFIT OR&IZATION OR TRUST a Sf any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit oraanization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY ~CZSOII serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust Non ProWTrust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City. staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
Cl Yes. 1Ea No If yes, please indicate person(s):.
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
/?D.@rn coLt/tcT
Print or type name of owner
&gpy c4Ltc~Z
Print or type name of applicant
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSJRE STATEMENT S/98 Page 2 of 2 52
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Avenue, West
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 43 l-9440
FAX (760) 43 l-9624
In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-1497.1
Mr. Van Lynch, Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 9200-73 14
Re: Pacifica Carlsbad Project 50-foot wetland buffer
Dear Mr. Lynch:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have
reviewed the project environmental documents and a recent map product (Grading and Drainage
Plan, dated l/28/01) provided by Shapouri and Associates, the consultant to the project, depicting
a 50-foot wetland buffer along a portion -of Encinitas Creek that is within the property boundary.
The project site is 15.7 acres in the City of Carlsbad, south of Palomar Airport Road, west of
College Boulevard and Laurel Tree Lane. The proposed project includes a 120,000-square foot
office building and parking lot. As part of the project mitigation, 4.63 acres of habitat, including
the portion of Encinitas Creek and its associated riparian vegetation, will be placed into open
space and protected by a conservation easement.
Additionally, a 50-foot wetland buffer separating the developed portion from the creek is
required as a mitjgaiion element. Based on the siie’s gee-a*-. lllvlly and p:ojec: con rguration, the f
applicant has requested that an encroachment into the buffer area be allowed for placement of a
proposed vegetated swale for filtration/desilting, and a 10,foot wide (unpaved) public trail. The
swale is required to address water quality impacts from the development and existing runoff from
Palomar Airport Road.
The Wildlife Agencies have reviewed the placement of these structures in the wetland
buffer and agree that they are acceptable with the following conditions: (1) all sediment
removal/swale maintenance will be accomplished manually, not using motorized equipment that
requires placement in the buffer or wetlands; (2) the public trail will be placed between the
building and the basins; (3) the public trail will not be paved, and will have a permeable surface;
and (4) the filtration/desiltation swale will be planted with native vegetation.
53
Mr. Van Lynch 2
This letter reflects the Wildlife Agencies’ opinion regarding acceptability of the
placement of structures in the 50-foot riparian buffer zone. Other aspects of the project will be
addressed in our review of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental
document. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact John Martin of the
Service at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
r __- ./ ‘.. , ._ !> : :
/ / ‘2 .‘/, 1 . A’ i
i”‘Je _ .,.: .I, -.- .-
Nancy Gilbert
Assistant Field Supervisor
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
William E. Tippets
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
South Coast Region
California Department of Fish and Game
cc: Ali Shapouri
Shapouri and Associates
16089 San Dieguito Road, Suite H-102, P.O. Box 676221
Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067-622 1
Bill Ponder
California Coastal Commission
peqspea ea!j!aed
peqslrea ea!j!aed
I-
/ / / / / \ I / /
I I : t I I I i ’ I I I II f z I
I I
!
I
i
f
I
L --
. s
& 0
tk a
%
5
2
f 8
a
% --
q1\,. :;p& 1 .\ \‘I;; I \ -7-l * \ : *IL.---L
peqslrea ea!b!aed
Ti i
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I I
Y
I
m
t
u --
I
I
I I I
peqslrea ecyi!aed
PWSIJW ea!M=d
I ’ D
4lk
-
” - - 1. ----k-t
k /
fii I I I I
- I III+
I IIx+=t~-~4-----I
* , ,,, , ? -II
6
+-+ .L ,___... ---
----
l I I I I
--- e!
0 *--
--
.--
.--
--
.--
~ I / I i
--t-l
--4
---
I I I
i i i I
k L
--
:: -- B W
--
ii
g
.
peqslJe3 e3!j!aed
zl --
--
i
i
@---- jij
I I
/ i i ’ K / i I/ J!&j
I-\ I ,_ . / : _’
b / f
Planning Commission Minutes
5.
