Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-01; City Council; 18002; Appeal Planning Commission Carlsbad Office CampusAPPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - CT 02-12lCDP 02-311 I MTG. 3/1/05 Project application(s) Administrative Reviewed by and Approvals Final at Planning Commission Unless DEPT. PLN Appealed to and Final at Council PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 PUD 02-05 PIP 02-04 CITY ATTY. e X X X X ~ ~~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council DIRECT the City Attorney to return to the City Council with appropriate documents for the approval or denial of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map (CT 02-1 2), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 02-31), Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD 02-05), and Planned Industrial Permit (PIP 02-04). ITEM EXPLANATION: 1 The proposed project is for the development of four office buildings (A-D) and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site generally located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed with a 154,000 square foot building and associated parking. The existing building is used as a wholesale flower market (Floral Trade Center). The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and develop the proposed office project. The subject site is directly accessible from Avenida Encinas. The four proposed office buildings will be located around a central landscaped area, creating a campus like setting. All the office buildings are proposed to be three stories high. Buildings A and C are each 78,840 square feet in size and are identical in design. Buildings B and D are each 59,610 square feet in size and are identical in design. The proposed buildings will be tilt-up concrete with metal panel accents and glass areas. The project requires a total of 1,108 parking spaces and will provide 1,112 spaces, half of which will be provided in the 2-level parking structure located west of the office buildings. The site is also proposed to be subdivided such that each office building will be on a separate individual parcel with the parking structure, surface parking and landscape areas on a fifth parcel, to be held in common by an association of owners. On January 19, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this project. Staff recommended approval, finding the project consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and the Airport Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of the application, and voted 3-3 (Cardosa did not participate due to conflict of interest) on a motion to approve the project. The motion for approval of the project did not carry because there was not a majority of the Planning Commissioners voting in favor of the motion. The project was thus denied without prejudice. A full disclosure of the Planning Commission's discussion and a complete description and staff analysis of the project is included as attachments to this report. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 18,002 The applicant has appealed Planning Commission’s denial of the project to the City Council. The grounds for the appeal are stated in the applicant’s letter dated January 26, 2005, which is attached as Exhibit 2. Staff‘s original recommendation of approval for the project remains unchanged based on the evidence presented at the public hearing including public testimony. ENVIRONMENTAL: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to hazards/hazardous material, noise and hydrologylwater quality and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have now been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. Two letters were received from the Native American Heritage Commission (dated November 2, 2004) and from the Department of Parks and Recreation (dated November 3, 2004) during the 30-day public review period (October 4, 2004 to November 3, 2004). The letters and staffs response are included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts have been identified. GROWTH MANAG EM E NT STATUS : Facilities Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan 3 Growth Control Point N/A Net Density N/A Soecial Facilitv Fee None EXH IBlTS : 1. Location Map 2. 3. 4. 5. Appeal Form, received January 26,2005 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 19, 2005 Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 19, 2005 Full Size Exhibits “A - “U” dated January 19,2005. (On file in the Phnning Dept . ) DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Saima Qureshy, (760) 602-461 9, sqore@ci.carlsbad.ca.us EXHIBIT 1 SITE CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS CT 02-1 2/CDP 02-31/PIP 02-04/PUD 02-05 3 EXHIBIT 2 TyqEwr #b-@kAa d LA I (We) appeal the decision of the Planning Commission JAN 2 6 2005 L-d To the Carlsbad City Council. Date of Decision you are appealing: CITY OF CP*ELSBAlelD ClTY CI FmS OFFICF January 19, 2005 Subiect of ADDeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. See attached letter Reason(s1 for ADDeal: Please Note Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? See attached letter c John C. White NAME (please print) January 26 2005 ( 760 1 431-5600 PHONE NO. ADDRESS: Street Name & Number 5600 Avenida Encinas #lo0 Carlsbad, CA 92008 DATE City, State, Zip Code 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 0 Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 (760) 434-2808 CARLTAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY January 26,2005 Honorable Claude “Bud” Lewis and Members of the City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: APPEAL OF JANUARY 19,2005 PLANNING COMMISSION RESULT Carlmart LP Proposed Carlsbad Office Complex: Tentative Tract Map CT 02-12 Planned Unit Development PUD 02-05 Planned Industrial Permit 02-04 Coastal Development Permit 02-31 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council: On January 19, 2005, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 3-3, failing to take action to approve or deny, the application of Carlmart L.P. (“Carlmart”) for Tentative Tract Map CT 02- 12, Planned Unit Development PUD 02-05, Planned Industrial Permit PIP 02-04, Coastal Development Permit CDP 02-31 , and concurrent adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (collectively the ”Permits”) related to the redevelopment of the San Diego International Floral Trade Center site (the “Project”) located at 5600 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California 92008 (the ”Property”). Based on the failure to act, the application has been deemed denied. Carlmart appeals this decision to the City Council in consideration of the following facts: REQUESTED ACTION We request that the City Council uphold this appeal and approve the Project by approving the requested Permits. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project consists of the development of four office buildings and an associated parking structure comprising 276,900 square feet of office space and 82,170 square feet of parking deck on a 12.71 acre site. The four 3-StOry office buildings are arranged around a central courtyard. The 2-level parking structure and surface parking will provide 1 ,I 12 parking spaces to serve the development. The Property is proposed to be subdivided, with individual ownership of each separate office building and common ownership of the parking structure, surface parking, and outdoor landscaped areas. 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-4452 U.S.A. Telephone: (760) 431 -5600 Fax: (760) 431 -9020 www.carltas.com 5 Honorable Claude “Bud” Lewis and Members of the City Council January 26,2005 Page Two The proposed development is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The site is currently improved with a 154,000 square foot industrial building, built approximately forty years ago. It is largely occupied by wholesale floral vendors. The Property is in fair to poor condition, and any long-term use of the building would require significant and costly repairs and investment in the Property. Carlmart is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, a Coastal Development Permit, a Non-Residential Planned Unit Development, and a Planned Industrial Permit. Concurrent with approval of these Permits, applicant is also requesting certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Project is supported by numerous Carlsbad groups and citizens, including the informal tenants’ association at the Property, the Terra Mar Homeowner’s Committee, local neighborhood groups, the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, and the San Diego County Farm Bureau. AP PLl CAT10 N HISTORY Carlmart first submitted its applications for the requested Permits more than two years ago (May 2002). Since that time, Carlmart has worked diligently with Planning Department staff to address areas of concern and ensure Project compliance with City standards and regulations. Staff RECOMMENDED APPROVAL of each of the Permits to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted 3-3 on the question of approving the application, resulting in an effective denial. In discussing the Project, several Commissioners expressed their opinion on the impact that the eventual building closure would have on the tenants and the timing of the demolition of the existing building. The Commissioners who voted not to approve the Project stated that the land owner and applicants should have a plan in place to continue the operation or relocate the existing commercial tenants to a new facility in Carlsbad. PLANNING COMMISSION I NACTION We are unaware of any other situation when this kind of “duty” has been imposed on a non- residential applicant in the City of Carlsbad. The Commissioners who identified this “duty” relied on a single phrase in the General Plan, taken out of context and misapplied, that allows the City to “consider the social, economic and physical impacts on the community” when implementing the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The position taken by three Commissioners, which resulted in an effective denial of the Project, is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the General Plan and Zoning Code, and would create a new and unsupportable burden on applicants to protect one group of commercial tenants over 6 Honorable Claude "Bud" Lewis and Members of the City Council January 26,2005 Page Three another. It represents a selective application of a social theory unsupported by the express objectives of the community set forth in the General Plan and is inconsistent with the specific provisions of the General Plan. The position taken by the three Commissioners also would override the specific zoning and permitting standards of the City of Carlsbad. It threatens the fundamental relationship between commercial landlords and commercial tenants. The Planning Staff, and all Commissioners agree that the Project as presented and conditioned was completely in conformance with the planning and zoning standards of the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, we ask the City Council to approve this appeal and the Project. We reserve our right to raise additional facts at the City Council hearing. DISCUSSION 1. The Project complies with all applicable City standards and regulations. There was no dispute by the Planning Commissioners that the Project complies with all applicable zoning and development standards. Each of the proposed findings in support of the requested Permits is supported by facts that were not challenged by the Planning Commission, Planning Department staff, or the public. II. The Project carries out the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad General Plan. A. General Plan Goals The Project is at the gateway to the City's core industrialkommercial corridor, and is zoned Planned Industrial. Section A of the Industrial Element of the General Plan states, as the goal of the General Plan: "A. A city which develops an industrial base of light pollution free industries of such magnitude as will provide a reasonable tax base and a balance of opportunities for emdovment of local residents." (Emphasis added) The Project clearly is consisted with the goal. It will accommodate the knowledge based businesses and the higher wage jobs which the growing population of Carlsbad seeks. In addition to producing the opportunity for employment consistent with the growing Carlsbad population, the Project will support nearly three times as many jobs as the existing use. Honorable Claude “Bud” Lewis and Members of the City Council January 26,2005 Page Four The General Plan also expresses in Goal A.2. of the Agricultural Element the community’s determination that agricultural uses -with the exception of the Flower Fields- are transitional to urban uses such as the Project. B. General Plan Obiectives The objectives of the Industrial portion of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as set forth in Section B.2., specifically identify the community’s criteria: “8.2 To provide and protect, industrial lands for the development of communities of high technology, research, and development industries and related uses set in campus or park like settings.” The Project is designed to meet this goal by providing the characteristics of office, research and development, and related activities designed in an integrated campus. In addition, the location at the gateway to the industrial and commercial heart of Carlsbad, and visibility from the 1-5 freeway create a primary opportunity to carry out the General Plan mandate. C. lmtdementincl Polices and Action Programs The other general provisions of the General Plan can be utilized to implement the specific goals and objectives for the industrial area described above. For example, Section C.9 of the provisions for Overall Land Use Pattern provides as follows: “C.9 Consider the social, economic, and physical impacts on the community when implementing the Land Use Element.“ Applied consistently with the Industrial portion of the Land Use Element goals and objectives, the Council should find that the creation of a Project in the Industrial Zone which provides increased potential job opportunities for local residents, in a physical facility whose design and character is consistent with the economic objectives of Carlsbad will carry out this implementing policy. The social, economic, and physical impacts of the Project are all positive. The environmental review which found no significant impacts is one confirmation of this application. In contrast, the comments of the three Commissioners disregarded the satisfaction of all the specific criteria and misapplied this policy in a manner which would not encourage meeting any of the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 8 Honorable Claude "Bud" Lewis and Members of the City Council January 26,2005 Page Five 111. The Project advances the economic and social goals of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan Although all of the Commissioners seemed to believe the findings proposed for the Project could be made and all other land use policies satisfied, the Commissioners who voted not to approve the Project relied upon a single sentence in the City's General Plan that allows social and economic impacts in evaluating land use decisions. As noted above, this interpretation was both misguided and misapplied. If the sentence had been taken in proper context it should have resulted in the approval for applicant's Project. A. "Social" and "Economic" Impacts Are Broad Conceots Not Intended To IndeDendently Bear On Consideration of SDecific Proiects The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan indicates that in implementing the policies and action programs of the Plan, the City may "consider the social, economic, and physical impacts on the community." City of Carlsbad General Plan, 111, C.9. This statement is located in the section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan that is entitled "Implementing Policies and Action Programs." It appears near subsection C.7, which addresses the evaluation of "each application for development of property with regard to the following specific criteria." Unlike the criteria in subsection C.7, the directive in subsection C.9 to consider "social, economic, and physical impacts" contemplates that the consideration of these elements take place in the broader context of planning, land use, and zoning policies. It is set forth separately from a specific directive enumerating various elements to be assessed in individual development applications. This is notable. Had the General Plan intended that "social, economic, and physical impacts" be a component for evaluating individual projects, it could have said so by including those impacts among the criteria listed under subsection C.7. Instead, it clearly contemplates bringing these criteria to bear on broader City-wide questions of zoning, planning, and land use policies, procedures and action programs rather than directly upon individual development applications. The application of these criteria to individual developments occurs through the satisfaction of neutral, specific development standards and regulations that have been developed by these broader considerations. It is undisputed that these standards and regulations have been satisfied, and therefore the "social, economic, and physical impacts" of the project have been found to advance the goals and policies of the City. The ad hoc evaluation of these criteria by the Planning Commission, independent of the regulations in which they are embodied, is an inappropriate interpretation of the General Plan and risks the creation of standardless standards. This Council should reject such an interpretation. Honorable Claude “Bud” Lewis and Members of the City Council January 26,2005 Page Six B. The Proposed Proiect Does Further the Economic and Social Growth of the City However, putting aside whether consideration of the “social, economic, and physical” impacts of a particular project is proper or not, the proposed Project positively furthers the social and economic well-being of the City. 1. Economic ImDacts The proposed Project is consistent with the economic development of parts of Carlsbad that have accommodated, and continue to foster, industrial and office uses that contribute greatly to the City’s economic health and vitality. The Project replaces an aging industrial building with a well-built, attractive office campus that will positively affect property values and area aesthetics. The Project will create a net gain in employment opportunities for citizens of Carlsbad and improve the job base in the City, despite the disruptive impact that it might have on a discrete group of the Property’s current tenants. Many of the current tenants at the Property and their employees are from outside the City of Carlsbad. Most customers come from outside the City. No sales tax is generated by the wholesale activity that takes place at the Property. On the other hand, the proposed Project will support more than 1,000 jobs-more than three times the number of current employees of the Property’s tenants-and generate the associated trickle- down effect on nearby commercial and retail establishments in the City. Viewed expansively, this Project contributes greatly to the broad economic health of the City. It is precisely the type of development that is and ought to be supported by the application of the City’s zoning, land use, and planning regulations and policies. 2. Social ImDacts The Project will contribute to the social fabric of the City by creating an attractive new employment center and replacing an aging building that is approaching the end of its useful life. The area surrounding the Project site is currently a mix of low-density office, retail and industrial uses with which the proposed development would naturally harmonize. Further, the transition of the Project site toward its best and highest use should be an example of economic and market forces working as they are supposed to. The evolution of the Project’s surrounding environs toward office/industrial uses has made the site more valuable. Orderly planning, expressed through the General Plan, should accommodate the development prompted by these market forces to the extent it is consistent with the broader welfare of the City, as it certainly is in this instance. Honorable Claude “Bud” Lewis and Members of the City Council January 26,2005 Page Seven CONCLUSION The failure of the Planning Commission to take action on the proposed Project was based on concerns and considerations that were misapplied and misguided. The standard proposed by three commissioners, if applied to this or any other commercial project, would defeat the stated objectives of the City’s Mission and General Plan to provide a vibrant and healthy commercial and industrial community for the benefit of the Carlsbad Residents. The proposed Project is consistent with all standards and regulations of the City and will contribute positively to the economic and social welfare of the City. The City Council should reverse the result of the Planning Commission hearing and approve the Permits requested by the applicant. Sincerely, President, Carltas Development Company, General Partner cc: Mr. Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Ronald R. Ball, Esq., City Attorney, City of Carlsbad Karen M. ZoBell, Esq., DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary I Carlflas Company 5600 AvenMa Endnor, Pi ob Carhbad, CA 920084452 (760) 431-5800 **** SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY AND TO THE ORDER OF City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 DATE:01/21/05 CK#:9726 TOTAL:$760.00****? BANK:b010 - Operating Account PAYEE:City of Carlsbad(vctycb) Property Account Invoice Description p424 7100-0000 Amount 760.00 760.00 ci~ OF CARLSBA~ 1635 FARADAY AVENUE 'CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (760) 602-2401 ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT I I I I I I c NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL *760 im CASH REGISTER I I -la . The City of CARLSBAD Planning Department EXHIBIT 3 P.C. AGENDA OF: January 19,2005 A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: May 14,2004 Project Planner: Saima Qureshy Project Engineer: John Maashoff SUBJECT: CT 02-12ICDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the demolition of the existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site generally located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5817 ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and ADOPT Plaming Commission Resolutions No. 5818, 5819, 5820 and 5821 APPROVING Tentative Tract Map (CT 02-12), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 02-3 l), Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD 02-05) and Planned Industrial Permit (PIP 02- 04), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is for the approval of a Tentative Tract Map (CT), Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) to allow the development of four office buildings and a parking structure. The proposed development will provide 276,900 square feet of office space and an 82,170 square foot two level parking structure. The project site is 12.71 acres in size. The new office campus will consist of four, 3-story buildings located around a central landscaped courtyard to create a campus-like atmosphere. A total of 1,112 parking spaces will be provided, one half of which will be located in the two-level parking structure. The subject site is also proposed to be subdivided such that each office building will be on a separate individual parcel and the parking structure along with surface parking and landscape areas will be held in common by an association of owners. The subject site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is also located within the Mello 11 segment of the Local Coastal Program. The project is not appealable to the Coastal Commission. The subject site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale flower sales operation. This existing building is proposed to be demolished. Land uses surrounding the subject site include industriaVoffices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and railroad tracks to the west. /3 CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed project is for the development of four office buildings (A-D) and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site generally located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed with a 154,000 square foot building and associated parking. The existing building is used as a wholesale flower market (Floral Trade Center). The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and develop the proposed project. The subject site is directly accessible f7om Avenida Encinas. The four proposed office buildings will be located around a central landscaped area, creating a campus like setting. All the office buildings are proposed to be three stones high. Buildings A and C are 78,840 square feet each and are identical in design, Buildings B and D are 59,610 square feet each and are identical in design. The proposed buildings will be of tilt-up concrete with metal panel accents and glass areas. The project requires a total of 1,108 parking spaces and will provide 1,112 spaces, half of which will be provided in the 2-level parking structure, located west of the office buildings. The site is also proposed to be subdivided such that each office building will be on a separate individual parcel and the parking structure along with surface parking and landscape areas will be on a separate parcel, held in common by an association of owners. The four proposed office buildings will be 42 feet tall and with architectural projections the overall height will be 54 feet. Additional building height is allowed if the setbacks are increased at a ratio of 1 foot for every additional foot in height above 35 feet. The increased height helps break up the horizontal lines of the building elevations, without causing any adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed parking structure will be 9.5 feet tall on its eastern comer and 16 feet tall on the west side. The project will also provide 9,972 square feet of outdoor employee eatingllunch area and 6,648 square feet of indoor lunch areas. The project is proposed to be developed in phases as shown on Exhibits PP-1 to PP-6. The project is conditioned to provide adequate parking, landscaping and employee eating areas concurrent with each construction phase. IV. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. General Plan P-I (Planned Industrial) designation; Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); P-M (Planned Industrial Zone) Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; Non-Residential Planned Development (Chapter 21.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program; Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport; and Growth Management Regulations (Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan); CT 02-1YCDP 02-3lPUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 Page 3 USE, CLASSIFICATION, PROPOSED USES & GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR IMPROVEMENTS H. Habitat Management Plan. COMPLIANCE A. General Plan PROGRAM Site is designated for The General Plan designation of the site is Planned Industrial (PI). The PI land uses include manufacturing, warehouse, storage, research and development, and utility uses. The project complies with all the elements of the General Plan as shown in Table A below. Site Plan for four office Yes ELEMENT industrial uses. Provision of affordable housing. Minimize environmental impacts to sensitive resources within the City. Healthy and productive work environment in workplace with interior noise levels not to exceed 65 &A CNEL. Require new development to construct roadway improvements needed to serve proposed development. Land Use buildings. Conditioned to pay a non- residential linkage fee if adopted by City Council. No impacts. Yes Yes Project is designed with Yes fixed windows and air conditioning will attenuate exterior noise. Proposed project has Yes frontage on Avenida Encinas which is already fully improved. Housing Open Space & Conservation Noise Circulation B. Subdivision Ordinance .- The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and has concluded that the subdivision, as conditioned complies with all the applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. All infiastructure improvements (sewer, water, drainage, streets, etc.) are currently in place to serve the project and no off-site improvements are required. The project is served by Avenida Encinas and has direct access to public streets. The streets adjacent to the project site are adequate to serve the 2,550 new Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by this project. The proposed building setbacks and structure separation will allow for adequate air circulation and the opportunity for passive heating and cooling. C. Planned Industrial (P-M) zone The subject site is located within the P-M zone. The allowed uses in this zone include business and professional offices, which are not retail in nature, do not cater to the general public, do not CT 02-12/CDP 02-31PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 generate walk-in or drive-in traffic and are incidental to the industrial uses in the vicinity. Medical Offices are not allowed in the P-M zone. Other uses allowed in this zone include research and testing facilities, manufacturing and processing facilities and storage and warehouse. The project is consistent with all applicable requirements of the P-M zone as shown in Table B below. TABL STANDARD Building height: 35’ or three levels. Additional building height may be permitted to a maximum of 45’’ provided that: a. b. C. Building does not contain more than 3 levels; Setbacks are increased at a ratio of 1 ’ for every additional foot in height above 35’. Architectural features may be permitted up to 55’ if the features 1) do not provide any usable floor area; 2) do not screen building equipment; 3) no adverse impacts on adjacent properties and 4) are necessary to ensure a building’s design excellence. Lot size minimum Building setback from Major streets - 50’ (Avenida Encinas) + 7’ for additional building height Interior yard setback - 10’ + 7’ for additional building height Rear yard setback - 20’ + 7’ for additional building height Parking requirement - 1 space/ 250 sauare feet (1.108 suaces) Site coverage - 50% B - P-M ZONE COMPLIANCE PROPOSED ~~ Three story buildings - 42’ tall, with architectural projections unto 54’ tall. Setbacks are increased an additional 7’ and architectural projections do not provide any usable floor area, do not provide equipment screening, and are provided only for the architectural enhancement of the design. No standard, reasonable as to intended use (21.47.080). 57’ minimum fi-om the right-of way. 17’ 27’ 1,112 spaces 31.7 % COMPLIANCE Yes Each building is located on a separate lot. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/pUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 STANDARD PROPOSED Outdoor area - 9,972 sq. ft. Indoor area - 6,648 sq. ft. Total provided - 16,620 sq. ft. Employee eating area - 300 sq. ft. for each 5,000 sq. ft. of building area - 16,6 14 sq. ft. required. COMPLIANCE Yes D. Non-Residential Planned Development The non-residential planned development regulations are to: 1. 2. 3. Ensure projects develop in accordance with the General Plan and applicable specific plans; Provide for non-residential projects which are compatible with surrounding development; and Provide a method to approve separate ownership of planned development lots. The proposal to create individual ownershlp lots which do not have direct access from a publicly dedicated street necessitates that a PUD be processed to supplement the proposed tentative map (CT 02-12). The four building lots would share common driveway access and landscaping, which would be included within the fifth lot. The project complies with the General Plan and Zoning standards as discussed in the sections above. The office buildings, by nature of the use, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding occupants of the area and the office use is similar to the adjacent land uses. No modifications to the development standards are required to protect public health, safety, and general welfare. There are no size or configuration standards for non-residential planned development lots beyond those imposed as a part of the permit, but shall be reasonable as to the intended use and relation to the project. Individual lots are being created to accommodate individual buildings and are related to the size of the buildings. E. Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Plan The project is located in the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment. The subject site is not appealable to the Coastal Commission. The project complies with the applicable Local Coastal Program provisions. The LCP Land Use Plan designates the subject site for PI (Planned Industrial), which allows for office buildings. The project is consistent with the surrounding development of offices and industrial uses. The proposed project will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. The subject site is currently developed with a 154,000 square foot building which is used as wholesale flower market. The existing building will be demolished and the site will be developed with four office buildings. l? CT 02-12/CDP 02-31PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 Page 6 Due to the presence of an earthen drainage located along the northern property boundary and a concrete ditch located along western boundary, a Biologxal Assessment of the site was conducted by RECON dated September 1, 2004. The Assessment concluded that the waterways on-site do not provide any other hctions and value other than conveying runoff water off-site. The waterways do not provide any habitat for wildlife. The waterways do not provide vegetative cover for terrestrial wildlife to use for movement, do not connect with or are not located near any wildlife movement corridors and are completely isolated by surrounding development. In addition, the waterways do not provide nesting and foraging habitat for riparian birds. The existing development is setback only 13 feet fi-om the earthen drainage on the northern property line. The proposed project will remain within the current development footprint and will not encroach into any existing undeveloped area. In addition the existing surface drainage is running off directly into the drainage channel in an unfiltered state. This allows any surface pollutants to make their way into Cannon Lake. The proposed project is designed under the current guidelines for water quality, and as such, is now being filtered with storm drain inlet fossil filters to remove the required level of pollutants. Therefore it is not recommended that a wider buffer be established along the length of the earthen drainage. The proposed project is not located on an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. No public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available fi-om the subject site since it is not located between the first public road and the ocean, and no public access requirements are conditioned for the project. The site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. Coastal Overlay Zones The subject site is located in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. However, due to its location and the absence of native vegetation, additional submittals, standards or requirements do not apply. Construction of the project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion. Construction of 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. F. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport The proposed project is compatible with the CLUP. While the project is within the Airport Influence Area, the project site is located outside of the runway protection zone and outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, thus being a compatible use. The project has been reviewed and deemed consistent with the CLUP by the Airport Land Use Commission at their hearing on July 8,2004. G. Growth Management The project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in the following table: CT 02-12ICDP 02-31IPUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 STANDARD City Administration Librarv IMPACTS COMPLIANCE NIA Yes NIA Yes I Waste Water Treatment I 154 EDU I Yes I Parks Drainage Circulation NIA Yes 94 CFS Yes 2550 ADT Yes I Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water I Station~o. 4 NIA Yes NIA Yes 154 EDU Yes 80 GPM Yes I Yes 1 H. Habitat Management Plan The proposed project is consistent With the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities. The subject site is currently developed with an existing 154,000 square foot building and its associated parking. There are no sensitive resources on-site and the project does not require any mitigation or impact fees pursuant to the HMP. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to hazardshazardous material, noise and hydrology/water quality and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have now been mitigated to below a level of significance. Consequently, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the newspaper and sent to the State Clearinghouse for public agency review. Two letters were received from the Native American Heritage Commission (dated November 2, 2004) and from the Department of Parks and Recreation (dated November 3, 2004) during the .30-day public review period (October 4,2004 to November 3,2004). The letters and staffs response are included in this report as a part of Attachment 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 6. Location Map 7. Background Data Sheet Planning Commission Resolution No. 5817 (MND) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5818 (CT) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5819 (CDP) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5820 (PUD) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5821 (PIP) /9 CT 02-12/CDP 02-31PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CAFUSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS January 19,2005 Page 8 8. 9. Disclosure Statement 10. Reduced Exhibits 1 1. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Full Size Exhbits “A” - “U” dated January 19,2005 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. 5817 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 154,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 12.71 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS CASE NO.: CT 02- 12/CDP 02-3 1PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 WHEREAS, Carlmart, LP, as “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on October 26,1990 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January 2005, 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 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: Jr A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit “MND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated October 4,2004, and “PII” dated June 24,2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinps: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. b. C. d. Conditions: it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration, Carlsbad Office Campus - CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to ADOPTING the project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have 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 they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EL4 Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Note: 1. 2. Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits, grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Carlsbad Office €ampus Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (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. PC RES0 NO. 5817 -2- 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 3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 02-12, CDP 02-31, PUD 02-05 and PIP 02-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5818, 5819, 5820 and 5821 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 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 feedexactions. -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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of January 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5817 -3- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Carlsbad Office Cam~~is PROJECT LOCATION: CASE NO: CT 02-12/CDP 02-3 l/PIPO2-04/PUD02-05 West Side of Avenida Encinas Between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road (APN - 210-090-50) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit for the development of 276,900 square feet of office space along with an 82,170 square foot two level parking structure. The project site is 12.71 acres in size and the new office campus will consist of four 3-sto1-y buildings, located around a central landscaped courtyard to create a campus like atmosphere. A total of 1.1 12 parking spaces will be provided, one half of which will be located in the two-level uarking structure. The subiect site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The subiect site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center. a wholesale flower sales operation. The existing building will be demolished. Land uses surrounding the subiect site include Industrial/offices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and the railroad tracks and open space to PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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 (EL4 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 will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file 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 the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval’adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4619. PUBLIC REVIEW PENOD OCTOBER 4,2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 3,2004 PUBLISH DATE OCTOBER 4,2004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Januarv 30.2003 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 02-12/CDP 02-3 l/PP 02-04/PUD 02-05 DATE: June 24.2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Office Campus LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Saima Oureshy - (760) 602-4619 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 5600 Avenida Encinas, west side of Avenida Encinas. south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road (APN 210-090-50) PROJECT SPONSOR'S NkVE AND ADDRESS: Carlmart. L.P., 5600 Avenida Encinas. Suite 100. Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAV DESIGNATION: P-I Planned Industrial) 5. 6. 7. ZONING: P-M (Planned Industrial) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED @e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUdDING LAND USES: 9. Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map. Coastal Develoument Pennit, Planned Industrial Permit and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit for the develoDment of 276.900 square feet of office space along with an 82,170 square foot two level uarlung sftucture. The uroiect site is 12.71 acres in size and the new office campus will consist of four 3-St01-y buildinm, located around a central landscaued courtvard to create a campus like atmosphere. A total of 1.112 parking suaces will be provided. one half of which will be located in the two-level parlcing structure. The subiect site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas. south of Cannon Road and norh of Palomar Airport Road. The subiect site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale flower sales operation. The existing building will be demolished. Land uses surrounding the subiect site include Industrial/offices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and the railroad tracks and open space to the west. - 1 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIROlNMENTa 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 checldist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics Geology/Soils Noise 13 Agricultural Resources Arr Quality HydrologyNater Quality Public Services 0 Biological Resources Land Use and Planning [7 Recreation HazarddHazardous Materials c] Population and Housing 0 Mineral Resources c] TransportatiodCirculation 0 Mandatory Findings of 0 Cultural Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 .. