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 ProjectFour office buildingsFour office buildingsBuildings 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 structureParking Parking ––1,112 spaces1,112 spacesSubdivide into five lotsSubdivide into five lotsPhased developmentPhased development
AnalysisAnalysisGeneral Plan General Plan ––Planned IndustrialPlanned IndustrialZoning Zoning ––Planned IndustrialPlanned IndustrialNonNon--Residential Planned Development Residential Planned Development Subdivision OrdinanceSubdivision OrdinanceLocal Coastal ProgramLocal Coastal ProgramAirport Land Use PlanAirport Land Use PlanCEQACEQAMitigated Negative DeclarationMitigated Negative Declaration
Previous ActionsPrevious ActionsStaff’s recommendation to the Planning Staff’s recommendation to the Planning CommissionCommissionAdopt 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--0404Planning Commission decisionPlanning Commission decisionDenied without prejudiceDenied without prejudiceMotion to approve did not carry due to split voteMotion to approve did not carry due to split voteApplicant has appealed Planning Commission’s Applicant has appealed Planning Commission’s decision to the Councildecision to the Council