September 19,200l DRAFT PagKYH’B’T 5
GPA OI-OSICPD Ol-OPISDP 01-01 - PACIFIC PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING - Request for the
recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, addendum, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and the recommendation of approval for a General Plan
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit and the approval of a Site Development Plan to
construct a three-story multi-tenant office building with a total area of 120,000 square feet, with
subterranean and at-grade parking, on a 15.69 acre site located adjacent to and on the south side
of Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara Parkway in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
Mr. Wayne introduced the last item on the agenda, Item #6, stating that it is a request for a General Plan
Amendment, a Coastal Development Permit and a Site Development Plan for a project located along
Palomar Airport Road. He stated the Commission’s action on the General Plan Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit are advisory and will be forwarded on to the City Council. The action on the Site
Development Plan is final unless appealed. Mr. Wayne introduced Van Lynch, Project Planner assisted
by Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer.
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing on this item.
Mr. Lynch informed the Commission that the project location is south of Palomar Airport Road, just east of
Aviara Parkway. He stated the project is a 120,000 square foot 3-story office building with underground
and at-grade parking. He stated there will be an employee eating area on the east side of building as
shown on the exhibit. A pedestrian trail is proposed along the southerly portion of site, just north of
Encinas Creek drainage swale. Emergency access for the Fire Department is provided from Palomar
Airport Road on the eastern side of the site. The first floor level is two feet higher than the existing grade
and six feet lower than the elevation of Palomar Airport Road.
Mr. Lynch referred to the materials board and described the building design as rectangular with features
that give it some architectural and structural integrity. Some architectural features include glass reentrant
corners, a curved glass feature in the entrance of the building, stone veneers, two different shades of
glass trim, and some metal spandrels that break up the building elevation between them.
Mr. Lynch stated that part of the application is a General Plan Amendment to adjust the open space and
planned industrial boundaries. He showed an exhibit to bring clarity to the staff report. He pointed out that
existing open space designation covers a large portion of the project site. He explained that based on the
environmental constraints and analysis of the property identified the open space covers a lot of disturbed
habitat which is more suited to planned industrial use. On the southern portion of the site there is also
some planned industrial land. That planned industrial site has steep slopes that are constrained with some
habitat. He pointed out on the map the habitat on south side of the creek. There is access provided via
Laurel Tree Lane but the site constraints are not conducive for development and it’s better to swap the
open space disturbed on the north for the better habitat on the south and create open space, and it’s an
even swap of land. He went on to state the project site meets the development standards for the planned
industrial zone for setbacks, building height, parking, and employee eating area. The Site Development
Plan is required because the project is within the Palomar Airport influence area. The site is encumbered
by the 65 noise contour of the airport so noise mitigation is required for the interior of the project to meet a
45 decibel level. There is a portion of the project within the 70 decibel impact level but it’s at the very
north end of the property where it’s within a 50-foot setback from the Palomar Airport Road and there are
no impacts.
Chairperson Segall asked to clarify if it was 45 or 50 dB for the interior because the staff report said 50.
Mr. Lynch said it is 50, and the staff report is correct.
Regarding Coastal Development Permit requirements, Mr. Lynch stated there are no direct impacts to the
wetland or riparian areas. The project requires a 50-foot riparian buffer. A letter from the Department of
Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Service is included in the staff report and supports the reduction
of a 100-foot buffer to 50 feet as long as there is no motorized maintenance of the buffer area and the trail
is located on the northern side of the buffer, which it is. The detention basin must be planted with native
Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2001
vegetation. Another condition of a Coastal Development Permit is payment of an Agricultural Mitigation
fee, which the project is conditioned to pay. There is a possibility the Coastal Commission may not
support the detention basins located within the buffer. Detention basins within the buffer will collect
drainage from the project site as well as runoff from Palomar Airport Road. He explained that if the
Coastal Commission does not support the detention basins within the buffer, the project site has adequate
room for basins on-site by displacing extra parking spaces, however, the repercussion would be that the
site would not be able to handle the runoff from Palomar Airport Road. It would be detrimental for Coastal
not to support the buffers because they won’t be getting as much quality water treatment. They are
hopeful that Coastal will support. If Coastal does not support what the project has proposed they feel the
detention basins on-site will be in substantial conformance to the existing proposal.