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) El 0 0 I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT -ave a si&icant effect on Le environment, and a NEGATIVF, DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that aIthough the proposed project could have a si,pificant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in thu case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED 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 “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially si,dicant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legaI standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration 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 sipficant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL WACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. . s/ 20104- Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENMRONMENT.AL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINTS, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a si,pificant 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 dormation 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 ‘Wo Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A ‘Wo 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 significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Sidcant Unless Mitigation Incorporated‘‘ applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Sipiicant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explainhow they reduce the effect to a less than si,gnificant level. “Potentially Si,dcant &pact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sigmficantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &l potentially si,&icant adverse 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 circumJances 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. When “Potentially Si,.nificant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the si,dcant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding 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 adverse effect on the environment. - If there are one or more potentially si,Micant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In ths case, the appropriate “Potentially Sigmficant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated‘’ may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 An EIR the following circktances: (1) the potentially sigmflcant adverse effect has not been hscussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than si@icant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding . Considerations” for the significant adverse Tact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possibIe to determine the level of sigmficance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of si,snificance. be prepared if “Potentially Si,pificant @act” is checked, and including but not limited to 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 sigu5cant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). .. Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic hghway? II. c) Substantially degrade the existing visud character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTUR.4L RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agncultural resources are si,Onificant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Confhct with existing zoning for agncultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the si,@ficance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflrct with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 Potentially Signnlficant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless . LessThan 0 OM / CI OW U @W NU 6 Rev. 07/03/02 30 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). N. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region ii in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modrfcations, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not hted to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, fihg, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Ilan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved Local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Sipificant Less Than UnleSS Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact .o El cl 0 cl iI 0 cl 0 No Impact 0 ., !XI [XI IXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). .. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historicai resource as defined in Q 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the sipnificance of an archeological resource pursuant to Q 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, includmg those interred outside of fod cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risli-'of loss, injury or death involving: i. u. ... u. iv . Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 CI 0 0 cl 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless .. LessThan Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 Ixi cl Ixi 0 IXI 0 0 No Impact IXI El IXI ixi IXI 0 :I 0 8 Rev. Qll03lQ2 32 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS PlATERL4LS - Would the project: Create a si,@ficant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine trrinsport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Einit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project witbin an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, wiC& two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workmg in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a si,&ficant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fxes, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY Ai WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant hpact 0 U c? 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact CI 0 CI 0 .5 cl I? 17 17 No Impact - IXI. IXI ixI o 0 El -. [XI [XI 9 Rev. Q7JQ3IQ2 33 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level @e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a knner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which wodd result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial addtional sources of polluted runofl? Otherwise substantially depde water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation nZp? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a sigmficant risk of loss injury or death involving floodmg, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant .discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanhng substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 I? I? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 IXI El El 0 0 cl 0 El w Less Than Significant Impact 0 El 0 0 I? I? 0 / No - Impact [xi’ la 0 IXI Ix1- Ixl 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact D 0 0. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? U cl 0 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, speclfic plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Codhct with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? c) X. Pr&WR4L RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 IXI cl Ixl a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of hture value to the region and the residents of the State? i CI b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise orhnce or applicable standards of other agencies? U cl b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 17 17 d) A substantial temporary or periodx increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rw. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). .- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 Ixi' e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, withm 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residlng or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? o 0 ow f) For a project with the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 ow Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other mfrastwcture)? ow 0 I7 0 w' Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial niunbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facihties, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental qacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION i 0 clw 0 13 w- 0 ow o 13 ow 0 nw a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 uw neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 12 3b Rev. 07103JO2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/"RAFFC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.; result in a substantial increase in either the number of velcle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or. cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in,substantial.Safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parlung capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or program supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause siplllfrcant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water draiaage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Po tentially Significant Impact a 0 0 cl cl 0 cl cl Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Less Than Significant Impact !XI !XI El 0 / cl 0 El 0 No Impact IXI. 13 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). .. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact cl 0 [XI. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? . 0 ow CI ow CI CI ow f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and readations related to solid waste? g) XVII. MANDATORY FNDNGS OF SIGNIFICAPTCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or-xestrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehstory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually kited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” meam 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 hture projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, whch will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 mu / 0. 0 IXI 0- c) XW. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tieriig, 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. 5) 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 Siplllficant with Mitigation Incorporated,” . describe the mitigation measures, which were incolporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 38 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit and Non-Residential Planned Development Permit for the development of 276,900 square feet of office space along with an 82,170 square foot two level parlcing structure. The project site is 12.71 acres in size ’ and the new office campus will consist of four 3-story buildings, located around a central landscaped courtyard to create a campus like atmosphere. A total of 1,112 parlcing spaces will be provided, one half of which will be located in the two-level parlcing structure. The subject site is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. The subject site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale flower sales operation. This existing building will be demolished. Land uses surroundmg the subject site include industriaUofices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and railroad tracks to the west. I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is located east of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad which is designated as “Railroad Corridor” in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Design features and architectural details are included in the project design to enhance the visual character of the project. Incorporation of these design features will substantially reduce visual effects of the project to a level considered less than si,pificant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact (bgLc) - The proposed project will cause change in the visual character in that the current use of the subject site is a wholesale flower markst (Floral Trade Center) which will change to the proposed office campus. The overall project design with its campus-like setting and enhanced landscaping seeks to’enhance the visual character of the area. Through the implementation of a consistent architectural and design theme, the project wdl enhance and connect the project with surrounding land uses. Features incorporated into the project to reduce adverse aesthetic impacts include substantial landscaping and architectural detail to soften the visual effects and to enhance the visual character of the project. Create a new source of substantia1 light and @are, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 4 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the introduction of new sources of light and glare into the project area. However, impacts involving the creation of light or glare would be less than significant as there are no existing land uses that would be si,pificantly or adversely affected by project lighting or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact (a,b&c). There will be no impacts on agricultural resources due to the proposed project as the site is not designated as or used as farmland. The subject site is zofied for Planned Industrial (P-&I) and is not subject to 15 Rev. 07103/02 39 Williamson Act Contract. The project would not result in other changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agicultural uses. The project would be characterized as hfll development and has been surrounded by industrial development for many years. III. UR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMLo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in dand foothlll areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embohed in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regardmg airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS though the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated .with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains speclfic reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the UQ,S which include the following: Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan, Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) .- Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qualiw violation? Less Than Significant Impact.. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most receat air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) aad one day in 2001 for the federal &hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readmgs), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violatioo. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria polIutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively cdnsiderable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, . air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a) (4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In adhtion, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a> Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? . b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identifled in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? / c> d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species : or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any Iocal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree . preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 9 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact (a-g) - The subject site is an dill site which is currently developed with a 154,000 square feet building and its associated parlung. The site is surrounded by industrial development and 1-5. A Biological Assessment of the site was conducted by RECON dated September 1, 2004. Two waterways OCCLU on-site. The entire site slopes slightly to the west where two culverts convey runoff water into a concrete “V” ditch along the western boundary of the site. Another waterway occurs as a manmade earthen drainage that conveys runoff water along the northern boundary of the site. The concrete ditch rum south to north where it connects with the earthen drainage at the northwestern corner of the site. The earthen drainage gradually travels north, away from the existing parlung lot as it flows west. Although the source of the water witi-un the earthen drainage was not directly-located, it appears the water originates as irrigation 17 Rev. 07103102 runoff from the flower fields east of 1-5. The water exits the site through two culverts in the northwestern comer of the site. Caltrans recently cleared aii the vegetation within the drainage along the northern boundary of the site as part of . regular maintenance program to prevent or reduce ponding and flooding hazards within roadside drainages adjacent to 1-5. Therefore, the drainage is never allowed to become densely vegetated. The earthen drainage and concrete ditch on-site eventually connect to the Paclfic Ocean, via an off-site drainage and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The earthen drainage is likely considered a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional water of the US and a California Department of Fish and Game jurisdictionaI streambed. The earthen drainage and concrete ditch do not provide any other functions and value other than conveying runoff water off-site. The waterways do not provide any habitat for wildlife. The waterways do not provide vegetative cover for terrestrial wildlife to use for movement, do not connect with or are not located near any wildhfe movement corridors and are completely isolated by surrounding development. In addition, the waterways do not provide nesting and foraging habitat for riparian birds. The subject site is developed with a 154,000 square feet building and its associated surface parhg. The existing development is only 13 feet setback from the earthen drainage. The proposed project will remain wik the current development footprint and will not encroach into any existing undeveloped area. Impacts to the drainage channels will be further reduced through compliance with the NPDES standards by incorporating measures to treat any potential pollutants of concern prior to runoff leaving the site, such that the potential for pollutants to impact water quality is minimized. The existing development on-site does not provide any treatment to runoff prior to leavingthe site. Due to the above-mentioned facts, it is not recommended that a wider buffer be established along the length of the earthen drainage. V. a) CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §19064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological respurce pursuant to 915064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact (a-d) - The subject site is an infrll site which is currently developed with a 154,000 square foot industrial building and its associated parking and is surrounded by industria1 development. There will be no impacts on cultural resources. There are no known historical, archeological, paleontological, or human remains on the project site. . VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i; Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Ground rupture generally is considered to OCCUI along pre-existing fault strands. Since no active faults have been mapped on the site or in the vicinity of the project site, ground rupture on-site is considered unlikely. Therefore there will be no impacts involving ground rupture. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. iv. Landslides? Seisrnic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact (aii-aiv.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones withm the City of . Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults wih the City. However there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The . project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seimic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechmcal Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992). b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion tkrough slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project specific Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Leighton and Associates dated April 2, 2001. The report states. that: Shallow ground rapture is possible but is not considered a significant hazard; Liquefaction is unlikely due to the dense physical characteristics of the soils encountered during the site investigation; Expected settlements due to seismic events are expected to be negligible; The susceptibility to earthquake-induced lateral spreading at the site is considered to be low; and due to the site’s elevation and proximity.to open babes of water, the possibility of site impacts by seiches andor tsunamis is considered to be negligible. All anticipated geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level less than si,dcant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. - . d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 1s - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A project specific Geotechnica) Investigation was prepared by Leighton and Associates dated April 2, 2001. The report generaIIy identified four soil types encountered on the site. The soils identified were aaificial fill soils, residual soils, Terrace deposits, and Santiago Formation. The majority of the soils encountered have a low to medun expansion potential. If highly expansive soik are encountered during grading operations, construction methods and materiak will need to modtfied to account for such soils. Geotechnical issues will be reduced to a level less than significant through compliance with the mitigation measures recommended in the report. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanla or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system Therefore, there will be no mpacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS AVD EUZ.4RDOUS PvlATERIALS-Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 19 Rev. 07/03/02 43 No Impact (a-c). Based on the nature of the land use, there is no routine transport or use of disposaI of hazardous materials associated with the office campus and other associated uses proposed. Therefore, there is no potential of a si,@ficant hazard associated.with.the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or &om the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to . Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, .would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. A Phase-I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants on July 8, 2003. The study concluded that there is a llkelihood that low levels of residual soil and groundwater contamination remain on site and therefore the applicant should eAst the services of a registered environmental professional to monitor excavation activities during demolition and construction activities. With th~s mitigation measure, any potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Purport Influence Area. The influence area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impaired by noise levels exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would. be needed to prevent obstructions to navigate airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The proposed project lies outside any noise contours of the airport. Therefore the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private iirstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore will not result in a safety hazard for people residmg or worlung in the project area. @ / Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? No Impact (g-h). The project wdl not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is surrounded by urban development which - is adequately served by emergency services. MI. HYDROLOGY AYD WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project is required to comply with Order 2001-02 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Water Quality Techcal Report dated June 2003 was prepared by K&S Engineering. The report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff prior to leaving the site such that the potential for pollutants to impact downstream water quality is minimized to the maximum extent probable. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 20 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project is not proposing to use any ground water; therefore there will be no impacts to depletion of any existing aquifer or ground water table level. c) Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. There will be no impacts to the groundwater quality due to the proposed project because the groundwater level at the subject site is expected to be well below infiltration deptbs aclueved by surface runoff. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Prehminary Drainage Study was prepared by K&S Engineering, dated March '27, 2003. The report identifies pre and post development runoff quantities and downstream conditions. The report includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential of an increase in erosion or siltation downstream. e> Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 9 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Preliminary Drainage Study, dated March 27, 2003, was prepared by K&S Engineering. This report identifies pre and post development runoff quantities and downstream conditions. The report includes mitigation measures to reduce any increase in runoff due to additional impervious surfaces. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Water Quality Technical Report is prepared by K&S Engineering, dated June 2003. This report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff prior to leaving the site such that the potential to impact downstream water quality is minimized to the maimum extent probable. h) / Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? No Impact. There is no housing proposed with this project. Therefore there will be no impacts due to 100-year flood hazard area. = 9 Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. There are no FEMA 100-year flood hazard areas identified on the project site. j) - Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k> No Impact (j & IC). Due to the site's elevation and proximity to open bodies of water, the possibility of site impacts by seiches andor tsunamis is considered to be negligible. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters? m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 21 Rev 07/03/02 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (1, m, n, o & p) - A Water Quality Technical Report dated June 2003 was prepared by K&S En,$neering, The report identifies potential pollutants of concern and methods to treat runoff prior to leaving the site such that the potential for pollutants to -act downstream water quality is minimized to the maximum extent probable. IX. LAND USE AND PLAiiG - Would the project: 4 Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) No Impact (a-c) - The project site is surrounded by development on three sides, including Avenida Encinas to the east, light manufacturing/ industrial buildings..to the north and south and railroad tracks to the west. The proposed office development will be compatible with and will integrate into the existing land use pattern. The project is consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Planned Industrial (PI) and with the Zoning designation of Planned Industrial (P-M). The proposed project wdl not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? . x. rvn”JEIwL RESOURCES No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. in June 2003. The report indicates that the principail noise source impacting the project will be 1-5, with additional noise contribution from Avenida Encinas. The project site will be subject to exterior noise levels of up to 76 &A at the proposed budding facades. To achieve interior noise levels of 50.0 BA, the required structural attenuation would then be 76.0 - 50.0 or 26.0 dBA. ’Ths reduction is easily attainable through specialized glass treatments. Mechanical ventilation and air-conditioning is also included as part of the project design. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? No Impact. Based upon the nature of the proposed office use, the project will not result in any activity that would generate excessive groudbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibrations or groudbourne noise levels. c> A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 22 Rev. 07/03/02 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impmt (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical office land use does not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of the project. The City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential . impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise level in the project vicinity. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is located with the McClellan-Palomar Alrport Influence kea. The mfluence area encompasses those areas adjacent to au-ports wbch could be unpaired by noise level exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The proposed project lies outside of any noise contours of the airport. 0 'For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -. No Impact (a-c). The project would result in the development of an office campus surrounded by other industrial and commercial deveIopment therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. The project site is currently deveIoped with the Floral Trade Center, a wholesale flower market and hence the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or indmiduals. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES / a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No Impact. The proposed project is located in Zone 3 of Local Facilities Management Plan. The provision of public facilities within the Zone 3 LFMP, including fxe & police protection, parks, libraries and other public facihties, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed the totaI growth projections anticipated within the Zone 3 LFMP, all public facilities will be adeqiate to serve the proposed development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result b the need for additional government facilities. XIV. RECREATION No Impact (a and b). The proposed project is in Park District 1 N7.V quad. Since the area is non residential there is limited demand for recreational facilities. The project will be assed a fee of $00.40 a square foot according to City guidelmes to mitigate for the use of recreational facilities by employees and visitors. The project does not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Nor does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XV. TR.LYSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a> Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 23 Rev. 01/03/02 Less Than Significant Impact. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by RBF Consulting dated November 24, 2003 for the proposed project. The analysis was revised dated June 16, 2004. The report states that the proposed. project will generate approximately 2,550 net new trips per day. The addition of the project generated trips to the existing conditions volumes is not forecast to result in a change in LOS from acceptable to unacceptable at any of the study intersections or along any study roadway segment. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project - may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffk from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than si,@ficant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar mort Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these desi,mted roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 “A-D” 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62 Palomar Aqort Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 SR78 - 124- 142 “F” 156-1 80 1-5 199-216 “D” 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion NIanagement Program’s (CbfP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “I?‘ in 1990). Accordmgly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was yed in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the desi,snated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at buildout. A Traffk Impact Analysis was prepared by RBF Consulting dated November 24, 2003 for the proposed project. The analysis was revised dated June 16, 2004. Project trips are not considered si,onificant as the Level of Service at adjacent intersections and street segments in not expected to become deficient with the development of the project. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Although the project lies with the Mc-Clellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan, it does not include any aviation components. Therefore it will not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantia! safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses3 No Impact. All project circulation is designed consistent with City’s standards and therefore, will not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and therefore it will not increase hazards due to incompatible use. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project is designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. 24 Rev. 07/03/03, 48 t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Parking for the proposed project is provided on-site and it meets all the City of Carlsbad standards. .. 8) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. transportation. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted plans or programs supporting alternative XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project: No Impact (a-g) - The proposed project development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 3 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with industriaYoffice uses thus wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future development on the site. All public facihties, including water facilities, wastewater facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed project d1 increase the demand for these facfities. However, the proposed project would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection. Therefore, the project will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilitieslsupplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed office campus on site without exceedmg landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. XWI. MANDATORY FNDIXGS OF SIGNIFICAYCE a) - Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause tish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range or rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California or prehistory? / No Impact. The proposed project d not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is currently developed with the Floral Trade Center and is surrounded by existing industrial development. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The project will not threaten the number of a plant or animal community. In addition, there are no historic structures on the site and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prebtory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerabli? (‘(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?) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regionai growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANJIAG projections. Based upon those projections, regon-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumuiative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, includins grading standards, water quality and drainage standard, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would 25 Rev. 07/03/02 49 contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar wort Rd.) and two highway se,ments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had determined, based on the City's growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated' roadways WI.U hction at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City's growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts ~orn the project to the regional circulation system are less than sigmfkant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards .and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any sigmflcant cumulatively considerable impacts. c> Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon the commercial nature of the project and the fact that fume development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any hect or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. As &cussed above, any potential impact fiom hazardous materials can be mitigated to a level less than si-gificant. Mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Any future commercial development on the site will be required to comply 41 all applicable federal, state, regional and city regulations, which urlll ensure the development of the site wdl not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTI3G INFORiIA'MOIV SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad P1wg Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92005. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mappinc Studv, November 1992. Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad, December 1999. I Comorehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar AlrrJort Carlsbad. California, SAWAG, April 1994. Phase I - Environmental Site Assessment San Dieao International Floral Trade Center, Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, July 8,2003. Acoustical Analvsis Reoort for Carlsbad OEce Camuus, Investigative Science and En,@eering, Inc., June 17,2003. Carlsbad Office Camuus -Traffic Impact Analvsis Reuort, RBF Consulting, June 16, 2004. Geotechmcal Investications. Prooosed Carlsbad Office Campus, Leighton and Associates, April 2,2001. Preliminarv Drainage Studv for Carlsbad Office Camuus, K & S Engineering, June 18,2003. Water Oualitv Techcal Report, K & S Engineering, March 2004. Conceut Water Ouaiitv Plan for Carlsbad Office Carnuus, K & S Engineering, April 2002 Bioloeical Assessment of the Waterwavs on the Floral Trade Center Site in the Citv of Carlsbad, RECON, September 1,2004. 26 50 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATIYG MEASURES HAZARDS/ JLUARDOUS MATERIAL 1. A registered Environmental professional shall be hired to be on-site to monitor excavation activities during demolition, grading and/or construction activities that will involve disturbance of soils at the site. If evidence of impacted materials is indicated, these materials shouId.be sampled, analyzed and disposed of in accordance . with local, state and federal regulations. NOISE 2. All walI assembIies shouId have an STC Rating of 60 and all glass assemblies should have an STC Rating of 30. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY 3. Mitigation measures as stated in the Preliminary Drainage Study for Carlsbad Office Campus prepared by K & S Engineering, dated June 18,2003. 4. Mitigation measures as stated in the Water Quality Tecbxucal Report prepared by K & S Engineering, dated March 2004. 27 Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDJTION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 52 Rev. 07l03lQ2 NOV. 3.2004 5:26PM CA STATE PQRKS SDCD NO.640----9.2/3 - .- - ego, CA 92f680069 November 3 2004 N: Ms. Saima Qureshy ity of Carlsbad, Planning Department Isbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad office Campus Project at East of South Carlsbad State Park, gated Negative Declaration, SCH fCZ00410t019 (CT 02-WCDP 02=31/PIP 02- etative programs and site design. egatiiely affect water quallty. completely transparent can cause high numbers af bird kills. Improper sign may result in significant impacts to resident and migratory birds. 53 7k you for the opportunity to comment on the project: If you have further questions ould like elaboration on the abovenrentioned issues please contact me at your fenience. en Scott Smkh jciate Resource Ecologist ornla State Parks, San Diego Coast District Ranilee Clark Denny Stoufer Bill Mennell Jeanne Akin Damn Scott Smith - City of Carlsbad November 29,2004 Darren Scott Smith Associate Resource Ecologist California State Parks, San Diego Coast District PO Box 880069 San Diego, CA 921 68-0069 RE: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PROJECT COMMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2004 Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Office Campus, in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed with an existing industrial building and its associated surface parking. The proposed project is for the development of four new ofice buildings and a parking structure. View Protection: The city currently does not have a view protection ordinance and the proposed three story structures do not exceed city’s building height requirement. The proposed project also meets all other development standards e.g. maximum lot coverage and setbacks. Drainage: Currently, the existing surface drainage, as originally approved in the 1960’s, is running off directly into the drainage channel in an unfiltered state. This allows any surface pollutants to make their way into Cannon Lake. The proposed project is designed under the current guidelines for water quality, and as such, is now being filtered with storm drain inlet fossil filters to remove required level of pollutants. Also, the current design does not increase the offsite flow beyond the existing levels because of the incorporation of a limited area of pervious concrete. As a result, the flow from the site with new proposed project will improve the water quality and will not increase the flow. Glass on Elevations: The proposed buildings are designed with the latest in glass technology called low-€ glass. The coating used on this glass is muted and less reflective. This coating is fired onto the glass to help increase its heat rejection properties and at the same time reduce the high reflectivity associated with commercial office glazing. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4619. Sincerely, Saima Qureshy, AlCP Associate Planner SQ:bd 54 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 11/U2/20U4 17:US FAX 916 657 5390 NAIIC a 001/001 -- NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMILlllssIoN 915 CAPITOL MML, ROOM 3M SACRAMENTO, CA 9581 4 (916) 6534M2 (We) W-5990 - Fa Pkae kd free to contact mo if you have any questbns, -** 56 November 29,2004 Ms. Carol Gaubatz Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PROJECT COMMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2004 Dear Ms. Gaubatz: Thank you for your comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Carlsbad Office Campus, in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is an infill site which is currently developed with an existing industrial building and its associated surface parking. The proposed project is for the development of four new office buildings and a parking structure. The new proposed development will remain within the existing development footprint and will not encroach into any previously undeveloped areas. Since the site is already disturbed, no impact to cultural resources is assessed. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4619. Since re1 y , Saima Qureshy, AlCP Associate Planner SQ: bd 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 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. 5818 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 154,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 12.71 ACRE SITE AND TO SUBDIVIDE THE SITE INTO FIVE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENlDA ENCINAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 02-12 TO ALLOW THE CASE NO.: CT 02- 12 WHEREAS, Carlmart, LP, as “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Calsbad regarding property described as All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on October 26,1990 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhbits “A” - “U” dated January 19, 2005, on file in the Planning Department CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - CT 02-12, as provided by Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January 2005, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 5g 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, tre Commission APPROVES CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - CT 02-12, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that; there are adequate facilities in place to serve the proposed subdivision, and the project is consistent with all Title 20 and Title 21 regulations governing subdivisions and the design of non-residential planned developments. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding fiture land uses since surrounding properties are designated for Planned Industrial development on the General Plan, in that the adjacent properties are developed with office and industrial buildings. That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate non-residential development at the intensity proposed, in that the project is consistent with all applicable development standards of Title 20 and the P-M zone. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the subdivision and site design does not conflict with any easements of record. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that lots are oriented to provide separation for solar exposure and adequate air movement. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the site has no vegetative cover and is located in an urbanized setting. That the discharge of waste fiom the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project is conditioned to adhere to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master Sewer and Drainage Plans and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. -2- 59 PC RES0 NO. 5818 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 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated January, 2005, including, but not limited to the following: A. Land Use - The project, consisting of development of four office buildings and the subdivision of the subject site into 5 lots, is consistent with the City’s General Plan Planned Industrial (PI) land use designation. B. Circulation - The project is served by Avenida Encinas and has direct access to a public street. The streets adjacent to the project site are adequate to serve the traffic generated by this project. C. Noise - Noise levels impacting the site will not exceed 60 CNEL. The project will not, by the passive nature of the use, generate a significant amount of noise. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof fiom the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. B. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. C. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 3 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B). The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, in that as conditioned the applicant shall record a Notice concerning aircraft noise. The project is compatible with the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that the development is outside the 60 CNJIL contour which designates office and industrial development as a compatible land use. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: bo PC RES0 NO. 5818 -3- 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 14. 15. 16. a. b. C. d. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Carlsbad Office Campus - CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 the environmental impacts therein identified for ths project and said comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to ADOPTING of the project; and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Program have 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 they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the Cityof Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part 11 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Findings and the Program. The proposed project is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad in that the subject site is currently developed with an existing 154,000 square foot building and its associated parking. There are no sensitive resources on-site and the project does not require any mitigation or impact fees pursuant to the HMP. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits, grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Tentative Map. -4- bl PC RES0 NO. 5818 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. 9. 10. 11. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Map 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 ordinances 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. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Carlsbad Office Campus Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 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 Tentative Map, (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. The Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36” mylar copy of the Tentative Map reflecting. the conditions approved by the final decision making body. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 02-31, PUD 02-05 and PIP 02- 04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5819,5820 and 5821 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 3 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that PC RES0 NO. 5818 -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 adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. 12. The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution and hs project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null and void. -. 13. The Developer shall establish an owner’s association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval. The CC&Rs shall adequately address maintenance of all common landscaped areas, employee eating area, and paved access and parking areas. Prior to recordation of Final Map the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: A. General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. B. Notice and Amendment. A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. C. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements. In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article the City shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting the same be camed out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s , Section PC RES0 NO. 5818 /3 -6- 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 Easements within the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto fi-om the Owners as provided herein. D. Special Assessments Levied bv the City. In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in fbll within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection fi-om the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and hisher respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. E. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities. The Owners Associations and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit . 14. Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-residential Planned Development Permit and Planned Industrial Permit by Resolutions No. 5818, 5819, 5820 and 5821 on the real property owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice whch modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 15. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and -7- 14 PC RES0 NO. 5818 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 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas and the parking structure. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall be free from advertising and shall include at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with basic architectural theme of the project. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing an additional 7 foot landscaped front yard setback for Planning Director’s approval. Engineering General 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City. Developer shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private easements within the subdivision and all the private improvements: streets, sidewalks, street lights, and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project. Developer shall install sight distance corridors (see below for types) at all street intersections in accordance with Engineering Standards and shall record the following PC RES0 NO. 5818 -8- 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 statement on the Final Map (and in the CC&Rs). "No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor in accordance with City Standard Public Street-Design Criteria, Chapter 3, Section 8. The underlying property owners shall maintain this condition." The limits of these sight distance corridors shall be reflected on any improvement, grading, or landscape plan prepared in association with this development. FeedAgreements 26. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property. 27. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 and/or to the formation or annexation into an additional Street Lighting and Landscaping District. Said written consent shall be on a form provided by the City Engineer. Grading 28. 29. 30. 31. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that a Notice of Intention for the start of work has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. This project requires off site grading. No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of this approval unless Developer obtains, records and submits a recorded copy to the City Engineer a grading or slope easement or agreement fiom the owners of the affected properties. If Developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case Developer must either apply for and obtain an amendment of this approval or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the project and apply for and obtain a finding of substantial conformance fiom both the City Engineer and Planning Director. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit fiom the City Engineer prior to issuance of a demolition permit or building permit for the project. If construction is phased, separate grading plans and permits for each of the proposed phases of construction will be required. Construction of the private drainage facilities (including ribbon gutters, curb and gutter, swales, storm drains, and inlets) shall be designed, plan checked, secured, and constructed by the project grading plans and permits. -9- 119 PC RES0 NO. 5818 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 Dedicationsfimprovements 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the tentative map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost. Additional drainage easements may be required. Developer shall dedicate and provide or install drainage structures, as may be required by the City Engineer, prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall provide the design of all private streets and drainage systems to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Carlsbad Standards based on R-value tests. All private streets and drainage systems shall be inspected by the City. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plancheck and inspection fees. Developer shall execute and record a City standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and secure With appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the tentative map and the following improvements including, but not limited to: Paving, base, signing and striping, sidewalks, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, and reclaimed water, to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements are: a) b) c) d) the on-site public water system, including appurtenances, as generally shown on the tentative map. the on-site public sewer system as generally shown on the tentative map. undergrounding of existing overhead utilities within and/or adjacent to the site in accordance with City Code. frontage improvements along Avenida Encinas, as generally shown on the tentative map, including, but not limited to: installation of new driveways; replacement of any existing damaged curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or pavement; Utility installations and associated pavement repairs. - A list of the above shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the Final Map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. All of the public improvements shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the subdivision improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall underground all existing overhead utilities along/within the subdivision boundary. Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6 hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Both 6 hour and 24-hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results. 67 PC RES0 NO. 58 18 -10- 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 38. 39. 40. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (”DES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following: A. B. C. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, -County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).” The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of the project. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: a. b. c. include all content as established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; include the receipt of “Notice of Intent” issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; recommend source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way or natural drainage course; and establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants. d. Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a “Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).” The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of 1;18 PC RES0 NO. 5818 -1 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 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project. At a minimum, the SWMP shall: a. b. c. identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern; identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project; recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way; establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up. Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants; ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity; and identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. d. e. f. Final Map Notes 4 1. Developer shall show on Final Map the net developable acres for each parcel. 42. Note(s) to the following effect(s) shall be placed on the map as non-mapping data: A. All improvements are privately owned and are to be privately maintained with the exception of the following: 1. 2. The public water system as generally shown on the tentative map. The public sanitary sewer system as generally shown on the tentative map. B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street level may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as sight distance corridors. Special Conditions 43. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the tentative map are for planning purposes only. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5818 -12- 19 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 Water 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Dieno County Water Authority capacity charne(s1 prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Developer shall prepare a colored recycled water use map and submit this map to the Planning Director for processing and approval by the District Engineer. The Developer shall design landscape and 'irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. The Developer shall design and construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be reflected on public improvement plans. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data. Prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the 'entire potable water, recycled water, and sewer system shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure, and flow demands can be met to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Prior to Final Map approval, Developer shall install a total of 5 water meters for the project. Developer shall install 4 potable water meters and 1 irrigation meter to irrigate the common areas (Lot E). Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 53. The tentative map will expire two years from the date on which the Planning Commission voted on the application. 70 PC RES0 NO. 5818 -13- 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 54. 55. 56. 57. Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Some improvements shown on the tentative parcel map and/or required by these conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest. The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property. The Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition. If unsuccessful, Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.095 to notify and enable the City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation. Addresses, approved by the Building Official, shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color, as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. 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 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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5818 -14- 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 of January 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5818 -15- 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. 5819 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING COASTAL DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 154,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 12.71 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCTNAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 02-31 TO ALLOW THE CASE NO.: CDP 02-31 WHEREAS, Carlmart, LP, as “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Cdslsbad regarding property described as All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on October 26,1990 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A - “U” dated January 19, 2005, on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - CDP 02-31, as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January 2005, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CDP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 73 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 A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CAFUSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - CDP 02-31, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello I1 Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the subject site is designated as Officemlanned Industrial and the proposed demolition of an existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure is consistent with the LCP Land Use Plan designation. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the project is not located adjacent to the shore. Therefore, the project will not interfere with the public’s right to physical access to the sea and the site is not suited for water-oriented recreational activities. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the proposed project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinances, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JUMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance). The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits, grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the -2- 74 PC RES0 NO. 5819 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. .. property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this 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 fi-om this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnifl, 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, fi-om (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 CT 02-12, PUD 02-05 and PIP 02-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5818, 5820 and 5821 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. This approval shall become null and void if grading permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval. All construction activities shall be planned so that grading will occur in units that can be easily completed within the summer construction season. All grading operations shall be limited to April 1 to October 1 of each year. All areas disturbed by grading shall be planted within 60 days of initial disturbance and prior to October 1 with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion control methods. The October 1 grading season deadline may be extended with the approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments offsite during and after the grading operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal development permit. ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5819 -3- 95 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 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 feedexactions. 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 feedexactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of January 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: “ JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5819 -4- 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. 