Mr. Lynch concluded his presentation stating the project is also processing a Mitigated Negative
Declaration. He stated the mitigation measures for the environmental include the grading window which
will be for summer grading unless there is a presence of Bell’s vireo, then there will be winter grading as
well; the revegetation of the buffer area from disturbed to a native type; and the noise mitigation measure
for the interior of the building. The project is also conditioned to record an avigation easement and notice
of overflight for Palomar Airport.
Commissioner Compas asked what the architectural enhancement at the entrance of the building
represented or if it had any significance.
Mr. Lynch said he would defer to the architects for what it represents, but for the planning staff it adds
architectural interest to the building and breaks up the otherwise flat top of the building.
Commissioner Compas asked if there is a water table problem associated with the underground garage.
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer, responded that the water table around the proposed structure will be
above the base of the parking structure. He stated the applicant is proposing to draw down the water
table during the construction, then place the concrete and build the structure, and once the structure is in
place they will stop the water draw down from the pumps and the water table will then resume up. They
are intending on providing calculations for the structural foundations to show that the buoyancy of the
water will be compensated for in their structural design for the foundations. Mr. Riddle said at this point
they are satisfied because they have a geotechnical report that was provided by the applicant
demonstrating the existence of a high ground water table, and with the proposal they will waterproof the
entire structure throughout the parking lot area.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Lynch to explain who will own the open space, maintain it, and what its
future will be. Mr. Lynch replied that there is an Errata Sheet, and there are two trail conditions that were
deleted and replaced with a new trail condition. One of the trail conditions that was deleted is required by
a condition that talks about continued ownership of the open space by the developer or successors in
interest and while it is under private ownership the open space will be maintained. There is also a
condition that specifies potential transfer of ownership to the City or designee with financial security to
preserve the property in perpetuity.
Mr. Wayne clarified that that was for the open space, not for the trail. He stated the trail is the second
condition on the Errata Sheet and this comforms with the existing Council policy regarding trails.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Lynch if it is correct, referring to the October 1st deadline, that unless
they find the Bells vireo, the project could not be started until next season, which is next summer.
Mr. Lynch responded that is correct that prior to the issuance of a grading permit we will have them survey
for the bird. If the bird exists then they cannot grade during the breeding season, which then pushes the
project into winter grading.
Chairperson Segall stated the environmental review in the staff report indicates there are potentially
significant impacts for air quality, circulation, biological resources and noise, but in the EIR it shows that
for noise it’s less than significant and it also shows less than significant for biological. Presuming the EIR
is correct, there are two potentially significant, traffic and air quality, and two that are less than significant.
Planning Commission Minutes September 19,200l Page 7
Mr. Lynch responded that mitigation incorporated into the project brings them to a level of non-
significance.
Chairperson Segall stated that this is after the fact, but initially they’re all potentially significant.
Mr. Lynch replied, unless mitigated, that’s correct.
Chairperson Segall stated the document he has shows Laurel Tree Lane as a very small street. He asked
what the street standards are for Laurel Tree and if the applicant is having to put any of it in, or is all of
Laurel Tree in, and the applicant just going to stub off.
Mr. Lynch responded that the developer will continue the existing Laurel Tree Lane across Encinas Creek
to a cul-de-sac that will provide access to the project site. The applicant will be doing some public road
improvements to extend Laurel Tree Lane.