5820 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 154,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 12.71 ACRE SITE AND TO SUBDIVIDE THE SITE INTO FIVE LOTS ON PROPERTY GENEWLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PUD 02-05 TO ALLOW THE CASE NO.: PUD 02-05 WHEREAS, Carlmart, LP, as “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on October 26,1990 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A - “UT’ dated January 19, 2005, on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PUD 02-05, as provided by Chapter 2 1.47 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January 2005, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Planned Unit Development Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 71 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 A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PUD 02-05, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FindinEs: That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the Municipal Code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all development standards of the Planned Industrial zone. The project is consistent with all Title 20 and Title 21 regulations governing subdivisions and the design of non-residential planned developments. ~ That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general long-term well-being of the neighborhood and the community, in that the proposed project will be located in an existing industrial area and the project is designed with a campus-like setting. The project will be compatible with the adjacent office and industrial uses and will provide opportunities for employment of local residents. That such project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that the project meets all applicable city standards and ordinances, and all public facilities and services exist. Adequate access to the site will be provided from Avenida Encinas. The project includes all necessary features to be compatible with surrounding development. The project will not pose a safety hazard to the occupants of the industrial zone. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits, grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occu-rs first. 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; record a notice of violation on the property title; 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 vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Non-Residential Planned Develop men t Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Non-Residential Planned Development Permit documents, as PC RES0 NO. 5820 -2- 38 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 necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. 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, fiom 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 Non-Residential Planned 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) DevelopedOperator’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. 4. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 02-12, CDP 02-31, and PIP 02-04 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5818, 5819 and 5821 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 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 feedexactions. 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 feedexactions 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. PC RES0 NO. 5820 -3- 39 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 January 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5820 -4- 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. 5821 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 154,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 12.71 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PERMIT PIP 02-04 TO ALLOW THE CASE NO.: PIP 02-04 WHEREAS, Carlmart, LP, as “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on October 26,1990 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Industrial Permit as shown on Exhibits “A - “U” dated January 19, 2005, on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PIP 02-04, as provided by Chapter 21.34 of .- the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of January 2005, 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 persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Planned Industrial Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - PIP 02-04, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findingg: 1. That the site indicated by the Planned Industrial Permit is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the project design complies with all applicable city standards including yards, parking and 'landscaping. 2. That the improvements indicated on the Planned Industrial Permit are located in such a manner to be related to existing and proposed streets and highways, in that the project will have direct access from Avenida Encinas which is an existing fully improved public street. That the improvements as shown on the Planned Industrial Permit are consistent with the intent and purpose of this zone and all adopted development, design and performance standards as set forth in Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the proposed project is for the demolition of an existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure. The project is designed consistent with all the applicable development standards and the proposed office use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-M zone. 3. Conditions: Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits, grading permit or approval of a final map, whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to- be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Planned Industrial Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Planned Industrial 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. PC RES0 NO. 5821 -2- fa 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 3. 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 Planned Industrial 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. 4. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CT 02-12, CDP 02-31, and PUD 02- 05 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5818,5819 and 5820 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 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 feedexactions 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. PC RES0 NO. 582 -3 - 83 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 January 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ~ ~~ JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5821 -4- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CT 02- 12/CDP 02-3 1/PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS APPLICANT: Carlmart, L.P. REQUEST AND LOCATION: Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non- Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the demolition of an existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on a site generally located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 3. LEGAL, DESCRIPTION: All that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 16274, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, - State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Dieno County on October 26, 1990. . . APN: 210-090-50 Acres: 12.71 Proposed No. of LotsRJnits: 5 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Planned Industrial PI) Density Allowed: N/A Existing Zone: P-M Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Density Proposed: N/A Proposed Zone: P-M Zoning General Plan Site P-M PI North P-M PI South P-M PI East T-C T-C West OS os Current Land Use Wholesale flower market IndustriaVOffice IndustriaVOffice 1-5 Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad School District Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 0 Negative Declaration, issued 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other Mitigated Negative Declaration, issued October 4, 2004 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CAMPUS LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: ZGENERAL PLAN: Planned Industrial PIl ZONING: Planned Industrial PM) DEVELOPER’S NAME: Carlmart, LP ADDRESS: 5600 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92008 CT 02-12lCDP 02-3 1PUD 02-05PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE PHONE NO.: 760-43 1-5600 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 210-090-50 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT(AC., SQ. FT., DU): 12.71 acres ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities:. Demand in Square Footage = NIA Library: Demand in Square Footage = NIA Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = NIA Drainage: Demand in CFS = 94 CFS 154 EDU Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = 2550 ADT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4 Open Space: Acreage Provided = NIA Schools: NIA (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDU 154 EDU Identify Sub Basin = 3B (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 80 .- DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant‘s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project caniiot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, fim, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other palifcz! s~bdivkion nr my other gmup or ccrr?,bi~~azicr. achg as a uxit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and properry owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant,‘s agent) # Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or uartnership. include tile names. title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation. include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON- Person Corp/Part Title Title Address Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner‘s agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le, partnership, tenants in common. non-profit, corporation. etc.). If the ownership includes- a coruoration or partnersliiu. include the names, title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO 1NDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) -kw- Carlmart, L.P., a California Corp/Pafi Carltas Development Company., a CA llmlted partn ership corporatic Title Owner Title General Partner Address 5600 Avenida Encinas #lo0 Address 5600 Avdda Encinas, #loo Carlsbad, CA 92008 WlSbad, (3 YLUUB * See attached sheet 87@ 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 - FAX (760) 438-0894 P 1 J. NON-PROFIT OR MZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonDrofit organization or a trust. list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an oficer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. "on Profiflist Non ProfiVTrust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $2.50 worth of business transacted with any member of C~Q. staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees andlor Council within the past twelve ( 12) months? Yes wo If yes, please indicate person(s): ' NOTE: Attach additionaI sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owneddate Signature of applicanvdate , Carlmart, L.P. a California Print or type name of owner limited parfn =ship Print or type name of applicant By: Carltas Developm-t Company, a California corporation, General Partner 2 C. white. President Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSJRE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 88 ri 1 3 i n Y z w d E .- I i i < I i i t I I i I I i ! I . .. 'I I . 2 I! s I. r; E.. Q I 0 z w .L \ 8 0 A Q 0 I 0 G t I 3 n rn 4 111 ' Q .. .. CI) w z Y 6 ti l% I \ \ P \ . .. 13 c 0 P a B iii I I ? Planning Commission Minutes 3. CT 02-121CDP 02-311PUD 02-051PIP 02-04 - CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the demolition of the existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site generally located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. Mr. Neu introduced Item 3 and stated Associate Planner Saima Qureshy would make the staff presentation. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he had a conflict of interest with the project and excused himself from the dais. Ms. Qureshy stated Item 3, Carlsbad Office Campus, is to allow the demolition of an existing building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on the subject site. The subject site is 12.71 acres in area and is located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road. Access to the site is directly from Avenida Encinas. The subject site is currently developed as the Floral Trade Center, which is a wholesale flower sales operation. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and develop the proposed project. Land uses surrounding the subject site include industrial and offices to the north and south, 1-5 to the east and railroad tracks to the west. The proposed project is for the development of four office buildings. Buildings A and C are about 78,840 square feet each and are identical in design. Buildings B and D are about 59,610 square feet each and are also identical in design. The project will provide a total of 1,112 parking spaces. Half of those parking spaces will be provided in the 2-level parking structure. As part of the project, the site is also proposed to be subdivided such that each office building will be on a separate parcel and the parking structure along with surface parking and landscape areas will be on a separate parcel, held in common by an association of owners. The project is proposed to be developed in phases. The project is conditioned to provide adequate parking, landscaping and employee eating areas concurrent with each construction phase. All the office buildings are proposed to be three stories high which are 42 feet tall and with architectural projections the overall height will be 54 feet. The setbacks are increased at a ratio of 1 foot for every additional foot in height above 35 feet to allow additional building height. The proposed project is consistent with its GP designation of Planned Industrial. It is consistent with the zoning designation of PM and Non-Residential Planned Development ordinance by complying with development standards for lot coverage, setbacks, height and parking spaces. The project is also found to be consistent with the subdivision ordinance and with Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. The site is also located within the influence area of the airport and it is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan for Mc-Clellan Palomar Airport. For compliance with CEQA requirements, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption for the project. Ms. Qureshy concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any comments or questions for staff. Seeing none, he asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. John White, President of Carltas Development Company, 5600 Avenida Encinas Suite 100, Carlsbad, stated he supports staffs recommendation of approval. He gave a brief presentation and introduced Scott Cairns of Smith Consulting Architects, 12220 El Camino Real Suite 200, San Diego, to discuss the some aspects of the project. Mr. Cairns gave a detailed presentation regarding the architectural aspects of the project. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2005 Page 8 Commissioner Whitton asked what the timeframe is for the demolition, and if the demolition will be incremental. Mr. White stated that the entire building would need to be torn down all at once if the project is approved. He further stated that there would be no timetable involved right away. He stated there are no immediate plans to build this project and the market conditions will dictate when the time is right to build it. Commissioner Whitton asked if Mr. White was the property manager for the tenants that currently occupy the Floral Trade Center. Mr. White stated that he is not but the property manager does work for Carltas. Chairperson Segall stated that there is some speculation that a big box retailer would occupy that space at some point. He asked if the applicant had any comments regarding that idea. Mr. White stated that Carltas has been approached by about three big box retailers and there has been discussions regarding that idea by City Council. He stated that Carltas would stand by their current proposal. Commissioner Montgomery stated that the Planning Commission has authority to implement the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan as best as they see fit. Within that Land Use Element, it gives authority to the Commission to consider the social and economic impact of projects to the City and to the community besides just the land uses. He asked if the applicant would state what remedies or actions the tenants of the current building have to take to continue their business within the City of Carlsbad. Mr. White stated that question could be resolved over time and prior to construction of the project. There are no immediate plans to demolish the building. He stated that he would be willing to assist in the formation of a tenant association to help plan for the future, or plan for relocation if this project goes forward. Chairperson Segall inquired about the traffic situation in area. Mr. White stated that the traffic study indicated 2,200 ADT on Avenida Encinas and that number would double with the project. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he opened up public testimony on the item. Ralph Futch of Equirose, 5600 Avenida Encinas Suite 12, Carlsbad (representative of a majority of tenants in the Floral Trade Center), strongly supports the continued operation of the Floral Trade Center. The businesses depend on it. The absence of the Floral Trade Center would increase the distribution costs and cause many of the business to go out of business. He stated that a majority of the tenants are willing to form a tenants association and find an alternate location for the trade center. This is not a unanimous position of the majority of tenants but they feel, given the circumstances, it is the best opportunity. Moe Nezami, 5600 Avenida Encinas Suite 46, Carlsbad, is a grower in Fallbrook who takes their flowers to the Floral Trade Center. He stated that without the Trade Center many growers would be hurt financially. Mr. Nezami presented the Commission with a letter dated January 14, 2005. Peter Curry, 3535 Sitio Baya, Carlsbad, stated he supports the project. He feels the developer has put forth a project that will add significant value to the area. Marc Doyle, 4525 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad, also stated his support of the project. He stated as a long time resident and business owner in the city, this project will provide offices for merging companies, established companies in the city as well as those companies looking to move to Carlsbad. He also stated that the project would create as many as 1,000 jobs. Jamie Morel, Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, 5934 Priestly Drive, Carlsbad, stated that the Chamber of Commerce supports the project, and she concurred with the previous speaker. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the Chamber’s position is on the possible loss of 50 businesses and as many as 500 jobs out of the city to be replaced by possibly 100 businesses and up to 1,000 employees. Ms. Morel stated that the Chamber feels very confident with Carltas, which is a proven partner in community relationships. Carltas has taken several meetings with the business owners in the Trade Center and they are planning to work with the tenants to find an alternate location, if that ends up happening. Ms. Morel stated the Chamber would never want anyone to lose his or her business however, they also recognize economic development, and how it spurs more economic development and more business growth. Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2005 Page 9 Chairperson Segall disclosed that he is a member of the Board of Directors for the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce and he was not involved in any of the discussions which Ms. Morel spoke of. Catherine Miller, 5299 El Arbol, Carlsbad, president of the Terramar Association, representing a majority of residents in Terramar, stated that in a previous meeting with Mr. White, the option of a big box retailer was presented to the homeowners, which did not receive any support. The other option of an office building was received very well. The homeowners feel that the office building option would work well in the community. She stated that many people would love to see the Floral Trade Center remain if that is possible but in the event it is not, the office building would be the next best option. Rick Reeder, 705 Palomar Airport Road Suite 100, Carlsbad, stated that there is a need in the community for a project such as this one and he supports the project. Albert Sweet, 11696 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, stated he is in opposition to the project and against the demolition of the building. Commissioner Baker asked what options would be available to him and other florists if the Floral Trade Center was not there. Mr. Sweet stated that he would probably have to go back to square one, going back to small regional growers, and it would take a great amount of time and driving. He stated having the trade center enables him to have one-stop shopping. Chairperson Segall asked what time Mr. Sweet goes to the Floral Trade Center. Mr. Sweet stated he is usually there at 450 a.m. Arturo Aysa, 5600 Avenida Encinas Suite 40, Carlsbad, stated he is one of the newest tenants in the building and he feels that the tenants have been misinformed in regards to the project. He is in favor of the project but he would like to have ample notification if he needs to relocate his business. Commissioner Dominguez asked how much time would be appropriate to give the tenants of the Floral Trade Center to organize a tenants association and formulate a viable plan to relocate the businesses. Mr. Aysa speculated that a couple of years would be reasonable before there is any demolition of the building. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the clients are sufficiently organized in a cooperative fashion to be able to act in unison. Mr. Aysa stated he strongly believes they are. Jeanette Keltz, 1163 South Coast Highway 101, Encinitas, spoke in opposition to the project. Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony and asked the applicant if he wished to address any of the comments which were made. Mr. White stated that Carltas created the Floral Trade Center. Carltas is in the flower business in Encinitas but another part of Carltas is as a real estate investment company that has to look at their assets and have business plans, which make the most sense in the long term. He does not feel that it is appropriate for the Commission to mandate the operation of any business in the city. He stated the project would create 3 times as many jobs as it would lose if the project were built. Mr. White stated that in terms of the economic issues as referred by Mr. Sweet, it is a very difficult thing for economic redevelopment but Carltas has presented to the tenants that they will assist with the formation of a tenants association and provide some ideas on a location if and when the project is approved. Mr. White stated the Floral Trade Center was built around 4 major tenants, 3 of which are no longer in business. Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. White to respond to the issue regarding notice to tenants if and when the businesses would have to close. Mr. White stated there are existing leases with tenants that would be honored. He further stated there would be adequate notice provided to the tenants and the transformation would be orderly. Commissioner Montgomery asked staff to respond to the traffic mitigation issues on the site. John Maashoff, Associate Engineer, stated that a traffic study was prepared by RBF Consulting in conjunction with the project. The study looked at all the intersections in the adjacent areas, the freeway ramp metering, and local as well as arterial streets. Mr. Maashoff stated the study indicated there were no significant impacts or changes in levels of service due to the redevelopment of the project. Commissioner Dominguez stated that the height limitations of the buildings are at the limit. He inquired if the Fire Department reviewed the application and if so, did they approve it. Ms. Qureshy stated the Fire Department did review the application and did not require any special conditions for the project. She Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2005 Page 10 stated that the 35 feet height limit is allowed in the P-M Zone. Ms. Qureshy stated the applicant is increasing the height to 42 feet and the rest is architectural projections. There will not be habitable space above that. Commissioner Dominguez stated that most of the additional height and some of the architectural elements are designed to hide equipment that is susceptible to fire that would need to be reached in case of an emergency. Ms. Qureshy stated that there is no rooftop equipment with this project. Commissioner Baker stated that several speakers mentioned that the site could be sold. She asked if a new owner would be able to change the existing plan if the project is approved. Mr. Neu stated that if the project were sold, the buyer would have to build the project as it was approved. Mr. Neu stated there is a tolerance for some 10% changes through a Consistency Determination Policy, which lays out the parameters by which an applicant can propose minor changes to a project; however the crux of the policy is that it needs to be substantially consistent with the project, which the Commission approved. Commissioner Baker stated that Mr. White has mentioned that Carltas will assist the tenants in relocating if necessary, and creating an association for the tenants. She asked if the Commission has authority to place a condition on the project indicating that the current tenants would be helped in any relocation if necessary. Ms. Mobaldi stated she did not feel it would be appropriate to place such a condition on the project because the City does not get involved in landlordhenant relationship. Likewise, the city does not require an owner to operate a specific business on his or her property. What can be done is, in line with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, to look at the social, economic and physical impacts of the project under consideration. Commissioner Montgomery asked if there have been any City or City affiliated grants coming through state or federal sources, which the City would have approved to the applicant. Mr. Neu stated that he is not aware of any grants. The grants, which Mr. White spoke of, were through the Resource Conservation District, which was administering the City’s Agricultural Mitigation Fee Program. These were monies collected when agricultural property was converted to development and specifically earmarked for projects that would enhance or help maintain agriculture in the city for a longer period of time. The Floral Trade Center was a groundbreaking effort to try to keep agriculture in the city for longer than what the market would dictate. MOTION ACTION : DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 581 7 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 581 8, 581 9, 5820 and 5821 approving Tentative Tract Map (CT 02-12), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 02-31), Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD 02-05) and Planned Industrial Permit (PIP 02-04), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. stated that he agrees that the Commission’s purview for this project does not include landlordhenant relations or their relocation. He also agrees that the property owner has the right to do with and utilize his property as he sees fit. However, the livelihood of a number of small businesses that occupy the unique location and the employees employed therein as well as small businesses and employees elsewhere throughout the county are going to be placed in jeopardy. He stated that although he is in favor of the new office campus and he recognizes it would be an exceptionally well-thought out project and be a benefit to Carlsbad, he does not feel comfortable with the unknowns of the project relative to the lack of a plan by the applicant and others including the Chamber of Commerce as how to help these small businesses to relocate within the area and the minimum loss of employees and small businesses both within the facility and throughout the county. He cannot support the project at this time. Commissioner Dominguez stated he too is a little troubled with this project. The social impacts with all the unknowns as far as timing and a plan to provide some kind of adequate time for people to take unified and alternative actions to continue what he feels is an important industry for the area. He feels that the city is somewhat responsible to maintain at least some aspects of it. He stated he would feel much better I1 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2005 Page 11 if some sort of plan of action and support for the existing clientele had been submitted with the project. He stated based on the social impacts he cannot support the project. Commissioner Heineman stated he can understand the concerns of his fellow Commissioners. He stated that the Commission is talking about the departure of the Floral Trade Center, which would be a terminal blow to the floral trade in the area. At the same time, the City is looking at a new office campus, which is an especially attractive new opportunity for the City. The perfect solution would be for Carltas to make sure that floral trade continues in some location. On the other hand, he does not feel it is within the Commission’s purview to turn down a very attractive and legal opportunity such as this project on that basis. He hopes that Carltas would do whatever is necessary to support the floral trade which will be in very big trouble. He does feel it is not within the Commission’s purview to turn this opportunity or development down on the basis of what might happen to the current tenants. He stated he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Baker stated she would love to be able to turn this project down. She stated she likes the idea of the Floral Trade Center being there, she likes the idea of it being a part of the City’s history, in California and San Diego County; however she does not feel it is the Commission’s business or the City’s business to regulate what a tenant does with his property. Carltas, for all intense purposes, could choose not to lease the building to anybody and leave the building vacant. The Commission cannot make the owner rent their space to anyone. The Commission cannot regulate that. She feels the project is attractive but she feels emotionally it would be nice to keep the Floral Trade Center there. She supports the project based on the fact that she cannot make a finding to turn it down. She suggested that the Chamber of Commerce, Carltas and a group of the tenants get together to look for an alternative location in order to find a space for the businesses to continue. Commissioner Montgomery stated he appreciates the comments from his fellow Commissioners many of whom are private business owners or have been involved in business who understand the day to day struggles and long hours but are also happy to be in the city and to work in the City. He stated he finds it interesting that the Chamber of Commerce came in support of the project initially because he believes that the first order of business would be to maybe protect the existing businesses of Carlsbad and with that in mind would then promote additional business. He stated that when a project such as this does not go on to City Council, it falls to the Commission’s to weigh additional issues that are attached and governed by the Land Use Element, one of which is to provide for a diversity of uses throughout the City as well as to consider the social and economic impacts of the decision. He stated that he would prefer to side with this project because he strongly believes in private property rights and he feels the property owner has every right and reason to develop his property. Weighing that with what is best for Carlsbad, he would prefer to side on keeping existing businesses plus promoting and creating new business, finding a place for the Floral Trade Center to exist within Carlsbad. He would prefer not to lose those jobs within the City and yet allow the applicant to continue with the development of his property. He stated that those issues need to be resolved before Mr. White’s project goes forward. Chairperson Segall stated he supports the project. He stated he cringes every time he supports a project, which will take away the strawberry fields, the greenhouses, agriculturel, and even this project. He would like to see those businesses remain in the City. He further stated he concurs with both Commissioner Heineman and Commissioner Baker in that individuals have a right to own land and to build on that land if the land use designations are there, which in this case it is. He stated he would rather not see the Floral Trade Center go away and he would like to see other organizations in the community help to relocate it assuming this project goes through at some point. However, that is certainly not the obligation of the applicant, and it is not the obligation of the Commission to make those kinds of decisions. He supports the project and feels that the property owner has a right to develop it as he sees fit. VOTE: 3-3-1 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cardosa Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker and Heineman Commissioners Dominguez, Montgomery and Whitton Chairperson Segall stated the project is denied without prejudice. The project can be appealed to City Council within 10 days. Chairperson Segall stated he would like Legal Counsel to comment further. Planning Commission Minutes January 19,2005 Page 12 Ms. Mobaldi stated the motion does not carry because there was not a majority and because the Commission is acting without prejudice, the applicant is free to return within one year to modify the application or they can appeal to City Council. Otherwise the action is final at Planning Commission. Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Item 3 and thanked staff for their presentation. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: May 14,2004 Appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the demolition of the existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site. This project is within the City of Carlsbad Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: APPLICANT: 21 0-090-50-00 John White 5600 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held on March 1, 2005 at 6:OO p.m. NOTE: BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION RENOVATION OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 1200 CAXBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, THE ANTICIPATED LOCATION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE AT THE SCHULMAN AUDITORIUM, DOVE LIBRARY, 1775 DOVE LANE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. PLEASE CHECK THE AGENDA ON-LINE OR CALL THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE TO CONFIRM THE LOCATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: (760) 434-2808. 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 agenda bill will be available on Friday, February 25, 2005. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Saima Qureshy at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4619. APPEALS If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planning Unit Development and/or Planned Industrial Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 [XI This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. CASE FILE: CT 02-1 2/CDP 02-311PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS PUBLISH: February 18,2005 SITE CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/PUD 02=05/PIP 02-04 FARM BUREAU SD COUNTY + 7209461 N0.210 DB02 02/28/2005 12:45 1670 East Valley Parkway, Escondido, CA 92027-2409 Phone: (760) 745-3023 Fax: (760) 489-6348 E-mail: sdcfb@sdfambureau.org February 28,2005 The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis. On January 26,2005 you were presented with a letter fiom the Carltas Development Company requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on a number of permits related to the redevelopment of the San Diego International Floral Trade Center site. In the letter signed by Mr. John C. White the San Diego County Farm Bureau was erroneously listed as one of the community groups in support of the application. report that I did have one conversation with Mr. White, however, the subject of the conversation was hited to possible remedies for relocating the current tenants. Diego County, we are very cautious about the positions we take. Our policies require thorough discussion by our Board of Directors on matters of this magmude. Please know that our Board of Directors has never had this item on a meeting agenda either in support or opposition. call at your convenience. We have no knowledge how our name came to be aligned with the project. I can As a non-profit organization representing the entire breadth of agriculture in San If we can be of krther assistance in clearing up this error, please do not hesitate to Eric Lason Executive Director cc. Councilmember Matt Hall Councilmember AN Kulchin Councilmember Mark Packard Councilmember Norine Sigafoose Janet Silva aster, President, San Diego County Farm Bureau John C. White, Carltas Development Company Various Tenants of the San Diego International Floral Trade Center Serving San Diego County Agriculture Since 1913 FEB-25-05 02:32PM FROM-C i I dred Dave I omen t Company GILDRED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 61 9-696-0991 T-691 P.001/001 F-690 550 WEST C STREET. SUITE 1820 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92 10 1-3509 TELEPHONE (6 19) 2326361 FACSIMILE (6 191 696-099 1 AITEM, February 25, 2005 Mayor Cluude "Bud" Lewis City Council Members Mayor 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Ctty Managcc Carlsbad, CA 92008 City Attorney CQQlrL RE: City of Carlsbad city Cou1teif Floral Trade Center/Carlsbad Office Campus Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: As Managing Trustee of the Pleta and San-Gal Trusrs (owner of Ocean Point Tech Centre and several other properties in Carlsbad) I heartily endorse the plan to re- develop the Floral Trade Center into a new ofice park. Ocean Point Tech Centre is located immediately north of the Floral Trade Center and, although we may lose some renants to the new project, we believe the benefia of the new development to the Curlsbad Community far outweigh the current "stutus quo." The Floral Trade Center has been an interesting "re-use" of an old technology building; however, I do not believe this use has been a financial success, nor does the property add anything to the "professional ambiance" of what has developed along Avenida Encinas. A new Class A office park would contribute significantly to the Carlsbad Tax Base as well as encourage many new firms and businesses to relocate to Carlsbad. I strongly suppon the approval of the Carlsbad Office Campus as the project complies with the currenr zoning regulations of the area and I believe this development would enhance and improve the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan. Although I will not be able to artend Tuesday's meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at (619) 232-6361 for further discussions on this subjeff. Sincerely, Wiliam H. Adair Executive Vice Presidenr/COO CITY OF CARLSBAD 2-25-205 4:29PM FROM MOMENT IN TIME BOTAN 7609303455 P. 1 FAX 720-9461 February 25,2005 A Moment in Time B or A N I CA L s INC 6102 Avenida Encinas, Ste. M - Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone 760-930-3466 - €ax 760-930-3455 email: galesh.mtcom vww.rnomnrlrbttime.com .- TO: CARLSBAD ClTY COUNCIL, MEMBERS €Ion. Bud Lewis Hon. Matt Hall Hon. Ann Kulchin Hon. Mark Packard Won. Norine Sigafoose AGENDAITEM1 13 c: As a tenant of the Carlsbad Floral Trade Center, I am writing to urge you to withhold approval of the application of Carltas Development Company for a permit to allow the demolition of the Carlsbad Floral Trade Center to facilitate the construction of four office buildings and a parking structure. I urge you to withhold action at your March I* meeting una additional facts can be obtained regarding a 10-year grant of public monies given to the owners of the Center to promote the permanent establishment of a Floral Trade Center in Carlsbad. In addition, I would like time to ascertain whether there has also been any other public money given to the owners to subsidize the Center's operations. As you all know, the floral industry is tremendously important to the entire city, generating krge tax revenues and promoting a great deal of the tourism that is so important to Carlsbad. Many small businesses, not only in Carbbad, but throughout Southern California, depend on the Floral Trade Center for wholesale supplies that cannot be affordably attained elsewhere. If public monies were indeed given to the owners of the Center, then I think a good case can be made that the 12.n-acre site should be dedicated to the wholesale Rower business. Alternatively, I believe the owners should be required to assist in the relocation of the Center to another suitable location to the extent of &e public monies given to them in support of the Center. THE CARLSBAD ClTY COUNClL ’l’hc issue of demolition of the International Floral Tmdc Center went to the Planning Commisainn and was tiirned down by three [3j of the commissioners after they listend to the people on both sidm of the issuc. One of the commissioners said he couldn’t consciously pass this until more study is done about economical impact and ,job losses to the community and the livelihood of many families that depcnd on the Flaral Trade Center. Annther commivsiuncr mentioned because Carltrrs received n gmnt from the Government Azcncy for ten years to keep it tds a Floral Trade Ccnter and that is taxpayers money and b n6 longer a private mattcr; instead it becomes a public matter. He toid Carltas to find another lacation for the Trade Center and move the tenants and then come back for your permit and thcy would pws it. Carltas has chosen to appeal the decision of the Planning Commissianers; therefom, we urge you to do thc same till thc recommendation of the Planning Commission is complcted. There are fifty 150l cornpanics with murc than 500 employees doing busincsa here in the International Floral Trade Center. There are mnre than 2000 businerrtm registered with different tenants here, such as, 688 Flowcr Shapa, many restaurants, Hotels, Wedding Chspcfu, Funeral Homes, Churchcs and many special evcnt organhers for the San Diego Chnvention Center that hosts shows and many business conventions they shop here cvcryday snd it is vital to their business. The Trade Ckntcr has 4130 provided an important outlct for Farmcrs all around Sau Diego tu scll their fluwcrs and without the Trade Center thcy will not hc able to sell thcir products. The Floral Trade Center is H tourist attraction and many pcopla li-om ail over thc world visit hare. From time to time wc receive busload of students from schools all aruund San Diego. Every major city has a Floral Trade Center. There are many other floral ctrmprnies hmed in Csrlsbad and neighboring citics that employ more than 4000 employees that do business with the Trade Center. To name a few, Florexpn, Dos Gringos, Clal-America, Calmex, Frances Biddlc, Jessup, ArmelIini, Habcrt Mann Packaging, Passions, Cnc., DhM Whdc., San Diego Whslc, Pacificia Farms, Agrispect, Florawest and Native Bouquet, Dmmm & Echter, Mellano Sr Co, Flowers by Ri/Lo, Kendal Plorrl, etc. Many Flower Shop owners in Orange C3ounty and Hivcraide County prefer to shop here in Carlsbad instead of the LA Markct because they feel aafcr here in Carlsbad. Somc of them werc beaten and robbed in thc LA Market which is in a very bad urea where riots have taken place. Carltas also owns thc LA Market but there arc no plans to demolish the IA Market which is a much nlder building than Carlabad. Many businesses that shop here are not BWII~C of this mccting and arc expanding thcir business as we speak, such as, buying trucks and new equipment and opening tl new Iwretion not knowing they may