Chairperson Segall said it almost looks like a trail rather than a standard size road and asked what the
size is of Laurel Tree. Mr. Riddle responded that Laurel Tree is designated as an industrial street and the
way that the improvements stand right now they’re half width plus 12’. At such time as when adjoining lots
develop they will be required to fully improve that street so that’s why it looks small now, because it’s not
fully improved. With this project coming on board they will be basically tapping on to the end of Laurel
Tree Lane and extending it with half plus 12 again.
Chairperson Segall asked when this project goes in if it is still going to be half street improved street?
Mr. Riddle responded half plus 12 and it does provide for 2-way circulation.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Coastal Commission doesn’t go along with the basin, is there any other
mitigation that could occur that would allow the runoff on Palomar Airport Road and what the net result
would be.
Mr. Riddle responded that the way the project is currently proposed, the water quality measures they have
in place will not only address their own pollution that will be developed from the site, but also from Palomar
Airport Road and beyond up to the proposed golf course area up to the north. They are not only
addressing their own impacts, but above and beyond. Throughout Coastal’s review, because of the
location of the basins being within that buffer, they wanted to know if they could be moved out. He stated
the developer wouldn’t build those big basins if they were to push them out of the buffer so we can’t
require them to filter everything upstream; if they’re forced to move the basins out. They will provide much
smaller basins and only treat their own pollutants from the site, so there wouldn’t be as much benefit and
that’s why Mr. Lynch mentioned hopefully they wouldn’t go that direction
Chairperson Segall asked who mitigates the runoff from Palomar Airport Road and where it goes. He also
asked if this fits with the new stormwater runoff guidelines if we’re not mitigating.
Mr. Riddle replied that the mitigation talked about is specific to this project and Palomar Airport Road is an
existing infrastructure and isn’t part of the mitigation. If they’re going above and beyond in treating
everything, which we support, if Coastal doesn’t want to do that then we would be tasked to do that and
everyone up to the north as well, such as the golf course if that went on board at some point.
Mr. Wayne asked to go on record for both the benefit of the Commission as well as the applicant with the
following. This project is in the appeal jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission and we will not
forward and take action on the General Plan Amendment until such time as that appeal has run its course.
It is conceivable because of the issue of the wetlands buffer, and we hope that the Coastal Commission
agrees with our analysis that this is better environmental protection to put the detention in the buffer area.
If the Coastal Commission should appeal a coastal permit, which they have the right to do because it’s
within 100 feet of the wetland, and they find substantial issue, then they do a de novo hearing and they
essentially take the permit and if they take the permit and they substantially modify this project, then we
would have to return to you with a modification or an amendment to the Site Development Plan and that
Planning Commission Minutes September 19,200l Page 8
may or may not have an impact on the General Plan Amendment. That would be the procedure here and
it’s important that everybody be on notice.
Chairperson Segall asked if the applicant was pres nt and if he would like to address Commission. He
asked the applicant if he had seen the Errata for this evening and if he was in agreement with all
parts.
Ali Shapouri with Shapouri and Associates, the plan ers and engineers of the project, 16089 San Dieguito
Road, Suite H-102 in Ranch0 Santa Fe 92067.
”
e stated he had seen the Errata Sheet and is in
agreement. He stated they have done a very ex austive inventory of geotechnical issues, sensitive
species, sensitive plants and the plan today is really ‘a resource based plan that respects those constraints
and tries to adhere to all the rules and regulations that are set up by the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal
Commission. He stated the plan has gone through a lot of iterations. He complimented staff for their
exhaustive reviews. He stated the issue they would like considered is the detention ponds and the
filtration ponds. They think it is a good idea, and makes a lot of sense; it addresses an existing pollution
issue with the Palomar Airport Road. The applicant has taken it upon themselves to deal with that
pollution issue and create these ponds. He stated they’re not concrete basin type ponds; and are really
depressions in the buffer which are spread with native species. He stated if that alternative does not go
forward they would still deal with their own drainage, but emphasized that that’s a much better alternative.