lose it ell. Currently there are three 131 peaple who have shown interest in buying the Floral Trdc center. Two are willing to keep it IS the Floral Trade Center md the other plans to demolish it. Our lundlord is selling to the one that is going to dcmolish and build CJ~~~CC iua Terramar Homeowners Association February 23,2005 Mayor Claude “Bud” Lewis City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 AGENDA ITEM # c: Mayor City Conndl City Manager City Attorney City Clerk RE: Carlsbad Office Campus Appeal Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: Due to the scheduled Terramar Association annual meeting and election of officers on March 1, 2005 there will be no one available to attend the appeal hearing for the Carlsbad Office Campus. Please accept this letter as support for the approval of the Carlsbad Office Campus scheduled for public hearing at the City Council meeting on March 1, 2005. At various forums and meetings over the past year with Mr. White, many residents of the Terramar community have indicated their support of the office project if the Floral Trade Center site is going to be redeveloped. The majority feel that it retains consistency with the other offices and businesses that exist on Avenida Encinas at this time. It is our understanding that the project complies with all the current zoning regulations and the City’s Growth Management Plan. Please contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this issue. I can be reached by telephone at 929-2747 or e-mail Steve.Miller@Motorola.com. As always, thank you for your time in this matter and your service to the grand City of Carlsbad. Terramar Association A 5299 El Arbol Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 929-2747 steve.miller@motorala.com CARLTAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY February 24, 2005 Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 AGENDAITEM# 1; a Mayor City Council ' Clty Manager City Attorney atY Qerk Re: Carlsbad Office Campus Dear Mayor Lewis: The Carltas appeal of the Planning Commission 3-3 decision on the proposed Carlsbad Office Campus will be held at your meeting scheduled for March 1, 2005. We urge the Council to support our appeal. You probably will hear objections from some existing tenants and customers of the Floral Trade Center regarding their concern over the business disruption if the proposed project is approved. We have attempted to deal with these concerns by offering to extend existing leases for two years through February 2007, allowing plenty of time to accommodate the intended change. In addition, we have encouraged the formation of a tenant association to recommend solutions to relocation when it becomes necessary. Several alternatives are available to tenants. The project complies with all of the zoning standards and the growth management plans as indicated in the staff report recommending approval. Again, we urge your approval of this project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, President CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 ' CiTYCLERKSOFFlCE ' 1 s:'Jc#b&M\BKk%%AS SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-4452 USA. Telephone: (760) 431-5600 Fax: (760) 431 -9020 www.carltas.com CARLTAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY February 28,2005 Mayor Claude “Bud” Lewis Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Carlsbad Office Campus Appea - March Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: ,2005 VIA FACSIMILE Please accept my apology for inadvertently including the San Diego County Farm Bureau in support of the appeal application for the Carlsbad Office Campus. Having had several interactions with the Farm Bureau over the years, we recognize that the Farm Bureau very rarely takes positions either in support or against real estate projects. All other support groups listed in our appeal are accurate. In addition, we have advised the tenants in the Floral Trade Center that the Farm Bureau has not taken any position on the project one way or another. We regret any misunderstanding on this issue. Sincerely, 1 oh C. White I President Cc: Eric Larson-San Diego County Farm Bureau Karen Zobell-DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary CITY OF CARLSBAD SD\1625787.1 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-4452 U.S.A. 32344-134566 Telephone: (760) 431 -5600 Fax: (760) 431-9020 www.carltas.com PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: February lSfh ,2005 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCQS California This 1 8‘h Day of February, 2005 Jane Oldon Legal Advertising ‘ATH COUNTY TIMES This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: APPLICANT 21 0-090-50-00 John White 5600 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 A public hearin on the above proposed project will be held on March 9,2005 at 6:OO prn, IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE T E REGULAR MEETING WILL BEAT THE CdV/$ClL CHAMBERS AT 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. PLEASE CHECK THE AGENDA ON-LINE OR CALL THE CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE TO CONFIRM THE LOCATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: (760) 434-2808. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision lease contact Sqima Quresh at the Ci of Thursday Carlsbad 7:30 blanning a.m. to De 5:& artment p.m., F’riday MonJa 8:db throu a.m.41 5:OO m at 1635 Farada Avenue, Carsbad, Califor- nia 9!?008, (760) 602-461J II I APPEALS I I Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 1 This site is not locafed within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. CASE FILE:CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 CASE NAME: CARLSEAD OFFICE CAMPUS NCT 1759977 Februaly 18, 2005. From: Isabelle Paulsen To: legals@nctimes.com Date: 02/14/2005 1:17:53 PM Subject: Public Hearing notice: Carlsbad Office Campus Jane: Attached is the public hearing notice AND map for the Carlsbad Office Campus. Please publish this in the Friday, February 18, 2005 newspaper. This will be a simple legal ad with City seal and border. Thank you. Isabelle Paulsen, CMC Deputy Clerk City of Carlsbad City ClerklRecords Management ipaul@ci.carlsbad.ca. us cc: Saima Qureshy; Val Dinsmore NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: May 14,2004 Appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the demolition of the existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site. This project is within the City of Carlsbad Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 2 1 0-090-50-00 APPLICANT: John White 5600 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held on March 1, 2005 at 6:OO p.m. NOTE: BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION RENOVATION OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7200 CA-BAD VILLAGE DRIVE, THE ANTICIPATED LOCATION OF THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE AT THE SCHULMAN AUDITORIUM, DOVE LIBRARY, 7775 DOVE LANE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. PLEASE CHECK THE AGENDA ON-LINE OR CALL THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE TO CONFIRM THE LOCAT/ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: (760) 434-2808. 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 agenda bill will be available on Friday, February 25, 2005. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Saima Qureshy at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 500 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4619. APPEALS If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planning Unit Development and/or Planned Industrial Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. CASE FILE: CT 02-12/CDP 02-311PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS PUBLISH: February 18,2005 SITE CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS CT 02-12lCDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 Jam Free Printing . Use Averya TEMPLATE 5160@ CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SANDIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION ADMIN - www.avery.com - 1 -800-GO-AVERY CITY OF ENClNlTAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX I988 VISTA CA 92085 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING JOHN MAASHOFF DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER AWAV-03-008- L - CITY OF SAN MARCOS I CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SANDIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SANDIEGO CA 92101 I. P.U .A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIP. AiJD URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER SAIMA QURESHY A PIEPER 3 1705 SEA LEVEL DR MALIBU CA 90265-2635 G HEERS 5462 EVALINE ST LAS VEGAS NV 89120-3308 S HOLLISTER 5540 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4420 HEBERT 5460 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-441 8 RICCITELLI 5500 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4424 MR & MRS COSTANTINO 5009 TIERRA DEL OR0 CARLSBAD CA 92008-435 1 MR & MRS MATHIAS 5500 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4420 NSD COUNTY TRANSLT 810 MISSION AVENUE OCEANSIDE CA 42054 PALOMAR E GILBERT 5490 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-44 18 K LOGAN 677 SANTA FE DR ENCINITAS CA 92024-4642 BALFOUR 5520 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4424 MOODY 1017 N FREDERIC ST BURBANK CA 91505-2336 WLW 5525 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4421 MR & MRS KUTCHER 5495 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-44 19 MR & MRS KAO 8221 ZITOLA TER PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293 PALOMAR 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008-4465 PALOMAR F GRANGETTO 5470 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4418 R DAVIS 55 10 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4424 GELBART 5485 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-44 19 POLLEY 5515 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4421 MR & MRS PEILA 5475 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4419 MR & MRS SHIBE 5535 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD CA 92008-4421 CARLSBAD POINT COW PO BOX 178870 SAN DIEGO CA 92177-8870 SAN-GAL APT 1820 550 W C ST SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3545 SNYDER LEASING 13502 E VIRGINIA AVE BALDWIN PARK CA 91706 /””/ PUBLIC AG PALOMAR 5850 AVENID Jam Fme Printing Use Awry@ TEMPLATE 5160@ sf PUBLIC A / PO BOX 51 11 / CA 92054 CPT/SC TITLE HOLDING SUITE 3230 2321 ROSECRANS AVE EL SEGUNDO CA 90245 - www.avety.com 1-8WO-AWRY - CEANOTHUS PARTNERS 206 AVENIDA MONTALVO CORP OF THE PRESIDING PO BOX 511196 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672-4459 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151-1196 GRODY PROP LLC 621 1 BEACH BLVD BUENA PARK CA 90621-2307 CARLMART, L.P. SUITE 100 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECTS SUITE 200 12220 EL CAMINO REAL SAN DIEGO CA 92130 www.avery.com 1-8OO-GO-A~RY B - Jam Free Printing Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@ OCCUPANT SUITE 104 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE I01 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 103 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 106 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 107 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 105 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 108 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 109 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 110 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 113 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 111 5825 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 112 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 115 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 114 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 116 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 118 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 120 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 117 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 123 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 121 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 122 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 126 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 125 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 124 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 145 5855 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 146 5855 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 127 5835 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 5875 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUITE 144-A OCCUPANT SUITE 142 5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUITE 142-B Jam Free Printing Use Ave@ TEMPLATE 5160@ OCCUPANT 541 1 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE A 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE D 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE G 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE A 5441 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE D 5451 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 I www.avery.com 1 -80040-AVERY - OCCUPANT SUITE A 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE B 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE E 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUITE I-J OCCUPANT SUITE B 5441 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLMART, L.P. SUITE 100 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE N 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE C 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE F 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE K 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE A 5451 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECT SUITE 200 12220 EL CAMINO REAL SAN DIEGO CA 92130 Jam Free Printing Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 51608 OCCUPANT SUITE 100 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 109 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 113 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 118 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 121 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 . SUITE126 OCCUPANT SUITE 130 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 B www.avery.com l-80040-AVERY - OCCUPANT SUITE 106 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 110 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 114 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 119 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 123 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 127 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 @ AvERY@5160@ OCCUPANT SUITE 108 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 112 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 116 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 120 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 124 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE 128 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 Jam Free Printing Use Avety@ TEMPLATE 5160@ - www.ave!ty.com 1-80040-AVERY - OCCUPANT SPACE 1 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 2 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 3 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 4 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 5 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 6 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 8 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 11 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 12 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 13 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 14 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 15 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 19 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 18 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 20 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 21 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 22 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 23 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 27 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 24 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 25 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 28 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 29 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 30 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 31 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 32 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 33 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 34 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 35 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 36 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 JA FM Printing Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@ OCCUPANT SPACE 38 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 41 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 43 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 46 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 - wwwavery.com - 1-80040-AVERY OCCUPANT SPACE 39 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 42 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 44 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 47 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 50 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 @ AWRY@ 5160@ OCCUPANT SPACE 40 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 42A 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 45 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SPACE 48 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 J& hee Rinting Use Ave@ TEMPLATE 5160@ OCCUPANT 541 1 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE A 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE D 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE G 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE A 5441 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE D 5451 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 B www.avery.com 1-80040-AWRY - OCCUPANT SUITE A 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE B 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE E 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUITE I-J OCCUPANT SUITE B 5441 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLMART, L.P. SUITE 100 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 @ AVERYaP5160a OCCUPANT SUITE N 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE C 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE F 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE K 5431 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT SUITE A 5451 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008 SMITH CONSULTING ARCHITECT SUITE 200 12220 EL CAMINO REAL SAN DIEGO CA 92130 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPLETE DATE: May 14,2004 Appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planned Unit Development and a Planned Industrial Permit to allow the demolition of the existing 154,000 square foot building and the development of four office buildings and a parking structure on a 12.71 acre site. This project is within the City of Carlsbad Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program located on the west side of Avenida Encinas, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 3. DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 21 0-090-50-00 APPLICANT: John White 5600 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the City Council in Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on {DATE} at 6:OO 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 agenda bill will be available on {DATE}. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Saima Qureshy at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:OO a.m. to 500 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4619. APPEALS Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. CASE FILE: CT 02-12/CDP 02-31/PUD 02-05/PIP 02-04 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS PUBLISH: {DATE) SITE CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS CT 02-12/CDP 02-3l/PUD 02=05/PlP 02-04 Carlsbad Office CampusCarlsbad Office CampusCT 02CT 02--12/CDP 0212/CDP 02--31/31/PUD 02PUD 02--05/PIP 0205/PIP 02--0404 Vicinity MapVicinity MapSITES D N R C A R L S B A D B L V D IN T E R S T A T E 5PASEO D EL N O R T E A V E N ID A E N C IN A S C A R C O U N T R Y D R PALOMAR AIRPORT RD AerialAerial Proposed ProjectProposed Project„„Four office buildingsFour office buildings„„Buildings A & C Buildings A & C ––78,840 sq. ft.78,840 sq. ft.„„Buildings B & D Buildings B & D ––59,610 sq. ft.59,610 sq. ft.„„A parking structureA parking structure„„Parking Parking ––1,112 spaces1,112 spaces„„Subdivide into five lotsSubdivide into five lots„„Phased developmentPhased development AnalysisAnalysis„„General Plan General Plan ––Planned IndustrialPlanned Industrial„„Zoning Zoning ––Planned IndustrialPlanned Industrial„„NonNon--Residential Planned Development Residential Planned Development „„Subdivision OrdinanceSubdivision Ordinance„„Local Coastal ProgramLocal Coastal Program„„Airport Land Use PlanAirport Land Use Plan„„CEQACEQA„„Mitigated Negative DeclarationMitigated Negative Declaration Previous ActionsPrevious Actions„„Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Staff’s recommendation to the Planning CommissionCommission„„Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration „„Approve CT 02Approve CT 02--12/CDP 0212/CDP 02--31/PUD 0231/PUD 02--05/PIP 0205/PIP 02--0404„„Planning Commission decisionPlanning Commission decision„„Denied without prejudiceDenied without prejudice„„Motion to approve did not carry due to split voteMotion to approve did not carry due to split vote„„Applicant has appealed Planning Commission’s Applicant has appealed Planning Commission’s decision to the Councildecision to the Council