He stated he has been coordinating with the Coastal Commission staff for the last year and a half, has
submitted plans to them and the plans have been forwarded to their biologist in San Francisco, but they
have not responded in any formal way. They had several meetings with them and although the local staff
tends to agree with the concept, they still haven’t come up with an official position. He said they
coordinated closely with the Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the
buffer locations and open space changes, etc. and they fully support the project. He stated he would like
to ask Scott Cairns with Smith Consulting Architects to talk about the architectural feature that’s on the
building. He stated that from a planning and engineering standpoint he thinks they’re fully mitigating the
project, improving where the staff asked them to improve. He said Laurel Tree Lane currently is not
improved to its full width, and they will improve their portion; they would also be vacating an access they
currently have to Palomar Airport Road to assist with the traffic issues; and although that loses a big
market entry for the project, they understand the issues on Palomar Airport Road. He mentioned they are
a cooperative applicant that’s employed a lot of creative solutions and look forward to the approval of the
project.
Commissioner Compas asked if he could talk about the architectural enhancement. Mr. Shapouri
referred that question to Mr. Cairns. Commissioner Compas then stated he feels there is a glut of office
space in Carlsbad and was wondering what the situation is. Mr. Shapouri stated they didn’t think so; they
wouldn’t be going forward with the project if they thought there was a glut. He stated this is a Class A
office building and thinks the location is very desirable and the architecture is very attractive. He said
tenants are already talking to the owner and they believe there is a very good market for this office
building.
Commissioner Compas asked if he is worried about the water table question. Mr. Shapouri stated they
are not all worried; they brought on Hope Engineering, a very good structural engineering firm and worked
very closely with Geocon, a very reputable geotechnical firm. He said they have done extensive
geotechnical analysis on that land. He stated they knew the water table was an issue going into the
project; the alluvium is an issue on that site and that’s why you don’t see the office being raised. He said
there has been quite a bit of work done and the liability on the applicant’s side is much higher. He stated
that basically the waterproofing and structural design will handle that with a web mat type of foundation.
Additional details will be submitted to the Staff as the trailing permit is submitted.
Chairperson Segall asked how many parking spots they would lose if the Coastal Commission does not
allow this detention basin. Mr. Shapouri stated they’re currently overparked. The number of parking
spaces that would be lost would still keep them at the minimum required number. Chairperson Segall
stated he thought it was 9 additional spots, and asked if all 9 were lost would they still be in compliance.
Mr. Shapouri said that’s his understanding.
Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2001 Page 9
Scott Cairns, Smith Consulting Architects, 12220 El Camino Real, San Diego, addressed the architecture
of the building. He stated he believed they have a big responsibility to provide something very special
along Palomar Airport Road because it is one of the main corridors to the city. He said the owner made
the decision for a steel frame office building to give it the Class A quality plus the subterranean parking so
it really is a top notch facility. He said they created an exterior that is combination of glass and terra-cotta
sandstone in a 2x2 modular giving it nice substantial look. He stated the architectural element over the
front entry is to provide emphasis and a focal point to the main entry. It’s a fairly long building and when
parking is spread out, it’s very important that everybody is certain where the front entry is. That’s the
purpose of that element.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if any relief is being done on the front of the building or is it just a flat facade.
He also asked if there is any setback on the terra-cotta or if it’s just a flat wall. Mr. Kearns said the
windows are set back and the terra-cotta comes out. The terra-cotta is fairly flat but there are elements
that break it up every 12 or 14 feet. Windows are recessed back and the whole third floor is pulled back a
couple feet to create that element around the top. The top floor is set back a couple feet to create a little
interest to the top and break up that plane. The corners are all glass as opposed to terra-cotta which
breaks up the terra-cotta facade.
Commissioner Compas asked if the roadway in front of the building would really look like that. Mr. Cairns
responded that is the enhanced paving they’re providing at the main entrance as part of the roadway; it’s
multicolored and multi-textured concrete. He said they also put a radial pattern of Italian Cypress to
reinforce the radial pattern in the concrete.
Commissioner Baker asked if that will be the view from both sides and what you will see from Palomar
Airport Road.
Mr. Cairns stated that is Palomar Airport Road. Facing the creek it’s all glass, it just lacks that top element
because there’s no access from that side. In terms of the plane of the building we made it all glass in line
with the entry.
Commissioner Heineman stated he was curious about the traffic pattern - where it’s going to go, how it’s
going to get out, and is it all going to end up on Palomar Airport Road even though there is no direct exit.
Chairperson Segall said he thought that would be a staff question
Mr. Cairns said there was a report submitted about the distribution of traffic off that site.
Mr. Lynch said traffic would only have access to and from the site off of Laurel Tree Lane.
Commissioner Compas asked how far would they have to go on Laurel Tree Lane before they can turn
around and go back to Palomar Airport Road.
Mr. Lynch said they can do a right turn on Aviara Parkway and head right down to Palomar Airport Road.
Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Lynch if he expects Aviara Parkway to drain any of that traffic off to
someplace else besides Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Lynch replied they would have the prerogative to
head south down to Poinsettia towards the freeway if that’s their choice, or Aviara.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the traffic study indicates much of the traffic would go that way. He
stated he’s thinking Palomar Airport Road is the most impacted road we have. Mr. Riddle responded that
the traffic study the applicant provided shows, at least in their estimation, once all the traffic comes down
Laurel Street Lane 81% of the traffic would be turning right to go up to Palomar Airport Road and the
remainder would be turning left.
Chairperson Segall said that doesn’t mean they’re going to go on Palomar, they could go to College and
across El Camino.
Planning Commission Minutes September 19,200l Page 10
Mr. Riddle said that’s right, it would split again at the intersection; a certain percentage will go straight
through, some right and some left.
Commissioner Nielsen asked Mr. Cairns what the metal features are on the ends of the building. Mr.
Cairns said they are strictly architectural elements to break up the side plane so the terra-cotta isn’t going
all the way through. He said there’s also a balcony on that side.
Mr. Lynch informed Commissioner Nielsen that the end features had been removed from the approved
architectural set. He said there was a picture in the package on the back of the staff report.
Commissioner Nielsen said it’s difficult going from this to a black line drawing and he wasn’t happy with
the look of this one. He thought they used excellent materials and the window treatment was good, but the
overall effect was not what he thought they were looking for and you obviously agreed if you removed
those projections.
Commissioner Trigas wanted to verify the porches are still there. Mr. Lynch said they are still there, it was
just the elements at the roof that were removed.
Chairperson Segall asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to speak on the project.
He then opened and closed public testimony and asked if there were any other questions from the
Commission.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 5040, 5043, 5042, recommending
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, addendum and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and recommending approval of GPA 01-05,
and CDP 01-02, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution 5041 approving
SDP 01-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein
and in addition, the September 17th Errata Sheet for SDP 01-01.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Heineman stated he was impressed by the care that went into the project to address many
problems, however, hopes that before it is erected that some care is given to the appearance of the
building. He stated he thinks it looks a great deal like a Marine barracks, not like a Class A office building.
If it is approved by this Commission he thinks it needs a great deal of care and attention particularly in
view of the amount of money that is being put to address the problems concerning runoff, etc. He stated
he had not yet made up his mind.
Commissioner Compas said the building looks okay to him.
Commissioner Nielsen said he hadn’t really decided and he wasn’t totally in favor of it but thought they
removed part of the objections he would have had.
Commissioner Baker stated she thought it looks great.
Commissioner Trigas stated she was glad they took off those wings at the end; her concern was the
flatness, the flat front bothers her but not enough to vote no.
Chairperson Segall commented he has no problem with this building; he thought it looks great, thinks
there is architectural relief and the way he understands it there is a setback in the top windows; this is a 3-
story building so the first two are forward with the slate stone and it does look like there is depth going to
the back; so it’s kind of a unique design, it isn’t all one elevation or articulation. He said he personally
doesn’t mind those things on the end and doesn’t have any problem - thought they did a nice job. There is
Planning Commission Minutes September 19,200l Page 11
a difference of opinion on the Commission on what looks good and what doesn’t, but he said he thinks it
looks good and would support the project. 8’
VOTE:
AYES:
4-2-O
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Heineman and Nielsen
None
iX)F OF PIW,I~::A’T11ON
(2010 & 201 II cI,c.P.)
I am a citimr trf the United States and a residenlt of
the Ccmntj~ afbresaid: I am D=vw the age of
eightwtl years and not a party to or interested in the
~~l~~~~~-~~ltitl~~ matter. I am the principal clerk of
the p-irm1. iIf
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
i,* *i_, #’ ’ ,
County Times
I~or-~ncrli~~ knvwr~ as the E31ade-Cifizcn and The
-yi,!,,,,-:.icit,oiar~ iid which t1ewspapers have becrt
~I~~UCSIC~I~CC~ r~ewapqws of’ g,cneraI ~i~~~ll~~ti~~~~ by
the tiupzrikrr f?i?un of lfre County of San Diqp
ornia, for the C’ountl,
or Whidl the aIlllex
or: t cl i.~h e L” 2 2 , 2 0 0 1
1 cettif>~ (or declare 1 uttdcr pcndty ill‘ pctajrt~ that
rhc r;W.?~Olll_LI i 5 t?Mr;j and cOJ”raCt
F#ian Marcns
Ikltd at ~ Caiifbrmia
2 2 rid
11.1 i h dab-
Ie‘ll C t r:j b f3 r , 2OQ1
t-l f
sqpm-c
N Cl K’I’ t-i CO 12: NT I’ ‘I”1 h3 E:S
Legal Adwrtisirig
Proof rrf Puhhmiorr of j-j .(“(*‘f(’ ,(y
Notice of Public w
II 4 (I’, iI” WI
li:i Lit: II,
1
*
0 m,,, /II 8k4 T3 IO
II
A 57 ?i “r: iF ;L* :t I
DESCWPTION: Ta consider adaption of a ~it~~st~~~ ~~~t~ve ~e~lar~ti~~ Addendum, and Mitlgattorl ~~n~t~r~t~~ and Reporting Prwram, and ap roval of a General Plan ~rne~~mer~t and Coastal Ck3velapment 8 errnut to obstruct a three-story m&r- tenant Mtce buifdin subterfan6an end a -grade parkmg, on a 15.69 a.cra site, “3 with a total area of t20,OMI sq~re ft3et Gth
LOCATIRH: This project 15 withIn the City of Cartsbad’s Coastal Zone lwar%d adjacent to and on the south side of Pabmar Atrpofl Road and east of Aviara Parkway in the Coastal Zone and I.031 Facilities Maflag~menl Zone 5.
ASSEISSOR’S PARCEE NUMBER: 212-0413-28
APPLICAW : Smith Consulting Architects Et220 El Csmino Real, Suite 200 San Dlego, CA 92130
A public hearin on the above reposed Cartsbad City & 8 t! uncrl in the ouncil C reject will be beld by the ambers, 12Kl Carlsbsd Villa e 2clo ? Dflve, Carlsbad, Caldomia, on queasy’ Novsmfxx 6, at 6:oo p.m.
Pstsans are cordially invited to attend the pubirc hearing and provide the de&Ian makers +~lth an oral or wtltten ~ornntenl~ the may have regarding the project. J -! he project wili be described an a staff recommendation ivsn, fotlowed by public ~~st~~~~~ questions and a dtision. e,, af the staff report Will 13; avaitablct on or after November 2, 2tXH.
St you challenge the Mit@ted Negative ~e~l~et~n~ Adden&xr~, Mitigation Monttorin Amendmrtnt andlor 94 and Repotting Pro ram General Plan aaatat ReYalQpment $er&t in court you may be limited to raising anfy those ~~isues you or somoond 0150 raised at the pubHe heating described in Ms notice, clr in vrrrtien conespondance delivered to the City of C;ar!sbad, City Cferk”Es Office, prior to the public hearing.
1. Appeals to the City Council: Whore the W&ion IS a~~a~eble to the City Council, appeals must W filed Yn writln~ within ten !lOj Wendar days after a decision by the Planning Comm$sion.
&Coast+ C$mmission Appealabia Pro$& ~Tt-ds stte $4 lxxted within the Castal one App~~labie Area.
%‘JThis sit@ is nd kxaterd witlun the Coastal Zone A~pea~eble &#a.
~etr~l~ta~ Drive, Suite 103, San KXeyo, CA 921084402~
CASE FILE. GPA 01-O
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUiLDfNG
Legal 713011. October 22 2001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
To consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Addendum, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a General Plan Amendment and
Coastal Development Permit to construct a three-story multi-tenant office building with
a total area of 120,000 square feet, with subterranean and at-grade parking, on a
15.69 acre site.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located adjacent to and on
the south side of Palomar Airport Road and east of Aviara Parkway in the Coastal
Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 212-040-25
APPLICANT : Smith Consulting Architects
12220 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in
the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on Tuesday,
November 6,200l at 6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers
with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be
described and a staff recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a
decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after November 2, 2001.
If you have any questions or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Van
Lynch at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008, (760) 602-4613.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Mitigated Negativp Declaration, Addendum, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment and/or 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, City Clerk’s Office, prior to the public hearing.
1. Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council,
appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the
Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
E
This site is located within the Costal Zone Appealable Area.
X This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission with ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego Office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108-
4402.
CASE FILE: GPA 01 -OS/CDP 01-02
CASE NAME: PACIFICA PALOMAR OFFICE BUILDING
PUBLISH: OCTOBER 22,200l
PACIFICA PALOMAR
OFFICE BUILDING
GPA Ol-OSKDP 01-02
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use tempiate for 51t~Y
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SCOTT CAIRNS
SMITH CONSULTING ARCH
STE 200
1.2220 EL CAMINO REAL
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
VAN LYNCH
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ISLAND REALTY I LP
STE 160
12780 HIGH BLUFF DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
GRGMANAGEMENT
MARBRISA HOA
STE 200
3088 PI0 PICO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
10/2/2001
I p”~~~~‘v~ Address Labels laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use tem3ixe io- : I...,
ATRIUM PROPERTIES L L C HUGH E & LISA LACHANCE SIM USA INC SUITE 180 551 VERONA ST 1400 FLAME TREE LN 12780 HIGH BLUFF DR LA HABRA CA 90631 CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92130
PROGRAM L BCS JAMES S UKEGAWA CARLSBAD LAUREL TREE APTS
NEWPORT FINANCIAL CENTER 4218 SKYLINE RD SUITE 100
1303 AVOCADO AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 22 W 35TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NATIONAL CITY CA 91950
KELLY&JRM-PALOMAR AIRPORT KELLY CORPORATE CENTER II
SUITE 220 SUITE 2150
8910 UNIVERSITY CENTER LN 401 BST
SAN DIEGO CA 92122 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF CARL
RANCISCO CA 94120
CALLAWAY GOLF CO
2285 RUTHERFORD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
M H P P INC
CE CA 90503
CARLSBAD AIRPORT CENTRE
OWNERS
SUITE 310
21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD
TORRANCE CA 90503
CITY OF CARLSBAD
P 0 BOX 7611
PUBLIC AGENCY
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120
M H P P INC
SUITE 140
5414 OBERLIN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
GREYSTONE HOMES INC
5780 FLEET ST 300
CARLSBAD CA 92008
AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5960TM